lotus49 wrote: "The idea of trying to fly an "authentic" Spirit of St. Louis replica across the Atlantic makes about as much sense as the guy in England who strapped his nine year old grandson to the top wing of his airshow Stearman just so the kid could become the youngest wing walker ever and the pilot could become the dumbest grandparent in history."
I am not sure that they are the same thing.
Whats the difference between someone building an Authentic Spirit, and someone rebuilding a specific warbird with intent to fly it in the same manner as the original?
Now I would agree what does a second crossing prove? well nothing, its been done, but if nothing else it would allow full documentation of the crossing which was not available at the time of the original effort. Film, photos, etc, in other words allowing more to appreciate the original accomplishment.
I was quite interested in this project, so its a real shame to see it all fall apart, and I am not sure what will happen to the separated parts?
I think they are the same thing in that both ideas, flying a J-5 powered NYP replica across the Atlantic and strapping a small child onto the wing of a Stearman both seem like needlessly risky ideas. Flying an authentic NYP replica over the ground would be an understandable and interesting goal. Charles Lindbergh did some amazing things with the Spirit of St. Louis once it was back in the U.S. but remember, it came back from Europe by steamship.
What's the difference? Well, for one thing, the Wright J-5 is considered by most antique aircraft owners to be a somewhat "risky" engine. On the other hand, many WWII era warbird engines are even by today's standards, pretty darn reliable if they are overhauled and operated properly. From my point of view, it's mostly an issue of engine technology. The problem is gravity. As far as I know, nobody has left one up there yet.
As far as "someone rebuilding a specific warbird with intent to fly it in the same manner as the original?", well I guess it just depends on how far somebody wants to push that issue. Unless the federal regs have changed in the last few years, in theory it would still be legal in many states to re-arm a restored Bf-109 providing you legally owned the guns and cannon. Still, I don't see Paul Allen sending his 109 up to shoot down the Colliings B-17 and B-24 the next time they visit Seattle. However, that would be flying the 109 in the "same manner as the original" right? 
|
