Should Ultra Rare Aircraft be flown

[Aircraft Mech Paul]

...after restoration ? Or should they be preserved in a static museum state to preserve them, until another of the breed is found and restored ?

Paul

[DaveM2]

Build new ones, ala the 262s and 190s, unless the 'ultra rare ' aircraft starts out as a pile of junk and has a total of three original fittings in the rebuilt airframe ..if so then fly the hell out of it

Dave

[Randy Haskin]

Airplanes are meant to fly....

...but, whomever owns the title and writes the checks for fuel, maintenance, and operation, is the one who should decide.

[TimAPNY]

Airplanes are meant to fly....

...but, whomever owns the title and writes the checks for fuel, maintenance, and operation, is the one who should decide.

Considering that most of the very rare birds come out of some remote area and someone has spent huge amounts of time and money to find, recover and restore it. I'd say what ever they want to do with it is their choice.

It seems rare the any government is actively trying to locate and recover these aircraft for public display. I’d hate to think of what the warbird community would look like if the people weren’t allowed to fly warbirds. that seems to be a huge driving force behind these recoveries.

[C170BDan]

Airplanes are meant to fly....

...but, whomever owns the title and writes the checks for fuel, maintenance, and operation, is the one who should decide.

Amen, brother Haskin!

[Robbie Stuart]

Ditto here, he who's ass pocket pays the price should make the call.
Robbie

[lmritger]

Good answers here guys, and I'm almost in full agreement...

... but there are a very few examples which I think deserve as much protection as we can offer them. The Spirit of St. Louis, Winnie Mae, Amelia's Vega, and so forth- those are positively irreplaceable historic artifacts, important not just because of what they are, but because of what they did. I also think the Fw 190D-13 should be kept on the ground, only because it is largely original and obviously the only one in existence.

But by and large, whoever pays for it should dictate whether they fly or not. Just be careful with'em up there!

Lynn

[Mudge]

Well, of course, it's the decision of the owner whether to fly it or not...DUH.
I, for one, would have to vote for FLY IT.
Yes, everyone can go look at a static display aircraft and say, "Gee, that's really nice." Wouldn't you rather see the plane fly and be saying, "OH MY GOD, THAT'S BEAUTIFUL"?

Mudge the not easily impressed

[TimAPNY]

... but there are a very few examples which I think deserve as much protection as we can offer them. The Spirit of St. Louis, Winnie Mae, Amelia's Vega, and so forth- those are positively irreplaceable historic artifacts, important not just because of what they are, but because of what they did. I also think the Fw 190D-13 should be kept on the ground, only because it is largely original and obviously the only one in existence.
Lynn

I would not argue with the fact that some specific examples should not be flown because of historical value.

I might cave to the One-of-a kind idea. But I NEVER want to give the impression that I want to exert control over someone else’s property. (If they start taking huge amounts of Government funds for the aircraft than my view might change over what happens to it)


Tim

[bdk]

Should Ultra Rare Aircraft be flown after restoration ?

Yes, in fact I command it to be so!

Well, maybe not the Wright Flyer. In fact, I don't think that government entities are responsible enough to fly historical aircraft. I think the private sector should make their own decision on any aircraft they own.

I also think the Fw 190D-13 should be kept on the ground, only because it is largely original and obviously the only one in existence.

Didn't Champlin trade wings with the USAFM? That would make at least 2 aircraft, right?

I don't think that rarity by itself is the only factor that should be taken into consideration. 109s have a history of operational problems due to their landing characteristics, but then again there are certain pilots with lots of hours on them and a good safety record. The 190 series doesn't suffer from these landing issues that I am aware of, so I would say that it would be a good candidate for flight by comparison even though it is more rare. Planes of Fame has been safely flying its Zero since it was rare, now there are nearly half a dozen other flyers out there.

Really, there are very few warbirds that are as iconic as the Wright Flyer or the Spirit of St. Louis. Maybe the Memphis Belle fits into that category as a warbird. There are probably only a few anoraks by comparison that even know (or care) what a FW-190D is.

[TimAPNY]

My understanding of the Chaplin's Fw-190 is that the wings were switch when the Gov had them just after WW2 and when at some point they were assemble they didn't get the proper wings with the proper Fuselage. I heard that the NASM wanted the correct wings for their aircraft back but did not want to restore them to make a "fair" trade of parts.

But I was also told that the 109 there was one of the "German Build 109s delivered to Spain". So I'm not claiming a ton of truth to what I heard.

[mrhenniger]

My understanding of the Chaplin's Fw-190 is that the wings were switch when the Gov had them just after WW2 and when at some point they were assemble they didn't get the proper wings with the proper Fuselage. I heard that the NASM wanted the correct wings for their aircraft back but did not want to restore them to make a "fair" trade of parts.

I don't think it was both the left and right wings that were swapped, but just the left or the right from each airframe.

Mike

[aerojock]

I seem to remember reading in an Air Classics that the wings on the 190-13 were actually swapped for the correct wings. So it should be complete.

Aero.

[RickH]

The D-13 wings were swapped with the D-9 example at the AF Museum, it is on loan from NASM. The Champlin folks could never figure out why the controls and other components wouldn't match up. When they got the new wings all of those problems were magically solved !

[O.P.]

I'm with Randy, Whoever paid for it gets to make the decision.

For historically significant aircraft, Lindbergh, X-15, Enola Gay, ect, those almost always are institutionalized the moment they are finished with. They are almost always centered around a person or an event that that specific aircraft took part in.

Last one left, or only one built, doesn't qualify for non-flight status necessarily, in my opinion anyway.

As for the D-13, I wouldn't have any problems with it being flown. This might be the last chance for that to happen in our lifetimes. If the museum buys it, then, it will probably remain parked for a very long time. I can always hope someone else gets it and flys it. Who knows, "For Sale" might be a euphemism in association with that airplane. "For Sale" might just be a fund raising tool to help raise funds to purchase the aircraft. From what I've read, it seemed that Doug Champlin was pretty adamant that it did not fly again. Maybe the "For Sale" thing, is only to the one customer. Thats cool, It's still his plane.

I definately wouldn't have any problems with it being disassembled, blueprinted and replicated sometime in the future either.

Anyone know if the Texas Aircraft factory or Flugwerk is looking for the next project?