Warbird Information Exchange

Wonder what you all feel about extremely rare warbirds flying today .. i.e. ... CAF's Helldiver, P-38 Glacier Girl, TFC's P-40C, P-36, P-39, combat veterans, etc.

I love seeing these aircraft flying, but could we handle the loss if something terrible happened?

What would you say if someone asked you to decide if they should fly or not?

My opinion is the only loss that you can't recover from is a loss of life.

Bent metal, broken wood, smashed glass can be fixed. All it takes is money. We can replicate and duplicate most anything but a living life.

I respect the museums that statically display the heritage of flight as well as those that fly overhesd.

Kenn

_________________
May all your bent wings be F2G Corsairs!

Well, I am sure that no one will be surprised that I am the first to speak up on this one. I say it all depends. I feel that if it is the sole survivor, a combat vet with colorful history, or extremely rare, that it should be preserved in a static museum. Now that being said, every example that you mention here, I am in favor of flying. Part of what makes Glacier Girl is that it was brought back to flying status. Aircraft like the Enola Gay, Memphis Belle, Flack Bait, Spirit of St. Louis and such need to be preserved in a static museum. Also static museums in places where the history is is important. Like the Pacific Aviation Museum in Pearl harbor is a needed place. The National museums are also important. The flying museums are important as well. With these you get a different perspective of the aircraft and those who served in them. BOTH PERSPECTIVES ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. You need a balance. I am a huge supporter of static museusm and flying ones. I do not like to see static museums bashed, and I don't like the idea of flying museums having to ground their fleet either.
Does this make sense to you guys?

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Doh, I am second to respond.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I say let them fly as long as they can. Then pull a museum piece of the same model out, fully restore it to flyable status, and put the one flown to limits in its place.(With exceptions of "special ones" as noted in a previous post)

Aircraft were meant to fly- even rare ones- otherwise they just collect dust- and that is torture to an aircraft's soul(Yes- they have them...) Just sitting there in a museum, an aircraft is no longer a living thing, which can still thrill, educate, and soar in the places it was intended to... Granted, I love seeing aircraft which are in museums- but to SEE them FLY, to HEAR the roar of the engine, and FEEL the vibrations of the exhaust as it goes past, THAT is the true joy of the aircraft...

And not everyone has a museum with these beautiful machines nearby... As a child, I only knew what a B-17 was from books and CAF Dispatch(I used to be a "Ghost Squadron Associate" many years back). When I was a teenager, I SAW one- up close, at Willow Grove. We drove an hour to see "Texas Raiders" and "Diamond Lil" , and I spent at least as much time going through each, as minutely as I could. In my 20s I finally saw "FIFI" and had the same pleasure. I may not have gotten to see any of them for many years if they were all grounded out of fear.

Robbie
KEEP 'EM FLYING!

PS- I was almost first to respond! But choosing my words took time, so I'm around 3rd... lol RR

Indeed, completely understood, but my intent was strictly for the loss of the aircraft. We'll understand here with this thread that the aircraft is the only concern for converstaion only.

I have to keep Glacier Girl as an example. how would we truely feel if Glacier Girl was lost? Would we debate why she was flying at all? She truely is a treasure. A one of a kind. She could never be replaced. Agreed?

I totally agree with you there, but I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Putting that aside, however, I would love to see all rare airplanes flying with only two exceptions:

1) Sole survivors that would likely remain so with virtually no chance of another one being restored. For example, I would not want to see the Ki-84 Frank in Japan returned to flying condition. It is a sole survivor, extremely rare, and the chances of any more being discovered are about zero. I don't believe there any known Frank hulks in the Pacific either, so it will likely remain the sole survivor. The A-20, on the other hand, is another story entirely. Right now, there are no A-20's flying anywhere in the world. However, there are at least 3 to 4 being restored to flying condition. There are lots of A-20 hulks, and wrecks from the Pacific, with a few more that could be made into flyers. Even though, it is extremely rare, if something unfortunate were to happen to the only flyer, the chances of another one being restored to airworthy are pretty high.

2) Significant airplanes that have intrinsic historical value. These would include such airplanes as the Enola Gay, Memphis Belle, Flak Bait, etc. Due to their irreplaceable nature, they should not be risked with flight status.

Other than these 2 conditions, I believe that rare airplanes should be allowed to fly.

Just my opinion!

I do agree that shw is a special aircraft. THat is why I always catch hel here for being anti-Operation Borneo II and III. I think that it is one thing to risk flying it over the U.S for aishows, and another to take a risk of flying it over large bodies of water for extended amounts of time.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I say...fly what you can and restore, (as best you can), and display the ones that are too far gone to take to the air.
Another thing...everyone here knows that the Mudge is a P-38 freak. That being said, (and it isn't my intent to demean the comments about GG)...Why has Glacier Girl become a "Sacred Icon"? Yes, the recovery story is fascinating but does that make it any more a P-38 than any of the other flyable P-38s? I don't regard any one of 'em more highly than the rest...I love 'em all.

Mudge the iconic

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

I agree with you Mudge, I don't know why GG has become so "sacred". Now don't get me wrong, I love all P-38's, but other than the amount of money spent on the restoration and it's unique recovery, it's not all that special other than it's a rare early model. I think an even more rarer P-38 is the one being restored for Paul Allen which was flown by an ace. That one actually has history to it. Glacier Girl never even saw combat.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that "we" at WIX, reach a consensus, that those particular aircraft should not fly anymore.

What's next?

Are we going to enforce our conclussions? How/ Why?

What authority would we have, to tell an airplane owner -no matter how rare or unique the airplane- to ground it forever? What if he refuses? ....

Saludos,


Tulio

_________________
Why take the best part of life out of your life, when you can have life with the best part of your life in your life?

I am one of them 'futbol' people.

Will the previous owner has pics of this double cabin sample

GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

Sooooo, how am I going to know to press 1 or 2, if I do not speak English????

I am a firm believer in warbirds being maintained in flying condition, but I believe that some of the exceedingly rare types should be flown like the POF Zero... very limited hours and heavily monitored/ maintained. That said, I cannot wait to see the Mid Atlantic Air Museum P-61 fly, not to mention the Fighter Collection's Gladiator and Beaufighter. Accidents happen, and that is an inevitable fact. The Mossie crash in '96 is a good example. The fact that it is gone will never remove the memories from people's minds who saw it fly...or those like me who only saw it fly on video.

_________________
I'm looking for that buried Corsair(s) that I can dig up, pressure wash, and fly!

It is and has been since it's restoration. The Zero has averaged less than 5 hours a year flying time since then. They really baby the engine so it can fly for a long time. It also rarely leaves the Southern California area as well, except for special occassions (like touring Japan).

All great points, but whenever there is a loss. (crash) there's always an outpour of people who state that the airplane should never have been flown. I keep thinking about the CAF's B-26 and A-20.

Not to become an omen ... but I worry so much about the CAF's SB2C

You shouldn't worry about the CAF's Helldiver. It's already crashed once, so it already got it out of it's system.

Besides this, another one is being restored to fly and should be airworthy in a few years time. There are several more airframes that could be restored to airworthy in addition to this one also.