Warbird Abuse?

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

The only time a warbird should "sit on a stick" if it has something wrong that renders it indefinitely un airworthy (cracked spar, major corrosion, etc.)

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.

You could be in great health and get hit by a truck crossing the street, same difference!!

I shudder when I see a rare aircraft wasting away on a pole or rotting in a museum. I don't know if you fly or have any experience around aircraft besides as an airshow spectator, but I'd trust 99% of the warbird pilots out there on the airshow circuit more than I would trust the driver cruising next to me on the freeway. I'd put 99% of the warbird maintainers up against any line auto mechanic any day of the week as far as work quality and integrity. No doubt there have been warbird crashes, but examine the numbers in recent years and compare them to the hours flown and even throw in mechanical failures and I'd bet dollars to donuts the percentage is miniscule. I'd even stick my neck out to say that you're more likely to have a warbird destroyed in a hurricane or tornado than in a crash, providing its parked in hurricane or tornado alley! You could even argue that if some of these rare "penguins" were able to fly, they could have been able to be moved before some of the more nasty hurricanes and tornadoes that hit the US in recent years destroyed them.

Airplanes are meant to fly and its up to the owner operator to mitigate the final risk.

 

[gumbyk]

The only time a warbird should "sit on a stick" if it has something wrong that renders it indefinitely un airworthy (cracked spar, major corrosion, etc.)

Even then, some of these birds are repairable. In fact, there is a move to restore those aircraft that were put on poles because they were 'unrepairable', and replace them with fibreglass models.

Barring being burnt out, is almost impossible to completely write off these warbirds.

 

[nuuumannn]

There is a place for both static examples in museums and active flying examples and we are fortunate to have both, certainly now in the case of the Mosquito. Like you said, Dave, if the aircraft are flown safely and responsibly by their respective owners, then the risk factor goes down considerably. I watched the Mossie KA114 during its flying display at Ardmore in 2012 and the pilots flying it got very low and very fast, but at no time was the aircraft or the punters watching in any danger at all. The aircraft was never flown dangerously and was displayed in a way that its lines and performance - and noise could be appreciated by those on the ground. This is the key to good display flying. It's not just about throwing the machine around and showing off, it's about presenting the aeroplane in its best light for the people watching below; slow fly-bys, fast passes for maximum noise and effect, steep turns, that sort of thing.

As for the argument of rare and historic types being flown, there are very few active warbirds that frequently fly round the world where they are the only ones in existence. Yes, there are only two flying Mosquitoes, but KA114 is a reproduction, and there are a number of original Mossies surviving on the ground. One case worth adding here is that the owners of the prototype Mosquito, one of the most historically significant surviving WW2 aircraft, are restoring it to flying condition - which is certainly adding an element of risk to it that never previously existed. My point is that there are very few exceptionally rare types that are regularly flown that don't have surviving examples in museums anywhere.

As for museums like MoTaT Aaron, it isn't unique in its previous neglect of its aircraft - thankfully they are doing what they can to change that at present, but cost of maintaining and housing a collection of aeroplanes will always be a problem for museums and places like Duxford and the USAF Museum, NASM at the Mall and at Dulles have plenty of hangar space to house their collections. As long as it is recognised that the rarest machines are kept under cover and are looked after, but again, not all museums have the funding to do this as well as what they should be. We'll never see the RAF Museum's Me 410 or NASM's Do 335 in the air, but we are fortunate to have examples of these remarkable aeroplanes surviving, so, like I said, both preservation types have their place.

It's also worth adding that the majority of flying warbirds these days are almost complete reconstructions, rather than restorations, so the argument of originality is a little skewed.

 

[GregP]

Hi GrauGeist,

That's EXACTLY what "ownership" means, I'll do what I want with it. Anything else isn't ownership. It isn't childish or irresponsible or in anybody's face. It's a VERY simple statement ... if I own it and I want to fly it, I will. If not, then I won't fly it. Nobody else has any say in what happens to it or what I decide to do with it.

It's what makes the U.S.A. the U.S.A. ... we're free to do whatever we want with our property as long as it doesn't impact other people's rights ... and in the case of an aircraft, nobody else HAS any rights except to declare it airworthy or non-airworthy (purview of the FAA). Once airworthy, you can either insure it or you can't. If you can't look elsewhere until you can.

But if I own a plane, then not GrauGeist nor anyone else has any say whatsoever in what I do with it ... just as I have no say whatsoever in what you do with your aircraft. I hope you fly it and enjoy it. But if you want to make it static, by all means do so in good health. If you want to turn it into a coffee table, go for it. If you want to cut it up and sell the pieces on eBay, go for it.

Pieces of History need to be acquired by people interested in preserving them as such and nobody much has any issue with that. Just don't try to tell me my airplane can't be flown because it's too valuable to be flown.

If it's mine, I'll decide what it's worth and whether or not it flies without outside help.

This may sound a bit "in your face," but it isn't meant to be. It's how things work in the U.S.A. .

 

[GrauGeist]

And with that attitude, I am done with this thread...

 

[gumbyk]

It's how things work in the U.S.A. .

Please, remember that this is an international forum, and discussions are (for me, at least) from an international perspective.

As for museums like MoTaT Aaron, it isn't unique in its previous neglect of its aircraft - thankfully they are doing what they can to change that at present, but cost of maintaining and housing a collection of aeroplanes will always be a problem for museums and places like Duxford and the USAF Museum

That was my point, generally, people don't stump up their own money for static aircraft, they want to fly it, so it is these people owning and flying these warbirds that are financing the preservation of warbirds aircraft. Without having the ability to fly them, most would still be languishing if jungles and swamps where they fell.

 

[GregP]

Hi Graugeist,

That's fine. I won't try to tell anyone in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else how they should do things. Europeans have their own laws and they seem to work just fine there. No issues here. The converse is true, too. Ours laws work fine here. If Graugeist can make someone in Bulgaria not fly a plane because it is too valuable, I won't kick about it or try to convince him or them otherwise. He's acting as his culture thinks he should act ... no issue here.

Likewise, if I am acting in a normal fashion here, then that's the way it goes here. I am not in any way trying to change his viewpoint. I just don't want him trying to make me conform to norms somewhere else.

The museums in Europe are amazing. Nice things there and well displayed for the most part. If they don't want to fly old planes, it's fine. Perhaps I made the mistake of thinking the way I did because Graugeist has a US flag in his sig and should know how it works here ... my assumption, possibly incorrect. If not, then by all means ground the old planes in Bulgaria if that's what's done there. No worries here.

Somehow, I cannot equate flying a 70-year old aircraft as abuse or even unusual in the least.

The argument will always fail to convince me, but I promise not to try to convince anyone outside the U.S.A. to adopt my viewpoint for aircraft in their country's airspace. Every country has the right to exercise control over their own airspace as THEY see fit, without regard to how anyone else does it. Of course, they might also find that if they don't conform to AT LEAST decent airworthiness standards, then other counties might refuse permission for their planes to enter. Other than that, it's whatever they want.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think we are getting a little carried away, guys, don't you think?

The difference between warbird flying and static displays basically boils down to finance and like I said, both are relevant for different reasons. Anyone in the aviation industry, be it as a private pilot, aircraft engineer or military fighter pilot will tell us there is an element of risk that exists around aircraft. The key is to minimise that risk through carefully thought out procedure. Airshow display flying is no exception and yep, some dude who owns his own P-51 might be able to fly like a maniac and survive, but is it necessary when the element of risk, both to himself and his audience increases exponentially? Probably not. Professional i.e. military and civilian display pilots would never behave like the guy in the orginal clip whilst on the job - as clever a pilot he might be, purely because that kind of flying simply isn't necessary to present the aeroplane in a convincing and entertaining manner, especially if the likelyhood of an incident resulting in harm to either the pilot or a bystander is higher than necessary.

That was my point, generally, people don't stump up their own money for static aircraft, they want to fly it, so it is these people owning and flying these warbirds that are financing the preservation of warbirds aircraft. Without having the ability to fly them, most would still be languishing if jungles and swamps where they fell.

Well, yes and no. Warbirds are certainly one element of preserving the past, although the term 'preservation' is used loosely to describe warbird restorations, since the majority of warbirds are reconstructed almost from scratch and are not the same machine that got hauled out of the jungle or swamp, nevertheless, there is an element of truth in what you say, Aaron. Museums, national ones at least simply don't fly their machines because of cost and provenance and the desire to keep things as authentic and original as possible, which is not possible with warbirds, but to say that the public don't fund aircraft recovery for static display is not true, really.

There are many examples of private individuals recovering static museum aircraft from remote locations, i.e., the RAF Museum's Il-2 Sturmovik (currently undergoing rebuild in an undisclosed location), Airco DH.9s and Hawker biplanes from India being rebuilt for the Imperial War Museum - a DH.9 is now on display at Duxford and let's not forget Charles Darby from a little closer to home who went into the Pacific and recovered a number of wrecks from the jungles and had them shipped to New Zealand and Australia, some of which have undergone static restoration - the RAF Museum's Beaufort, some to airworthy condition. This is just to name a few.

I'm not against warbirds flying. Like I said, as long as the risks are minimised, why should they not be flown? In saying that, however any airshow display director worth their salt would put the kybosh on any clown who flew his or her aircraft in an unnecessarily life threatening manner.

 

[GregP]

No nuumann, I don't.

I don't have any issues flying an airworthy older aircraft and he does. Simple and not worth a fight, but I stated my position as well as saying that I'm not trying to change the way other countries operate their airspace. That's about as mild as you can get and still disagree. Though we DO disagree, I'm not kicking Graugeist. He is a solid contributor and a knowledgeable one ... we just disagree on this point. Nothing to get upset about as far as I can see. We've disagreed before and gotten through it fine.

In actuality, I don't own a warbird so it makes no difference in the real world. The museum where I volunteer DOES operate warbirds and likely won't stop ... and I have nothing whatsoever to say about it one way or the other as far as management goes. I'm not on the museum management staff.

But I would hate to see widespread grounding of old aircraft that remain airworthy and will fight to keep them flying. I got a ride in a Beech Staggerwing a few weeks back that would be grounded if age were the determining factor. It was fast and fun and safe ... and I'd hate to see it grounded when it checks out fine and flies fine. In fact, this particular Staggerwing had new wood wings built for it about 10 years ago, though the fuselage is original except for replacement stringers over the years as required.

So, as you can see, arbitrarily grounding a plane because of age regardless of airworthiness has ramifications far beyond warbirds. and I am staunchly supportive of the airworthiness standards the FAA has set up. If it passes, it can fly ... at least here in the U.S.A. If other countries determine they don't want it that way, then I suppose we can't fly the old plane into that country. That's not intended to "set anyone off," just a statement of opinion which I'm sure we all have.

In the end. none of us are likely to have a great effect on the issue unless we are high up in the aviation regulatory entity for a country.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not against warbirds flying. Like I said, as long as the risks are minimised, why should they not be flown? In saying that, however any airshow display director worth their salt would put the kybosh on any clown who flew his or her aircraft in an unnecessarily life threatening manner.

That sums it up right there!!!!

 

[GregP]

Amen. Last thing we need is another airshow crash. If I were the air boss, minimum altitude would be 50 feet AGL even for an unlimited low altitude waiver holder except maybe for the jet car race act. In that case, closer is better and the direction of flight is down the runway.

 

[gumbyk]

Our minimums here are 100ft for passes, and 500ft for aerobatics. There is one pilot in the country who holds a lower limit for aeros.

We have had from time to time pilots who push the limits, and repeated infringements have led to them not being invited back.

 

[GregP]

500 feet for aerobatics? Interesting.

 

[Deleted member 63714]

Looks like a beautiful plane... I would've been nail-biting if I had seen that...

Hopefully there will be enough pilots with caution. Keeping those planes around as long as possible is my hope.

 

[GregP]

He WAS a bit low and close, wasn't he?

But, if you see the video, it looks not quite so extreme in real time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In the US FAR 91.303 dictates normal aerobatic requirements;

91.303 Aerobatic flight.
No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

Here's what the Feds use with regards to airshows and granting waivers;

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/airshow/waiver/media/common_spec_provisions.pdf

10. Civilian flying performers who do not hold a FAA Form 8710-7 or Canada's TCA form 26-0307, Statement of Acrobatic Competency with a Level 1 altitude authorization may conduct non-aerobatic fly-bys:
a. No closer than the 500 feet show line.
b. Ingress/egress shall be no closer than 500 feet laterally to the ends of the primary spectator area.
c. No lower than 100 feet AGL when operating a jet or turbojet airplane within 1,000 feet of a designated spectator area unless the pilot is in possession of a current Surface Level 1 Statement of Aerobatic Competency for that airplane. (Ref 3-147.J)

There's more about minimum altitudes and how close you're allowed to spectators.

 

[GregP]

Thanks, Joe.

The only people really flying low at most of our shows are the main aerobatic act in something like a Pitts, Zlinn, or Extra and maybe the Hawker Sea Fury of the Sanders family doing a show with smoke canisters. That show usually has one pass at 50 feet going rather slowly accentuating the wake turbulence and smoke rings the Sea Fury creates. The rest of the passes and acts are usually at 100 feet or above for most passes except maybe for a fast, straight low pass down the runway with a 30° bank to show the planform of the aircraft. The pic at the start of this thread was not at a Planes of Fame airshow. We have a long history of good, safe airshows.

Most of the complaints we get are about the noise! It baffles me that people will attend and airshow and expect the planes to be quiet when the show is 95% WWII piston-powered aircraft and they KNOW that to start with. A P-51 is a lot of things but it isn't as quiet as a Cessna 172. You can expect your baby sleeping in a stroller to wake up at some point in the show.

 

[pbehn]

If a guy owns a plane then surely he decides what is done with it in UK USA or anywhere else that is flying or not flying. No one has the right to kill spectators with stupid or dangerous manouvers. There are too many classic aircraft being wiped out even on Youtube too allow any more idiotic manouvers. The BoB memorial flight is owned by British citizens I want them to continue flying...I dont need to see a spit or hurricane doing a loop 10 ft off the ground to appreciate it.

 

[bobbysocks]

there was a reason during the war that after 300 hours the plane was labled WW ( war weary ). it was taken out of combat for fear that the structure had been compromised by the stress and strain of excessive G-forces and violent maneuvers. there is a lot of things you can do to check the airframe for integrity. you can strip it back to its original off the assembly line configuration and weigh it to see how badly corrosion has eroded the body....you can do eddy current testing for cracks and and fissures.....but not a 100% for certain test to check ( that i know of ) for certain types of metal fatigue. every part of a plane has a metric that drives its replacement/rebuild...number of hours, number of cycles ( landings and take offs ), calender days, etc.. they monitor the number of hours the engine has run but they do not monitor the number of times the airframe has exceeded a certain speed or pulled a certain number of Gs. i love to see the old birds fly and wrung out....but i also want to see it done as safely as possible. if the guy wants to take HIS plane out over the desert and roll, spin, loop, hot dog it to his hearts content then have at it. as he will be the only one who will suffer from a FU or accident. but if he is around a crowd i want to know that plane is 100%...especially if i am standing at the rope watching. so to that end i would say that unless that bird was completely rebuilt within the last couple hundred hours there should be a cap on the maneuvers, speed, alt, and Gs it is permitted to display at public events. and going with the WW notion....every so many hours those maneuvers get more restrictive unless certian components are completely replaced. at a certain point if accidents happen and spectators are injured or killed the FAA will make a ruling and ground these ac.....they have tried already and there is a movement that will keep pushing for it. if the owners and operators do not act wisely and police themselves....the government will....and THAT you do not want to happen.

 

[gumbyk]

Even with everything that they are put through at airshows, these aircraft are nowhere near the limits, or what they were put through during the war. Standards of maintenance are much higher now days as well. Retiring of airframes during the war was erring on the cautious side, as generally aircraft didn't have a realistic life of that much, and engineers didn't have the time/tools to disassemble the airframe to look at it.

We also have 70 years more experience of operating these aircraft.