Author Topic: Planes of Fame F6F from Chino Down (Read 2620 times)

J_A_B · « **Reply #90 on:** October 14, 2005, 03:07:34 PM »

"To see a 150 year old running steam engine, to see a flying warbird, to see a model T travelling down the boulevard, to see a three masted schooner under full sail..."

And tragically, all of the above are threatened by government buffoons and an out-of-control insurance industry.

J_A_B

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #91 on:** October 14, 2005, 03:41:16 PM »

Doesn’t the Smithsonian have a whole warehouse full of old WW2 planes they have not touched and are basicaly rotting away?

There are enough planes in museums, even the loss of all the ones in private hands would not mean lost history.

Debonair · « **Reply #92 on:** October 14, 2005, 03:50:06 PM »

A large fraction of what used to be in Air & Space's warehouses in Maryland is at the new Air & Space out by Dulles. Still a lot of nice aircraft in pieces in the warehouses, though

icemaw · « **Reply #93 on:** October 14, 2005, 03:59:20 PM »

To hijack this thread about this terrible loss of unreplaceable human life and loss of an historic aircraft for your own soap boxing is just wrong.

Yeager · « **Reply #94 on:** October 14, 2005, 04:10:36 PM »

pass the soap......

Shuckins · « **Reply #95 on:** October 14, 2005, 05:03:05 PM »

Nothing compares to the sight and sound of a vintage WWII warbird in flight.

I must confess that I am torn between the two sides of this argument. While I do not wish to be deprived of the privilege of witnessing such a magnificent spectacle, there is no denying the fact that the Planes of Fame F6F-5 is irretrievably lost. There is also no denying the fact that as long as these planes are flown they will continue to fall victim to the laws of inevitability.

The day is rapidly approaching, if it is not already upon us, when we as aviation enthusiasts will have to make a painful decision. Do we continue to fly them until NOTHING is left of that generation of historic aircraft? Or do we make some attempt to preserve the final remnant for posterity.

As sad as the reality is, I think we are going to be forced to place these aircraft in museums. If we wish to continue to enjoy the sights and sounds of historic warbirds, then we will have to contribute our money and time into efforts to have them reverse engineered and fully functional replicas constructed.

If we're going to preserve ANYTHING I do not think we have any other choice.

Hangtime · « **Reply #96 on:** October 14, 2005, 05:43:39 PM »

This ain't a 'we' question. It's a 'you' question.

If YOU wan't to buy up all the flyable WWII aircraft and store them in static displays, you are welcome to do so.

Meanwhile, the actual owners of those aircraft are fully justified in telling anybody that want's to infringe on their rights of property to go **** themselves.

Shuckins · « **Reply #97 on:** October 14, 2005, 06:00:13 PM »

There is a vast difference, Hangtime, between owning property and owning a national heritage.

While I cherish the right to do with one's property as one wishes, should we sit idly by while wealthy individuals or groups buy up these exceedingly scarce and tired airframes, spend large amounts of money restoring them, and then flying them until the inevitable happens?

I think not...for we are rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Aviation enthusiasts should make every effort to encourage the owners to ground these aircraft as much as possible. No expense should be spared to engineer and build new replacements for the originals.

If you simply MUST see a WWII aircraft...why wouldn't a fully functioning replica work just as well?

Hangtime · « **Reply #98 on:** October 14, 2005, 07:22:03 PM »

It's not your decision, nor your right to decide. You don't own it.

And this is a current big problem with this gawdamned society.. just what in hell gives you or anybody else the right to decide dispostion of property owned by private citizens?

The gall of deciding for the owner of an aircraft that was once used to settle the pressing question of liberty.. jesus; have we already surrendered our rights as citizens to others who have no vested inerest in that proprety?

Our government already owns examples of those airplanes, displayed at national museums.. why do you feel you have a right to ursurp the property rights of private citizens? Greed? Envy? Dangerous small minded self important little people deciding for others with the means and skills to obtain their lifelong dreams are shut down, their property nutered and reduced in esoteric and real value for WHAT purpose again?

I don't give a good gawdamned how valuable anybody thinks my 70 year old spam can is to 'society'.. It's my damn spam can, and if I wanna to eat it, I'm gonna. If I decide to buy all the picasso's I can get my hands on and burn them in my furnace, tell me.. aside from my poor taste in furnace fuel, whatcha gotta say about it? There's plenty of perfect fakes out there already...

If what folks are REALLY upset about is the potential 'waste'.. too damn bad. If they wanna protect all the picasso's and spam can's, then pool yer money & buy 'em up and 'protect' 'em. If your government decides to sell it's planes outta the smithsonian, protest. But keep yer small minded jealous little breaucrats the hell outta private citizens personal business with their personal property.

Shuckins · « **Reply #99 on:** October 14, 2005, 07:59:02 PM »

The 'ell's the matter with people on these boards? Can't we carry on a civil discourse anymore?

Guess it was a bit hard to fathom the points I was trying to make in my posts while looking through all that red mist.

At NO time did I suggest that the government should TAKE AWAY those aircraft from their owners. I SAID that we should ENCOURAGE them to keep them on the ground as much as possible.

You're built too low to the ground son...that one just flew right over your head. You got a hole in your glove...I keep pitchin' em and you keep missin' em. You gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye! Ball! I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is.

Dnil · « **Reply #100 on:** October 14, 2005, 08:21:37 PM »

the problem is they arent flown enough. engines like to run, not sit.

Blame the insurance companies where planes are sometimes only insured for a couple flights.

I was at the airshow where the last regularly flown A-20 crashed. This was back in the mid 80s or so. At the time I think it was the only flyable one left. Now we have at least 1 flyable, but not flown and 4-5 more being restored to fly. Thats a big increase from zero. Now if these werent being made to fly they wouldnt be restored at all. So thank the owners who want to fly for adding more A-20s to the world.

Hangtime · « **Reply #101 on:** October 14, 2005, 08:21:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
The 'ell's the matter with people on these boards? Can't we carry on a civil discourse anymore?

Guess it was a bit hard to fathom the points I was trying to make in my posts while looking through all that red mist.

At NO time did I suggest that the government should TAKE AWAY those aircraft from their owners. I SAID that we should ENCOURAGE them to keep them on the ground as much as possible.

You're built too low to the ground son...that one just flew right over your head. You got a hole in your glove...I keep pitchin' em and you keep missin' em. You gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye! Ball! I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is.

Well, I din't call yah a pinhead.

For me, that's exceedingly civil.

Q:.. just how would you 'encourage' the owner to ground his aircraft? Tax his ass? Pull his ticket for medical review? Make him submit a 4" thick pile of 'special flight' applications and raise his insurance rates?

Ain't this how we lost the right to bear arms.. by making it unbearable for the average guy to navigate the regulations, pay the taxes?

'Sure you can fly your warbird, once you complete the paperwork.'

(hands over the 4" thick pile of forms)

"Your Application and Special Use Fee Payment?"

(hands over $5,000 check)

"Thank you. Lets inspect the aircraft now, shall we? Oh, my; such a shame. Your valve caps don't have an an FAA exemption. We'll have to impound your aircraft. So sorry."

AND THEY ALREADY GET AWAY WITH THIS KIND OF CRAP RIGHT NOW!!![/I]

Yer a disgrace to the state of Arkansas, and a poor excuse for an American to advocate any infringement on the rights of the people to pusue their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness with thier own personal property.

So, what are your intrests really? PC Nanny State BS your thing? Or are you really an american citizen, on guard against the infringements of the rights of your fellow citizens?

Think 'civilly' about your reply.

Shuckins · « **Reply #102 on:** October 14, 2005, 08:49:51 PM »

I hardly think that attempts to encourage vintage aircraft owners to restrict their flying time will result in the downfall of the Republic.

Hangtime · « **Reply #103 on:** October 14, 2005, 09:31:26 PM »

just a little bit at a time.. suspend a small right here, infringe a little on personal liberty there...

Shukins, that's just wrong. Your part of the problem.. and that's a damn shame because the folks that SHOULD have their rights infringed upon are folks like you, folks that think it's no big deal to make others pay the price for your perfidity with regards to the rights of Americans.

One day, it will be your property they come for.

Yeager · « **Reply #104 on:** October 14, 2005, 09:44:16 PM »

EMINENT DOMAIN!!!

ALL YOUR WARBIRDS ARE BELONG TO US!!!!!!!