Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: wastel1 on July 16, 2005, 10:30:59 AM
-
..pilot is ok..
http://www.suedwest-aktiv.de/region/zak/freizeit/1701715/artikel.php?SWAID=4f554c5c882b00a93cbe56e1c82b46e8
dammit
wastel
-
Sad to see its messed up, but it is FAR from being destroyed.
-
jup..well..but THEY can't afford tu built it up again.
fuselage is a bit twisted and more ..guess 70-80% loose
-
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.
-
"Quick, use your empty beer cans to cushion the nose!"
-
Before the after...
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=3671&rating=yes (http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=3671&rating=yes)
p
o
p
g
u
n
...enough money can fix anything...
well...almost anything
-
idiots. Its one of what..one in the world.
I can understand why they fly ponys and maby spits. But why in hell would they fly probably the only 109g4 in the world.
-
What Pongo said.
I remember when in Wanaka airport (NZ) they showed me a Japanese Ki-?, the last one in flying conditions, but they could not fly it becouse it was the last one in the world.
-
@pongo,
it was their plane, they restaurated it in the last 10 years...so it is their privilege to fly them. all their work, no "official" museum or organization behind it.
and..it was not a 100% original 109G4.
their task was to built a flying! 109 ..and they did.
they used a G6 as basic, remooved the bulkes, and added the lager oil cooler for the later G/K series.
so..at all it was an "bastard" 109...and their own.
of course it is sad...but..planes are built for flying..not getting dusty in a museum.
but..its a sad loose..for all..but especially for them
-
exactly they should fly.
just like glacier girl the only flying original P38 G in the world.
What a waste if it didnt fly.
i noticed landing speed is pretty fast on that 109 btw.
-
i saw another video of that 109 flying, the pilot lost it coming over the top of an immelman turn and nearly pranged it then. i remember thinking to myself then that it was only a matter of time before it crashed.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
idiots. Its one of what..one in the world.
I can understand why they fly ponys and maby spits. But why in hell would they fly probably the only 109g4 in the world.
It isn't an original G-4...it's made from a Buchon.
I was going to go see it in the air on september at Hahnweide...that plan certainly got changed. :(
-
i wanna see the kittyhawk fly ! maybe add RATO to extend the flight! just collecting dust anyways.
-
Sad.
BTW, I didn't spot the slats being out at all :confused:
-
its a pity its messed up and part of me agrees with pongo, but a bigger part says if it was my bird I would have to fly it, not thrash it just fly it.....
There is a saying, someone has it as their sig here.
"The purpose of life is not to arrive quietly at your grave in a perfect and pristine body, but to come sliding in sideways, in a bent, banged up and scared carcass screaming HELL what a ride......"
I am not saying crash the plane but hell ya gotta fly the dam thing, not let it sit quietly in a museum slowly corroding away, cause at some point in the future its going to just fall apart even if it just sits there.
that is of course unless you put it in a block or resin
"Fly It" vs "109 In Resin" easy choice
Later all
-
Originally posted by mussie
I am not saying crash the plane but hell ya gotta fly the dam thing, not let it sit quietly in a museum slowly corroding away, cause at some point in the future its going to just fall apart even if it just sits there.
I agree that warbirds should be flown. But 109's are rare, they should keep as many of them as possible for future generations to wonder upon.
-
If I'd rebuilt it I know the temptation to fly it would be too great but originals belong in museums and only reproductions belong in the air.
-
I've had the fortune of seeing some 24 Spitfires in the air, - at the same time.
A Balbo!
Aren't there some 109's being rebuilt by now? (new)
-
Maybe they shoulda had a real pilot fly ;)
-
There are very few original warbirds left.
A good example is "Yellow 13". She is an original airframe and engine. They were intact enough that it needed to be cleaned up and a few parts rebuilt. The majority of the airframe is original.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
That fuselage certainly looks rebuildable. I wouldn't write it off totally. If they can't afford to do it they need to transfer it to someone who can. I've seen worse wrecks go back to the air and in the air is where it belongs. A scale 1 to 1 static model could be made to mount on a pylon for those like pongo to look at. Static display does not require a real airframe.
-
Originally posted by popgun
Before the after...
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=3671&rating=yes (http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=3671&rating=yes)
p
o
p
g
u
n
...enough money can fix anything...
well...almost anything
I almost cried after watching this clip. What a beautiful bird that was. :(
-
Tell ya what PISS OFF!
You guys are not the ones putting up a freaking dime to keep these original aircraft flying. The reason I say this, is because the people that do put ORIGINAL warbirds back in the air are not out there asking for handouts.
Flat out, there are VERY few original aircraft flying today, FLying Heritage has several, with more on the way, there are a few others that are also doing this same level of restoration, but VERY few.
So tell ya what, the next time you seem to think that it is you're right to tell an a/c owner that it isn't right for them to fly their a/c, pony up the 2 mil and MUCH more in most cases that it takes to restore a flying warbird.
-
Lick me.
The effort in rebuilding one of a kind historical artifacts is appreciated.
The vanity in playing flyboy in it and destroying it is silly.
More true for glacier girl then most.
I contributed to the rebuild, I get a say. Park the thing
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Lick me.
The effort in rebuilding one of a kind historical artifacts is appreciated.
The vanity in playing flyboy in it and destroying it is silly.
More true for glacier girl then most.
I contributed to the rebuild, I get a say. Park the thing
It's a tough argument. I can see both sides. I love to see them fly, but it makes me sick to see one go down.... sometimes taking a pretty great guy (Jeffery Ethel) with it.
The quality of most static displays is such that you couldn't fly them without a hugh capital outlay..... most flying examples are much more beautiful. Oh well... I'm not even sure what I'm babbling about.
Woof
-
Just very very frustrating when u have a good flying restored plane not allowed to fly.
Think about the difference saying" i saw on static in a museum" or i "wtf omg i saw one for real and flying" I bet the impression is something we should all deserve .
they belong in the air.
just don't think about the crashing.
-
Bodhi knows of what he speaks Pongo
do you restore warbirds for a living too Pongo?
why would anyone build a plane and not fly it? is it truly an "aircraft" if it cannot get into the air?
-
Park 'em.
Fly them all into the earth and what will happen? Better to have some static but flyable than all turned into Coors cans. I'd much rather look at them on the ground than look at them in a book.
And no one has more say so than the children who would one day like to see them whole, intact and not just hearing about them from daddy.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Bodhi knows of what he speaks Pongo
do you restore warbirds for a living too Pongo?
why would anyone build a plane and not fly it? is it truly an "aircraft" if it cannot get into the air?
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.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its just pure greed and like every other clown thats flying one.
Greed? Is that because it's so profitable to own, restore, maintain, and fly a warbird? I thought it was an expensive, money losing effort. Silly me.
Woof
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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 =)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :rofl :rofl :rofl
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.
-
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.
-
See Rule #4
-
Flugwerk does not make many copies. They make a FEW copies, and charge nearly 2 mil for them. For a copy. I know, I've drooled over them myself. How many years of R&D do you think it took them to build one? How many US politicians do you think would keep their jobs if they had to face their constituents who didnt get funded for this or that program, and tell them "I'm sorry, I had to appropriate 30 million this year to purchase, transport, and begin restoring a WWII fighter plane. But it will all be worth it when it goes up in the museum!"
They are also restoring a 109 btw. Links to pics on their website.
Oh, and I'm not arguing either way on the issue of parking or flying. I can see both sides, but I dont have any money in the pot so my opinion is worthless on the matter. I was just responding to the comment about Flugwerk making lots of copies of FWs.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Simon44
Yes I "advocate the taking of private property by government any time the government so desires"
Why don't you run for office? I can't believe the things that are coming out of your face. Do you even pay attention to yourself?
Woof
-
Originally posted by Simon44
By anyone's definition 12 is many.
No... that would be wrong tool... I mean too.
Woof
-
Yakovlev also made a new batch of Yak-3s with Allison engines (Yak-3UA) in the 1990s using the plans, tools, dies and fixtures of the original. They are available on the civilian market, and I'm sure Yakovlev would build more if someone wanted to buy.
(http://warbirdalley.com/images/yak3m-03.jpg)
This one flies in New Zeeland.
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
No... that would be wrong tool... I mean too.
Woof
12 warbirds is not many to you? How big a market do you think there is? We're not talking about marshmallows here.
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
Why don't you run for office? I can't believe the things that are coming out of your face. Do you even pay attention to yourself?
Woof
I don't care what you believe. Yes, perhaps I should run for office.
-
Until the recent Supreme Court decision the government just couldn't decide to grab someone's private property. The private property had to be needed for a pretty narrowly defined "public use".
A museum would be stretching "public use" pretty far, although the Court's recent (and IMO incorrect) decision on the 5th Amendment stretched public use farther than it has ever been stretched.
If you run, don't count on my vote. I can already see that won't happen.
The truth of it is that the government doesn't care a whit about old warbirds. There'd be very few to see at all if it was left to the government. But, like most governments, if a privately owned item appeals to the government, they'll devise a way to steal it from someone before doing the work to make one of their own.
-
See Rule #5
-
As opposed to the "we see it, we like it, we steal it" folks you appear to support.
Hmmmm... 14 posts. This is a shade account for what previous name?
I wonder who was recently banned.
-
Too many idiots post on here nowadays...
idiots with stupid opinions that are hell bent on trolling.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As opposed to the "we see it, we like it, we steal it" folks you appear to support.
You mean the guys currently in the SC? I didn't make the court ruling.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Simon44
Speak for yourself. And do it in the OT forums where you belong.
I think Bodhi is as qualified as anyone to post in this section, certainly more than you. Unless of course you make your living restoring and maintaining warbirds.
And it is advocating the government taking private property it is not entitled to that is off topic. Take a hike to the O'Club. You belong there.
-
See Rule #5
-
great, another shade acct to add to my ignore list!
Woot!
-
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.
-
I don't think you'll be seeing Simon44 in the O-Club.
He's Persona Non Grata in the name block now.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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
-
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.
-
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?
-
"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
-
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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
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
-
It's as if we left grandpa at a rocker chair at home to preserve his life even longer, he'll eventually die a pathetic death. WOuldn't you want your grandparents to go in a blaze of glory dirving a sports car right into a wall..jeez! :D
-
The second you start to restore a historical artifact you screw up the "ethic" of the object, and it's value to historians depreciates.
If a plane is going to be restored for flight or museums purposes the best thing the historians and/or techs and renovators can do, is record the living hell out of the object before they **** with it. If they don't then the value of the object as a historical artifact anyways.
In most museums they make sure to properly record the artificate before restoring in. I would be curious to know if Bodhi and his organistion does the same.
-
We Video log and still shoot everything along with comprehesive historical research and restoration using original materials.
Each part has a history as it is restored.
-
Outstanding Bodhi!
-
Beautiful aircraft! Shame to see it damaged.