Static vs. flying?

[John Dupre]

Well I guess I will weigh into this discussion. One reason that some static exhibits are better than flying restorations is that the static example can be as complete a time capsule of a particular era as you will find whereas the flying restoration has to be a compromise with the modern flight environment. If you want to see an aircraft configured nearly exactly as it was operated the only place you are going to find that is in the better static museums. Even if the average viewer will never see beyond the external features of the exhibit the student and historian will appreciatet that the aircraft has all the bells and whistles.

When you listen to a Merlin or an R-2800 running on 100LL gasoline does it really sound the way it would have running on 115/145? Did "Old Crow" or "Donna-Mite" or "Memphis Belle" fly with a transistorized radio or a modern autopilot? Besides gasoline even oil and lubricants are different today than they were 65 years ago ditto fabrics and all consumables like rubber products and electrical wire.

The order for vintage aircraft should be Preserved as operated, Restored to operational configuration, Restored to flyable condition as close to operational configuration as possible, Restored to flyable condition with varying degrees of originality, Preserved as found. But not left to rot as somehow to important to disturb, with the exception of war graves.

To be sure there are very few WW2 era aircraft that were preserved as they were when combat ended so restoration will be necessary but the museum does not have to make the compromises that the flyer has to make and therefore the aircraft can be more original. I think that in 100 years historians will recognize that some of the military aircraft that are now delivered right from the flight line to a museum will be historically more representative of their ages than many WW2 era aircraft because they were not restored but preserved.

In the end of course it comes down to property rights. Do what your conscience dictates and be prepared to defend your choice.

[mlenoch]

I like to tell people about the extent of the Happy Jack restoration. Everything restored but the radio......can you imagine the havoc the FCC would see if the old 6 channel, crystal radio were to be made operational....it would probably be transmitting over +/- 50 different frequencies! Thus the concession to the modern radio.
(If a radio expert reads this, please share your opinion on this....Thx!)
VL

[bdk]

Anyone know the Yanks Air Museum procedure?
I've always heard they are restored to flying condition, but not flown.

Are the restorations completed and ground run, hydraulics functional, electrics functional, etc. and then inhibited???

I am not a spokesperson for this museum, but...

Some are flown. As far as I know most all have run under their own power at some point. All hydraulics and primary electrics are functional (don't know about old radios).

Don't know what inhibiting they do, but the indoor environment is pretty friendly. It wouldn't be a big deal to throw new O-rings into a leaky actuator if they were to dry out.

[marine air]

I would like to see the Warbird registry add a few more prefixes. If A= airworthy, then maybe we need "AZ" for airwothy until stored, or frozen in time. Mybe one day these cryogenically birds will be thawed out and flown agin by a future generation for a future generation. I have no doubt that in the future some of the Yanks aircraft and Kalamazoo aircraft will fly again.
It's getting to be beyond charitable to call Week's B-26, Sunderland, and Mosquito "airwothy". Is there a date that beyond that time it would be very expensive to actually get one of these "airwothy when parked" ("AP") back into the air? How long has it been and how costly would it be for the EAA to fly their Cavalier P-51 and XP-51 ?