bf109"Red 7" destroyed during landing accident!

[Bodhi]

great, another shade acct to add to my ignore list!

Woot!

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Simon44
What part of your post is "on topic"? Will you join me in the OT forum?

Didn't think so. In fact you made the first post in this thread that I consider a "troll". Not to mention your idiocies on warbird reproduction.

My first post is a "troll"? HA! Thanks for the laugh. Evidently
you have NO idea what a troll is. I stated facts and showed
evidence to back it up. That ain't no troll.

I'll be in the O'Club if you look. And I know more about manufacturing than you think. Especially aircraft and
high performance. I worked in an aircraft plant, and a
sheetmetal fabrication plant. Not to mention 25+ years
in the high performance engine line. I worked on my first
Allison V-1710 about 25 years ago in fact.

Come on in to the O'Club hotshot, I'm pretty well known there.
I won't be hard to find at all.

[Toad]

I don't think you'll be seeing Simon44 in the O-Club.

He's Persona Non Grata in the name block now.

[J_A_B]

If it's just sitting in a museum gathering dust, who cares if it's "original" or not?  Heck, the planes hanging from the rafters could be cardboard cutouts for all most people could care (or notice).   I gaurantee your average 6-year-old kid doesn't care whether the hollowed-out "cool airplane" gathering dust in aisle 12 was an original or a reproduction, so the argument of "saving them for the kids" holds no water.

For the most part (exceptions exist), the full-time static museum displays are junk.  If they aren't junk when they go on display, a couple decades of inactivity and neglect will do the job.  Use the actual repairable airplanes for flying, and once those are used up, people will build new ones (replicas), much as replica WW1 biplanes exist.  Are you REALLY doing a service to the memory by preserving an abused, parted out dented piece of junk just because what's left of it is "original"?

It doesn't matter if the airframe is "original" or not.  Who cares if the plane flying overhead had its main spar manufactured in 1945 or 2005?  What counts is that it's flying and living and doing a heck of a lot more than rotting away in a dusty hangar.

J_A_B

[BUG_EAF322]

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.

Just be thankful some people restaurate a plane.

Stick money into it.

Alot of effort.

Than some joker says dont destroy it or u be jailed.

Without those people there wouldn't be a glacier girl it would be still under ice with noone who cares.

It think the organisation that recovered have to speak for their own.
It was was their effort and anyone who think otherwise just should get out of the totally tubular way.

What would happen if the gouvernment takes away glacier girl and put it in a museum would this motivate future recoverers.???

think more sigh.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by J_A_B
If it's just sitting in a museum gathering dust, who cares if it's "original" or not?  Heck, the planes hanging from the rafters could be cardboard cutouts for all most people could care (or notice).   I gaurantee your average 6-year-old kid doesn't care whether the hollowed-out "cool airplane" gathering dust in aisle 12 was an original or a reproduction, so the argument of "saving them for the kids" holds no water.

For the most part (exceptions exist), the full-time static museum displays are junk.  If they aren't junk when they go on display, a couple decades of inactivity and neglect will do the job.  Use the actual repairable airplanes for flying, and once those are used up, people will build new ones (replicas), much as replica WW1 biplanes exist.  Are you REALLY doing a service to the memory by preserving an abused, parted out dented piece of junk just because what's left of it is "original"?

It doesn't matter if the airframe is "original" or not.  Who cares if the plane flying overhead had its main spar manufactured in 1945 or 2005?  What counts is that it's flying and living and doing a heck of a lot more than rotting away in a dusty hangar.

J_A_B

Complete poppycock.  You sir, would rather see history up for sale rather than be preserved for future generations...and that is sad...so, so sad.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Toad
I don't think you'll be seeing Simon44 in the O-Club.

He's Persona Non Grata in the name block now.

Yeah. Besides, I doubt he'd go anyway. If he'd ever been, he'd have known I'd already been there. Plenty. Looks like a mole got whacked.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Complete poppycock.  You sir, would rather see history up for sale rather than be preserved for future generations...and that is sad...so, so sad.

Having known J_A_B for about a decade, I can say for certain you do not understand him at all.

Besides, outside of P-51's, most of the really desireable planes are so expensive that unless you bought it 40 years ago, like Lefty Gardner or Bruce Pruett, you need $10 MILLION in disposable income to own one. You MIGHT could rebuild the average rough wreck for 4-5 million, but it takes a HUGE amount to fly it when you're done. A CHEAP MOH (Major OverHaul) on a Merlin or Allison is over $50K. The props cost more to do a major on than both engines in your average twin private. They use 55 GALLONS of oil at every oil change. They require 140 AvGas, at around $4-$5 a gallon, and it takes 200 gallons to have enough to have a good time. Most owners have to PAY a couple of high priced A/P guys to maintain the plane otherwise, just regular maintanence.

Mr Roy, who owns "Glacier Girl" not only pays all of Steve Hinton's expenses to fly the plane wherever it goes, but he also pays Bob Cardin at least $50K a year just to OVERSEE the operation, which includes a small hangar/museum. Who knows what he has to pay LLOYD'S of LONDON for insurance premiums. He's got 4 MILLION plus in the plane, recovery, and restoration. That man shares that plane with the WORLD for FREE. Last time I saw her, I paid about $10 to get into a show that also had about 5-6 Planes of Fame planes as well, not to mention a dozen other planes. Mr. Roy does it because he loves that bird, and loves to share her with everyone. There ain't no museum or government agency that would do what he does. I've talked to the man for an hour and seen the sparkle in his eye and the joy in his heart when he shares that plane with people. Were it not for him, and people like him, those planes (ALL of them) would not be there for people to see, because no museum or government agency could spend the time or money that private owners can and will spend to keep them all around and recover and restore more of them for YOU to see and enjoy.

If some goverment agency tried to take that plane from Mr Roy, I can assure you that the next revolution/civil war would start in Middlesboro Kentucky, and the line to join the militia to defend him and his plane starts BEHIND me. And I bet I'll have no trouble finding volunteers. Thank God we have the EAA to help keep the planes flying and the government morons at bay.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Having known J_A_B for about a decade, I can say for certain you do not understand him at all.

Besides, outside of P-51's, most of the really desireable planes are so expensive that unless you bought it 40 years ago, like Lefty Gardner or Bruce Pruett, you need $10 MILLION in disposable income to own one. You MIGHT could rebuild the average rough wreck for 4-5 million, but it takes a HUGE amount to fly it when you're done. A CHEAP MOH (Major OverHaul) on a Merlin or Allison is over $50K. The props cost more to do a major on than both engines in your average twin private. They use 55 GALLONS of oil at every oil change. They require 140 AvGas, at around $4-$5 a gallon, and it takes 200 gallons to have enough to have a good time. Most owners have to PAY a couple of high priced A/P guys to maintain the plane otherwise, just regular maintanence.

Mr Roy, who owns "Glacier Girl" not only pays all of Steve Hinton's expenses to fly the plane wherever it goes, but he also pays Bob Cardin at least $50K a year just to OVERSEE the operation, which includes a small hangar/museum. Who knows what he has to pay LLOYD'S of LONDON for insurance premiums. He's got 4 MILLION plus in the plane, recovery, and restoration. That man shares that plane with the WORLD for FREE. Last time I saw her, I paid about $10 to get into a show that also had about 5-6 Planes of Fame planes as well, not to mention a dozen other planes. Mr. Roy does it because he loves that bird, and loves to share her with everyone. There ain't no museum or government agency that would do what he does. I've talked to the man for an hour and seen the sparkle in his eye and the joy in his heart when he shares that plane with people. Were it not for him, and people like him, those planes (ALL of them) would not be there for people to see, because no museum or government agency could spend the time or money that private owners can and will spend to keep them all around and recover and restore more of them for YOU to see and enjoy.

If some goverment agency tried to take that plane from Mr Roy, I can assure you that the next revolution/civil war would start in Middlesboro Kentucky, and the line to join the militia to defend him and his plane starts BEHIND me. And I bet I'll have no trouble finding volunteers. Thank God we have the EAA to help keep the planes flying and the government morons at bay.

And you seem to misunderstand me.  I in no way am supporting any type of government mandate on historical artifacts.  Merely supposing the simple fact that JAB's comment had very little to do the with respecting of said artifacts.  I am merely stating opinion, do not think that I am making a statement that I would like to see become a rule, or law.  Some opinions in this thread state "fly 'em" while mine is the opposite.  

Will I continue to go to airshows?  Damn skippy.  Will I go if there are no authentic vintage aircraft there?  Damn skippy.  Would I prefer them not to fly them for the preservation of the actual aircraft for future generations to admire?  You bet your bellybutton I do.

[J_A_B]

"Merely supposing the simple fact that JAB's comment had very little to do the with respecting of said artifacts."

Take a good look at a lot of museum airplanes sometime (or automobiles or locomotives or most large pieces of machinery on static display).  You'll find that many of them are little more than rotting hollowed-out hulks with "jane loves billy, 1974" scrawled on the interior in faded red lipstick.  Is that "respecting the artifacts"?  What good is having an original airplane, if it's only half a plane and can't fly?  Or, in an area in which I have some personal experience, how "respectiful" is it to an old locomotive to leave it rusting on a siding, stripped of running gear with the firedoor welded shut just so local hoodlums can strip off anything they can to sell on Ebay?   "Plane-on-a-pole" or hanging from the hangar rafters is just as bad.

Sometimes, the scrapyard has more dignity.

There are a few museums with access to the funding and dedicated staff required to actually maintain their exhibits in reasonable condition.  The vast majority do not.  Even in the case of the few well-kept exhibits, they're still silent and lifeless and tend to gradually decay over time.  Static display is nothing that can't be done with a cardboard cutout....or by pictures in a book.  Either way, it's a lifeless picture and little more.  It isn't like a static display is suddenly immune to destruction....a hangar fire can take out "the last original plane X" just as easily as a crash can.

For the most part the planes that are truly loved and respected are the ones that are flying.  These are the real airplanes, the living, breathing, loved and respected ones.  These are the ones that people want to see and the kids love--they're big, they're loud, and they do a heck of a lot more than just sit there.  They also cost a hell of a lot to operate, but Savage made a much better post about the economics of flying a WW2 warbird than I could ever write.


In the end, there's also the truth that *most* crashed crashed airplanes can be rebuilt into something fit for static display.  A crashed Me-109 doesn't mean the entire airframe is completely lost forever.  Fly them while you can, because one day there won't be any left in flying condition, whether you try to "protect" them or not.


J_A_B

[Bodhi]

I have watched more "museums" allow perfect examples of historic aircraft rot awawy until there is almost nothing left.  That in my eyes is a crime.  As for flying historic representations, I am all for it, especially when private citizens foot the bill, hell if we wait for the government to do it, we will wait until nothing is left.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by J_A_B
"Merely supposing the simple fact that JAB's comment had very little to do the with respecting of said artifacts."

Take a good look at a lot of museum airplanes sometime (or automobiles or locomotives or most large pieces of machinery on static display).  You'll find that many of them are little more than rotting hollowed-out hulks with "jane loves billy, 1974" scrawled on the interior in faded red lipstick.  Is that "respecting the artifacts"?  What good is having an original airplane, if it's only half a plane and can't fly?  Or, in an area in which I have some personal experience, how "respectiful" is it to an old locomotive to leave it rusting on a siding, stripped of running gear with the firedoor welded shut just so local hoodlums can strip off anything they can to sell on Ebay?   "Plane-on-a-pole" or hanging from the hangar rafters is just as bad.

Sometimes, the scrapyard has more dignity.

There are a few museums with access to the funding and dedicated staff required to actually maintain their exhibits in reasonable condition.  The vast majority do not.  Even in the case of the few well-kept exhibits, they're still silent and lifeless and tend to gradually decay over time.  Static display is nothing that can't be done with a cardboard cutout....or by pictures in a book.  Either way, it's a lifeless picture and little more.  It isn't like a static display is suddenly immune to destruction....a hangar fire can take out "the last original plane X" just as easily as a crash can.

For the most part the planes that are truly loved and respected are the ones that are flying.  These are the real airplanes, the living, breathing, loved and respected ones.  These are the ones that people want to see and the kids love--they're big, they're loud, and they do a heck of a lot more than just sit there.  They also cost a hell of a lot to operate, but Savage made a much better post about the economics of flying a WW2 warbird than I could ever write.


In the end, there's also the truth that *most* crashed crashed airplanes can be rebuilt into something fit for static display.  A crashed Me-109 doesn't mean the entire airframe is completely lost forever.  Fly them while you can, because one day there won't be any left in flying condition, whether you try to "protect" them or not.


J_A_B

Again, you miss my point.  *sighs*

To make it as simple as possible:

I would PREFER them not to be flown.  Am I saying that they MUST be grounded?  No.  

And, for the record, I have never stated anything about government intrusion on historical aircraft.  That would be the worst case scenario of all.

Is that simple enough?

[J_A_B]

"I would PREFER them not to be flown. Am I saying that they MUST be grounded? No. "

You made the claim that leaving them grounded is somehow respectful.  In a perfect world that may be true.

My counter-claim is that in the real world it usually isn't.  All too often, grounded airplanes have a way of turning into neglected junk.

In other words, would you would "prefer" would in many cases result in their destruction.  This is what I'm trying to tell you.  Fly them and risk crashing, or leave them to rot away in hangars...either way, they won't be around forever.

If you're interested in preserving them as safely as possible, do you feel that these Warbirds should not be permitted to be kept in states like Florida?  Look at all the near-misses Kermit Weeks' museum has sustained as an example.  It's only a matter of time before their luck runs out.  


J_A_B

[DiabloTX]

You made the claim that leaving them grounded is somehow respectful. In a perfect world that may be true.

Again, I've made no such claim.  It was merely an opinion.  But if you want to keep thinking that I said that by all means, keep going.

In other words, would you would "prefer" would in many cases result in their destruction.

Well, better chances exists that they will be destroyed if they keep flying all of them.  What better example that this?  Can it be rebuilt?  Sure.  But what the hell, let's just keep em all in the air it's quite obvious they're safer up there.

If you're interested in preserving them as safely as possible, do you feel that these Warbirds should not be permitted to be kept in states like Florida?

Oh heavens no, any state that is a candidate for a natural disaster is out of the question, completely.  

I find it rather humurous that you take such a hard-line stance on the issue.  I merely stated an opinion and you react as though the worst thing in the world would be to, gasp, put them in a museum.  After all, flying them is such a better guarantee of their continued existance.  I am pretty sure there are some museums out there that do a great job of preserving them, others not so good.  But as you said, in a perfect world...there'd be no crashes.

[J_A_B]

I'm not saying they'll last forever if you fly 'em....I'm saying one day they'll be gone (or reduced to un-flyable junk) regardless, so fly them while you can.

J_A_B