Warbird Information Exchange

I had to start a new thread to fully explain this topic. How would you feel if rare aircraft such as "Flak Bait", Enola Gay", "The Swoose", Memphis belle" etc. could be restored to flying condition and still keep their "time capsule" appeal. Would you approve of taking one of these aircraft out for a flight only for special events. Not really counting into the equation what it would take to restore these aircraft to flying condition, but let's assume that these aircraft could be restored to flight and still stay in as close to original condition. Would you approve?

NO

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

Nope

_________________
DEEP THOUGHTS BY KIDS:
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started. Age 15 "


Deep Thoughts,
Jack Handy

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Airplanes are made to fly!

_________________
Ryan Pemberton
www.pembertonandsons.com

Yes.

How can you not consider what is involved in restoring an aircraft to flight status? That's not even possible and keeping it original too so it's a moot point.

So if you could wave your magic wand and make them fly, would that be ok? Only if you're good enough with your magic wand to keep it from crashing and burning too.

Personally I don't think you could maintain Flak Bait in operation condition and maintain it's originality and it would be a tragedy to destory the intact, unmolested history on this aircraft. I think it is going to be where it belongs. I think the same of the Enola Gay as it is an airframe that to me is as important to American History as is the Wright Flier to world history. I think it is where it belongs. As for the Belle it will be a total restoration incorporating mostly mechanical parts that are not original to the period in which it was in operation so I wouldn't mind seeing it in the air on special limited events, and same goes for the Swoose. The Belle while interesting and a combat vet in all reality it is no more "special" than any other combat veteran such as Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, other than it was made famous. There were plenty of B-17s that saw a lot more action and it is debatable that it was even the first to complete it's tour of duty.

Ryan

I think we all understand the "mootness" of this hypothetical question. But it's still an interesting , if not a fun, question ... even as "moot" as it is. Loosen up ...



I totally agree with this response. I could see the Belle flying and Swoose? I'm not sure what's really left of her that would truely be completey original after a full restoration.

As JDK frequently reminds us, there are three alternatives with this airplanes, (1) conservation/preservation, which means NOT restoring, (2) restoration to static, (3) restoration to airworthy. Must types of museums strongly favor conservation if the artifact is of historical value and is not too far gone to be displayable (and sometimes even if it is too far gone to be displayable, because display is not the only purpose of historical preservation). We use words like "time capsule" and "time machine" to describe Flak Bait but in most museum circumstances it would really be no big deal, just your basic well-preserved artifact which is supposed to make up the bulk of museum collections.

Now air museums, and their audiences, have different priorities. Even compared with adjacent areas of interest such as antique cars, aviation museums are very oriented toward restoring aircraft that are really quite conservable. The vast majority of preserved aircraft, even at NASM which is one of the few air museums that understands conservation, are way over-restored. That seems to be what the people want. I would be delighted if every aircraft at Udvar-Hazy looked like the P-38, or even was a bit more tattered and incomplete, but most visitors, including aviation buffs, would not. They want complete spiffy shiny airplanes. To me this is like going to an exhibit of 18th-century wooden furniture and expecting every piece to look like it was just manufactured yesterday. But that is the way it is.

To me, the difference between conservation and restoration dwarfs the one between restoration to static and restoration to airworthy. Once you've taken the typical basket-case airframe and rebuilt it to where it makes a beautiful static display, in my view, you've usually destroyed it as a historic artifact and I don't much care whether you go the extra step to making it airworthy.

August

"Flak Bait" only if the original finish was not touched AND my good friend, Capt. Sherman Best, got to take the controls one more time to perform his "17th Mission" at the helm of "Flak Bait"!
After that, ground the bird!
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

I feel that the more you try and maintain original materials and components, the more there is a chance of something going wrong with it.

A lot of restorations going on these days are almost 100% new material. They are pretty much brand new airplanes. And like a new car, new airplanes have less (or no) worn out parts, meaning that less or nothing should/could go wrong.

But planes that are restored like that lose their original-ness. I have a problem with flying original and historically significant airplanes, but I think it would be more acceptable to fly the like-new restorations.

Oh, and I just thought of something. Airplanes like to be flown... and they like to be flown frequently. If a super rare airplane is flown very seldomly, then that sitting around time could lead to it being less happy each time if flies. It's like parking and not driving your car over an entire winter. It will most likely run when you start it up in the spring, but it would really be worth doing a once over on it to make sure it's in totally serviceable.

I'm blathering now, but I think very significant airplanes like the Memphis Belle, the Enola Gay, and especially one of a kinds like a Handley Page Hampden, Stranaer, or similar shouldn't be flown.

And ya know... in the back of my mind I do want to see all airplanes flown. It's what they do best. And I think to myself, well if it's maintained well enough, nothing "should" go wrong, right?

I guess what I might be thinking now is that maybe the SUPER rare airplanes deserve a chance to be flown but extreme care should be taken while maintaining and flying them.

End of blather.

Cheers,

David

No way.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I AM loose! THat's why there was a smiley!

It's too much of a stretch IMO... as was stated more eloquently than me already... the flyers are mostly "new". And new means "not original".

If Flak Bait is not important as the timecapsule that it is, then it would be an excellent candidate for a flyer. It's complete and it pretty good shape. Should be able have it in the air in about a month.

they should be flown...to honor the guys who flew them in the day and were pilots and wouldnt want to see something stuck on a pole somewhere.....IMHO fo course (based on being a pilot and cringing every time I see a poor dead F4 sitting somewhere.)

_________________
EVERYTHING that CAN fly should be ALLOWED to FLY!
IWO JIMA'S best narative..."GOD ISN'T HERE"
http://www.amazon.com/God-Isnt-Here-Ame ... 0976154706


P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.

S: Took hammer away from midget.

You guys all fly civilian stuff from time to time right? How many fly on a regular basis? You can pamper an aircraft all you like, but if it flies it is going to need preventive maintence. THis happens on a civil BE-36, what makes you think that it won't happen to a B-26 Marauder? Propr blades will get chipped up, along with leading edges, cowlings and what not. It happens. So you can't say that yes let's fly a time capsule aircraft just so we keep it just as is, well that is not able to be done.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director