Moonlight wrote:
mustangdriver wrote:
It is the last of it's type there fore it shouldn't be flown.
I'm SO glad that this mentality doesn't infect everyone in the warbird community. The fact that something is the last remaining example of it's kind SHOULD mean that it belongs in the air, IMO. Doc Sugden's FJ-4B, for example.
I wonder what those who own one-of-a-kind machines would think...
I suggest you ask the English forumites about a Bristol Bulldog? and hear their opinion.
I am actually glad this "mentality" DOES infect most people involved in aviation heritage.
Ideally, we should be trying to retain at least one example (and ideally at least two) of each of these aircraft to be preserved for posterity, that cannot easily be achieved via a sole flying example, as there is the constant risk of damage:
Ground engine fire - B-29 "Kee Bird"
Air to Air Collision - Meteor/Vampire "Vintage Pair"
mid air breakup - Jet Provost (Australia)
ground impact- Bulldog & numerous others.
Fatigue / wear and tear - replacement/substitution of original parts.
That is not to say we shouldnt fly "rare" examples, but when they are the "sole" survivor we are risking loss of an irreplaceble artefact and making a type "extinct".
Of course if we loose a "sole survivor" the remains could simply be "rebuilt" with enough drawings and new metal, but then it wouldnt really be authentic and orginal, it would be a "recreation", and if that can be done, why not build a "recreation" or short run production of flying "recreations" and avoid damaging the "sole" survivor?
In fact that approach has already successfully been undertaken and has seen F3F's , FW190's, Me 262's and Oscars return to our skies without the need to withdraw a rare survivor from a museum and risk it back in the air.
Flying Warbirds do have an important role to play in the demonstration, education, commemoration and preservation of aviation heritage, but so too do static examples conserved or preserved for future generations, and collections of static examples gathered into a major museum for current and future generations is something to be supported, celebrated and appreciated, not denigrated.
In regards to the recent A-25 dis-assembly and transport, it is clear that activity could have been achieved with less risk of damage and destruction of structure, however the apparant "errors" of some individuals should not be used to undermine the achievements and worth of the whole organisation or its collection.
I am sure if we are all have concerns over this situation following review of these pictures, so too do senior management at the museum, an I am confident some corrective action will be taken.
In anycase I suspect the museum will "pay" for the mistake in the form of additional restoration and repair over an above the work yet uncompleted, and that the finished product will be to their usual high standard.
I also cringe when similar critisism is levelled at the CAF for their losses and mistakes over the years, without commentry and acknowledgement of their successes and achievements over that same very long time, and the major role they have played in developing the Warbird environment we all enjoy today.
I admire and applaud the efforts and achievements of both organisations.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Volkswagons with wings, I say.
