B-25 Crash!

[MIflyer]

Today, with enough effort, anything is repairable. This P-51B was found in a lake in Florida several years ago.

And yes, as I forecast, it was a very stupid mistake. Just think. They flew that airplane to HI and back and could not fly it less than 100 miles without running it out of gas.

 

[msxyz]

Vintage, historic planes are too precious to risk them in this way (not to mention the danger for the crews). While it's nice to hear the sound of those big, old internal combustion engines still running, I would restrict their activities to taxing for the sake of preservation.

 

[cvairwerks]

Vintage, historic planes are too precious to risk them in this way (not to mention the danger for the crews). While it's nice to hear the sound of those big, old internal combustion engines still running, I would restrict their activities to taxing for the sake of preservation.

You choose what you wish to do with the one(s) you own and I'll do what I wish to do with mine.

 

[SaparotRob]

Both views have merit. If a warbird can be put together and made airworthy, then it can be a living museum and bring aviation history alive. If a plane such as Swoose can be made airworthy, then no. Swoose is a National Treasure and should not be endangered beyond taxiing and with a protective cordon. I believe that if one goes out and recovers a classic aircraft and restores it then yes. I'd love to see and hear it. The Spirit of St Louis, no. I guess it's a question of uniqueness. Replica Memphis Belle, yes. I've seen and loved it. Original Memphis Belle, no. However, the more that are flown and lost leaves the remaining few closer to unique.

 

[MIflyer]

If not for people willing to put them in flying condition and operate them most of the older aircraft would have disappeared long ago, especially those without commercial uses. B-25's were dirt cheap in the 60's, about $5K, and a friend of mine said that he knew that BT-14's pretty much all disappeared because the crop dusters took the engines and MLG off and threw the rest away; his dad had one that met that fate.

And how many Ercoupes would we have now if people had not wanted to fly them? They would not have even ended up in museums. S/N 1 would be in the ASM and that would be it.

On the other hand, this B-25 crash, the B-17 crash at Bradley, and the crash of the TBM at Cocoa Beach are the latest examples that show how incredibly stupid people can be. Operating an older aircraft (mine is 75 this year) is a challenge and a significant responsibility that you should not adopt casually. A major reason I take such care with my airplane is that I would be ashamed not to.

The need to fly such airplanes intelligently is greater not only because they are national treasures but because they are FREAKING OLD machines. You have enough things that can go wrong and inspire the ground to rise up and smite you than to risk running out of gas, running out of oil, ignoring maintenance issues and other stupid stuff like that.

How do you "enforce" such common sense? I have no idea; gravity is the ultimate enforcer.

 

[SaparotRob]

If not for people willing to put them in flying condition and operate them most of the older aircraft would have disappeared long ago, especially those without commercial uses. B-25's were dirt cheap in the 60's, about $5K, and a friend of mine said that he knew that BT-14's pretty much all disappeared because the crop dusters took the engines and MLG off and threw the rest away; his dad had one that met that fate.

And how many Ercoupes would we have now if people had not wanted to fly them? They would not have even ended up in museums. S/N 1 would be in the ASM and that would be it.

On the other hand, this B-25 crash, the B-17 crash at Bradley, and the crash of the TBM at Cocoa Beach are the latest examples that show how incredibly stupid people can be. Operating an older aircraft (mine is 75 this year) is a challenge and a significant responsibility that you should not adopt casually. A major reason I take such care with my airplane is that I would be ashamed not to.

The need to fly such airplanes intelligently is greater not only because they are national treasures but because they are FREAKING OLD machines. You have enough things that can go wrong and inspire the ground to rise up and smite you than to risk running out of gas, running out of oil, ignoring maintenance issues and other stupid stuff like that.

How do you "enforce" such common sense? I have no idea; gravity is the ultimate enforcer.

I agree with you, big time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Vintage, historic planes are too precious to risk them in this way (not to mention the danger for the crews). While it's nice to hear the sound of those big, old internal combustion engines still running, I would restrict their activities to taxing for the sake of preservation.

If they are privately owned that's the owner's call. If they are properly restored and maintained there is no danger to "the crew" and it seems by that statement your time around real warbirds is probably very limited.

Get a million, restore a Spitfire and taxi around all day to your heart's content!

 

[MIflyer]

Get a million, restore a Spitfire and taxi around all day to your heart's content!

You can build one from scratch nowadays.

 

[msxyz]

If they are privately owned that's the owner's call. If they are properly restored and maintained there is no danger to "the crew" and it seems by that statement your time around real warbirds is probably very limited.

Get a million, restore a Spitfire and taxi around all day to your heart's content!

On one side, I can agree with that:, if you spent a lot of money to buy and restore something, you can do whatever you like with it. On the other side, in case of exceptionally rare aircrafts, with historic significance, they should be considered a sort of cultural heritage. Something to pass on to future generations. Every man made object is doomed to fail or break at some point; when you have a one of a kind object that is destroyed (be it an aircraft, a masterpiece of art, or an ancient building) once it's gone, it's gone for everyone -not only for the owner- and the memory of it will also fade faster.

 

[MIflyer]

As for as preserving historic aircraft, I'm all for that and I'm doing it myself, in a way, but some people are completely round the bend when it comes to that aspect.

For example, on another website, I posted pictures I took of the Collins Foundation's P-51B having an engine change. In response, some yahoo described how upset he was over the fact that the airplane wore the markings of a pilot that had been killed in WWII.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

On one side, I can agree with that:, if you spent a lot of money to buy and restore something, you can do whatever you like with it. On the other side, in case of exceptionally rare aircrafts, with historic significance, they should be considered a sort of cultural heritage. Something to pass on to future generations. Every man made object is doomed to fail or break at some point; when you have a one of a kind object that is destroyed (be it an aircraft, a masterpiece of art, or an ancient building) once it's gone, it's gone for everyone -not only for the owner- and the memory of it will also fade faster.

With machines, in our case aircraft - if they are properly inspected and maintained that risk is mitigated until it's decided not to operate anymore. As far as the morality/ ethics part - it's up to the owner.

 

[special ed]

They can be destroyed without flying them. Hurricane Andrew ruined many of the Weeks collection in Miami.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

You choose what you wish to do with the one(s) you own and I'll do what I wish to do with mine.

Maybe it's time to start rethinking our attitudes about personal property in the case of rare and valuable symbols of our historical heritage. In this world of burgeoning population and shrinking resources where we are all bumping into each other with increasing impact and frequency, many forward-looking landowners are beginning to think of themselves as not "owners" so much as "stewards" of the land with a responsibility to preserve, protect, and pass it on better than they acquired it and share its benefits with their community. Maybe this mindset ought to be promoted amongst the warbird community and those in posession of other historical artifacts. These things represent our shared historical heritage.

(Hey, anybody want to take a few shots with my M1873 .45 cal Springfield cavalry carbine? All original except the barrel.)

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As an aviation buff, I love seeing these planes flying and doing their thang.

As a history buff, I love seeing them intact.

I'm not sure there's any easy answer.

 

[topspeed]

They can be destroyed without flying them. Hurricane Andrew ruined many of the Weeks collection in Miami.

Funny I thought first the Hurricane Andrew is a fellow of notorious character.