RickH wrote:
I don't understand, what kind of renovation does a FLYING aircraft NEED for display ? Seems to me if it's good enough to FLY then it's certainly in as good a shape as it will ever be !
In general terms, 'Good' isn't the same as 'appropriate'. Without getting dragged into specific achievements or failures of national museums and flying organisations (and I'm sure Rick knows this!) an ex-military aircraft that flies does not need military systems and equipment complete; likewise flying in a modern environment often includes modifications and additions (and removals) from standard military fit.
A national-level collection should be taking an aircraft from a second-line user as here, and re-equipping with items that are required and removing items not appropriate to returning th aircraft to its combat configuration - if that's what's decided on.
Also as when buying a second-had car, there can be issues that the old owner won't address because they will become a problem after his tenure, which a long-term new owner will have to address - such as potential / minor corrosion, or nasty unhealthy built-in items.
The oft-quoted myth seen on WIX that "(military) aircraft were built to fly" is rubbish - they are a tool designed for a nation to use in a particular role for a particular job for a particular period. Flying is just an element in that and the state and military see the tool's use as finite. What happens afterwards is a different question.
[sarcasm]Also, there's a need to ensure activity is stated to happen if the announcement appears on Facebook or involves politicians or other suits, even if nothing will actually occur.[/sarcasm]
Warbird Kid wrote:
They should have found a way to get a few into private hands.
No, that's cart-before-horse. We'd like the 'private hands' to have figured a way to keeping 'a few' flying. Given the cost of operating them without the chick-magnet element of being 'a cool jet fighter' that was always a remote possibility,
before we get to issues with Governmental restrictions on operation.
The state has a responsibility at most to see an example into the appropriate national collection. (Interestingly, in the UK, NZ, S Africa and Australia, the state's air force have supported the operation of specific historic aircraft - but not the US.)
It costs
nothing to wish this, that or the other warplane is kept flying - and that's the
value of such wishing - nothing. Warbirds are flown by people and organisations that put enough sweat, paper and cash into making it happen. (And that's a lot more than anyone not involved - unlike Warbird Kid, of course - realises.)
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
