Planes of Fame F6F from Chino Down

[Yeager]

let me go find the the young man who designed the engine cowling or the gal that riveted the tail section on.  Maybe the first pilot to lift off in one or the folks who wrote the maintenance or training materials.  Let me shroom back to 1941 and see what the deal is.......lets go find a brave airman who bagged 34 jap planes in a F6F and see if he thought they should all be ultimately destroyed? Because if they continue to be flown there will come a day when there are non left.  Copies/replicas have no comparable value when compared against the genuine artical....

Why would a replica F6F (if there is such a thing) be displayed in a museum while the INCREASINGLY rare vintage warbird is being flown into the ground at an average pace of 6 airframes per year......I guess there are some questions that have no logical answer.

[J_A_B]

"Why would a replica F6F (if there is such a thing) be displayed in a museum while the INCREASINGLY rare vintage warbird is being flown "

Simple enough.

How much do you suppose it costs to build a replica--or clean up a junked "real" airframe--that's suitable for static display?   Now, how much do you think it costs to build a replica that can actually fly?

People fly the "real" planes because it's cheaper than building a flight-worthy replica from scratch.

It's pretty cheap (by comparison) to slap together enough metal to look like an F6F and throw a coat of paint on it so it can sit and gather dust in some museum.  Why waste an actual airplane for what a cheap shell can do?  Why repair it in the first place if all it's going to do is sit and gather dust anyway?

Consigning a complex machine to a museum is in most cases little better than leaving it in a junkyard.  Time destroys them regardless.  I don't work with WW2 Warbirds, but I do work with vintage steam locomotives, and I know that putting an operational locomotive on "static display" usually amounts to its destruction.  It's just it gets destroyed gradually over decades instead of all at once.

It's kind of like putting your grandmother in a nursing home on life support instead of just letting her die.  You might feel better about yourself, but in reality all you accomplish is dragging our her suffering over 10 years instead of 10 weeks.

J_A_B

[Bodhi]

Yeager,  you're "opinion" does not make you right, and in this case it makes you the minority.

Maybe I need to add some all cap words in here to prove I am right.  

Either way, we will keep on rebuilding them, as well as flying them.

One question, say I find a wrecked airplane, that is written off, and will not fly again, more than likely will either rot away, or be ultimately scrapped.  Say I take said airframe and rebuild it, and fly it.

How is that wrong?

[GtoRA2]

Bodhi
 On average, how much of an aircraft it used in restoration?


I know thats prolly hard to answer since some are built from multible donor planes etc.


How many of these planes are on their 3rd or 4th rebuild?


If I ever win the lotery can I come work for you for free?

Will we reach a point were parts to keep then engines running will dry up?

[Yeager]

Bodhi, if my opinion does not agree with your opinion then that makes you wrong, more or less

And my being a minority, especially on this bsb, is a source of pride and dignity.....generally speaking

To answer your question:  If you find a rusty bolt in some jungle somehwere that used to belong to the flap hinge of a F6F and you fabricate an airplane around that bolt then by all means...go flying bro.

I am willing to bet that there are enough vintage F6Fs permanently grounded in museums around the world that the few that are left flying can be flown without threat of losing the entire lineage....but as long as those rare historic irreplacable vintage airplanes are flown they will continue to be destroyed.

I believe the FAA requires 75% of the original airframe remain in order for an airframe to be licensed as a vintage original airframe.....or something like that.

Ground those rare birds while they still exist.  Build the fakes and copies all you want,......fly em, crash em...have a blast but preserve the originals.

you know I am right, admit it.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Yeager

And my being a minority, especially on this bsb, is a source of pride and dignity.....generally speaking

 

anybody that sticks in a post has neither pride, or dignity.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

They were built to fly, loud and fast. A silenced and stilled warbird is an empty shell. There's a BIG difference between seeing one and seeing it FLY.

[Hangtime]

it's a hot dry dusty summer afternoon. The heat simmering off the cracked weed choked taxiway is palatable, visibly twisting the view towards the distant mountains. you scan the horizon towards the west, for that’s where it'll come from..

there..  a dot.

low.

thru the waves of heat mirage you discern nothing more at first.. you squint, ears straining for the sound, you lean a bit forward; hands now up to shade your eyes..

yes, this is it. it's coming. the fuselage, the sun glints off the silver leading edges, the canopy. it grows larger, draws closer, but still no sound.

but you can feel it.. the tarmac trembles. closer...

suddenly, it's all over you; there's a shuddering crescendo of energy, it's palatable you can see it, feel it, taste it, your pushed back physically half a step and the furious thunder of 2200 horsepower lands upon you like a surprise sandbag...

a flash of silver, wing dipped low, the mind takes the snapshot, the camera still hanging from your limp hand at your side.... and it's away, receding as fast as it came; trash and loose cans tumble across the taxiway in it's wake.

Warbird.

Nothin like it in the world.

Nothin.

Fly 'em, by god. Chaining glory to a hardstand is a crime.

Fly 'em.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Yeager
I believe the FAA requires 75% of the original airframe remain in order for an airframe to be licensed as a vintage original airframe.....or something like that.

WRONG (like the bold type?)  The aircraft's licensing is based on manufacture... plain and simple.

ie if I build it like the manufacturer did, then it's good to go provided I have a manufacturing license.

[SkyWolf]

Originally posted by Hangtime
anybody that sticks in a post has neither pride, or dignity.

That includes you too correct?

[Hangtime]

clicky

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Bodhi
WRONG (like the bold type?)  The aircraft's licensing is based on manufacture... plain and simple.

ie if I build it like the manufacturer did, then it's good to go provided I have a manufacturing license.

Would that be with an experimantal airworthyness certificate or could you go out & manufacture an F6F & uses it for commercial operations?  Not that I think there would be any profit in that, just wondering...

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Debonair
Would that be with an experimantal airworthyness certificate or could you go out & manufacture an F6F & uses it for commercial operations?  Not that I think there would be any profit in that, just wondering...

depends on the type certificate issued per aircraft...  F6f is  only issued the experimental category, as is the F4u, but the 38, 51, and a host of others fall into the limited or standard category.

[Yeager]

yes, just another smoking debris field....thats the ticket.

What I was refering to was the %75 original ingrediants required by the  International Association of Transportation Museum's standards for airframes displayed (flying or not) to be qualified as original.  Wasn't the FAA, my bad.

Like I said, if its an original, SAVE IT.  Make copies and CRASH THOSE INSTEAD.

Lord knows you can always find another pilot.......

Hang, you threatened by the inverted ballsack appearance of this latest smilie?

[Hangtime]

not at all. just seeing it next to the words 'pride' and in particular 'dignity' struck me as somewhat incongruous.

in·con·gru·ous  adj.
1. Lacking in harmony; incompatible
2. Not in agreement, as with principles; inconsistent
3. Not in keeping with what is correct, proper, or logical.