bf109"Red 7" destroyed during landing accident!

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Krusty
Pretty nasty landing if the engine mounts broke free of the engine. Sometimes the engine mounts are all that's left of some wrecks, hate to think of how badly the plane hit to knock the engine off.

Given the torque issues 109s had, I wouldnt be surprised if the engine mounts broke on one.  There has to be alot of stress on them.

[Hornet33]

I've had the oppertunity to see Glacier Girl up close. She was at the Langley AFB airshow a few years ago. I was there to see her fly in, and to see and hear that plane in the air was impressive to say the least. She was on static display for the rest of the show and looked great on the ground. I enjoy seeing the originals fly as long as the pilots are carefull. I get a little worried when I see a warbird doing loops and roles for a crowd like it's a Pitts Special.

I say if they can fly, Fly Them carefully. If you want to fly them hard build a reproduction.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Pongo
But its not to do with freeing them from the ground so they can really be aircraft again or any such crap. Its just pure greed and like every other clown thats flying one.

You are so speaking out you're arse right now.

I know of several owners, especially owners of the top end 100%historical rebuilds that do not even fly the aircraft that they put up the money to rebuild.  There soul goal is to see that these aircraft are accurately and historically preserved so that future generations can see them fly.

Pongo, do not be arrogant and claim to know the motives of others in this business.  You're statement above shows you know very little about the warbird business, and you slander a lot of good people in this business through your own ignorance.

[Pongo]

"Tell ya what PISS OFF! "
who is arrogant?
Like I said fly the ponys and spits.
But very rare planes shouldnt be flown. Its just pure arrogance and the "look what I got greed" that leads to it.

Seems no one can keep a 109 in the air for a year without trashing it.

They are rebuilt so boy hood dreams of flying them can be relised by those who have the money to do so.
People can do what they want with thier mony, but flying priceless historical artifacts is just silly.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Pongo
"Tell ya what PISS OFF! "
who is arrogant?
Like I said fly the ponys and spits.
But very rare planes shouldnt be flown. Its just pure arrogance and the "look what I got greed" that leads to it.

Seems no one can keep a 109 in the air for a year without trashing it.

They are rebuilt so boy hood dreams of flying them can be relised by those who have the money to do so.
People can do what they want with thier mony, but flying priceless historical artifacts is just silly.

Pongo,

So, how come the owner was not flying Red 7, why doesn't Paul Allen fly any of his aircraft, or why doesn't Roy Schoeffner fly his 38?  According to you they restored these aircraft to satisfy their boyhood dreams of flying these aircraft....

You can insist with your "know-it-all" attittude all you like.  You are wrong, as everyone else here realises.  

In the end, you can rest assure that your opinion on this matter means squat and is arrogant trash talk.  We will continue to restore these aircraft and fly them.  We will never worry about you influencing it, as you will never have the money that it takes to restore one, let alone the tenacity to be able to work hard to fly one.  

So, like unlike you said before, you have No say.

[Howitzer]

Originally posted by Pongo
To preserve it as a historical arifact.
Have we ruled then that only people who rebuild aircraft for a living can have an opinion on thier use.
I contributed cash to the rebuilding of Glacier Girl. I thought that might give me some small amount of opinion on why it should be rebuilt.

Dont kid yourself. They are not rebuilt so that people can see them fly. They are rebuilt so that people can fly them.
Ya If I had the mony I would have some built for me too and I would fly them. But its not to do with freeing them from the ground so they can really be aircraft again or any such crap. Its just pure greed and like every other clown thats flying one.

I'm sorry pongo, I see your passion here, but I don't think that you have a valid argument.  The reason I say so is because you can go buy a Da Vinci, Rembrandt, or some other famous artist painting for millions of dollars at auction, take it home, and use it for kindling.  Is it a one of a kind piece of history?  Yup.  Did you just burn it to the ground?  Yup.  Is it a true crime?  Nope.  If a museum purchases these, then they can be safe and never fly, but if I spend MY money to restore it, maintain it, and fuel it, you bet I'm gonna fly it.  And if I can find working guns to put on it, you bet I'll build a toolshed just so I can destroy it  =)

[Simon44]

It may not be a crime in the US Howitzer, but in many other countries it would be. The wanton destruction of important historical artefacts whether you own them or not is a crime. Accidental destruction is another matter.

As for the park'em vs. fly'em argument: If it's (close to) original and one of a kind, park it for Christ' sake. A museum should own it, and if some rich mofo owns it, the government should expropriate it and give it to a museum. The rich mofo can fly a replica.

Replicas impress airshow crowds every bit as much as the originals.

This 109G-4 was not an original. It was beautiful and exciting to watch in the air, but its destruction was no big historical loss.

[Toad]

A very large percent of the people that actually own and pay for the restoration of warbirds are often not the pilots in command.

Realizing that the specialized skills required are not found in everyone, these people hire others to fly their aircraft.

Should they only be in museums? They already are. You'll find static examples of just about every warbird in a museum somewhere. How many of each type do we need to sit and be static forever? One? A hundred? How many would be enough?

Here's the reality of it: Most of what's left out there that is currently "unrestored" would not have been considered "rebuildable" 30 years ago. The "easy" ones have already been put together either as flying or static examples of type.

Now, the bad wrecks and heavily corroded examples that were ignored in years past are getting stacks and stacks of bucks spent on them to restore them to some semblance of the original.

So either the wrecks continue to rot away or somebody has to step up and pay the bill for restoration.

It's the golden rule; the guy with the gold makes the rules. If someone wants to restore one to flying condition and you don't think it should fly, I guess you can always buy it from him and park it in a museum. Otherwise, you don't get a vote.

I dropped a $50 in the Glacier Girl jar at Oshkosh one year. Nobody called me and asked me what I thought about it flying. I didn't think they would, either. I'd have told them to fly it anyway.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Simon44
and if some rich mofo owns it, the government should expropriate it and give it to a museum. The rich mofo can fly a replica.

Maybe the rich mofo governments should restore them to begin with. After all, they're the ones that destroyed thousands of them after the war.

[Simon44]

Originally posted by Toad
Should they only be in museums? They already are. You'll find static examples of just about every warbird in a museum somewhere. How many of each type do we need to sit and be static forever? One? A hundred? How many would be enough?

One. I made that very clear. There are plenty of WWII aircraft that you won't find on static display anywhere. Some aircraft are non-existent. Now if one were to find a single example of such a plane and restore it, it would be crime to fly it. If you have one original you can make a copy to fly in ... in fact you can make many copies.

[Simon44]

Originally posted by Toad
Maybe the rich mofo governments should restore them to begin with. After all, they're the ones that destroyed thousands of them after the war.

Expropriate means they would take it, but also pay for it. Yes the government should run museums and fund restorations. Our history is a big part of who and what we are as people, nations and as a world.

[Toad]

Actually, it doesn't necessarily mean they will pay for it.

ex·pro·pri·ate (ĕk-sprô'prç-ât')
tr.v., -at·ed, -at·ing, -ates.

To deprive of possession: expropriated the property owners who lived in the path of the new highway.

To transfer (another's property) to oneself.

So you advocate the taking of private property by government any time the government so desires?

Some government wants a -109? Let them go find one and either buy it or recover the crash and then restore it. I've got no problem with that plan.

But government just taking someone else's dream? I do have a problem with that, even if the government plans to pay for it.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Simon44
One. I made that very clear. There are plenty of WWII aircraft that you won't find on static display anywhere. Some aircraft are non-existent. Now if one were to find a single example of such a plane and restore it, it would be crime to fly it. If you have one original you can make a copy to fly in ... in fact you can make many copies.

Have you got ANY idea what it would cost to create a replica of the average warbird?

I think you need to look into it and find out what ONE average warbird costs. Then figure out how "easy" it would be to own one, and then spend 4 TIMES that amount to build a replica so you could fly it.

Make many copies?

And sell them to who? Lockheed sold P-38's to the USAAC for $95K in 1945. They built about 3000 of them that year. You figure out the economics of what they'd cost now.

Try this from http://www.courtesyaircraft.com:



WARBIRD - FIGHTERS
 
NEW N9837A CURTISS P-40E WARHAWK $1,300,000  

N51YS NORTH AMERICAN P-51D $1,195,000  

N201F NORTH AMERICAN P-51D $975,000  

N503PR SUPERMARINE SEAFIRE XV SOLD  

N909WJ GRUMMAN FM-2 WILDCAT $895,000  

N188BP DOUGLAS AD-5N SKYRAIDER* $495,000

N22518 NORTH AMERICAN P-64 * PENDING  



If they were cheap and easy to duplicate, there'd be a lot more of them out there.

Go ask Mr. Roy (the man who paid the majority of the bills for "Glacier Girl") if he could afford to build another one from scratch.

What about all the people who love the planes? If the planes stay in museums, a lot of people will never see them.

Ain't it funny how people who have NO MONEY INVOLVED like to tell the people who spent the money what to do with what they bought? Sounds like big government stealing to me.

[Simon44]

Originally posted by Toad
Actually, it doesn't necessarily mean they will pay for it.



So you advocate the taking of private property by government any time the government so desires?

By the legal definition, yes it means they have to pay for it. Yes I "advocate the taking of private property by government any time the government so desires", and so does ... the US government. In the US the government, be it city state or federal can expropriate any privately owned property at will, but by law they have to pay market value for it.

[Simon44]

See Rule #4