PDA

View Full Version : People Think Classic "Warbirds"Shouldnt be Flown Agressively!?



ytareh
10-11-2005, 05:06 PM
Just watching a documentary called "Spitfire Story" on Discovery Wings"(UK).Guys were saying here in light of recent crashes that these classic planes should be preserved and not flown to the limit certainly 'on the deck'.Well I was in 'shock and awe' looking at a Spitfire IX being looped and bottoming out of the loop (now I had a good close look for you guys)LESS THAN THE WIDTH OF A WINGSPAN above the ground!Unbelievable aircraft and flying!

BSS_Goat
10-11-2005, 05:22 PM
That guy was probably more lucky than skilled....

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 05:56 PM
indeed
u need a balance between danger and preservation. BOB lanc doesnt do anything like it could do, because its down to fly aslong as possible. same with other aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

theres plenty of spits, and mass of p51D's, so im not too bothered if one of them crashes, the more rare stuff...

GR142_Astro
10-11-2005, 05:56 PM
At some point in the future, enthusiasts and historians will shake their heads over the loss of irreplaceable warbirds during this "air show" age.

Sure it gives the current crowd of folks a $25 thrill, but what will be left for future generations? I think it was only a few years ago that the last flyable authentic WWI aircraft was finally grounded, and that was due to the overwhelming cost of insuring it for each flight.

The time has come to think replica.

http://www.machtres.com/Fokker%20Triplano.jpg

fordfan25
10-11-2005, 06:01 PM
a spit.....who cares lol. but a real plane like a 38,51,-4,47 now those should be kept safe LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 06:18 PM
none of them carry workin 50cals fordfan.

EQUALITY AT LAST. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stackhouse25th
10-11-2005, 06:25 PM
i already mentioned this in a previous thread. its a no brainer the real ones shouldnt fly.

especially seeing ones with a combat history get transformed into some racing machine...

call it airplane bubba

Crimea_River
10-11-2005, 06:36 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stackhouse25th:
i already mentioned this in a previous thread. its a no brainer the real ones shouldnt fly.

especially seeing ones with a combat history get transformed into some racing machine...

------------------------------------------

I'd agree with you on the racing transformations but IMHO a flyable warbird should be flown. What I don't agree with is hot dogging with these things to thrill a crowd. For the true enthusiast, just seeing them fly is thrill enough without all the fancy loops. There's usually planty of aerobatics in these same shows using planes built for that purpose.

IL2-chuter
10-11-2005, 07:35 PM
As a pilot I would be surprised if that loop was a maximum effort. The pilot most likely "drove" it that close to the ground . . . not such a big deal IF that's what he did. However, pilots sometimes do lose their place in the sky . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I can remember reading an article in TRUE magazine in, maybe, 1970 about warbirds (mainly Mustangs) and how people should get out and see them at airshows soon because they were getting too expensive to maintain and fly and they would all be in museums soon. Most of the ones flying now are, I would guess, less than 60% WW2 metal. Some very much less, like the Oscars . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

As far as the racers go, many of them (though, I'm sure, not all) are incomplete compilations of several airframes, not enough to restore to an authentic configuration. The Michelob Super Corsair was five different aircraft with some major components built to non-original but easier to fab up designs. Just a shell of a plane, really . . . good for racing. I'm not a big fan of Unlimited racing however, the results can pretty much be determined ahead of time by looking at the various teams' budgets.


RIP Art.

huggy87
10-11-2005, 07:43 PM
True enough that these planes' losses are irreplacable. However you have to remember that they are largely owned by private owners. That gives them the right to paint it purple or turn it into scrap metal if they like.

BaldieJr
10-11-2005, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
none of them carry workin 50cals fordfan.

EQUALITY AT LAST. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But if they did restored tigers would get pwned.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 08:55 PM
y::
looking at a Spitfire IX being looped and bottoming out of the loop (now I had a good close look for you guys)LESS THAN THE WIDTH OF A WINGSPAN above the ground!Unbelievable aircraft and flying!
That's nothing. I saw a film of a recent airshsow Spitfire doing the same thing, and you could see the mush as the pilot tried to pull up. Spit trying to point nose up but the Spit was still moving down. Smack like frying pan banged on the Kitchen floor.. big explosion.

Yes, these things must be kept *far* above the ground except on takeoff and landing.

Feathered_IV
10-11-2005, 10:03 PM
The noses of those DR1's actually look quite convincing. Most replicas usually look a bit funny around that area. Nice!

I've always had a bit of an ugre to build one of those on day ......

jds1978
10-12-2005, 03:45 AM
yeah...it's time to ground the originals. i'm an amateur historian and i just about puke when i read about crashes. first comes horror at the potential loss of life, then anger b/c we all just lost a chunk of our collective history to some stunt.

BenvZijl
10-12-2005, 03:55 AM
agreed we must preserve the originals and make replica's of them.(i would love to see some replica's of b-29's in formation etc.)

womenfly
10-12-2005, 06:40 AM
http://www.machtres.com/Fokker%20Triplano.jpg

What a great picture Astro! Where did you find it? ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Jumoschwanz
10-12-2005, 07:47 AM
Keep flying and using any old or antique equipment, here it why:


I have a lot of old classic motorcycles, they are really rare and irreplacable. One could be the only one of it's kind still being used on public roads, another is the documented third off the production line of it's kind, I am going to road-race it!, Another is a semi-famous custom from the sixties that is featured on a web-page of classic bikes, and yet another is one of only a handful built and left existing of it's type.

Someday I am sure these will all end up either in the trash or in museums, kind of a waste when they still run well and when their intended use was to run free and fast as high performance motorcycles. After I blow up the engines and cart-wheel them down the pavement and they are bent and smashed wrecks, then some panzy can put what is left back together, polish it up and put it on static display for wannabees to ooh and ahhh over.

Most of the warbirds flying today are mostly re-fabricated like old sailing ships. they have a few parts left from WWII and the rest is all new. Look at the **** they are dragging out of lakes and restoring, there is nothing left of them at all, when restored they will be 95% new anyway.

I like going to vintage motorcycle races and watching the Classic motorcycles being run hard, blown up and wrecked, and rebuilt as they were intended. My Dad raced these bikes in the late fifties and early sixties and so did his buddy, who is in his seventies and still races the same bikes he raced and owned 45 years ago!
If someone is nutty enough to want to, they can fix anything. The Hellcat that crashed in Tennesee, is still as repairable as any of the junk they are dragging out of lakes and forests around the world now, and if it is valuable and rare enough, it WILL be fixed up again. If there is no money in it, or it is not a popular item, then it will stay in the junk-pile.

So if something is capable of flying, fly it, it can always sit in a museum after it is so beat to he ll that it won't fly anymore. I might kill myself racing vintage motorcycles and blow up something that is irreplaceable, but I would rather do that than have a bike sitting around as a paperweight and die slipping in the bathtub taking a shower.
If you don't think the aircraft is as good a paperweight just because it cannot fly then you are screwed-in-the-head.

Jumoschwanz

Feathered_IV
10-12-2005, 07:55 AM
Mmmmm...

Replica Claude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif!!!!!!!!!!

Feathered_IV
10-12-2005, 07:57 AM
Just a thought, what would be your candidate for most desirable replica of an extinct aircraft?

LEBillfish
10-12-2005, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by huggy87:
True enough that these planes' losses are irreplacable. However you have to remember that they are largely owned by private owners. That gives them the right to paint it purple or turn it into scrap metal if they like.


Absolutly.........

There is a solution though......Anyone is more then welcome to offer the owner the millions of dollars to buy one and tuck it in some garage....Or even getting a group together and buying one.......Wait I said Millions, some of these guys might not part with them for billions.

If they spent the millions it takes to restore, house and maintain them then they are more then welcome to suicide in them.....(tell me anyone of you doesn't dream of flying like you do here in the real thing....and we all know the result of that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

KGr.HH-Sunburst
10-12-2005, 08:38 AM
they can fly P51s Spits etc all the way they want and turn it into scrap metal....i dont care, tons of them around, i hate to say it but the more rare planes like Bf109s FW190s etc should be kept grounded so our future generations can enjoy them and understand History better aswell.

on the other hand if you ever heard a real BMW or DB engine you would better like to see them in the air...the sound of LW planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

shame is they are so dangerous to fly they crash often..

GR142_Astro
10-12-2005, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by womenfly:
http://www.machtres.com/Fokker%20Triplano.jpg

What a great picture Astro! Where did you find it? ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Isn't that cool?

Just one of many Fokker photos out there on de interweb.

<S>

SithSpeeder
10-12-2005, 10:22 AM
What LeBill said.

* _54th_Speeder *

***
It is a very short trip. While alive, live.
--Malcolm Forbes
***

DmdSeeker
10-12-2005, 10:44 AM
It's their money; it's their ride.

danjama
10-12-2005, 10:55 AM
"So if something is capable of flying, fly it, it can always sit in a museum after it is so beat to he ll that it won't fly anymore. I might kill myself racing vintage motorcycles and blow up something that is irreplaceable, but I would rather do that than have a bike sitting around as a paperweight and die slipping in the bathtub taking a shower.
If you don't think the aircraft is as good a paperweight just because it cannot fly then you are screwed-in-the-head."

Im really with Jumo on this. If i had the plane i would do my best to put it through what it is capable of. Risk is a consistent factor in life, so why waste it?
I would like to see a flyable FW190A in the UK. I would be any amount to see that, maybe even sit in one.

VFA-195 Snacky
10-12-2005, 11:34 AM
Seeing one of these planes in a museum is like seeing a shell of what was once a warbird, but to see them take flight is to see them alive.

We have 2 F104 Starfighters at our airfield and they are used in flight displays around the world. These planes take thousands of hours and dollars to keep them flying and even after all that time and money flight time is limited. When they do fly though it's something special and well worth the cost IMO. I can go look at these jets anytime I want when they sit in the hanger, but when they line up for takeoff everyone comes out to see them.

Yes, keep them flying.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2005, 03:02 PM
i would much rather see AND hear the airplanes, not sit in a museum never to be in its natural element, airplanes are ment to fly, even if the inherent risks are there, theyre old planes, engine failures, structural fatigue, pilot misjudgments, are all part of the game imo

dogstar4000
10-12-2005, 03:08 PM
I hate going to place like RAFM Hendon and seeing lovely machines sitting there leaking oil into sandboxes. I like Duxford because half the stuff they have is being restored and you think 'thats going to make a fantasic sound when its in the air'. These things were made to be flown, although when they are flown the envelope over the crowd is so **** large its hardly worth watching/flying them. Its a fine line to me, I think they should be flown but without the aerobatic stuff, as much as I would dearly love to see it I would sacrifice that for the longevity of the machine (and life of the pilot!)

p1ngu666
10-12-2005, 03:39 PM
there bulit to fly ffs. much nicer to see and hear them in the air.

replica mossie, or some bomber command aircraft. no point in a replica p51D for example...

Bo_Nidle
10-12-2005, 04:27 PM
If warbirds are reduced to static museum pieces, to stand and gather dust, then they will lose that unique element that they possess: to give the impression that they are real and in a very real sense, alive.

Go to any museum and watch the none enthusiast walk past an aeroplane or a tank on display and they will pay it scarce attention. However watch them in the audience of an airshow or military vehicle display as the same things roar past them as they were intended and you can see the impressed expression on their faces. All of a sudden the things they barely noticed are alive and real!! Then they take the step towards REAL interest and in doing so keep alive the memory of those that served and fell in the cause of freedom.

A replica I would equate to a tribute band. Okay when you've had a few but they are never going to be as good as the real thing.

I overheard a conversation once at the Flying Legends airshow at Duxford a few years ago as a Douglas Skyraider was taxying past.One man asked where it was from, to which the other man replied "I'm not sure, I think it LIVES here"

That sums it up for me:

Static, dust gathering display=Dead.

Flying,roaring through the sky, cavorting in the element in which they were meant to exist,giving you goose-bumps and making your spine tingle = very much ALIVE!

We have enough ornaments in museums. The people that fly these pieces of history recognise the risks but have the same passion that I imagine the majority of us do. They were meant to be in the air and that is where they should be.

dogstar4000
10-12-2005, 05:22 PM
OK, im probably playing Devils Advocate here, but if you read the 'A very low P-38 pass' thread you can see a beautiful plane being wrecked at the cost of one beautiful plane and one talented pilot. I want to see these things flying as much as everyone else. But eventually the only things flying will be a such and such replica, with X, Y, and Z original pieces. where do you draw the line? Is it about instant gratification (as are most things these days) or is it really genuine enthusiasm.

J_Weaver
10-12-2005, 05:44 PM
Its really a tough call. Its always a shame to see one of these old warbird crash, but its really amazing to see one in flight.

A quick story:

A few summers ago I was hiking with my dad in the mountain near our home. We had spent the last hour or so cutting our way through underbrush that was over our head and so thick we couldn't see our feet. Finally we broke into a clearing and decided to stop for a break. Just after we sat down we heard the sound of a radial engine, not the sound of a 300hp Wasp Jr, but a big radial. We started scannig the sky just like teh airplane nuts we are. Then we spotted it, a B-29 at about 5,000ft! It was quite on unexpected sight to say the least!

I guess my point is keep'em flying so more people can have an experience like me.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-12-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
If warbirds are reduced to static museum pieces, to stand and gather dust, then they will lose that unique element that they possess: to give the impression that they are real and in a very real sense, alive.

Go to any museum and watch the none enthusiast walk past an aeroplane or a tank on display and they will pay it scarce attention. However watch them in the audience of an airshow or military vehicle display as the same things roar past them as they were intended and you can see the impressed expression on their faces. All of a sudden the things they barely noticed are alive and real!! Then they take the step towards REAL interest and in doing so keep alive the memory of those that served and fell in the cause of freedom.

A replica I would equate to a tribute band. Okay when you've had a few but they are never going to be as good as the real thing.

I overheard a conversation once at the Flying Legends airshow at Duxford a few years ago as a Douglas Skyraider was taxying past.One man asked where it was from, to which the other man replied "I'm not sure, I think it LIVES here"

That sums it up for me:

Static, dust gathering display=Dead.

Flying,roaring through the sky, cavorting in the element in which they were meant to exist,giving you goose-bumps and making your spine tingle = very much ALIVE!

We have enough ornaments in museums. The people that fly these pieces of history recognise the risks but have the same passion that I imagine the majority of us do. They were meant to be in the air and that is where they should be.

Exactly...when these aircraft are in their true element, they are irresistable. I get a lot of air traffic over my house (light aircraft) and no one bothers. When some WW2 planes come over everyone stops to point and look but, perhaps most importantly, HEAR them. There are few sounds as good as a "dopplerised" overhead pass of a 30-odd litre engine.

Ta,
Norris

LEBillfish
10-12-2005, 06:16 PM
Really surprised no one has stated though I would have disagreed that the reason this spit and the P38 crashed was the..........................



4.01 patch


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Chuck_Older
10-12-2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
True enough that these planes' losses are irreplacable. However you have to remember that they are largely owned by private owners. That gives them the right to paint it purple or turn it into scrap metal if they like.

I agree to a point.

yes, million-dollar aircraft are owned by private parties in many cases, and yes, they can do with it what they like-

But- there is a responsibility involved for the preservation of life and limb. I don't give f*ck-all about the pilot's life, if doing dangerous things is what that pilot wants to do. that's between them and their God

The complication is that he/she can easily kill somebody else with their stunts. Just because an airplane is expensive, that doesn't give the owner/pilot the Right to do whatever he or she wants to do. Risking my life or yours is not a Right these pilots have. Doing whatever they like because of the simple fact that their play-things cost a lot of money isn't one of their Rights either.

Go out to the desert or Ocean and auger in. They can do that all they like. It's stupid and irresponsible, but that's not something I can control, and only the person responsible for the action is hurt or killed

I have a cool old car. It goes fast, and it costs me a lot of money to build engines and such. I can't just smash it up whenever I like and be without responsibility

wayno7777
10-12-2005, 11:37 PM
An airplane is built to fly. It needs to fly. The worst thing to do to an airworthy airplane is not fly it. Stunts should be limit to above a minimum altitude. A thought occured to me as to crash rates by type during the war and how it compares to now. And as far as I can tell, the majority of crashes aren't because of stunting, rather normal flight operations. How many light planes go down each week? Flying is inherently risky. Going by the numbers, it's still safer than driving http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif....

huggy87
10-13-2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
True enough that these planes' losses are irreplacable. However you have to remember that they are largely owned by private owners. That gives them the right to paint it purple or turn it into scrap metal if they like.

I agree to a point.

yes, million-dollar aircraft are owned by private parties in many cases, and yes, they can do with it what they like-

But- there is a responsibility involved for the preservation of life and limb. I don't give f*ck-all about the pilot's life, if doing dangerous things is what that pilot wants to do. that's between them and their God

The complication is that he/she can easily kill somebody else with their stunts. Just because an airplane is expensive, that doesn't give the owner/pilot the Right to do whatever he or she wants to do. Risking my life or yours is not a Right these pilots have. Doing whatever they like because of the simple fact that their play-things cost a lot of money isn't one of their Rights either.

Go out to the desert or Ocean and auger in. They can do that all they like. It's stupid and irresponsible, but that's not something I can control, and only the person responsible for the action is hurt or killed

I have a cool old car. It goes fast, and it costs me a lot of money to build engines and such. I can't just smash it up whenever I like and be without responsibility </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... you're making a point that is impossible to disagree with. But it really is off on a tangent. The FAA has strict requirments on maintanence. I'm sure all these warbirds are classified as "experimental" making them even further scrutinized. Further, Aerobatics, defined as greater than 45 degrees pitch, 60 degrees roll, and 2g's, are prohibited near airways, over an open air assembly of people, etc. Warbird owners aren't putting civilians at any more risk than cessna owners. As you implied, owning a hot plane does not give you any more rights than owning a hot car.

huggy87
10-13-2005, 09:49 AM
To further make my point...

The F-14 tomcat is soon to be retired from the navy. The last two squadrons are currently deployed on the Teddy Roosevelt. When they return next spring they will transition to Super Hornets and the Tomcat will officialy be retired. Some will end up on sticks at the enterances of bases. Some will go to museums. Most will probably end up in the desert. I'm sure if you have enough money say 5-10 million, you could purchase a stripped down version. Of course, these things require a couple dozen man hours of maintanence for every flight hour, so you will have to budget for that. The thing will also take about 1600 gallons to fill up. So plan on each flight costing over 4000 dollars in gas alone.

How would you like to have spent millions of dollars, and thousands of hours caring and feeding for this plane that would otherwise be sitting in the desert, and have someone tell you that you couldn't fly the plane to the edge of its performance envelope. What would you say to some one who told you you were irresponsible and that your plane belongs in a museum. I would tell them to pack sand after all I've done to keep this plane alive and well.

Chuck_Older
10-13-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:

Well... you're making a point that is impossible to disagree with. But it really is off on a tangent. The FAA has strict requirments on maintanence. I'm sure all these warbirds are classified as "experimental" making them even further scrutinized. Further, Aerobatics, defined as greater than 45 degrees pitch, 60 degrees roll, and 2g's, are prohibited near airways, over an open air assembly of people, etc. Warbird owners aren't putting civilians at any more risk than cessna owners. As you implied, owning a hot plane does not give you any more rights than owning a hot car.

Well sure. But as far as the FAA goes...yes, you are supposed to play by the rules. But I know for a fact that pencil whipping is alive and well in civilian aviation, just as it is in military aviation unfortunately, and many non A&P license holders do work on their own birds and get a buddy with the right signature to sign off on it

I love my arguments that are unassailable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Don't tarnish it man, let me savor

Chuck_Older
10-13-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by KGr.HH-Sunburst:
they can fly P51s Spits etc all the way they want and turn it into scrap metal....i dont care, tons of them around,

I missed this before

There are hardly tons of P-51s and Spits around. Dozens that can fly, yes. But not hundreds and certainly not tons. I think what you're seeing is planes that get re-paints to represent different aircraft, and it seems that there are more than there reallly are because of it

leeG727
10-13-2005, 06:36 PM
I was an Aerospace Engineer (structural analyst) for the first 25 years of my career and I don€t fly in airplanes older than I am. All the WW II birds are older than I am. Not much older, but older none the less. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Interminate
10-15-2005, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
At some point in the future, enthusiasts and historians will shake their heads over the loss of irreplaceable warbirds during this "air show" age.

Sure it gives the current crowd of folks a $25 thrill, but what will be left for future generations? I think it was only a few years ago that the last flyable authentic WWI aircraft was finally grounded, and that was due to the overwhelming cost of insuring it for each flight.

The time has come to think replica.

http://www.machtres.com/Fokker%20Triplano.jpg

Nice Picture, what is that from?

Interminate
10-15-2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
True enough that these planes' losses are irreplacable. However you have to remember that they are largely owned by private owners. That gives them the right to paint it purple or turn it into scrap metal if they like.


Absolutly.........

There is a solution though......Anyone is more then welcome to offer the owner the millions of dollars to buy one and tuck it in some garage....Or even getting a group together and buying one.......Wait I said Millions, some of these guys might not part with them for billions.

If they spent the millions it takes to restore, house and maintain them then they are more then welcome to suicide in them.....(tell me anyone of you doesn't dream of flying like you do here in the real thing....and we all know the result of that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think one should have to fund them, just to suggest that they not loop them into the ground.

Actually with spits its ok http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif