Yanks Air Museum

[RandolphB]

Exactly how does one "wear out" an airplane? There are still DC-3's flying that have to be 70+ years old, B-17's hat are 60+ years old, even some Jennys that are close to 90 years old. Sure, they have to be rebuilt from time to time, but if you think about it, static displays can "wear out" also. How much money did the Collings Foundation put in the B-24 to get it airworthy since it had been sitting so long. As I recall they had to do some major structural repair to the wing since it had sagged, for lack of a better word, from sitting so long. How about the famous, or infamous, Bejing P-61. There have been statements that if it was attempted to be moved it would fall apart. There was a recent article about an early B-52 that has to be scrapped on site since it is unsafe to move do to danger of falling apart.
As for putting another "Mustang into the ground", that is a bit of a harsh statement since that usually means that you also put a human being or two, if a passenger is on board, into the ground also. To me that is a worse loss.

This rebuilding you speak of...at what point does said aircraft cease to be of historical value and become only a reproduction of the original? I know, in avaiation, as long as you have the Data Plate it's an original. Too bad the standards for other museums are not adhered to in this world. Would you really care about seeing Admiral Lorn Nelson's Uniform if the only thing left of the original was the buttons?

You wear an airplane out by wearing out the parts, stress cracking airframes and putting so much actual wear on things like Powerplants that it no longer functions. Do you go to a War Museum and demand they fire all the flintlocks, or otherwise the place "sucks"...?

As for the P-61 and the B-24, they both suffered what amounts to an abandonment. Yanks takes topflight care of their birds. I suspect that if they see issues arising, they handle them. I believe that every peice of an aircraft there is cared for by them. As much as I love POF, there sure are a lot of things in their boneyard just rotting away out back...if you want to compare the two.

Mustangs- in their world are a dime a dozen. I thing it sucks when one goes down...and it doesn't always involve a loss of life. Remember BBD a few months back? They are high perfromance peices of equipment and will injure/ kill you if operated improperly. It's as simple as that.

Sure, Id like to see every bird I ever see actually fly. On the other hand, I'd rather know that 6 generations from now, a perfectly functional example of the type still exists. Just the same way as I would like to see Sir Richard Burton's actual sword he carried in Africa...not a copy that was made for display. Yanks could ake everything a static display, it's cheaper- but they seem to choose to make it an airworthy display that is being put on static display. I get a warmer feeling from a collection that is growing, than one where important aircraft vanish without notice....

[k5083]

I regularly visit both POF and Yanks when in the area. K5dh may have been at Yanks on a bad day. I have always been treated with about equal openness and respect at both places.

Without Yanks, Chino just wouldn't be as cool, just like Duxford wouldn't be as cool with only TFC and not IWM.

I do not consider the Yanks planes flyable but my sense is that most of them are airworthy in the sense that they could quickly be made flyable. Not unlike the POF P-26, F4B and Seversky which might sit for 10 or 15 years and then get an IRAN and be flown for a spell, or the Kalamazoo F7F and F8F which proved relatively easy to revive.

I recall that Yanks once had an extra Wildcat that was surplus to its requirements, was restored just like their other birds, and after selling it, they seemed to just crank it up and fly it out.

At one time, Yanks was considering relocating to Napa, and the plan was to fly most of the planes there.

All of these comments apply only to their WWII types, most of which have been in the collection since before 1995. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether any of their jets are airworthy.

To me, the difference between a static restoration to airworthy -- engine and systems runnable, spars serviceable, FAA inspected/registered, etc. -- and a flying airplane is smaller than the difference between a static restoration to airworthy and one that is not. Just IMO.

August

[Ken]

I got to visit Yanks and POF last year, both for the first time. I was impressed by and enjoyed both locations. I am a huge fan and saw an awesome cross section of makes & models during the visit - and that was as deep as I considered it.

I have no problem with (indoor) static displays and see little use for the argument of labels; either the plane is (legally/safely) flown with some sort of regularity or not.

Love to see 'em fly and, as a pilot, have been very fortunate to fly (and fly in ) some classic warbirds. I think the decision to fly is a decision to be made by each owner regarding each individual airframe and each instance of flight. If an aircraft gets to a mechanical point where it becomes a choice of rebuild vs. static, then the owner decides. I appreciate those willing to share their birds, static or not.

I don't have the spare dough to make an impact either way, so I usually withhold judgment when a particular airframe doesn't fly; it's not as if I can jump in and change the situation. Conversely, I think there are cases where an airplane should not be flown: (the real) Memphis Belle, Lady Be Good, or Glacier Girl crossing the Atlantic come to mind.

Just because I think it's a poor idea, doesn't mean that my opinion means squat. The owner and his pocketbook will make the final decision and we should gracefully live with it unless you're willing to walk up and offer the cash required to make it your own.

I'll still have an opinion and I'm also one who will cheer loudly when paint/markings at the level of SNAFU or HJGB are revealed ... but in the end, discussions like this become tiresome because it ain't my call.

Ken

[ZRX61]

Do you go to a War Museum and demand they fire all the flintlocks, or otherwise the place "sucks"...?

Every gun on display at Wright Patterson works, I know, I restored some of them..

Mustangs- in their world are a dime a dozen. I thing it sucks when one goes down...and it doesn't always involve a loss of life. Remember BBD a few months back? They are high perfromance peices of equipment and will injure/ kill you if operated improperly. It's as simple as that.

The loss of BBD had NOTHING to do with the way it was operated & everything to do with some bonehead in a Skyraider not looking where he was going...

[RandolphB]

Do you go to a War Museum and demand they fire all the flintlocks, or otherwise the place "sucks"...?

Every gun on display at Wright Patterson works, I know, I restored some of them..

Mustangs- in their world are a dime a dozen. I thing it sucks when one goes down...and it doesn't always involve a loss of life. Remember BBD a few months back? They are high perfromance peices of equipment and will injure/ kill you if operated improperly. It's as simple as that.

The loss of BBD had NOTHING to do with the way it was operated & everything to do with some bonehead in a Skyraider not looking where he was going...

Cool you restored the guns! My point being exactly that....are they only "Static" displays then? So does that make the museum less of a place because they don't get fired all the time? No...just like much of Yanks, they are in tip top shape and readily able to be used.

The point on BBD is that if it were ONLY static it would still exist, unless the Skyraider managed to find it parked on the ground....

I like every aircraft to be airworthy, but can see some value in not operating certain examples. I dislike Static examples buried in house paint and bird crap and rusting sadly away. They deserve to be treated like aircraft...one and all that survive.