Author Topic: HE-111 Crash (Read 785 times)

CyranoAH · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2003, 06:10:53 PM »

Pheeew easy there! It'd seem like I struck a cord there...

I was just pointing out MY concerns about their safety. Not yours. Not anybody else's.

I'm well aware of the tests. Visual inspections, magnaflux, x-rays if necessary, so please chill out and try to talk civilized. I think I have so far.

Daniel

hazed- · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2003, 06:18:02 PM »

All id say is for the truelly rare examples , i.e. if its the last of its kind they should be kept on the ground and simply taxied at airshows OR they only fly at the airbase they are kept at, flying these aircraft all over the US or Europe seems to be a foolhardy thing to do.After the recent spate of airshow crashes I too am questioning the safety aspect a bit. I think if an aircraft is funded by public donations or is owned by a museum it should be grounded as a peice of history that should be preserved for all but i wouldnt dream of denying a private owner the choice of whether to fly one or not.If there are 2 or more examples flying then i can think of no reason they shouldnt be flown even if the pilot is flying the most dangerous types and of course as long as his flight routes avoid civilian residential areas.

This particular crash is not only sad its also very annoying, the reason is I have never seen the He-111 in static or flying displays and now it seems i never will. Already many WW2 warbirds are lost forever to history and i cant condone people flying the very last example of any type we have left unless like bohdi says they are privately restored and owned (it is theirs to ly or not as they wish)but even then it seems an awfull risk to fly them like they often are at airshows.Today i went to duxford UK for a warbirds show and they were looping and diving around like madmen! This after 2 pilots died in a crash yesterday.
True it was exciting to watch but it wasnt always what i would deem 100% safe. A hurricane actually flew directly over our heads at one point and i always thought the idea was to fly over clear areas not the crowd.Im really torn on this though, I love to see and hear them fly, but i dont want them to dissapear forever either.Id accept them not flying if it meant our children and grandchildren will still be able to see them for years to come.
What we need to do is have more programmes like the me262 and fw190 ones that are building replicas and making the jigs and tools to produce many of the types.Replicas could fly the airshows and the originals could be kept safe in museums.I know its FAR more expensive to build them from scratch but hey there are many damn rich enthusiasts out there.

damn its hard.As i type this im still in two minds on the subject.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2003, 06:32:59 PM »

Hola Daniel,

I will have to disagree with you. Flyign day in and day out from Chino, those rare planes have more than their share of attention. As far as the parts getting rare, it's fairly irrelevant as they are ususally brand new, just fresh out of some metal shop.

As far as the structure is concerned, those planes are not that "complicated". I mean by this, there is no rocket science in the restauration process and on how to put everythign together rigth. Plus, metal sheets, ribs and rivets, a standard on "solidity".

Hey I'm way more concerned about doing aerobatics in my 1967 Cessna 150 inspected by a sunday mechanic than riding in any of Chino's museum bucket.

How often do you see a wing ripping of one of those WBs at airshows? It's usually pilot error, or engine failure (which alos happen "a lot" in General Aviation, but GA planes gliding way better, it's usually a less dramatic consequence).

CyranoAH · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2003, 06:41:25 PM »

I have to trust you guys because you have plenty of experience with this kind of birds, but (as I said) *I* had grown concerned after many experienced pilots talked me out of learning to fly the Bücker because they didn't trust the plane.

I guess that the problem is that not all warbirds are in the same state of conservation, and while some can be extremely airworthy, others may not.

Which takes me to the question: how can you be sure it a plane is trustworthy if you are not the one who has been working on it?

You have to trust the mechanics, the people working on its restoration... and if you don't know them that well... then it's 50/50 really. Therefore, I'm still thinking about it.

I'd love to fly old planes, but I'm not all that convinced they can be trusted 100% unless you personally work on them.

Daniel

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2003, 07:04:38 PM »

You know that new planes are not "safe" either right? It's not because they are out of the factory that nothing will happen to you.
Out of my head, a Malibu took of from Vero Beach couple of years ago, to be ferried to the owner, he went nose down at 700ft after take of. Something with the elevator control. From Vero, a guy from my school lost an engine in flight in a twin, while flying a brand new seminole that he just brought back to get checked.

It's aviation, men were not meant to fly ... it's not a "safe business".

Now Daniel, some planes have a reputatuion, probably what those old timers told you about. As far as I'm concerned, I will trust rivets and metal ANYDAY over the new composite planes.

CyranoAH · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2003, 07:38:48 PM »

Well most of the airplanes in the club are from the 60s-70s, so they are not exactly "new"

I concur with your opinion: some planes have a reputation and this must be one of those...

Thanks for the advice everybody. I might give the old Bücker a try... (I just learned you fly those with a parachute on)

Daniel