Fatal Warbird Crash Rebuild Question & Poll

[Mark Allen M]

Round and round! Seems pretty simple whether it happened 70 years ago or yesterday. Leave it up to the owner or kin what is decided.

[Taylor Stevenson]

Wow. Didn't mean to stir the pot with my war grave comment. Notice that I said "hard pressed to...." Doesn't mean I wouldn't fly such an aircraft, but I think one is a bit shortsighted if they don't at least muse over the history associated with it, especially if it was essentially a tomb for a fallen soldier who sacrificed everything he had so you and I can argue over comparatively pointless topics like warbirds.

As an owner of a combat vet aircraft and others with no significant history (all of which are or will be flyers), I'm obviously in the "fix 'em and fly 'em" category, but that doesn't mean I don't take all factors into consideration. Like anything, it's a personal choice to be made on a case-by-case basis. Our T-6G has a fatality in its civilian history and I fly the heck out of it.

[Steve T]

Very interesting thread on a fraught topic...

The mention a page or two up of Mr Odegaard and the Corsair racer is the first such I've seen. I have to admit the same thought crept into my mind after reading that awful news here on WIX a year and a bit ago. Were such a rebuild possible, I wonder what Mr Odegaard himself would wish? I'm reminded of the CAF redtail Mustang, and how some of the impetus for its second rebuild came from the certainty within the Southern Minnesota Wing that Don Hinz, who had perished in the Mustang's crash, would himself wish the Mustang restored and flown again. Of course, on a practical level, the amount of destruction was different (in the Mustang's favour) between these two tragic accidents; plus, the total reconstruction of a P-51 is a more feasible undertaking than the same of a Corsair, for several reasons. And, sadly, we cannot ask Mr Odegaard. Still, one wonders. In an odd way it's nice to read of someone else having a similar thought. I'd felt both guilty and ghoulish for so doing...

S.

[Nathan]

Here is a question: if someone dies in a plane crash and its a military aircraft does that mean the family of the pilot owns the plane? I hardly think so.

[Jack Cook]

if someone dies in a plane crash and its a military aircraft does that mean the family of the pilot owns the plane? I hardly think so.

Here is a question...............what??

[bdk]

if someone dies in a plane crash and its a military aircraft does that mean the family of the pilot owns the plane? I hardly think so.

Here is a question...............what??

I think the point is that the family of the deceased really doesn't have any say as to what happens with the aircraft.

[Jack Cook]

I think the point is that the family of the deceased really doesn't have any say as to what happens with the aircraft.

and incredibly insensitive!
Makes me wonder when people say it's all about the vets and we owe them so much how many really mean it?

[bdk]

I think the point is that the family of the deceased really doesn't have any say as to what happens with the aircraft.

and incredibly insensitive!
Makes me wonder when people say it's all about the vets and we owe them so much how many really mean it?

I can see his point, if I have even interpreted it correctly. We owe a great deal to the vets, no question.

What happens to the aircraft is all post-mortem, and that is where opinions vary.

You feel that the relatives should have a say in what happens to the aircraft, but in the civilian world it is usually the insurance company.

I don't think it is fair to question Nathan's patriotism or sensitivity.

[bdk]

iPad double post, sorry....

[Nathan]

Did not mean to ruffle any feathers, Jack. Just wanted to throw out a provocative point. I think people SHOULD respect the wish's of family members. I'm undecided on this topic. I would feel a little weird flying in an airplane that had crashed before with someone losing their life. At the same time I would hate to see an airplane not fly and not honor whoever did die in it.

P.S. And my patriotism is at a high peak this month.

[Mark Allen M]

I as well see Nathan's point albeit a vague point. How he stated it and how it was read differently by a few is certainly understandable, but not mean't to be insensitive IMO as Nathan's not that guy.

That being said it's a valid question worth commenting and one that actually seems obvious.

My assessment would be if we are talking about a 70 year old, stricken from active service, military aircraft that still entombed service members, then any and all decisions regarding that particular aircraft should be predominately decided by surviving family members if possible first. If in fact it's a currently operational military aircraft that caused a fatality then it's obvious it's still under the jurisdiction of the military to decide what is done with it. This seems where Nathan was going with his post.

And Nathan's patriotism being questioned? ... Really? ... Just go visit his website if there's a concern of his patriotism. All questions will be answered for sure.

[phil65]

Totally different, but now that it’s been a year; here in Conn. they demolished Newtown’s old elementary school and are planning on building a new one.

Phil