No Mosquito for Oshkosh

VaBeachEd · **Joined:** Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:03 pm **Posts:** 107

Russ, The museum is open 9-5 every day except Thanksgiving and Christmas. Chuckie has been inside the Fighter Factory hangar of late for maintenance - her annual, I think. They try to keep her out of the weather for obvious reasons - and both museum hangars, the German Cottbus and the WWI hangars are pretty darn full. (Not a bad problem at some level!!) So she lives in FF much of the time. FF is open for guests to visit during the week, though they are kindly requested to remain inside a visitor area in the hangar, and not wander about the shop floor. I can't belive you live in Chesapeake and haven't been to the museum! :roll:

Stop by and take a visit!

Advisory -- you may be heckled by some of the other writers on this blog for admitting you live in the area and haven't been by the museum yet!!

Don Parsons · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:22 am

A perspective from a Vintage Owner who's been to OSH over 30 times. I go for the Vintage airplanes and the warbirds.

I own a Fairchild 24 and a J3 Cub. I won't go to OSH again if I can help it. My partner in the Fairchild, is co-owner of the airport and owns about 60 antique airplanes including a Dh-4 and a Jenny. He won't take them up there either.
It's gone from an Association of like-minded people to a money-grabbing enterprise.

I was there a couple years ago when the CAF Zero was there. I asked the pilot if he was going to fly it. He said no, the EAA wouldn't buy him any gas. He was just on his way home from Thunder and that was the only reason he brought it.

The very least they could do is if you fly your airplane to the "convention" is to give you free registration. I got tired of paying a flight line fee to have access to my own aircraft. With the price of gas and insurance, most other Vintage owners feel the same. We pay to support the airplane, we're not going to pay a fee to have access to it. You can see it in Vintage Parking, the number of true antiques has dwindled down to where they can't even fill two rows of parking.

The contemporary category is a bust. If I wanted to see Cherokees/Cessna 172/182's/Mooney's or Bonanza's, I would just go out to any local airport. It's my belief they did this to generate more revenue.

I prefer to go to Blakesburg, which is Antiques only. It costs me less than a $100 bucks for everything except food.

The EAA, and especially Mac (who's in charge of publications) wouldn't know an Antique if the prop chewed his a@#.

It's all about making as much $$$ as they can.

RobC · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:22 pm

Time for a WIX pole:

Question: Who needs who less:

a) Oshkosh needs Yagen less

b) Yagen needs Oshkosh less

And..........

The results are in! Oh my gosh 50%/50%... a dead tie! Oh well, at least they have something in common!

Happy Friday, everybody!

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:04 pm

It is EAA and the Oshkosh audience who will miss out bigtime, Jerry will still own the Mosquito and take it elsewhere regardless of whether he takes it to Oshkosh or not.

Purely out of interest, does the Commemorative Air Force pay fees to warbird owners who fly across country to display at their airshows in Texas?

Kyleb · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:15 pm

Dave Homewood wrote:

It is EAA and the Oshkosh audience who will miss out bigtime, Jerry will still own the Mosquito and take it elsewhere regardless of whether he takes it to Oshkosh or not.

And the counterpoint is that Yeagan spent millions on a restoration and for the want of a <relatively> few dollars won't get to show it off on the world's biggest stage. Nose, knife, face...

Either way, it is his airplane and EAA's show, so if they are each happy with where their stance puts 'em, that's OK with me.

My question is: How many shows will pay a significant appearance fee to bring in a warbird, particularly one that doesn't have the stars and bars on the side? I can't imagine that there are enough hard core aviation buffs to make it a good financial decision.

RickH · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:27 pm

Quote:

I just looked up the EAA Airventure website. The price through the gates for an adult non-EAA member is US$41, or US$26 per member. Weekly rates for adult members is $114. Children aged 6 to 18 are charged US$22 for non-members, $18 for members or a week rate of $60.

With the figure of 500,000 people through the gate through the weklong event, as their site says, then they must be taking well in excess of US$10 million just from the gate takings.

This. Without the aircraft there are no airshows. The airshow, regardless of which one, should expect to pay an appearance/maint fee to the aircraft they contract with. Doesn't matter the perceived wealth of the individual or group that owns and operates the aircraft. Many groups need the revenue to pay for engines, consumables etc. How about the organization that expends great sums of money to acquire then restore some aircraft. Is that organization not allowed to recoup the investment so that money can be returned into the fund to help defray the cost of the next project ?

Kyleb · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:43 pm

RickH wrote:

This. Without the aircraft there are no airshows. The airshow, regardless of which one, should expect to pay an appearance/maint fee to the aircraft they contract with. Doesn't matter the perceived wealth of the individual or group that owns and operates the aircraft. Many groups need the revenue to pay for engines, consumables etc. How about the organization that expends great sums of money to acquire then restore some aircraft. Is that organization not allowed to recoup the investment so that money can be returned into the fund to help defray the cost of the next project ?

I look at it from the other angle. I go to Oshkosh (technically a fly-in, not an airshow) to see aviation things and talk with aviation people. I fly the homebuilt I constructed in my garage when I go there and gladly sit under the wing and shoot the stuff with anyone who has a question or who just wants to talk. I'll do the same thing when I complete the Champ. I don't want monetary compensation for that, my compensation is the cameraderie of the event. I assure you that taking my airplane to Osh is just as expensive for me on a relative basis as for a guy taking his Mustang or Mossie.

If the warbird owner thinks he needs to get paid to be in my company at Oshkosh, that <apparently> ain't gonna happen, so it just means more beer left for me. ;-)

airknocker · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:56 am

I salute Mr. Yagen and his admirable efforts to preserve our aviation heritage and his desire to be compensated for providing aircraft for display. That said, the Mosquito not appearing at Oshkosh would have minor impact on the attendance with the myriad of other aircraft and activities available. In truth, displaying any of his collection at the numerous smaller airshows would greatly benefit those organizations who need to attract attendees. Campaigning the Mosquito up and down the east coast could strengthen needy museums and charities who could promote the hotest restoration this year.
The warbird community scrapes up every dollar it can to preserve, display and demonstrate our military past and Mr. Yagen can assist the effort by making his restorations available to the widest possible audience.

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:48 am

I used to support the EAA, but they showed their colors when they chose to "honor" someone that was too stupid to save his own butt and had been to Oshkosh twice for a couple of hours each time, over someone what was a board member, and gave thousands of hours and dollars to the EAA.

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:08 am

I'd just lie to say that it's great that Jerry Yagen's comments have gotten a lot of people thinking and discussing, here and elsewhere. And it's a pleasure that we're on the third page of a potentially controversial and divided thread topic and it's still calm and rational. Well done Wixers.

Zachary · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:55 am

Matt Gunsch wrote:

I used to support the EAA, but they showed their colors when they chose to "honor" someone that was too stupid to save his own butt and had been to Oshkosh twice for a couple of hours each time, over someone what was a board member, and gave thousands of hours and dollars to the EAA.

Curious who you are referring to? Was this in the past two years?

k5083 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:03 am

Kyleb wrote:

I look at it from the other angle. I go to Oshkosh (technically a fly-in, not an airshow) to see aviation things and talk with aviation people. I fly the homebuilt I constructed in my garage when I go there and gladly sit under the wing and shoot the stuff with anyone who has a question or who just wants to talk. I'll do the same thing when I complete the Champ. I don't want monetary compensation for that, my compensation is the cameraderie of the event. I assure you that taking my airplane to Osh is just as expensive for me on a relative basis as for a guy taking his Mustang or Mossie.

If the warbird owner thinks he needs to get paid to be in my company at Oshkosh, that <apparently> ain't gonna happen, so it just means more beer left for me. ;-)

+1 Kyleb. You get it - what Oshkosh was, is still supposed to be, and always will be to the vast majority of those attending.

August

Baldeagle · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:17 am

Doesn't seem like much of a controversy to me, Oshkosh was never intended to be like Thunder or any of the conventional airshows, it's always been more of a fly-in with an airshow on the side. Everybody knows they don't pay your expenses to come there, and some of the finest airshow acts in the world perform just for the prestige and publicity. I've spent some time around Jerry and he's a great guy. If his policy is only to do paying shows, again, that doens't seem very controversial to me. You come if you want, and don't if you don't, one or two airplanes doesn't make much difference, no matter what they are. I don't like overpriced food, or being charged the same amount to see my own airplane as they charge the guy who drives in to see those kind of airplanes, but it isn't enough to make me throw my toy out of the pram, as they say in the old country. There are good friends that I only see once a year at Oshkosh, and despite there being fewer of the vintage types that I like, there are usually some very interesting airplanes, vintage or warbird, or even stuff that is normally outside my interest, like all the Rutan flying machines a couple of years ago. We all like to complain, and some of the complaints are certainly legitimate, but there is a big picture, and no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Out of cliches now......

-

JimH · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:32 am

Just being the Devil's advocate here...imagine if Jerry announced this airplane was coming to OSH to be judged...would you even bother showing up to get 2nd place with your potential winning restoration. Would it be an insult to not give this airplane 1st place? Could you really judge this airplane without bias? This reconstruction has once again set the bar, although in recent years that bar can't get set much higher.

Jim

dtpitcairn · **Posted:** Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:07 pm

I suspect this debate has been going on for decades. I specifically remember 15 or 20 years ago when it was about the aerobatic pilots. They are in a much worse financial position, I would think, than the higher end warbird owner yet the complaints died down and they kept performing. Seems that Oshkosh is good for their careers (name recognition etc.) and their sponsors also probably think it is a good idea to be in front of such a large crowd.

If warbirds are going to be paid, then the headliners should be also, and vintage also, and what about the homebuilts? After all, without the homebuilts, the show would not exist (and I would not go). How to define which homebuilts to pay? If all the Vintage and Warbirds stop going, I would still go, even though I am more likely to fly one of those category into the show, so that as many people as possible can see them. Other shows or flyins have Antiques or Warbirds on display so they are only a nice to have at Oshkosh.

EAA has staff, Museum and expensive programs like young eagles and air academy etc. They also are putting more effort into advocacy. All this is funded by the flyin/airshow so that is likely why the museum would be cut first (as it has already by grounding the WWII fleet), then pick what to cut next. Advocacy to protect our right to fly? Promoting aviation to young people? I think those are good things so I am happy to fly in and pay as my small contribution. It also helps to justify the costs if you attend some of the events that would otherwise cost admission elsewhere like dinners, movies and concerts. Even if I was not of that mind, I would still go because the benefits to me would still far outweigh any negatives.

Warbird Information Exchange

No Mosquito for Oshkosh

Who is online