Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:57 am
Hi Guys,
Thanks for going out on this topic. I am afraid that personally, I am of the mindset, that if you have a one of a kind plane...then it should stay ground bound. But hear me out first, because I agree with the concept of whoever takes on a project, pays his own hard earned dollars, and sweat to have that aircraft, he should have the absolute rights to do with it as he see's fit.
However, I guess what I was suggesting initially was something along the lines of the MAAM's P-61 Black Widow. And before you get thinking I am off my rocker, I would submit to you that IF it were the sole survivor of it's breed, then it shouldn't be flown due to the rare nature of it's existence, and coupled with the idea that the breed itself has a signifigant military history. However, in this case it isn't thankfully. There are...to my knowledge, at least 4 to perhaps 5 remaining airframes, including the MAAM's Black Widow, so in this case I say yes...one should fly as an example and tribute. And I also submit that if one or more airframes of a similar breed exist...then by all means fly one.
But try this one.....if let's say there was ONLY one Vultee Vindicator on the planet known to exist, and it was not in the hands of the Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, would you still be in favor of having that plane in flight ? Even though that if there were problems...and we all know too many of them CAN and DO crop up with these Warbirds, that the real potential for the total loss of the breed forever was possible. Or better still....and I only bring this up as part of the debate on this topic...NOT to dredge up old wounds within the Warbird Community. What if the same scenario was present, but the aircraft in question was a Douglas TBD Devastator ? We all know how rare THAT one is to begin with.....would you still want to risk the total extinction of the breed just to see it in flight, though beautifully restored and maintained, one more time ??
See...........this is what my intention was....to spark debate along these lines.
Paul
Thanks for going out on this topic. I am afraid that personally, I am of the mindset, that if you have a one of a kind plane...then it should stay ground bound. But hear me out first, because I agree with the concept of whoever takes on a project, pays his own hard earned dollars, and sweat to have that aircraft, he should have the absolute rights to do with it as he see's fit.
However, I guess what I was suggesting initially was something along the lines of the MAAM's P-61 Black Widow. And before you get thinking I am off my rocker, I would submit to you that IF it were the sole survivor of it's breed, then it shouldn't be flown due to the rare nature of it's existence, and coupled with the idea that the breed itself has a signifigant military history. However, in this case it isn't thankfully. There are...to my knowledge, at least 4 to perhaps 5 remaining airframes, including the MAAM's Black Widow, so in this case I say yes...one should fly as an example and tribute. And I also submit that if one or more airframes of a similar breed exist...then by all means fly one.
But try this one.....if let's say there was ONLY one Vultee Vindicator on the planet known to exist, and it was not in the hands of the Naval Air Museum in Pensacola, would you still be in favor of having that plane in flight ? Even though that if there were problems...and we all know too many of them CAN and DO crop up with these Warbirds, that the real potential for the total loss of the breed forever was possible. Or better still....and I only bring this up as part of the debate on this topic...NOT to dredge up old wounds within the Warbird Community. What if the same scenario was present, but the aircraft in question was a Douglas TBD Devastator ? We all know how rare THAT one is to begin with.....would you still want to risk the total extinction of the breed just to see it in flight, though beautifully restored and maintained, one more time ??
See...........this is what my intention was....to spark debate along these lines.
Paul
Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:01 pm
This got me thinking - as much as I would like to see a Cutlass fly again, given the nose gear problems it had during its service life and the propensity the nose gear failure had to end pilots life, I'm thinking that if Mr. Soplata's plane was ever restored it probably ought to be restored to the point that it could be taxied around but flown. . . . 
Tom P.
Tom P.
Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:12 pm
In regards to a flying/taxiable Cutlass, I was in contact 5 years ago with a gentleman from I believe Washington State (could've been Oregon), that recovered an F7U from a park and was looking for engines to power it. He had clean it out and I guess it was substantially complete. Don't know where it stands now, but someone out there may have more info on this Cutlass.
Jerry
Jerry
Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:08 pm
Very simple...you don't tell me what to do with my property that I spent my hard earned money on and I won't tell you what to do with yours. 
Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:25 pm
O.P. wrote:I
Anyone know if the Texas Aircraft factory or Flugwerk is looking for the next project?
FlugWerk have announced a Fw190D-9/N as their latest project, powered by a modified Allison engine (not inverted, and with a modified "down-swept" exhaust to retain the orginal D-9 appearance.)
See http://www.flugwerk.de/diary.shtm
Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:35 pm
There is something really very special about seeing an aircraft that is freshly resurrected "in the air" or even parked at a major airshow. It gives a chance to update pictures of the type in the air. Aren't those pictures of the Curtiss Hawk(P-36) awesome. That's one I never thought we would see an authentic one in the air. Now it can be shot with the cameras in the air with an authentic BF-109 .
It was really disappointing when Kalamazoo restored their P-39 , and the EAA their P-38 only to keep them grounded.
It was really disappointing when Kalamazoo restored their P-39 , and the EAA their P-38 only to keep them grounded.
Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:29 pm
wendovertom wrote:This got me thinking - as much as I would like to see a Cutlass fly again, given the nose gear problems it had during its service life and the propensity the nose gear failure had to end pilots life, I'm thinking that if Mr. Soplata's plane was ever restored it probably ought to be restored to the point that it could be taxied around but flown. . . .
Tom P.
Was that a Carrier landing probelm? I would assume that it was, I've see a few hard lands on a deck in my time. Landings on a shore base (runway for you airfoce types) I'd think there would be no problem (with a bit of care setting it down).
I've seen several 109s in Museum but it was nothing like watching one in flight and hearing it. It seems like a shame to see so many great aircraft grounded, but I'm not paying the bills and I can respect that. BUT thanks you too all who Keep them Flying!
Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:54 pm
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the Vindicator is flashy and I sure would like mine in the VERY FLASHY Pre-war paint scheme ala the film, "Dive Bomber"!
Jerry
Jerry
Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:41 am
I'm game for seeing most any warbird remain airworthy rather than sit on display like a stuffed animal. With that said, I do have a couple of disputes with seeing the rarest of the rare, especially historic sole survivors, remain in service.
Firstly, in regard to actual historic airframes, it bothers me that large portions of the original plane usually have to be replaced, stripped out, or otherwise discarded in order for the restoration to meet flight regulations. It's awesome that historic airframes like the P-47 "Dottie Mae" will be returned to flight in 100% "authentic" condition, but I have to say, I'd be losing more than a few nights of sleep if I was the guy tasked with stripping the original markings, including the pilot and ground crew's hand painted names off of that fuselage. During a refurbishment such as this, all I can hope for is that the resto-team approaches at least the first phases of the job with the mindset of archaeologists. As best I can tell so far, the team on the "Dottie Mae" project is going about the job with the right kind of respect, which is great!
Finds like this are doubly priceless because of that particular airframe's unique history. You only find a plane like that once. As I see it, the actual worth of the ‘historic account’ accompanying a particular airframe can only be logically measured in direct correlation to the actual intrinsic properties preserved during the restoration. Every fraction of the original touchstone that is thrown out takes with it a page from that airframe’s story. In the extreme cases, all you’re left with is a work of fiction trying to pass itself off as fact; and that’s a quick way to get Oprah on your bad side!
It's prudent for owners of such rarities to honor true originality, if only because of the inherent value it adds to the plane. Like any other passion, there are always going to be a few operators out there with more money than sense. Ultimately it's their right to do with their property what they may. It's also their right to be judged as a shortsighted idiot for throwing money at a restoration project without a balanced helping of common sense!
I've gotten peeved with certain projects where historical clues and evidence that could have easily been recorded was lost in the frenzy to strip, sanitize, and rebuild a plane into a generic representation of its type. There’s only so much original fact that can be cultivated from the remaining unrestored airframes, and I personally believe it’s in history’s best interest to gather this info as the opportunity presents itself. For those who’ve kept track, imagine if the RNFAA Museum had simply chosen to take a paintbrush and thinner to their FG-1D Corsair when the time came to refurbish it for display!
Of course, the greatest pitfall with the operation of super rare types is the potential for complete destruction. There's nothing like having an ultra-historic airframe disappear in a ball of fire to make you question the validity of flying sole-survivors, or planes such as Champlin's Fw-190D, etc. Then again, there's something very exciting about witnessing the living spirit of a particular plane as it hedges the possibility of eradicating itself, and its type from all known existence!
The first time I became aware of this feeling was when I watched the XP-51 makes it final flight at Oshkosh ’82. I remember asking the question, “So that’s the first one? The original experimental one?” Even at age twelve, I sensed the intensity of watching that plane’s last historic flight, balanced against the equally intense potential for loss had the plane and its pilot otherwise ended up in a fiery heap on landing. It’s the same rush you get from watching a vintage racecar rally. It’s doubly exciting to watch the classics in living action, but quadruple the pain when they pile up in the turn. In many cases the last chapter of that car history is written for all time, punctuated in finality with a footnote depicting the failure of the owner/driver to preserve that original touchstone for all future generations. There will always be those who live for the history, and those who live for the race. It’s those of us who live for both that are truly screwed in their attempts to answer the ultimate question!
Finally, I've got to say I’m beyond pleased that we've reached the point where it's viable for teams like FlugWerk, Texas Airplane Factory, Tri-State Aviation, etc to build virtually authentic reproductions of planes that previously populated the "ultra rare" list. The time line for future warbird operations previously based on the attrition rate of original airframes is now irrelevant! We can only hope that the trend will continue to broaden and incorporate a greater variety of warbird types as time marches on. It’s a saving grace for enthusiasts and historians alike who find themselves torn between wanting to see an airworthy Fw-190D fly in this lifetime, and not wanting to witness the possible destruction of the only authentic example capable of flight. It’s a testament to the success of these new-production planes that those concerned with the very issue forming the basis of this thread can finally rest a little easier. The best response to a sometimes-bitter dispute in viewpoints is to have your cake and eat it too!
Firstly, in regard to actual historic airframes, it bothers me that large portions of the original plane usually have to be replaced, stripped out, or otherwise discarded in order for the restoration to meet flight regulations. It's awesome that historic airframes like the P-47 "Dottie Mae" will be returned to flight in 100% "authentic" condition, but I have to say, I'd be losing more than a few nights of sleep if I was the guy tasked with stripping the original markings, including the pilot and ground crew's hand painted names off of that fuselage. During a refurbishment such as this, all I can hope for is that the resto-team approaches at least the first phases of the job with the mindset of archaeologists. As best I can tell so far, the team on the "Dottie Mae" project is going about the job with the right kind of respect, which is great!
Finds like this are doubly priceless because of that particular airframe's unique history. You only find a plane like that once. As I see it, the actual worth of the ‘historic account’ accompanying a particular airframe can only be logically measured in direct correlation to the actual intrinsic properties preserved during the restoration. Every fraction of the original touchstone that is thrown out takes with it a page from that airframe’s story. In the extreme cases, all you’re left with is a work of fiction trying to pass itself off as fact; and that’s a quick way to get Oprah on your bad side!
It's prudent for owners of such rarities to honor true originality, if only because of the inherent value it adds to the plane. Like any other passion, there are always going to be a few operators out there with more money than sense. Ultimately it's their right to do with their property what they may. It's also their right to be judged as a shortsighted idiot for throwing money at a restoration project without a balanced helping of common sense!
I've gotten peeved with certain projects where historical clues and evidence that could have easily been recorded was lost in the frenzy to strip, sanitize, and rebuild a plane into a generic representation of its type. There’s only so much original fact that can be cultivated from the remaining unrestored airframes, and I personally believe it’s in history’s best interest to gather this info as the opportunity presents itself. For those who’ve kept track, imagine if the RNFAA Museum had simply chosen to take a paintbrush and thinner to their FG-1D Corsair when the time came to refurbish it for display!
Of course, the greatest pitfall with the operation of super rare types is the potential for complete destruction. There's nothing like having an ultra-historic airframe disappear in a ball of fire to make you question the validity of flying sole-survivors, or planes such as Champlin's Fw-190D, etc. Then again, there's something very exciting about witnessing the living spirit of a particular plane as it hedges the possibility of eradicating itself, and its type from all known existence!
The first time I became aware of this feeling was when I watched the XP-51 makes it final flight at Oshkosh ’82. I remember asking the question, “So that’s the first one? The original experimental one?” Even at age twelve, I sensed the intensity of watching that plane’s last historic flight, balanced against the equally intense potential for loss had the plane and its pilot otherwise ended up in a fiery heap on landing. It’s the same rush you get from watching a vintage racecar rally. It’s doubly exciting to watch the classics in living action, but quadruple the pain when they pile up in the turn. In many cases the last chapter of that car history is written for all time, punctuated in finality with a footnote depicting the failure of the owner/driver to preserve that original touchstone for all future generations. There will always be those who live for the history, and those who live for the race. It’s those of us who live for both that are truly screwed in their attempts to answer the ultimate question!
Finally, I've got to say I’m beyond pleased that we've reached the point where it's viable for teams like FlugWerk, Texas Airplane Factory, Tri-State Aviation, etc to build virtually authentic reproductions of planes that previously populated the "ultra rare" list. The time line for future warbird operations previously based on the attrition rate of original airframes is now irrelevant! We can only hope that the trend will continue to broaden and incorporate a greater variety of warbird types as time marches on. It’s a saving grace for enthusiasts and historians alike who find themselves torn between wanting to see an airworthy Fw-190D fly in this lifetime, and not wanting to witness the possible destruction of the only authentic example capable of flight. It’s a testament to the success of these new-production planes that those concerned with the very issue forming the basis of this thread can finally rest a little easier. The best response to a sometimes-bitter dispute in viewpoints is to have your cake and eat it too!
Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:56 am
OK - somewhat related to Robs comment about flashy aircraft - it wasn't until the most recent Air&Space issue that I thought much of the Ventura (PV-1 or PV-2) but now I am wondering why in the world more of them aren't around!! I guess kermit has a few and the CAF as well but wow, what a neat plane that I had over looked before.
Tom P.
Tom P.
a flash of red
Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:00 pm
Col. Rohr wrote:Sorry but I still feel that if I'm going to front the cash then I will do what I want with it end of subject unless we have become a Commy nation in the past eight hours.
RER
Ahh..so nice to hear that you've reversed your opinion of how Red Bull
presents their aircraft!
I'll get me coat....
Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:26 pm
wendovertom wrote:OK - somewhat related to Robs comment about flashy aircraft - it wasn't until the most recent Air&Space issue that I thought much of the Ventura (PV-1 or PV-2) but now I am wondering why in the world more of them aren't around!! I guess kermit has a few and the CAF as well but wow, what a neat plane that I had over looked before.
Tom P.
I'm not sure, but I think Tim Savage has one of those.
Re: a flash of red
Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:21 pm
Col. Rohr wrote:[
My personal feelings towards Red Bull are well know I think they are a very harsh company that treat there US Employes with little to no respect.
RER
That just made me think of all the RB employee's I've seen,
I think someone should treat them girls with r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:29 pm
I've always been of two minds about this.
I think when it comes to genuinely historic aircraft -- such as the Spirit of St. Louis, Bell X-1, or Enola Gay -- they should be preserved and not flown as they occupy unique moments in history. Few of the warbirds flying today have actual combat records having served in domestic training units or were manufactured late in the war and didn't see action, so they're more representative of the type than being historic combat veterans. That doesn't make them any less valuable or significant, but I think it provides more of a justification to keep them flying rather than grounding them.
I know that whenever I walk into an air museum I dearly wish I could see all of the collection's aircraft flying; just to see how they move through the air, how they sound, to see them in their natural element. Seeing them permanently grounded is like like looking upon a Stradivarius violin and never hearing a Mozart or Vivaldi concerto played on it: you might imagine what it's like to hear it but it's just not the same. Seeing an airplane in flight brings it and the experience alive.
When the CWH's Lancaster took flight, it fulfilled a lifelong dream of mine that I thought would never come true short of travelling to the U.K., nor did I ever imagine seeing a De Havilland Mosquito fly outside of a TV documentary or late-night showing of "633 Squadron" until I saw Kermit Weeks' B.35 at Hamilton one year, and I dearly hope I see another Mossie fly in Canada again in the future. I know my life would be poorer if I never saw another Mustang flyby with it's Merlin in full song. There's just nothing else like it.
I think deep down we all want to see them fly.
I know that there's a very real risk when any airplane is flown, but a museum is no perfect guarantee of safety either: the CWH hangar fire, Hurricane Andrew's impact on the Weeks Museum, and the damage done to Tom Reilly's outfit attest to that. Funding and zoning can change, federal regs can be altered to prohibit even the museum ownership of ex-military aircraft; complete safety is never guaranteed in life.
For myself, I'd like to see the air races at Reno move away from utilizing warbird airframes and engines and adopt "fresh sheet of paper" designs like the Pond Racer offered. I'd rather see fast, new aircraft fly than see more Merlins detonate or Bearcats get chewed to pieces on the desert floor.
N.
[/b]
I think when it comes to genuinely historic aircraft -- such as the Spirit of St. Louis, Bell X-1, or Enola Gay -- they should be preserved and not flown as they occupy unique moments in history. Few of the warbirds flying today have actual combat records having served in domestic training units or were manufactured late in the war and didn't see action, so they're more representative of the type than being historic combat veterans. That doesn't make them any less valuable or significant, but I think it provides more of a justification to keep them flying rather than grounding them.
I know that whenever I walk into an air museum I dearly wish I could see all of the collection's aircraft flying; just to see how they move through the air, how they sound, to see them in their natural element. Seeing them permanently grounded is like like looking upon a Stradivarius violin and never hearing a Mozart or Vivaldi concerto played on it: you might imagine what it's like to hear it but it's just not the same. Seeing an airplane in flight brings it and the experience alive.
When the CWH's Lancaster took flight, it fulfilled a lifelong dream of mine that I thought would never come true short of travelling to the U.K., nor did I ever imagine seeing a De Havilland Mosquito fly outside of a TV documentary or late-night showing of "633 Squadron" until I saw Kermit Weeks' B.35 at Hamilton one year, and I dearly hope I see another Mossie fly in Canada again in the future. I know my life would be poorer if I never saw another Mustang flyby with it's Merlin in full song. There's just nothing else like it.
I think deep down we all want to see them fly.
I know that there's a very real risk when any airplane is flown, but a museum is no perfect guarantee of safety either: the CWH hangar fire, Hurricane Andrew's impact on the Weeks Museum, and the damage done to Tom Reilly's outfit attest to that. Funding and zoning can change, federal regs can be altered to prohibit even the museum ownership of ex-military aircraft; complete safety is never guaranteed in life.
For myself, I'd like to see the air races at Reno move away from utilizing warbird airframes and engines and adopt "fresh sheet of paper" designs like the Pond Racer offered. I'd rather see fast, new aircraft fly than see more Merlins detonate or Bearcats get chewed to pieces on the desert floor.
N.
[/b]
Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:26 am
Neil,
I must say I concur with you on much of what you say. Not the least of which is the idea that for lack of a better, raw design, Mustangs, Bearcats, and all the rest will continue to run the pylons at Reno. But as I say this, I am advocating the use of alternatives rather than use up the availible airframes and engines. Fact is, aerodynamically, you can only push a P-51 or a Bearcat through the air so fast. It just isn't feasible to continually modify an airframe that was cutting edge stuff aerodynamically speaking back in the 1940's. It doesn't matter what engine you hang on the front. Originally, the Bearcat had a R-2800...Rare Bear has a R-3350 on it now. Where does it go from there ??
Additionally, I also agree, in my own heart at least, that for the most part, as someone stated here so eloquently, that these planes cannot be always viewed as stuffed animals.. they had a purpose yes..to be sure.
And finally, I think Rob said alot of it the best. I cannot put much more into his thoughts, as they are very well said.
Paul
I must say I concur with you on much of what you say. Not the least of which is the idea that for lack of a better, raw design, Mustangs, Bearcats, and all the rest will continue to run the pylons at Reno. But as I say this, I am advocating the use of alternatives rather than use up the availible airframes and engines. Fact is, aerodynamically, you can only push a P-51 or a Bearcat through the air so fast. It just isn't feasible to continually modify an airframe that was cutting edge stuff aerodynamically speaking back in the 1940's. It doesn't matter what engine you hang on the front. Originally, the Bearcat had a R-2800...Rare Bear has a R-3350 on it now. Where does it go from there ??
Additionally, I also agree, in my own heart at least, that for the most part, as someone stated here so eloquently, that these planes cannot be always viewed as stuffed animals.. they had a purpose yes..to be sure.
And finally, I think Rob said alot of it the best. I cannot put much more into his thoughts, as they are very well said.
Paul