Yanks' Privateer arrived at Chino

[Ethan]

When I said the aircraft didnt have n-number I ment n-number painted on the aircraft, which all aircraft are required to have in order to fly.

[bdk]

When I said the aircraft didnt have n-number I ment n-number painted on the aircraft, which all aircraft are required to have in order to fly.

Sorry! I misunderstood your point. Yanks does have some aircraft in storage or under restoration that might not be registered, but all the display aircraft are registered even if the N-number isn't painted on. Easy enough to rectify when or if they decide to fly.

[JDK]

Easy enough to rectify when or if they decide to fly.

The concept of 'airworthy' is a bit of a misnomer if the thing isn't flown. After a while, the paperwork and gaskets expire...

So, from the Yanks' collection:

a) What has actually flown since restoration?

b) What has actually flown in, say, the last year?

Just curious.

[Pat Carry]

Does their B-25 fly from time to time?

[bdk]

Easy enough to rectify when or if they decide to fly.

The concept of 'airworthy' is a bit of a misnomer if the thing isn't flown. After a while, the paperwork and gaskets expire...

So, from the Yanks' collection:

a) What has actually flown since restoration?

b) What has actually flown in, say, the last year?

Just curious.

I am neither the decider OR the definer of what "airworthy" means. Certainly the FAA does not require an aircraft to actually fly to be considered "airworthy."

I don't keep records of these things naturally, but the Electra Jr. has flown in the past year as has the Staggerwing. I think the B-25 may have as well, but they have been doing a lot of work on it of late so maybe it was in the last two years.

I know that their Hellcat, T-6 and BT-13 have also flown before, and they did do a local flight in their F-86 just after they got it (but it had been purchased in airworthy condition and flown to their site). <EDIT> Forgot the P-51 which used to fly.

For some reason I find myself frequently defending Yanks against the perception that they don't fly anything. There just aren't any absolutes there. I'd like to see more of their stuff fly but I'm just glad that they are open 6 days a week to the public for a nominal fee. It really is a fantastic collection and should be appreciated for that fact alone.

Last edited by bdk on Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

I am neither the decider OR the definer of what "airworthy" means.

Rats, and I thought you had the tablets of stone. Who has got the tablets?

Certainly the FAA does not require an aircraft to actually fly to be considered "airworthy."

Nah. However 'airworthy' but not flown - isn't.

I'd rather see aircraft inhibited/conserved/laid up properly than pseudo 'airworthy'. It's just good engineering practice, and good museum practice. Flyable is good for flying aircraft. For static aircraft it's not. I'd hope the Yanks aircraft are inhibited, with lifed material marked. Paperwork aside, if it hasn't flown for a year, it's going to take a bit more than gas 'n go.

For some reason I find myself frequently defending Yanks against the perception that they don't fly anything. There just aren't any absolutes there. I'd like to see more of their stuff fly but I'm just glad that they are open 6 days a week to the public for a nominal fee. It really is a fantastic collection and should be appreciated for that fact alone.

It is a great collection, and excellent it's accessible to the public. The restoration work done is most impressive.

The problem is the claim that they're all airworthy, but (mostly) don't fly. People just tend to pick at the discrepancy.

Just my opinion, of course.

[DaveG]

edited...all pictures appear earlier in thread