Warbird Information Exchange

I must disagree.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

[
[/quote]

I must disagree.[/quote]

I am sure you must, and neither of our opinions will affect what eventually happens, but I understood Collings have already suffered difficulties in accessing engines etc for the F4, and accusations made as to the cause of those difficulties, that is in line with one of the points I previously made.

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

IMHO, it's none of our business. I'm not about to tell an owner of an aircraft what they need to do with it. We presume too much when we believe that our opinion plays a role in anything when it comes to other's warbirds. Sure, some WIXers do fly their own planes, but no way would I ever tell anyone in this forum what to do with their plane.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org

Good points on both sides of the argument but I think the determining factors will be insurance costs (which are set to increase exponentially)and future government legislation (which cannot be predicted).

Perfect example of this is that FW190 D13 Yellow Ten, far too valuable to risk imo

a very broad question, while i'm a million miles away from being a&e certified, & can't make any technical judgements i know enough about eternity. nothing lasts forever. look at that c-130 fire bomber a few years ago that it's wings dropped off. that was a baby compared to ww 2 era birds. i went up in a b-25 some years back, & my buddy asked me for my car keys. i was like what the fk?? & this was a guy who the # 1 air traffic controller at cleveland center. he needed a way home in case i augered in. he knew the odds, not the statistics.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Sorry troops, but I seem to have read the question a different way.
It didn't appear to me that the question was asking for a decision to be made by anyone but the owner. It goes without saying that the owner is the final arbiter. I read the question as asking for opinions as to when, if you were the owner, should you decide to "put it away".
I could be wrong but that was my take on the question.
Could be I'm misinterpreting your answers, too.

IMHO...the time to "put it away" (assuming you still had the $$$ to operate it) would be when it isn't fun anymore.
("That'll be the day.")

Mudge the funloving

ps. Nathan...I don't see a post from wixlova on this thread.

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

I must disagree.[/quote]

I am sure you must, and neither of our opinions will affect what eventually happens, but I understood Collings have already suffered difficulties in accessing engines etc for the F4, and accusations made as to the cause of those difficulties, that is in line with one of the points I previously made.

regards

Mark Pilkington[/quote]

beercanitis

I think the question of when to ground a warbird depends mostly on the intrinsic historical value of the aircraft as an artifact. No one could seriously expect the NASM to fly the Arado 234 or Flak Bait just to allow several million more people to see it each year than see it now. The risk of destruction is just too great. That risk could be mitigated by "improving the aircraft in terms of safety" but now you have destroyed a great deal of its actual historic significance and ruined it as an artifact.

The rarity of an aircraft in terms of number of survivors is not as strong a determination as historical significance. The Bearcat and Sea Fury does not survive in anything like the numbers of the Mustang and Spitfire, yet clearly the two inline types are far more important historically than either radial type despite those being perhaps the ultimate in radial engine naval fighters. Grounding the last flying Spitfire would be more important than grounding the last flying Bearcat.

Then there is the case of "data plate restorations". As beautiful as some of the recent Spitfires, Mustangs and Hurricanes are many of them are no more "original" than the data plate itself. If one day the B model "Old Crow" becomes the last flyable Mustang it wouldn't as much of a loss if it was destroyed when compared to "Eupapa Epops" which despite being significantly restored is at heart a genuine combat veteran.

The decision is the owners above all. We cannot forget that one of the things the men who flew these aircraft fought for was the right to own property unencumbered by demands of government. I wouldn't be surprised if someone faced with the demands of the USAF or USN wouldn't take his property to a paddock and torch it rather than surrender to unreasonable demands of government.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

Playing devil's advocate here, but one does not need to fly the aircraft to shows for it to be there viewed by several million more people. But you might need a decent truck. Frankly if something does the airshow circuit that is unique, I don't really care how it got there, it would still be an attraction.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org

When to ground a warbird?

Just bring it to and the CAA will ground it in no time......


.......and charge you £thousands for the privilege

This is where I generally sit -- there is a place for both static warbirds and flying ones. It's like that there is room in the world for both Natural History museums with preserved/stuffed animals and zoos with living ones.

The aircraft of vital historical value (one of a kind, or specific aircraft that were flown by notable individuals or participated in notable events) should be preserved and not risked.

Others should fly, fly, fly like they were intended to be flown when they were built.

I've read and re-read this thread and changed my mind about every other post but Randy Haskins best sums up the way I feel.
If the individual airframe has major historic value, preserve it, don't risk it. Otherwise, fly it as long as it can be flown. I'm thankful that I live in a free country where we can still do this.
I also have to think of all the only-flying examples or only one or two that I'd have never seen fly or even seen at all if it were'nt for warbirders. Well said Randy.

Doug

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."

From an enthusiastic warbird spectator's pov:

Biggest point, and really the only one that matters legally, is when it is no longer safe to fly.

Other decision-points beyond that are more a matter of moral decision-making than legal/absolute. First, I'd say that once we're down to the last 2 or 3 of anything, my opinion is that the owners need to step up and stop flying and either donate or sell to an entity that'll display statically. MAAM's Black Widow and Week's Marauder are, imho and morally-speaking, right at the threshold of what can be flown.

Second, if a specific aircraft is of specific and unique historic value in its own right. Memphis Belle (the real one), Enola Gay, Bockscar, Flak Bait, Swoose (which also falls into the first category as the last Shark Fin Fortress), etc should never fall into consideration for flying. Since they are all publicly held, they won't be. But imagine a situation (HYPOTHETICAL) where, lo and behold, some private warbird collector discovers Ski's B-25B in-tact in a barn outside of Vladivostok and buys it. He has ownership rights (USAF Lawyers nothwithstanding, I'd guess), but he'd have a moral obligation to safeguard the aircraft from risk of damage/destruction, or permanent alteration that would remove "historic fabric" from the aircraft. That means not flying it.

i think we should ground all the real warbirds, fighter types.most airshows you see the real warbirds doing racetrack patterns and dont push the plane or engine to hard.when was the last time you saw a me-109 and p-51 dog fight?the children at airshows only see old planes flying they dont see planes kicking ###.most warbirds was only to last 100+ hrs.i think we should build replicas so we can yank and bank and fight at airshows and when they see a real plane they know the real work to win the war.
PS i am not with the FAA,but i did help build a replica (262) bill