No Mosquito for Oshkosh

[Mike]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/EAA_ ... 973-1.html

I assume EAA pay $$$ for the aerobatic acts etc to show up and perform?

[mustangdriver]

NO

[Mark Allen M]

I understand both sides clearly so the only logical solution is 'Sponsorship' ... Put some #'s together and present them to some interested groups. That being said, would you be willing to sponsor say $100.00 each to be involved in a sponsorship of a Warbird attending OSH? I could possibly get involved in such an endeavor if there was enough interest by enough folks to cover the funds needed and keep the individual contribution to an affordable number. And I would want a T-shirt too lol .... FWIW

2 cents worth

[Fleet16b]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/EAA_Firm_Appearance_Fees_207973-1.html

I assume EAA pay $$$ for the aerobatic acts etc to show up and perform?

In June of last year I was speaking with a high level member of Mr Yagens Team and at that time he said basically the same thing that Mr Yagen said.
When Oshkosh came around last year, myself and many others noticed a smaller than usual amount of Warbirds in attendance so I have to agree that it does look like other owners are in agreement.

As a warbird owner myself and one that gets ask to attend shows but seldom gets paid to demonstrate/display my aircraft, I sympathize.
One must pay for the fuel/oil to travel to the show, cover loding food etc. Once at the show , most organizers do provide fuel so that it usually works out that the fuel burn going home is covered but in the end the aircraft owner is usually in the hole.
Sometimes I dont mind that, for example if its my hometown show or for a Vet. Function.
On the other side of the coin , I can also sympathize with some of the Museums/ Shows that are non profit and really cannot afford to pay for every aircraft in the show. For the most part they do what they can to ease the pain for both sides
However there are some large shows that do show a profit and that is most likely what erks some owners.
IMHO, if you have a very rare one or two of a kind aircraft, there should be some payment from the show if they want that aircraft but paying for less rare aircraft that there are multiples is not really logical.
I take lots of people for ride and most of the time I am paying for the fuel but it is much appreciated when the passenger offers to help pay. Usually it does not cover the full cost but it does help.
Maybe some of the shows could at least offer a token fee to help offset the costs incurred.
In reality the bottom line is I did not get into owning a Warbird in order to make a profit and if you did , then you may be in the wrong business

Comments please

[VaBeachEd]

As a member/volunteer of the Military Aviation Museum, I know for a fact that Mr. Yagen is extremely generous with his time and aircraft for a variety of fund-raisers, charities and the like. (Wounded Veterans and Angel Flight to name a couple) The museum often hosts these types of events for free, and very often, one or more of the aircraft are flown - also for free- for a demo. So the assumption that he's too tight with a buck to bring his ultra rare Mossie to the Oshkosh event is completely untrue, and frankly, were I him, I'd be slightly insulted.

The operators of the Oshkosh show must surely realize that the skyrocketing costs of warbird ownership have ended the days of bringing seven-figure warbirds to the show for demonstrations for free. Their argument that "we don't pay anybody to bring their aircraft" (while certainly their choice) will ultimately cost them their high-end warbird attendance.

It's also a pretty good bet that the requests for the Mossie to attend a variety of East Coast airshows are already rolling in, and it's a good possibility that she may already booked for a paying gig that week, thus asking him to bring her to Oshkosh simply because it's a very prestigious show is unrealistic.

[k5083]

I would be surprised if there is any organized "boycott" and suspect that is a poor choice of words by the writer, especially to put in Mr Yagen's mouth.

Both parties take reasonable positions, even if accompanied by an inflated sense of their own importance.

Oshkosh probably needs to come to grips with the fact that it is increasingly a show for the general public, not a convention or mecca for aviation people. At the same time, imagine what complications it would unleash if EAA started paying people to bring their planes. Pretty soon everyone with a really good plane wouldn't come unless paid, and then OSH would go downhill quickly.

If Mr Yagen doesn't get enough out of bringing his planes to OSH without money; if he doesn't relish the idea of showing his aircraft to the most educated and enthusiastic aviation audience anywhere; if he doesn't covet the Grand Champ trophy; if he's just not turned on by the gatherings that can result when several owners commit to bringing their planes together; then absolutely he should take his planes elsewhere. There have always been many such owners as long as there has been Oshkosh, this is nothing new. Some have shifted back and forth from one camp to the other. Although it seems more common for owners and organizations to want to bring their planes, but simply be unable to afford to, rather than to assert it as a principle.

I can't necessarily agree with Mr Yagen's prophecy that the owners of the best planes will stop coming if they are not paid. Yes, we are currently in a period where a number of the top collectors seem to have that attitude. But things change. If, even in the best years, just a few guys had viewed the Oshkosh equation differently -- think Parrish and Pond in the 1980s -- the warbird turnout in those years would have been pretty lame. We don't know which attitude the next decade's collectors will have. Mr Yagen sounds as if he is trying to rally support for his stance and make his prophecy self-fulfilling, but that again could be the journalist talking.

I guess we should appreciate those who continue to make Oshkosh awesome, although they probably do it for our own reasons and not our thanks. This year the CAF, Mr Lewis, Mr Fagen and Mr Roush, and the late Mr Odegaard contributed some terrific planes.

August

[Mark Allen M]

Very well said August, I couldn't have expressed it better ... without being banned ha!

I'll hopefully post you some China B-24's ASAP!

[k5083]

PS, a few additional thoughts.

1. The difficulty of deciding which planes are worth paying for is highlighted by the discussion of the Me-262 in the article. I'd submit that whatever line is drawn to decide which warbirds might be worth EAA paying to attend, the 262 would not qualify. There is neither a rarity nor a cost argument to support paying a replica warbird powered by bizjet engines to attend. So then you start asking, "Would it be worth paying for the 262 to give Mr Yagen still more incentive to bring his Mosquito?" and you can see the worms crawling out of the can already.

2. I believe the greatest single factor in the reduced big-iron warbird attendance at OSH is the fact that there are no longer significant flying warbird collections in the midwest.

August

[Mike]

.........if he doesn't covet the Grand Champ trophy........

Which is precisely why many owners will continue to bring their newly-restored aircraft to showcase them at Oshkosh.

[k5083]

Yeah -- maybe AvSpecs should sponsor the trip, just so they can win the Golden Wrench and promote their shop!

August

[Jerry O'Neill]

FYI, there is already a Mosquito at Oshkosh. Just saying.

[VaBeachEd]

Folks - excellent discussions!

I would also agree that the 262 would not merit a paid appearance at Oshkosh. As you point out, it is a replica. (It's really, really cool, but be that as it may...

I must have missed a memo somewhere....How big is the check for the "Grand Champion" Trophy? While I'll also agree that the attendees to Oshkosh are "most educated and enthusiastic aviation audience anywhere" (though our guests at the museum in Va Beach are pretty awesome too!!) neither of those two arguments puts gas in the tank or sends large checks for engine overhauls, insurance etc. Paid appearances do -- and that keeps these warbirds in the air.

I would venture to say that in a perfect world where $$ doesn't count, Mr. Yagen would send a whole bunch of warbirds to Oshkosh, with the Mossie leading the way!! Unfortunately, none of us live in that world. Ultimately, it's a question of $$$. Sponsorship is a great idea....as long as we don't have to paint beer logos on the side of the warbird. (No offence to the Red Bull people intended!)

[Glyn2]

Oshkosh probably needs to come to grips with the fact that it is increasingly a show for the general public, not a convention or mecca for aviation people.

Good post August, I certainly agree with you on virtually all points.

While warbirds have always had a visible role in the flying and static displays at Oshkosh they are by no means the main event nor the main draw. Of the half a million people who will visit during the week the vast majority couldn't care less about looking at warbirds nor watching them fly.

While I understand that there are many folks from the general public with no aviation background that will come up on the weekend, most people that go to Oshkosh are homebuilders, restorers, or those involved with general aviation in some other way. People come to see the new homebuilts, marvel at the antique classics, kick the tires of completed versions of the projects they are working on at home or attend hands-on learning workshops. One look over at the fields of RV's and Glasairs will tell you quickly that people are there for the general aviation, not the warbirds.

While the denizens of WIX may feel as though Oshkosh is only interesting for the warbirds and the GA stuff is not even worth looking at, the fact of the matter is that the EAA ultimately isn't trying to run a warbirds show. The leadership of the EAA and the folks who plan and run Airventure have always included the warbirds community and will continue to do so but the mission of the organization and the show itself is to provide a forum for their members.

[Mark Allen M]

Sponsorship is a great idea....as long as we don't have to paint beer logos on the side of the warbird. (No offence to the Red Bull people intended!)

As one who dislikes the idea of 'logos' on warbirds, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with a respectable size sponsors logo. Luckily I can mentally block it out usually. The Tenn. Aviation Museum P-47's come to mind a few years ago with the Chevron logos. Even though it was slightly annoying to see I understood why they were there and appreciated why they were there. The CAF stamps are annoying as well (as we have debated over and over again) but if an organization or sponsors logo is what it takes to help pay the expenses of flying warbirds to shows. So be it! As one who doesn't pay the bills for warbirds to operate, I really have no say in the matter other than a simple opinion.

... And Glyn2 excellent post as well (first one? good for you)

[k5083]

Agreed, money keeps the planes in the air.

If an owner wants his plane to be revenue positive, revenue neutral, or just not too revenue negative, and taking it to OSH is inconsistent with that -- okay.

However. Not talking about Mr Yagen or anyone else in particular, but let's concede that some warbird owners are very, very wealthy. By which I mean that comparing the cost of taking a fighter to OSH to their income, or net worth, or whatever metric you choose, it is easier for them to afford than it is for you and me to drive our Honda there. Simple fact. There are people that rich.

So do they HAVE to get paid to justify taking their plane? No, they choose to.

And so: Pretend we're EAA and we decide to relent on our no-pay policy. In considering whether to pay someone to bring his plane, do we take into account whether the owner is a non-profit museum run on a shoestring versus a billionaire? Or is it just a question of how badly we want the plane.

August