Surviving Warbirds with Fatalities

[Noha307]

How many surviving warbirds have had fatalities occur in them? I have been wondering this for a while now and was just now was reminded. I was starting to make my way through my backlog of unread WIX threads when I came across the one on the Do 17 recovery that read in part:

"With time, we recognize that young men died on both sides, which is why we don't intend to restore it. We will conserve it and place it on exhibition alongside the wreck of a Hurricane shot down at much the same time in which a British pilot died."

I would have a hard time restoring an airframe that someone was killed in - it would feel a bit disrespectful. That is why I agree with their decision to go the conservation route - it seems to be the best balance between preserving the airplane and respecting those that died.

Also, how many warbirds have had fatalities occur in them after they were restored? I remember a mention of a Mustang currently under restoration after it had been in a crash that killed the pilot. (Ah, found the discussion here. A/c was LOU IV.)(By the way, I would probably not have an issue with returning this one or others lost post-restoration to flight, since it's likely what the those killed would have wanted.)

[Mark Allen M]

Are you sure you want to be asking these questions? I know you mean well, but really? Even if I knew what surviving warbirds were in the category of what you are asking , I wouldn't feel it was appropriate to answer. The only real answer I could give you is anyone who has passed away in any warbird is nothing short of tragic and should be remembered for who and what they were rather than what airplane they were killed in. If you were asking for a list of those folks we have lost to tragic warbird accidents maybe that question could get you some answers. Not for me to say. Maybe there's others here who feel differently than I do about such questions and may answer you without a hitch. Again not for me to say.

I would have a hard time restoring an airframe that someone was killed in - it would feel a bit disrespectful. That is why I agree with their decision to go the conservation route - it seems to be the best balance between preserving the airplane and respecting those that died.

I do respect this portion of you post though. So you do have a good thought there. Maybe there's a different way you can re-think and/or re-phrase your original question to garner you the answers you're looking for. FWIW

[Matt Gunsch]

if it crashed as a warbird, why not restore and fly it again, it was being flown as a piece of living history. People die, that is a fact of life, should we bulldoze a house because someone died there, The house I grew up in had 3 people die in it, my grandmother and both my parents. My younger brother still lives there.
If I could have gotten the wreckage of Carls plane, I would have and restored it to fly again, in the honor of those who served in them and to Carl.

[Mark Allen M]

Not the point I was making Matt, and I see where this thread could slide down to so I'll leave it to 'smarter' more informed folks to discuss.

[bdk]

Well, if a plane were haunted, then I might reconsider. Maybe I could make a second career as an aviation exorcist?

Airplanes are metal, wood, rubber, plastic, etc. They are inanimate objects. Why should it matter? I like the house analogy.

[k5083]

I'm with Matt and Brandon.

Attaching sentimental feelings to a house, boat, plane, car, or whatever that someone died in isn't rational, but it doesn't offend me if whoever owns the artifact feels that way and has the luxury of not needing it, so wants to leave it alone. If I owned such an artifact and some busybody tried to tell me I shouldn't restore it out of "respect" for someone who died in it, that would offend me.

In the military, obviously folks die in planes, ships, tanks, etc. and there is not much sentimentality, you clean and reuse them, even in peacetime. If a cop is shot in his car or a passenger has a heart attack and expires on a commercial flight, the vehicle is not discarded. The idea that a vehicle in which someone died is somehow sacrosanct is easily trumped by economics, as (IMO) it should be.

As far as the question about restored warbirds, you can get a rough approximation by googling "killed site:warbirdregistry.org" and seeing how many of the warbirds in which someone was killed are still asserted to be around. Some have gone through this cycle more than once, e.g., Mustang 44-74204 killed George Enhorning in 1990, then Bill Speer in 1994, and is yet again under rebuild. The issue you will have is the data-plate-restoration issue that sometimes not more than the identity is transferred between the accident aircraft and its reincarnation.

August

[Mark Allen M]

Well other than the usual 'reaching' for a conversation that the original poster was IMO was not really looking for other than a statement. I'll go there with you guys. I have no problem with restoring, rebuilding, conserving anything that happened to cause fatalities. I agree an object usually is nothing more than an object, and not where my remarks were focused. But I do feel it's really not necessary to provide a list of warbirds that death occurred in .... Is it? Maybe I'm a bit lost on this conversation now or turning soft in my old age of fifty.

BTW FWIW you would be surprised, or actually recently you shouldn't, how many buildings have been bulldozed because people have died in them. So the house analogy sits on a shaky foundation ...

[The Inspector]

This is going to the edge of O.T. and I'm sure someone can give a certain number (I hope), but I've read that of all the Lavelle MONOCOUPES built, 90+% of them have been involved in at least 1 fatal accident.

And a law in Washington State realty requires disclosure of anyone having died, for any reason, in a property you are purchasing or selling.

[JohnB]

I have a friend who has rebuilt (and continues to fly) two aircraft that have had fatal crashes.
It doesn't seem to bother him.

As has been pointed out, many warbirds out there have had fatal crashes...either during their service use, or as warbirds. But since they're "data plate" restorations and little if anything survives from their crash history, I'm not sure if it's really an issue.

[Kyleb]

I have a friend who has rebuilt (and continues to fly) two aircraft that have had fatal crashes.
It doesn't seem to bother him.

As has been pointed out, many warbirds out there have had fatal crashes...either during their service use, or as warbirds. But since they're "data plate" restorations and little if anything survives from their crash history, I'm not sure if it's really an issue.

I own the remains of a pre-war Aeronca which had a fatal crash a few years back. It is just an inanimate object, and the crash is part of the object's history - nothing to get worked up about. Lots of people live in houses where someone has passed, so what's the difference?

[The Inspector]

I have a friend who has rebuilt (and continues to fly) two aircraft that have had fatal crashes.
It doesn't seem to bother him.

As has been pointed out, many warbirds out there have had fatal crashes...either during their service use, or as warbirds. But since they're "data plate" restorations and little if anything survives from their crash history, I'm not sure if it's really an issue.

I own the remains of a pre-war Aeronca which had a fatal crash a few years back. It is just an inanimate object, and the crash is part of the object's history - nothing to get worked up about. Lots of people live in houses where someone has passed, so what's the difference?

No one knows, it's just a valid state Real Estate law

[bdk]

The one exception I can think of are homes where mass murders and the like have been committed. In that case though, it is usually the nuisance factor of gapers continually driving by or the fact that nobody would buy the house. Would you want to live in John Gacy's or Ed Gein's house? Probably not!

Of course that is an example of something nobody wants, where it appears that people still want many aircraft even after a fatality.

[Mark Allen M]

So who's going to post that list of haunted Aeronca's that real estate selling cops who's mass murdering younger brothers from Washington State had heart attacks and died in. Isn't this what the original poster was looking for?

[PeterA]

It is just about impossible to 'write off' a Spitfire and it is usual in the UK to insure the hull.

This means that the wreckage has substantial insurance value and is put up for sale by the insurer post paying out. The family or business associated with the deceased usually has the option to purchase the wreck.

The general feeling in the UK is that after a respectful length of time and after due discussion with the families of the deceased there is an understanding that the aircraft be rebuilt.

The question usually asked at this time is - 'would the deceased want to have it rebuilt'...and generally the answer is yes.

There is one Spitfire currently flying in this situation, four in the restoration process and one in store.

PeterA

[JohnB]

Peter, That's as it should be.

If aircraft are the historic artifacts we make them out to be, it's our responsibility to see them preserved for future generations....but then you then get into the question as to whether we should be flying/crashing them in the first place. :0