Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:59 pm
PhantomAce08 wrote:For MAPS!!! I promise I'll take care of it!
I surely hope so. It seems only fitting.
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:49 pm
Shay wrote:PhantomAce08 wrote:For MAPS!!! I promise I'll take care of it!
I surely hope so. It seems only fitting.
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Of course we want our collection to continually grow, but an FG-1D is what we REALLY REALLY REALLY would love to have.
As you said, "it only seems fitting"
Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:07 am
Too bad they couldn't have kept the original paint on #74. That was what was so special when I saw her at Walter's back in 1985. It was THE airplane and THE paint scheme all still there!
I'm sure it needed the clean-up and corrosion control, but oh, to have the original paint that she raced in really makes it historic.
It'll be a head-turn when finished, but outwardly, she forever just be a replica of the "original" #74.
Jerry
I'm sure it needed the clean-up and corrosion control, but oh, to have the original paint that she raced in really makes it historic.
It'll be a head-turn when finished, but outwardly, she forever just be a replica of the "original" #74.
Jerry
Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:34 am
A replica because it has new paint? I don't think so.
Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:18 pm
I know it's a static restoration, but are there any issues with #74 that would keep it from being a potential flier one day? It was exposed to the elements for quite some time.
Dante
Dante
Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:21 pm
I believe it's a perfect candidate for an airworthy restoration. I recall Bob Odegaard remarking about the suprising condition of the airframe when he first tore into it. I have delusions of the Crawford Museum cutting their losses and just selling the plane on to Bob. Imagine one man with both surviving F2G racers parked on his ramp at Kindred. A formation flight display would be a life fulfilling event!
Imagine one man with both surviving F2G racers parked on his ramp at Kindred. A formation flight display would be a life fulfilling event!
Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:44 pm
mustangdriver wrote:A replica because it has new paint? I don't think so.
I didn't say the aircraft would become a replica, just the paint on it.
My reference comes from my fomer position as an air museum Curator. Would you advocate stripping the paint off NASM's B-26 Marauder "Flak Bait" just so it looked brand spanking new?
That would be a crime.
The original paint, if salavgable, IS the outward identity of an aircraft. If it has been stripped and repainted, the paint on the aircraft is indeed a "replica" of it's former paint scheme, no matter how close or accurate it is in its execution. There are some amazing ways to "restore" original paint on aircraft today. I've seen her in person and "74" sure seemed to me to have most of her paint still intact.
I would've found the FG2, as a static museum aircraft, more interesting displayed in it's original, 1940's racing paint than as a cleaned up penny, painted copper.
This does not diminish the fact that I'm glad it is being preserved, restored and displayed indoors for all to see, regardless of new vs. old paint.
Thank you Walter Soplata!
My two cents. (painted copper or not!)
Blue skies,
Jerry
Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:36 pm
No I agree with you on what you say. I took what you said differently. That is all. I love when an aircraft can be restored and it's historic paint saved.
Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:31 pm
I talked with Bob one day at an airshow about buying #74, his words no way. Now that doesn't mean that he has changed his mind about but that would be very cool it was to come true. The work to be done on #74 from Bob was to be put back to static condition, was to put all plumbing back only if you would see. Clean it up and look nice. The rest of the parts would be sent back in a box.
Dave
Dave
Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:55 pm
So even though he's restoring it to static display, is he still doing all the nessasary work to make it a much easier task of bringing it back completely to flying condition?
Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:19 am
I believe that part of the deal in acquiring it from Walter was that it never be flown. I'm not sure if that was done in a legally binding way or not.
Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:40 pm
I also heard that not flying #74 was a condition of her sale to the Crawford; bit of a moot point since the Crawford doesn't fly their exhibits anyway. Makes sense from the Walt end, as Walt is vehemently opposed to rarities like the F2G being flown. What isn't flown can't crash, is Walt's view. Course were the Crawford to sell #74 to someone else, who knows how far along the ownership chain the agreement would remain binding?
As to the non-installation of many internals on #74, from what I remember seeing of the CAD renderings of the New Crawford a few years back when the project was full steam ahead, that makes sense too: the renderings showed the Corsair suspended from the ceiling, posed as though making a pylon turn at Cleveland...
S.
As to the non-installation of many internals on #74, from what I remember seeing of the CAD renderings of the New Crawford a few years back when the project was full steam ahead, that makes sense too: the renderings showed the Corsair suspended from the ceiling, posed as though making a pylon turn at Cleveland...
S.
Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:44 pm
I believe it was binding. Knowing Walter I think that was the only way he would have given it to them.
Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:50 pm
Steve T wrote:Makes sense from the Walt end, as Walt is vehemently opposed to rarities like the F2G being flown. What isn't flown can't crash, is Walt's view.
S.
Doesn't stop destruction from fires in museums!!
Jerry
Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:55 pm
That is very true. I think it is safe to say that more warbirds are involved in crashes while flying than in a museum fire.