Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:45 am
Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:58 am
Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:14 am
Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:10 am
Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:36 am
Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:29 am
JDK wrote:You missed 'Should have stayed in England because flying over water risks a pilot's life and is too dangerous.'
Oh, I forgot, that only applies to OUT of the USA, not IN.![]()
Glad to see another warbird still flying. Don't care where.
Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:17 pm
JDK wrote:You missed 'Should have stayed in England because flying over water risks a pilot's life and is too dangerous.'
Oh, I forgot, that only applies to OUT of the USA, not IN.![]()
Glad to see another warbird still flying. Don't care where.
Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:52 pm
Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:30 pm
mike furline wrote:JDK wrote:You missed 'Should have stayed in England because flying over water risks a pilot's life and is too dangerous.'
Oh, I forgot, that only applies to OUT of the USA, not IN.![]()
Glad to see another warbird still flying. Don't care where.
Bitter?
Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:46 pm
Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:52 pm
rwdfresno wrote:Probably because of the highly superior round shaped engine.
Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:03 pm
Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:03 pm
mustangdriver wrote:Actually I knew nothing about it, or I would have said something. I still don't think that it is a good idea. I have my pilot's license, years of flight training, and a strong opinion. I know people and companies that have modern equipment that is multi, and don't like to fly over the great lakes let alone the ocean in a 60+ year old airplane. I don't feel like starting into this debate again, so I won't.
Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:16 pm
JDK wrote:You missed 'Should have stayed in England because flying over water risks a pilot's life and is too dangerous.'
Oh, I forgot, that only applies to OUT of the USA, not IN.![]()
Glad to see another warbird still flying. Don't care where.