P-38 on a stick

Jesse C. · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:01 pm

Is it just me or is this getting old?

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

old iron · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:45 pm

The330thbg said:

Quote:

Seeing a warbird in a museum is a little like looking at a dinosaur in a natural-history museum.

Big and impressive to be sure, but also dead, cold and silent.

I am one WIXer who is very big in old airplanes AND dinosaurs (I am a paleontologist). I appreciate 330th's sentiments, but maybe dinosaurs can give us some perspective.

Original dinosaur bones are fragile things. Even though they have lasted 100 million years, exposure to open air and water and they are quickly destroyed - sounds familiar, right?

There are dinosaur skeletons on display outdoors, but these are not original bones, but fiberglass. The fiberglass does not reduce their educational potential, but if you want to see the REAL THING you have to go inside.

Likewise, an original P-38 should not be "on a stick" in the elements. It should either be on static display in an indoor museum, or it can be in a hanger, airworthy for occasional use outside in good weather. True, there is risk that the plane might be completely destroyed in a crash, but there are enough static specimens preserved indoors that some can also be flown, since that also serves an important educational purpose.

So long as there are more than a very few specimens in existence, the type can be - and perhaps SHOULD BE - used educationally both ways.

One view expressed on this thread is that any airplane not being flown is DEAD, that all planes - even the 1903 Wright (!!) should still be flown. Taking are truly rare and historic airplane outdoors and making it airworthy would destroy the original plane's originiality - its soul - and would ultimately reduce that plane to dust. Dinosaurs belong in an indoor museum, and the very rare and historic plane with most of the original parts, including perhaps the very fingerprints of its builders and early flyers, belong there as well. Dead? Maybe, but it retains its soul and preserves a direct conection between us and its original builders.

An airplane with most of its parts replaced to make it airworthy serves an educational purpose. It provides the noise and sense of awe not communicated by the static display. I see no problem with flying such aircraft, so long as there is a more historic example preserved indoors. But the replacement of its parts and the many other altercations made to spruce it up and fly it destroy portions of that connection between us and the pioneers.

I have no objection to someone restoring a Conestoga wagon and using it with a team of horses. The restoration will mean the use of replacement wood and new paint. There is much to be said for seeing a real Conestoga used as they once were, so long as a better original one is preserved and can be seen indoors. Places like the Smithsonian and NMUSAF preserve such things, and allow us to justifyably use other examples in the air or behind a team of horses.

But anyone who advocates the use of (the original) Memphis Belle as a flyer is advocating in some way at least the destruction of an original example with a combat history. Call it a dinosaur if you want, but I want people of a hundred years from now the opportunity to see and be able to study that dinosaur.

We can have static aircraft and flying aircraft, were there are adequate surviving examples. Anyone who says that all examples have to be one way or the other is speaking the same kind of polarizing extremism that we see too often with too many political and other issues. Let us be fair to one another enough to appreciate that some should be displayed and some can be flown. But if we were to fly them all, there would be a time too soon when they all would not be dead, they would be extinct.

airnutz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:15 pm

Well said Old Iron...I think you touched all the bases with that statement! :wink:

(Tho..Memphis Belle might not have been the best example. Much of MB's originality has been compromised
due to the effects of years of outdoor static display and the efforts to reverse those effects.)

.

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:21 pm

I want a ticket to Jurassic park, I am tired of looking at bones, plus what is better than a dinosaur that eats lawyers

jet1 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:07 pm

what a great display I would make! :lol:

old iron wrote:

The330thbg said:

Quote:

Seeing a warbird in a museum is a little like looking at a dinosaur in a natural-history museum.

Big and impressive to be sure, but also dead, cold and silent.

I am one WIXer who is very big in old airplanes AND dinosaurs (I am a paleontologist). I appreciate 330th's sentiments, but maybe dinosaurs can give us some perspective.

Original dinosaur bones are fragile things. Even though they have lasted 100 million years, exposure to open air and water and they are quickly destroyed - sounds familiar, right?

There are dinosaur skeletons on display outdoors, but these are not original bones, but fiberglass. The fiberglass does not reduce their educational potential, but if you want to see the REAL THING you have to go inside.

Likewise, an original P-38 should not be "on a stick" in the elements. It should either be on static display in an indoor museum, or it can be in a hanger, airworthy for occasional use outside in good weather. True, there is risk that the plane might be completely destroyed in a crash, but there are enough static specimens preserved indoors that some can also be flown, since that also serves an important educational purpose.

So long as there are more than a very few specimens in existence, the type can be - and perhaps SHOULD BE - used educationally both ways.

One view expressed on this thread is that any airplane not being flown is DEAD, that all planes - even the 1903 Wright (!!) should still be flown. Taking are truly rare and historic airplane outdoors and making it airworthy would destroy the original plane's originiality - its soul - and would ultimately reduce that plane to dust. Dinosaurs belong in an indoor museum, and the very rare and historic plane with most of the original parts, including perhaps the very fingerprints of its builders and early flyers, belong there as well. Dead? Maybe, but it retains its soul and preserves a direct conection between us and its original builders.

An airplane with most of its parts replaced to make it airworthy serves an educational purpose. It provides the noise and sense of awe not communicated by the static display. I see no problem with flying such aircraft, so long as there is a more historic example preserved indoors. But the replacement of its parts and the many other altercations made to spruce it up and fly it destroy portions of that connection between us and the pioneers.

I have no objection to someone restoring a Conestoga wagon and using it with a team of horses. The restoration will mean the use of replacement wood and new paint. There is much to be said for seeing a real Conestoga used as they once were, so long as a better original one is preserved and can be seen indoors. Places like the Smithsonian and NMUSAF preserve such things, and allow us to justifyably use other examples in the air or behind a team of horses.

But anyone who advocates the use of (the original) Memphis Belle as a flyer is advocating in some way at least the destruction of an original example with a combat history. Call it a dinosaur if you want, but I want people of a hundred years from now the opportunity to see and be able to study that dinosaur.

We can have static aircraft and flying aircraft, were there are adequate surviving examples. Anyone who says that all examples have to be one way or the other is speaking the same kind of polarizing extremism that we see too often with too many political and other issues. Let us be fair to one another enough to appreciate that some should be displayed and some can be flown. But if we were to fly them all, there would be a time too soon when they all would not be dead, they would be extinct.

airnutz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:18 pm

Jet1..I too would like to be mounted on a Pole when I die, but which one?

So little time...
www.polishforums.com/nice_polish_women_ ... 172_0.html

RickH · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:24 pm

I'll commit a little heresy here....

The 1903 Wright Flyer is not the original first flight aircraft ! It has been recovered several times and was rebuilt by Orville after its return to the US from the UK. It was heavily damaged from storage and moving.

Some say that the aircraft was substantially modified by Orville during the rebuild and that is why the direct copies won't fly. Orville destroyed many of the Brothers notes and papers around the same time.

jet1 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:46 pm

airnutz wrote:

Jet1..I too would like to be mounted on a Pole when I die, but which one?

So little time...
www.polishforums.com/nice_polish_women_ ... 172_0.html

k5083 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:49 pm

the330thbg wrote:

They were built to fly.

They were built to kill.

By your logic, isn't it a shame that we can't see them be used to kill any more? Maybe we could get some death row inmates or suspected terrorists or illegal immigrants and bomb and strafe them to death during airshows. Or, heck, at least round up some of the thousands of unwanted pets that are destroyed every day in this country and make their deaths more entertaining, while showing what warbirds were "built to" do. Now there's loud and impressive for you.

My point, since you'll probably have trouble seeing it -- just as your current sig file shows you have trouble understanding forum rules about inflammatory partisan political comments -- is that what the aircraft were "built for" is totally irrelevant to what they should be doing now.

August

jet1 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:03 pm

k5083 wrote:

the330thbg wrote:

They were built to fly.

They were built to kill.

By your logic, isn't it a shame that we can't see them be used to kill any more? Maybe we could get some death row inmates or suspected terrorists or illegal immigrants and bomb and strafe them to death during airshows. Or, heck, at least round up some of the thousands of unwanted pets that are destroyed every day in this country and make their deaths more entertaining, while showing what warbirds were "built to" do. Now there's loud and impressive for you.

My point, since you'll probably have trouble seeing it -- just as your current sig file shows you have trouble understanding forum rules about inflammatory partisan political comments -- is that what the aircraft were "built for" is totally irrelevant to what they should be doing now.

August

AIR STRIKES ON PRISONS!...where do I sign up...heck I'll even pay for my fuel used!

old iron · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:39 pm

Quote:

I'll commit a little heresy here....

The 1903 Wright Flyer is not the original first flight aircraft ! It has been recovered several times and was rebuilt by Orville after its return to the US from the UK. It was heavily damaged from storage and moving.

Some say that the aircraft was substantially modified by Orville during the rebuild and that is why the direct copies won't fly. Orville destroyed many of the Brothers notes and papers around the same time.

Actually, most of the wood in the 1903 flyer is original. When the aircraft was restored some years ago, the ribs were placed in a stack. It was discovered that the name "Wilbur Wright" - written on the stack of ribs when originally shipped to NC - was legible. The ribs are the real thing.

The engine block in the displayed specimen is not original, though the pistons and other internals parts are original (the original broken block is at the Kitty Hawk Museum). The chains and sprokets are I think original. The propellors are original early Wright props, but not original to the '03 flight. The flywheel likewise is from an early but not the first Wright flyer. The fabric of course has been replaced, twice to my knowledge.

Direct copies have flown, though the centennial demonstration did not work because of rain and low winds.

There is no evidence that I know of that Orville substantially modified the aircraft after 1903. While I am sure there was some hanger rash, and some water damage from a circa 1910 flood, I do not think there was "heavy damage" - actually, the "Wilbur Wright" across the edges of the ribs shows convincingly that the ribs, and presumably the rest of the wood parts, are original and thus were not badly damaged.

By the way, Orville did reassemble the aircraft in about 1916 and again prior to shipping it to the British Museum, but died before it could be returned to the US.

So you have commited heresy. Thankfully the penalties are not what they used to be.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:46 pm

Maybe these warbirds were designed to "kill," but in reality, I suspect most of the designers (at least the US ones) would've been happy if they just managed to deter the enemies of the country they served from attacking.

Ryan

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

Personally.., do almost anything to a warbird but this!!!!!!!!

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:29 pm

old iron wrote:

The330thbg said:

Quote:

Seeing a warbird in a museum is a little like looking at a dinosaur in a natural-history museum.

Big and impressive to be sure, but also dead, cold and silent.

I am one WIXer who is very big in old airplanes AND dinosaurs (I am a paleontologist). I appreciate 330th's sentiments, but maybe dinosaurs can give us some perspective.

Original dinosaur bones are fragile things. Even though they have lasted 100 million years, exposure to open air and water and they are quickly destroyed - sounds familiar, right?

There are dinosaur skeletons on display outdoors, but these are not original bones, but fiberglass. The fiberglass does not reduce their educational potential, but if you want to see the REAL THING you have to go inside.

Likewise, an original P-38 should not be "on a stick" in the elements. It should either be on static display in an indoor museum, or it can be in a hanger, airworthy for occasional use outside in good weather. True, there is risk that the plane might be completely destroyed in a crash, but there are enough static specimens preserved indoors that some can also be flown, since that also serves an important educational purpose.

So long as there are more than a very few specimens in existence, the type can be - and perhaps SHOULD BE - used educationally both ways.

One view expressed on this thread is that any airplane not being flown is DEAD, that all planes - even the 1903 Wright (!!) should still be flown. Taking are truly rare and historic airplane outdoors and making it airworthy would destroy the original plane's originiality - its soul - and would ultimately reduce that plane to dust. Dinosaurs belong in an indoor museum, and the very rare and historic plane with most of the original parts, including perhaps the very fingerprints of its builders and early flyers, belong there as well. Dead? Maybe, but it retains its soul and preserves a direct conection between us and its original builders.

An airplane with most of its parts replaced to make it airworthy serves an educational purpose. It provides the noise and sense of awe not communicated by the static display. I see no problem with flying such aircraft, so long as there is a more historic example preserved indoors. But the replacement of its parts and the many other altercations made to spruce it up and fly it destroy portions of that connection between us and the pioneers.

I have no objection to someone restoring a Conestoga wagon and using it with a team of horses. The restoration will mean the use of replacement wood and new paint. There is much to be said for seeing a real Conestoga used as they once were, so long as a better original one is preserved and can be seen indoors. Places like the Smithsonian and NMUSAF preserve such things, and allow us to justifyably use other examples in the air or behind a team of horses.

But anyone who advocates the use of (the original) Memphis Belle as a flyer is advocating in some way at least the destruction of an original example with a combat history. Call it a dinosaur if you want, but I want people of a hundred years from now the opportunity to see and be able to study that dinosaur.

We can have static aircraft and flying aircraft, were there are adequate surviving examples. Anyone who says that all examples have to be one way or the other is speaking the same kind of polarizing extremism that we see too often with too many political and other issues. Let us be fair to one another enough to appreciate that some should be displayed and some can be flown. But if we were to fly them all, there would be a time too soon when they all would not be dead, they would be extinct.

Very well said. All I mean is that I love to see them fly, and know and understand the importance and fun of flying them. I just want an equal balance. The static ones are just as importaant. i do agree that gate gaurd aircraft need to be replaced by replicas, even if the real ones stay on base but under proper shelter.

Warbird Information Exchange

P-38 on a stick

Who is online