Warbird Abuse?

Koopernic said:

I accept that. If it was a long distance shot from a telephoto lens then the spectators heads and that of the two Tomcat crew (allowing for the helmets) would have been about the same; however they are not the same, the spectator heads are much larger which means the camera was relatively close to the spectators. Telephoto lens's can create that illusion however, though I'm not a photo analyst.

Click to expand...

Regardless - I never did "the boat," I worked on P-3s but a lot of crazy sh!t goes on when deployed.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qMtnFtB38I

FLYBOYJ said:

Regardless - I never did "the boat," I worked on P-3s but a lot of crazy sh!t goes on when deployed.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qMtnFtB38I

Click to expand...

FB what was the cause/ outcome of that, I had seen it before but it seems very strange.

pbehn said:

FB what was the cause/ outcome of that, I had seen it before but it seems very strange.

Click to expand...

Compressor failure - and I believe pilot and WSO ejected safely.

I've seen a clip of this incident that was long enough to see the chutes ... but not recently.

Of course, this skirts the issue whether or not increasingly rare historical aircraft should be flown at all. Any flying machine that is over 70 years old is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot. Since I love to see warbirds in flight, I'd hate to see all of them grounded. But perhaps when flown at airshows, it would be best that this was limited to relatively low speed flybys and no aerobatics. By the way, by "historical aircaft" I mean warbirds that are restored to recreate their historical wartime appearance, not heavily modified Bearcats, Furys, and P-51s that race at Reno or perform at airshows. As far as I'm concerned racing and stunt pilots can do whatever they want with these aircraft (within the law, of course), since if the airplanes crash a truly historical airplane isn't lost.

zoomar said:

Any flying machine that is over 70 years old is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that. I've been in the aviation business for 35 years, have an A&P and IA and have worked on warbirds. Longevity depends a lot on its operational history and how reliable some of the airframe specific accessories are.. I know of some aircraft that were not in a combat or training status when operated by the military, were well maintained and not heavily flown. We've done some NDI on various portions of these aircraft (T-33s, PBY, Jet Provost, Ryan SC to name a few) and found little or no flaws and in some cases were in better shape and better built than newly manufactured contemporaries.


As long as any aircraft is maintained IAW its maintenance program and operated within the design limits, there is potential for the airframe having an infinite operational life (providing the manufacture didn't limit the life of the airframe). I rest my case with one aircraft in particular...



(Waiting for Greg to chime in...) 8)

I have to agree with Joe.
Although there is an element of risk of losing a warbird through accident, this is no higher, and probably a lot lower, than losing a 'modern' display aircraft which regularly participates in the air show 'circuit'. These risks are minimal, and although I'd hate to see a valuable, rare aircraft lost, I'd rather accept that minimal risk, and see it flying, than sitting leaking oil and slowly corroding on static display. There are, of course, some exceptions, where the type might be the only example left, and lack of spares and support may prevent it from flying, even if it was potentially airworthy. The RAFM Me410 and Ju87 are such examples, and I fully understand why they are on static display only.
But, the majority of airworthy warbirds today are not in that category and should, if possible, be maintained in an airworthy state, and flown whenever possible. Certainly those warbirds which fly regularly in the UK are in the hands of very experienced pilots or aircrew, many of them serving or ex forces pilots, and are tended by highly-qualified, experienced and dedicated ground/servicing teams, operating within extremely stringent rules and guidelines, both official (CAA) and of their own making. In general terms, the aircraft are limited to the amount of flying hours permitted per year, and operate (on displays) well within acceptable parameters of performance, handling and weather conditions, to ensure the minimum of stress to both airframe and engine, 'stress' which is much, much lower than the aircraft type(s) were designed for. Added to this is the fact that most, if not all of these 'vintage' aircraft have been virtually re-built to standards and tolerances far higher than the original design specs. The BBMF Lancaster, for example, was not only totally stripped, examined and re-built as required recently ( a deep service it undergoes around every 8 years), but was re-sparred - the only Lancaster ever to have such work carried out - in order to ensure not only absolute safety and integrity, but to prolong its active life for at least another 50 years.
There are many, many airliners in general service today that are, in aviation terms, old, and getting worn out and, when compared to the average family car would be regarded as totally 'past it', and I wouldn't even consider getting on board. Compare these frequently used, passenger carrying aircraft to the average warbird, and I know which one I would rather fly in !

FLYBOYJ said:

I have to disagree with that. I've been in the aviation business for 35 years, have an A&P and IA and have worked on warbirds. Longevity depends a lot on its operational history and how reliable some of the airframe specific accessories are.. I know of some aircraft that were not in a combat or training status when operated by the military, were well maintained and not heavily flown. We've done some NDI on various portions of these aircraft (T-33s, PBY, Jet Provost, Ryan SC to name a few) and found little or no flaws and in some cases were in better shape and better built than newly manufactured contemporaries.


As long as any aircraft is maintained IAW its maintenance program and operated within the design limits, there is potential for the airframe having an infinite operational life (providing the manufacture didn't limit the life of the airframe). I rest my case with one aircraft in particular...

(Waiting for Greg to chime in...) 8)

Click to expand...

I can accept that. I guess my real concern is the rarity of these planes. Even the best maintained and capablly flown aircraft can crash. People (pilots and maintence crew) can make mistakes. When a restored Bf 109 or Spitfire crashes a key artifact of aviation history is lost. The less they are flown probably the better.

Any flying machine that is over 70 years old is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot.

Click to expand...

Actually ]Any flying machine regardless of age is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot.


And who decides what is "historic"? A plane that served it's military life in the 1477th training squadron in Dubuque Iowa and has been repainted to look like a D-Day participant or plane that participated in numerous air races over several decades?

Or one that won in 1949 and is still in existence today?



It may not be a "warbird" but these old racers are of historical significance.

Shortround6 said:

Actually ]Any flying machine regardless of age is by definition one failure away from a crash, regardless of how well-maintained it is and how skilled or careful the pilot.


And who decides what is "historic"? A plane that served it's military life in the 1477th training squadron in Dubuque Iowa and has been repainted to look like a D-Day participant or plane that participated in numerous air races over several decades?

Or one that won in 1949 and is still in existence today?

View attachment 265379

It may not be a "warbird" but these old racers are of historical significance.

Click to expand...

Good points. Both examples you point out are historic aircraft. I guess the difference to me is whether or not they are being restored with the intention of preserving history. The racer was not preserved primarily because it is a historic artifact. It was restored and modified to perform in air races. A Corsair was chosen because it was available. It has been modified quite a bit from its original appearance, and Corsairs are still comparatively common as WW2 warbirds go. I appreciate unlimited air races and have absolutely no problem with aircraft like this being flown as aggressively as necessary to win the race. However if somebody entered a restored Fw190 or Ki-84 at Reno, I'd be horrified.

# 57 is no longer an active racer but flies now as an Historic artifact of the post war air races. It did not fly for 50 years.

Or look at the number of GeeBee R replicas in aviation museums. perhaps more replicas built than original aircraft

Not all aviation history is military history.

Shortround6 said:

# 57 is no longer an active racer but flies now as an Historic artifact of the post war air races. It did not fly for 50 years.

Or look at the number of GeeBee R replicas in aviation museums. perhaps more replicas built than original aircraft

Not all aviation history is military history.

Click to expand...

As someone who almost bought an unflyable An-2 to use as a static display in my yard (seriously)I agree. I certainly didn't intend to question the historical significance of commercial or civilian aviation.

I decry every static plane I see. They are meant to fly and at least the metal ones can be maintained almost indefinitely.

The key is regular flight, regular inspection and attention to maintenance of airframe, engine, and propeller.

Until something like this happens: Pilot killed as rare 1920s plane crashes at airshow - Telegraph

One of the world's only DH53 Hummingbirds in the world. Gone, just like that. Not to mention the loss of the pilot and 600 people getting to see the aweful event.

GregP said:

I decry every static plane I see. They are meant to fly and at least the metal ones can be maintained almost indefinitely.

The key is regular flight, regular inspection and attention to maintenance of airframe, engine, and propeller.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but no matter how well maintained an aircraft is and how capable its flight and maintenance crew, accidents do happen. For one-of-a-kind historic planes, I shudder anytime I hear they are going to be regularly flown. There are just too many examples of irreplaceable rarities being lost for posterity in airshows or even in regular test flights.

zoomar said:

I'm sorry, but no matter how well maintained an aircraft is and how capable its flight and maintenance crew, accidents do happen. For one-of-a-kind historic planes, I shudder anytime I hear they are going to be regularly flown. There are just too many examples of irreplaceable rarities being lost for posterity in airshows or even in regular test flights.

Click to expand...

O.K. Real example here - DH Mosquito's - To fly them or not. Until the last couple of days, there was only one airworthy airframe in the world, but now there are two. At what point do you say, that there are enough examples available to suddenly be allowed to fly them.

If there were restrictions on flying these machines, most of the recovered and restored aircraft wouldn't have been dragged out of the jungles/lakes/swamps where they came to rest. The fact that these aircraft are flying is why we have so many in existence today.

Do you have any idea how many of these "lost" airframes were subsequently rebuilt and are now flying?

Fortunately, here in the U.S.A., the owner of the aircraft decides whether or not to fly it, provided it has an airworthiness certificate.

So, only one or not, I hope they fly. At the Planes of Fame, we have the only one of several aircraft, and they fly. We have the only Northrop N9MB, the only flying Boeing P-26 Peashooter, the only Seversky AT-12, and the only authentic Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero that flies with the original engine and propeller. There are several more "only" planes that don't fly, but will one day. We plan to fly the only flyable Bell YP-59A Airacomet sometime soon. That should be something to see, and it is my primary project there.

I'm glad Paul Allen's collection flies the only flying Il-2 and the only flying Fw real 190, which I got to see fly last Saturday.

So if the owners want to ground them, that's fine. Maybe the next owner will fly them. Sooner or later SOMEBODY will.

"I own it, I'll do what I want!!"

That sounds more like a child screaming in a sandbox than a rational owner of a piece of history. So fine, go and beat the eff out of it, burn it to the ground, crash it or do whatever.

I've recently come to the realization that I am wasting far too much of my time worrying about things that few others are concerned about.

You'll notice in Greg's post that he referenced "Only Flying" on most of the aircraft he listed. That's because there are many museums around the world whose policy is to NOT fly these aircraft. So many examples are being preserved 'risk-free'.

Here in NZ, MOTAT, who have an extensive collection of aircraft, and do not fly them cannot fund even bringing most of their aircraft up to a decent static standard, and because they refuse to work with anyone who wants to fly their aircraft, many are left sitting outside, slowly rotting away, where no-one will ever see them.

Which is preserving history?

Don't get me wrong, I love to see vintage machines in action. I was spoiled as a kid because I was around a good deal of "old school" hardware, but I don't like to see them put at risk.

It is also a shame to see them languishing behind the hangar or in a field somewhere, rotting away but the NASM is full of aircraft that are restored and won't ever fly again.

Preserve the machine for the love of history, whether it can fly or not, bring it out and let everyone see history up close and personal.

I would love to see the Do17, even though it cannot and will not ever fly again, just because it's the last of it's kind even if it resembles a reef at the moment. As a kid, I roamed through old aircraft carcasses that were old movie props, surplus lots and parts donors. Some were rare and some weren't, but nearly all have long since been scrapped out.

It's the same thing with automobiles: 30 years ago, I could find dozens of 1962 Chevy Novas in the wrecking yard, when I was hunting for parts. They were everywhere.

Now, there are only two "shoebox" Novas (1962 - 1967) in this area, I own one of them...

The bottom line, preserve and care for these machines...take them out and show them off if they are able. Otherwise, dust them off, shine them up and give people the opportunity to walk around and see history.