mustangdriver wrote:
Great work you guys are doing. As for the remaining flyable B-24's, would you count the one at Fantasy of Flight? I know it is not flown on a regular basis, but it does fly.
In my book, if the aircraft hasn't flown in a year, it is not immediatly flyable.
We all know that after sitting for a time, things happen that need to be checked, cleaned and an annual done. It doesn't mean the aircraft is incapable of flight, it's just that it isn't flyable at the moment, either legally or mechanically.
I would not classify Week's B-24 as "flyable" since it hasn't flown in several years. Just because it did fly to where it is now housed doesn't make it permently "flyable".
Is the Lancaster "Just Jane" considered flyable? I would venture that it is capable of flight, but most people probably consider it a non-flyer at the moment.
Of the 25 or so Corsairs that are capable of flight or have flown in the last 15-20 years, how many are flown regularly? 15-18 tops?
War Eagles, Kalmazoo, EAA, etc. all haven't flown in the last year (to my knowledge) so I consider those not currently flyable.
Well;
now that I've run over at the mouth I've started to think a little clearer: maybe the answer for this question is the definition of Airworthy vs. Flyable?
The FAA doesn't say an aircraft has to be "Flyable", they just want it leagally "Airworthy".
Of course, you could take the other tack and say that anything is flyable with enough power, regardless of it being actually airworthy!
Maybe this would be a good discussion topic for WIX?
Blue skies,
Jerry