Mike wrote:
JohnB wrote:
Ther are more flying B-17s now than there has been in a long time
Not necessarily so. We are losing them (to groundings as well as accidents) at a higher rate than new ones are being restored.
Pond's, Evergreen's, Pink Lady and the MoF/Richardson B-17F are all examples of active flyers now grounded. How long before Fuddy Duddy goes the same way? And then there are the losses of the IGN example in 1989 and Liberty Belle this year.
I don't worry about groundings as much. The planes you mentioned are well taken care of, kept indoors and some will live to fly another day.
The French group says Pink Lady will probably fly agin...though it could be after we're gone. And unless they brick it in, I think the
Boeing Bee at Seattle, may occasionally fly long into the future. Boeing and the people of Seattle will always want to see a B-17 fly. BTW: they do fly their DC-2, a much rarer bird than the Flying Fortress.
I don't judge flying aircraft too stricly on their "originality". We've all had discuissions aboutv "Data Plate" restiorations and some B-17s are what are called "bitsas" in the vintage car world, or largly re-creations. That's okay by me. Compared to some of the fiction of warbird fighters out there..."This flying Spitfire is the
same aircraft that was buried on a beach for 40 years". Sure.

By their very nature, stock and original 60 year aircraft don't fly much.
I'm hapy to leave original bits for a museum bird. With avionics and later dash engines for safety, I'm nott too picky about fliers.
If you want to see them fly, environmental laws and the lack of AVGAS are real concerns.