Re: a flash of red
Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:21 pm
Col. Rohr wrote:[
My personal feelings towards Red Bull are well know I think they are a very harsh company that treat there US Employes with little to no respect.
RER
That just made me think of all the RB employee's I've seen,
I think someone should treat them girls with r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:29 pm
I've always been of two minds about this.
I think when it comes to genuinely historic aircraft -- such as the Spirit of St. Louis, Bell X-1, or Enola Gay -- they should be preserved and not flown as they occupy unique moments in history. Few of the warbirds flying today have actual combat records having served in domestic training units or were manufactured late in the war and didn't see action, so they're more representative of the type than being historic combat veterans. That doesn't make them any less valuable or significant, but I think it provides more of a justification to keep them flying rather than grounding them.
I know that whenever I walk into an air museum I dearly wish I could see all of the collection's aircraft flying; just to see how they move through the air, how they sound, to see them in their natural element. Seeing them permanently grounded is like like looking upon a Stradivarius violin and never hearing a Mozart or Vivaldi concerto played on it: you might imagine what it's like to hear it but it's just not the same. Seeing an airplane in flight brings it and the experience alive.
When the CWH's Lancaster took flight, it fulfilled a lifelong dream of mine that I thought would never come true short of travelling to the U.K., nor did I ever imagine seeing a De Havilland Mosquito fly outside of a TV documentary or late-night showing of "633 Squadron" until I saw Kermit Weeks' B.35 at Hamilton one year, and I dearly hope I see another Mossie fly in Canada again in the future. I know my life would be poorer if I never saw another Mustang flyby with it's Merlin in full song. There's just nothing else like it.
I think deep down we all want to see them fly.
I know that there's a very real risk when any airplane is flown, but a museum is no perfect guarantee of safety either: the CWH hangar fire, Hurricane Andrew's impact on the Weeks Museum, and the damage done to Tom Reilly's outfit attest to that. Funding and zoning can change, federal regs can be altered to prohibit even the museum ownership of ex-military aircraft; complete safety is never guaranteed in life.
For myself, I'd like to see the air races at Reno move away from utilizing warbird airframes and engines and adopt "fresh sheet of paper" designs like the Pond Racer offered. I'd rather see fast, new aircraft fly than see more Merlins detonate or Bearcats get chewed to pieces on the desert floor.
N.
[/b]
I think when it comes to genuinely historic aircraft -- such as the Spirit of St. Louis, Bell X-1, or Enola Gay -- they should be preserved and not flown as they occupy unique moments in history. Few of the warbirds flying today have actual combat records having served in domestic training units or were manufactured late in the war and didn't see action, so they're more representative of the type than being historic combat veterans. That doesn't make them any less valuable or significant, but I think it provides more of a justification to keep them flying rather than grounding them.
I know that whenever I walk into an air museum I dearly wish I could see all of the collection's aircraft flying; just to see how they move through the air, how they sound, to see them in their natural element. Seeing them permanently grounded is like like looking upon a Stradivarius violin and never hearing a Mozart or Vivaldi concerto played on it: you might imagine what it's like to hear it but it's just not the same. Seeing an airplane in flight brings it and the experience alive.
When the CWH's Lancaster took flight, it fulfilled a lifelong dream of mine that I thought would never come true short of travelling to the U.K., nor did I ever imagine seeing a De Havilland Mosquito fly outside of a TV documentary or late-night showing of "633 Squadron" until I saw Kermit Weeks' B.35 at Hamilton one year, and I dearly hope I see another Mossie fly in Canada again in the future. I know my life would be poorer if I never saw another Mustang flyby with it's Merlin in full song. There's just nothing else like it.
I think deep down we all want to see them fly.
I know that there's a very real risk when any airplane is flown, but a museum is no perfect guarantee of safety either: the CWH hangar fire, Hurricane Andrew's impact on the Weeks Museum, and the damage done to Tom Reilly's outfit attest to that. Funding and zoning can change, federal regs can be altered to prohibit even the museum ownership of ex-military aircraft; complete safety is never guaranteed in life.
For myself, I'd like to see the air races at Reno move away from utilizing warbird airframes and engines and adopt "fresh sheet of paper" designs like the Pond Racer offered. I'd rather see fast, new aircraft fly than see more Merlins detonate or Bearcats get chewed to pieces on the desert floor.
N.
[/b]
Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:26 am
Neil,
I must say I concur with you on much of what you say. Not the least of which is the idea that for lack of a better, raw design, Mustangs, Bearcats, and all the rest will continue to run the pylons at Reno. But as I say this, I am advocating the use of alternatives rather than use up the availible airframes and engines. Fact is, aerodynamically, you can only push a P-51 or a Bearcat through the air so fast. It just isn't feasible to continually modify an airframe that was cutting edge stuff aerodynamically speaking back in the 1940's. It doesn't matter what engine you hang on the front. Originally, the Bearcat had a R-2800...Rare Bear has a R-3350 on it now. Where does it go from there ??
Additionally, I also agree, in my own heart at least, that for the most part, as someone stated here so eloquently, that these planes cannot be always viewed as stuffed animals.. they had a purpose yes..to be sure.
And finally, I think Rob said alot of it the best. I cannot put much more into his thoughts, as they are very well said.
Paul
I must say I concur with you on much of what you say. Not the least of which is the idea that for lack of a better, raw design, Mustangs, Bearcats, and all the rest will continue to run the pylons at Reno. But as I say this, I am advocating the use of alternatives rather than use up the availible airframes and engines. Fact is, aerodynamically, you can only push a P-51 or a Bearcat through the air so fast. It just isn't feasible to continually modify an airframe that was cutting edge stuff aerodynamically speaking back in the 1940's. It doesn't matter what engine you hang on the front. Originally, the Bearcat had a R-2800...Rare Bear has a R-3350 on it now. Where does it go from there ??
Additionally, I also agree, in my own heart at least, that for the most part, as someone stated here so eloquently, that these planes cannot be always viewed as stuffed animals.. they had a purpose yes..to be sure.
And finally, I think Rob said alot of it the best. I cannot put much more into his thoughts, as they are very well said.
Paul