Enterprise to NYC???

[Jack Cook]

I could give a flying _____________ (insert word here) where they go. But, I don't understand
the Inredpid. It's a freak'in aircraft carrier....hello!?! Where's it going down the forward elevator
or out on a barge on the Hudson??

[warbird2]

See my post above for the definition of the word warbird

That is YOUR definition of the word, not everybody elses.

[Franklin]

See my post above for the definition of the word warbird

That is YOUR definition of the word, not everybody elses.

Negative! ... I can't take credit for it ... several internet searches and aviation blogs refer to the same or similar definition. As for Vandenberg AFB mothballing slick 6 it was mainly because of the challenger disaster. I was there at that time. Not a good time for that space program. Lots of people lost their jobs. Including me.

[Garth]

I do have to say that even though I had little interest in this thread at first, I find it a bit more entertaining now. As long as it stays civil I'd like to hear opinions from other WIXers on the shuttle being a warbird, not warbird debate.

Actually, the path I was going down with on that question had to do with the pertinance of a Shuttle discussion on a "Warbird" discussion group.

If the definition of "Warbird" (and therefore the pertinence to discussions on WIX) is as you state, then we really shouldn't be having any discussions about NMUSAF (so no Swoose, no Memphis Belle threads, etc), NASM (no Flak Bait desecration threads), NNAM (look at those kewl Blue Angels A-4s hanging from the ceiling! threads), etc ... because the historical military aircraft in their collections are still owned by the government/military.

Now I realize that I'm a relative newcomer here, but it seems to me that if the operational definition, for the determination of pertinence on WIX, of "Warbird" is the well-researched, well-defined one you put forward, then maybe the name of this site should change its name to represent the broader discussions that are (and have been, since well-before I arrived) taking place here.

[/jonathan swift mode]

[k5083]

In breaking news, yesterday the old execs from Rockwell were consulted on how to deliver the orbiter to the L.A. museum in one piece. They called up a retired pilot who used to be pretty good at flying NAA/Rockwell products -- his name is Bob something -- and he says that after an air launch above L.A. from the 747, he can dead stick it onto the Harbor freeway and coast it exactly to the museum's front door without power. Negotiations are in progress but so far there are two sticky issues, (1) whether to paint the shuttle yellow for the occasion and (2) Bob's insistence on doing several 1-point touchdowns on alternating main gears before he settles it down.

And concerning the Canadian arm (with the well-placed flag on it) did NASA buy that or was it a gift..or a "good deal", i.e. discount?
If it was a commercial transaction then Canada shouldn't have gotten a shuttle....or had their name and flag on the arm...after all we don't see builders names anywhere else on the ship. And I'm sure the U.S. could have built one if it had to.

No, the U.S. never had that technology. The Canadarm was originally designed by Revenue Canada to help reach into citizens' pockets and claw out more than 50% of their earnings in federal income taxes. The IRS has not yet developed such a device.

August

[Nathan]

I don't think the shuttle can be classified as a warbird. Unless because it was partly funded by the military.

I'll say it again, hopefully without starting a flame war, IMHO the shuttle is not a warbird because the shuttles, even though they may have performed military missions at times, are not privately owned. See my post above for the definition of the word warbird (edit: not my definition, found it with a little googling, but it seems to fit IMO)

I do have to say that even though I had little interest in this thread at first, I find it a bit more entertaining now. As long as it stays civil I'd like to hear opinions from other WIXers on the shuttle being a warbird, not warbird debate.

Hi Franklin, Im game too. But I agree with you that the shuttle is not a warbird. But I couldn't really care. Although I have to ask I always considered current military aircraft warbirds too. IMHO, a warbird is any aircraft that saw military service. Past, present, and future. Again, IMHO.

See my post above for the definition of the word warbird

That is YOUR definition of the word, not everybody elses.

sheesh.

[Garth]

But I agree with you that the shuttle is not a warbird.

... IMHO, a warbird is any aircraft that saw military service.

Not to belabor the point, or to split hairs, but here's a comprehensive list of all the DoD (military service?) missions the Shuttles flew:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_fil ... uttle.html

[Franklin]

I do have to say that even though I had little interest in this thread at first, I find it a bit more entertaining now. As long as it stays civil I'd like to hear opinions from other WIXers on the shuttle being a warbird, not warbird debate.

Actually, the path I was going down with on that question had to do with the pertinance of a Shuttle discussion on a "Warbird" discussion group.

If the definition of "Warbird" (and therefore the pertinence to discussions on WIX) is as you state, then we really shouldn't be having any discussions about NMUSAF (so no Swoose, no Memphis Belle threads, etc), NASM (no Flak Bait desecration threads), NNAM (look at those kewl Blue Angels A-4s hanging from the ceiling! threads), etc ... because the historical military aircraft in their collections are still owned by the government/military.

Now I realize that I'm a relative newcomer here, but it seems to me that if the operational definition, for the determination of pertinence on WIX, of "Warbird" is the well-researched, well-defined one you put forward, then maybe the name of this site should change its name to represent the broader discussions that are (and have been, since well-before I arrived) taking place here.

[/jonathan swift mode]

I get your point with your above statements. Very well valid, but even though as one fellow put it here in another thread, this is one dead horse of a debate, but at the same time I find it interesting that when I really think about it from a true sense of what I perceive warbird to mean, I would have to conclude that all government owned vintage military aircraft either flying, of which I can't think of any off hand, or static in museums, would not be considered a warbird but rather a retired military artifact, and if you were at the NMUSAF or any other government owned museum, that you would not actually be looking at warbirds but an aformentioned retired military artifact, and in this particular debate, a retired NASA artifact. Not a retired warbird ... of course this is IMHO

[airnutz]

I'm surprised at all the attention to the shuttle selection process here on WIX. Frankly I could care less, last I heard a shuttle is not a warbird. Do I dislike NASA's shuttle program? not at all, just not interested in whether the NMUSAF got one or not.

Ooops, you nailed us Franklin. Shuttle's not a warbird and this discussion doesn't technically belong on the Hangar page, but popular topics or news will get posted here and will exist until the Mods move them or the chatter dies out. Some of us are interested because of experiences with the program or the effect the decision has on our local economies and/or museums exhibits etc.

There is also the "bitch factor", if we don't have at least one thread a week with bitchin', pissin' , 'n moanin'...the pressure builds and the place explodes. Bitchin' 'bout us bitchin' is considered bad form, old stick. If you're not interested, please move on....nothing to see here, Sir.

[Pat Carry]

The folks in Houston feel snubbed. www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld ... 8118.story

[tulsaboy]

That's why I still contend that while this may be a done deal in terms of where they will actually end up, I don't think that we've heard the last of this. A bill introduced to send the NYC one to Houston? Hmmmmmm...

kevin

[Tom H]

Re: The Canada Arm

If I recall the details correctly...
The original arm was designed developed and supplied to NASA as part of the Canadian commitment to the Shuttle program. Yes Canada was a participant in the Shuttle program and has had several shuttle astronauts and a mission commander as I recall.

That said a few years ago the company that designed and produced the "Arm" was absorbed by an American company.

That said

Canadian Museums were never permitted to bid on the shuttle, which as a Canadian don't have an issue with...the main program was US.

But we never got a shot at the "Arms" ether which I felt unfair, but whats done is done.

Tom H

[davidbray]

While Canadian museums may have been totally snubbed on the shuttle bids, they will be getting one of the arms. I can't remember which shuttle it is coming off of though.

Wish one of the shuttles would have ended up in the middle of the country... north or south doesn't matter.

[Tom H]

I don't think anyone in Canada feels snubbed about the shuttle at all. We were only a partner.

The Arms would have been nice to see 1 in Western Canada and 1 in Eastern Canada.

But no biggie...our museum will build a replica.

Tom

[tex-fan]

That's why I still contend that while this may be a done deal in terms of where they will actually end up, I don't think that we've heard the last of this. A bill introduced to send the NYC one to Houston? Hmmmmmm...

kevin

here is a link on this. thanks
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation ... to-houston

i was also wondering, can congress OVERRULE nasa?