Fatal Warbird Crash Rebuild Question & Poll

[bdk]

Regarding the Spitfire Mk FRXVIII just restored to airworthy (and I didn't want to potentially disrupt that thread), does the restoration of this aircraft to airworthy bother anyone since someone was killed in it? Isn't that disrespectful? This seems to be the argument with some fatal crashes, but not others. Or is it only ghoulish to fly a wartime fatal wreck?

I never fully understood this argument so I'm hoping someone can explain the rules to me. Everyone seems to be happy that this Spitfire is getting back into the air, but there are "no fly zones" on this board for others.

Opinions please!

[JFS61]

I would think any true pilot would by all means want a plane to continue flying by any means possible (of course, this is coming from a non-pilot, so take that what it's worth).

[Thomas_Mac]

I also considered this when I was reading about this restoration. I think while it does seem a little morbid my thoughts supporting restoration are that;
a) its not like there is a whole lot of potential Spitfire restoration projects around
b) I am sure the deceased pilot would like nothing more then seeing the aircraft restored to their former glory (maybe I`m wrong?)

Interesting subject!

[JohnH]

I think I posted this once, yes it's strange but should be done. The Kennedy Limo is on display too and could easily have been destroyed.

[JimH]

it's an inanimate object...rebuild it

Jim

[Taylor Stevenson]

I think it depends.

I'd be hard pressed to restore a recovered aircraft that's been a war grave for decades...

Other than that, I agree with Jim. Just alclad and rivets.

[Ryan Harris]

For this particular Spitfire, consider this. The fatality happened from a runway overrun and subsequent rollover. They literally flipped the airplane back over and towed it to a hangar. We are talking about a Spitfire that for all conceivable purposes was a complete and whole airframe. It wasn't a high impact accident with lots of little pieces. If this airplane had been scrapped solely because of the fatality, we would all be up in arms over it.

Historic Flying has also been flying their Spitfire Tr.9 (PV202) for nearly 10 years now I would guess. This airplane was also involved in a double fatality accident, but was also fairly complete. If it had been left to the scrappers, they would not be able to provide the Spitfire training that they do. You could argue that this airplane has actually made new Spitfire pilots safer.

War graves are one thing, but warbird accidents happened then and they happen now, unfortunately. I'd like to think the guys flying would've liked to see them rebuilt. In fact, some of them were already flying airplanes that were rebuilt from previous accidents.

[andyman64]

this is the most rediculous conversation i have ever seen on here!!!!!! it,s not even a serious question is it?????

[JohnB]

A friend has two civil vintage aircraft flying that were involved in fatal accidents. He rebuilt the wrecks.

It doesn't seem to bother him...or anyone else.
I'm not sure a warbird would be any different.

[SaxMan]

I don't think I'd have any objection to someone wanting to rebuild a plane that had been involved in a fatal accident. Would I want to own such a plane and/or fly in one? Probably not. That would just be a little too weird for my tastes.

OTOH - perhaps there is no better way to honor the decedents memory than to preserve the plane that he obviously loved and ensure that it continued to remain in the air, where the decedent would have likely wanted it to be.

[phil65]

It depends, would you rebuild “Lady be Good”?

Phil

[Tiger Tim]

It depends, would you rebuild “Lady be Good”?

My first thought was, "Absolutely! In its present condition it really can't be displayed IMO and shouldn't be stored away or scrapped."

But then I thought a bit more. The ultimate restoration, I think we can all agree, is to reliable airworthy condition so you can go on tour. LBG would be an impressive airplane all put back together and she does have a very interesting story to tell, but how do you tell that story without coming off sounding like a grave robber?

Oddly enough, I would restore James Dean's Porsche. Go figure.

-Tim

[JohnB]

I don't think I'd have any objection to someone wanting to rebuild a plane that had been involved in a fatal accident. Would I want to own such a plane and/or fly in one? Probably not. That would just be a little too weird for my tastes.

I've flown in one of my friend's two aircraft, not weird at all.

Also remember, if an accident was severe enough t have been a fatal, there probably isn't a great deal of the original structure left.
Witness the CAF "Red Tail" P-51C. I saw photos after its fatal crash...and I find it hard to believe that there are many of those parts in the rebuilt aircraft.


Also, say there was a combat vet B-17 flying that had a crewman (say a gunner) killed in combat. Would you fly in that? Sure.

As far as Dean's Porsche...first you'd have to find it. It disappeared years ago. And being a Porsche 550 (with the Dean connection) if its crumpled remains were to be found, it would still be worth a fortune as Porsche 550 go for $2-2.5 million restored.

[Iclo]

this is the most rediculous conversation i have ever seen on here!!!!!! it,s not even a serious question is it?????

Why ? It's a relevant question and I don't see any problem with this question.

I will say "It's depend of various condition, and the feeling of the people involved with the plane: if the familly of the deceased pilot(s) want the plane to be restored "as a tribute of their relative" or if they are against the project and consider rebuilding the plane a lack of respect.

[k5083]

Dead people are gone, bodies are just meat, cherish the memory of the person and get over the mysticism. Even the war grave brouhaha just legitimizes irrational thinking. No physical thing is in any way affected by its association with a death.

August