 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / August 2006Hawker Hunter lost
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003131828_planecrash17m. html Ah, that's what the newsreader on the local channel was mumbling about. All I could make of it was "a 1951 British jet" crashed into a house. True, that would limit the possibilities some... Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Ah, that's what the newsreader on the local channel was mumbling about. > All I could make of it was "a 1951 British jet" crashed into a house. > True, that would limit the possibilities some... > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. Pilot was killed; fortunately (REALLY fortunate, considering) no bystanders were injured. Totalled an empty house though. --- Stephen Article gone. Isn't this the same fellow who made his fortune suing aviation companies for crashes? Cosmic karma... Sean >> Ah, that's what the newsreader on the local channel was mumbling about. >> All I could make of it was "a 1951 British jet" crashed into a house. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > --- Stephen > Article gone. Isn't this the same fellow who made his fortune suing aviation > companies for crashes? Cosmic karma... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > --- Stephen No idea about the pilot, but it was a gorgeous plane. A fellow Seattle modeler sent a picture.. oh well. Anyhow, here's the link to the article in the Times archives: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/di splay?slug=planecrash17m&date=20060717&query=hawker+hunter --- Stephen Tontoni I recall an old WINGS article about the Smithsonian's Corsair. The restoration boss talked about going to airshows and looking over restored Corsairs. There was a place in the wheelwells, at a main spar, where his own plane had a dangerous patch of rust, which had taken a lot of work to eradicate; every "restored" Corsair he looked at still had it. > I recall an old WINGS article about the Smithsonian's Corsair. The > restoration boss talked about going to airshows and looking over > restored Corsairs. There was a place in the wheelwells, at a main spar, > where his own plane had a dangerous patch of rust, which had taken a > lot of work to eradicate; every "restored" Corsair he looked at still > had it. Yikes, was the rust 'camouflaged'? I'd be interested to snoop some..we have an F4Usomething and an F2G here in Seattle. Of course, they don't fly, although the F2G is airworthy. ==begin soapbox== I love to see the old planes flying, but as I've said so many times... the old planes are irreplaceable, and it makes me nervous to lose the historical artifacts. Flying is for modern planes, and replicas, in my opinion. (which is a minority opinion here, and yes, if someone wants to buy/restore/invest, it is their prerogative to fly the plane if they want to) ==end soapbox== ... grins --- Stephen It has been my oft-stated opinion as well. I also get a charge out of seeing and hearing the warbirds flying but I'd rather enjoy them on the ground in a static display for the next 20-30 years than flying for 2-3 years, then crash and become a pile of worthless junk. Just my 2-cents worth as well.  SignatureCheers: Bill Woodier In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm -- >> I recall an old WINGS article about the Smithsonian's Corsair. The >> restoration boss talked about going to airshows and looking over [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > --- Stephen >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Woodier <bill.woodier@comcast.com> writes: Bill> It has been my oft-stated opinion as well. I also get a Bill> charge out of seeing and hearing the warbirds flying but I'd Bill> rather enjoy them on the ground in a static display for the Bill> next 20-30 years than flying for 2-3 years, then crash and Bill> become a pile of worthless junk. Imagination is a powerful thing. It is easy to compromise a little on reality and leave a little more to the imagination. A running engine on a taxying plane can conjure up images of flying hordes in anyone's mind, probably even those disenpowered by years of television anaesthesia. SignatureG Hassenpflug /* IJN & JMSDF */ >>>>>>"Bill" == Bill Woodier <bill.woodier@comcast.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > mind, probably even those disenpowered by years of television > anaesthesia. Trying an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a butterfly... Signature- Rufus > >>>>>>"Bill" == Bill Woodier <bill.woodier@comcast.com> writes: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Trying an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a butterfly... I agree that it's much safer to run up engines from time to time over actually flying the artifacts. Better still is flying replicas while keeping the artifacts in safe keeping. As for the butterfly analogy.... sorry, I don't even get it. Is it like pulling the wings off a butterfly or using a magnifying glass on an ant? huh?? Sorry to make fun... just don't even see a parallel here at all. -- Stephen Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 07:49: >>>>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Woodier <bill.woodier@comcast.com> writes: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pulling the wings off a butterfly or using a magnifying glass on an ant? > huh?? Sorry to make fun... just don't even see a parallel here at all. I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the fully-understandable mentality of the crew who flew the Vulcan on its last season and who I chatted to about this subject. "You've done your job, thank you very much now off to the scrap heap with you." The reminiscences come much later and more so probably by those who were never involved with the aircraft or other mechanical beast. I loved my time as an ATC cadet and have happy days flying in Britannias, Belfasts, Hercules, VC10s and Andovers but being around RAF personnel, one picks up the solely pragmatic approach to the life and future of these flying machines. When in a museum and seeing those magnificent creatures one can almost say "you want to fly again don't you girl, just once more!" Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" > I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was > built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the > fully-understandable mentality of the crew who flew the Vulcan on its > last season and who I chatted to about this subject. We've had this discussion many times. Really if you see a B17 in a museum, does it say 'you want to drop bombs again girl, don't you'?' Realistically, most of the airplanes that we're referring to not only were designed to fly, they were designed to drop bombs, strafe people, you name it.. does that mean they have do it? laughing... reminds me of the line from Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle... Kumar says "just because you're hung like a moose, it doesn't mean you have to do porn'.... Or more further to your analogy that you've done your job girl, etc.... do you honor soldiers from WWII and other wars, or do you only appreciate them while they are carrying guns into battle? Every time these planes fly, they are in danger. So exposing them to danger is extremely selfish. Just like assuming that Uncle Jim who was at Tarawa should be in Iraq now. You wanna do analogies? I do analogies! --- Stephen > > I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was > > built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the > > fully-understandable mentality of the crew who flew the Vulcan on its > > last season and who I chatted to about this subject. Or further, Richard, let me ask you this.... if the Spirit of St. Louis could be restored to airworthy condition, do you really think that it should be flown? I mean, it was designed to be flown, and modified to be able to cross the Atlantic... it's a crying shame not to. in the Smithsonian, it's really wasted because everyone wants to hear that plane's huge (yes kidding) engine roar again, right? I would guess, and could be wrong, that you'd say 'no, it's too valuable an airframe to do that'.. and that's correct. So why value all these other artifacts less than that puny Ryan? Because of what it did? What about what these warbirds did? That was pretty remarkable too, or do you not value that? And another analogy... I don't know if you could find it, but it wouldn't surprise me if you found WWII era K or C rations on ebay. If you won some of these, would you feel like you should eat them? That's what they were designed for..... Or would it not only be destroying a bit of history, while at the same time.. who knows... might be a little dangerous? You'd probably not eat it for those very reasons. Rich guys will always buy warbirds for restoration, and they will always fly them because they either intended to from the beginning, or needed to recoup some money, or else the temptation is just too strong. They get flown. And they auger in, frequently taking the rich guy with them. We got lots of rich guys... I don't much care about them...I'm concerned about the airframes, because we are losing our aviation heritage through sheer stupidity. (eg the Boeing 307 that ditched in water in Seattle because the most experienced pilots in he business just ran it out of gas... dumb!!) --- Stephen Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:59: >>> I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was >>> built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Smithsonian, it's really wasted because everyone wants to hear that > plane's huge (yes kidding) engine roar again, right? [tonnage snipped] Case in point: the BBMF Lancaster. Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" > Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:59: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Case in point: the BBMF Lancaster. During my last five years in the RAF, I had to buy my own boots because the air force couldn't afford to issue me any new ones. And it's not as though I take a size 37 or something... I take size 8! When the RAF cannot even afford to properly clothe and equip its own personnel, I think it is pretty much criminal that they spend goodness knows how much money keeping vintage non-operational aircraft flying. I do love the aircraft of the BBMF, but I believe very strongly that they should be funded from the lottery or public subscription, *not* from the defence budget. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Enzo Matrix said the following on 18/08/06 17:57: [snipped] >> Case in point: the BBMF Lancaster. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > should be funded from the lottery or public subscription, *not* from the > defence budget. C'mon Enzo! You know more than I do that the money would not then be transferred to the right place. At least in the UK the military is probably in talks right now with doing some government funded PFI scheme where most of the funds from the Defence Budget are trimmed off and contracts cost more than a hundred times more for the same job, the cash going to Jersey investors, with tax avoidance schemes in place. That or the funds lost with some half-hearted attempt at setting up an investigation into tracking it down, hoping the public would forget with time - which they will, the result being "inconclusive". Surely I'm sounding too cynical! They couldn't do such a thing, could they ? I agree about the lottery funding, after all, why should some toff get lottery funding to buy an expensive painting to hang on his estate house wall in which the public are not allowed to view it due to the painting being on private land. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" > Enzo Matrix said the following on 18/08/06 17:57: >> I do love the aircraft of the BBMF, but I believe very strongly that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "inconclusive". Surely I'm sounding too cynical! They couldn't do > such a thing, could they ? And I thought that *I* was cynical! LOL SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Enzo Matrix said the following on 18/08/06 21:15: >> Enzo Matrix said the following on 18/08/06 17:57: >>> I do love the aircraft of the BBMF, but I believe very strongly that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And I thought that *I* was cynical! LOL Let's not kid ourselves! There is always a pull back to the Land Reformation Act in various guises with the mentality firmly split down the middle, the Landed Gentry against the Ruffians or "them" and "us" and it works on both sides of the pond. The 'cap in hand' mob such as you and I feel a bit guilty if we find a pen or paper clip what we've taken home from work. The other lot who hated the fact that that we were getting to rub shoulders in WWII with a breakdown of class have successfully built that back up, but this time it's in a business sense. Watch a Minister or boss of some large corporation and it's beautiful in the same sense as viewed by Science Officer Ash in the film 'Alien' who looked at the creature in a cold sense. They have no sense of blame on themselves, nothing! They say, and I have seen it on television reports "YOU, yes! YOU employed me in this position and I did a damned good job. I've given my best now give me a golden handshake/productivity bonus of many millions." These people have rubbed up against politicians on both sides of the pond and are looking for tenders to repair war-torn sites or to do the same jobs but at an inflated price, the funds not going to the usual home-loving jock with only enough dollars or pounds, who loves his family, God and his country but does not deal in many thousands or dollars or pounds in shares to hide elsewhere. In the UK, PPP an early incarnation of the PFI was so complicated to work out even college professors shown the logistics chart for the London Underground system, one of the first major projects using this scheme, could not work out the system and which company was responsible for which part of the system, especially is death happened to passengers. No-one company could be blamed! It's just business. These models are being used for warfare and the only ones feeling blame will be the man and woman in the street, the people with little money but some sense of conscience and duty. If there is any danger of free-will then the people on the other side of that desk play some patriotic music and point the finger at you bastards! How dare you question your own country ? It's people with dark skin who are against us. If, in some lucky happenstance you get to give that same person a gun and say "fight alongside me" they'll say "f.ck off, I'm making money out of this!" You say "what if they win ?" and the reply is "I win! I always win!" Sorry, I thought it was a Werther's and it was a block of dope! :-) Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" > Enzo Matrix said the following on 18/08/06 21:15: >>> Enzo Matrix said the following on 18/08/06 17:57: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Sorry, I thought it was a Werther's and it was a block of dope! :-) Now *that* was what I *call* a rant! Articulate, passionate and - above all - factual! I'm prettty skilled in the art of the rant myself, but I clearly have a long way to go before I reach your level of expertise! ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. We've had this discussion umpteen million times (that's just short of a kajillion) and all we've really established is that there are two camps, those who want the warbirds to fly, and those who do not. I acknowledge that rich guys will always buy aircraft for restoration and will fly them. That's what they do. It's just a sorry shame to lose the airplane when the rich guy does a one point landing. I am never going to agree that these *ARTIFACTS* should be up in the air; they are museum pieces, just like the Spirit of St. Louis (no one answered my question, did they?) or any other item from antiquity. Similarly, Richard and Rufus (et al) will never agree that they should be kept in museums. It cannot be disputed, though, that more aircraft are destroyed in flying mishaps than the fabled 'hangar fire' (and yes there have been some). And it cannot be disputed that the vast majority of these mishaps are due to pilot error. Pilots will always crash planes from time to time, and I don't think it's worth the risk just to get a rush from the humm of the engines (which you can hear on the ground if it's run up). No offense intended, Rufus, but I find your contention remarkably short-sighted: "I'd rather see one crash and burn and remembered in reverence than to see one out of context and tied down, opened up, and put on parade..." You honestly believe that? Wow. See, I'd even prefer that B-29 in Greenland to still be on the ice intact than burning in a hare-brained scheme to fly it out of there. I believe that is real reverence. I don't need to see it fly to be in awe. > We've had this discussion umpteen million times (that's just short of a > kajillion) and all we've really established is that there are two camps, > those who want the warbirds to fly, and those who do not. There's always that additional group that doesn't care either way and sees room for either approach - static and living commemoration. Nothing lasts forever; whether it dies in a museum fire, in a column of flame and smoke on the edge of an airfield or at the stroke of the pen of a bean counter condemning it to slow decay back into the ground one rivet at a time. In that context maybe we ought to gripe less and compliment more the folks that keep these birds from the scrap heaps. WmB... scale commemorator ;-) >We've had this discussion umpteen million times (that's just short of a >kajillion) and all we've really established is that there are two camps, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >intact than burning in a hare-brained scheme to fly it out of there. I >believe that is real reverence. I don't need to see it fly to be in awe. i heve to agree about that ac. was it an rb29 or an rb 50? there was no reason it couldn't have been taken apart and slavaged. MORONS! > i heve to agree about that ac. was it an rb29 or an rb 50? > there was no reason it couldn't have been taken apart and > slavaged. > MORONS! More reading material... "Hunting Warbirds - The Obsessive Quest for the Lost aircraft of WWII" by Carl Hoffman looks at the 'recovery' of Kee Bird, as well as digging into the minds of the guys who spend millions recovering twisted piles of metal that may fly again one day. Worth looking for. Rob > We've had this discussion umpteen million times (that's just short of a > kajillion) and all we've really established is that there are two camps, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > intact than burning in a hare-brained scheme to fly it out of there. I > believe that is real reverence. I don't need to see it fly to be in awe. Yes. I guess it depends on what you think of as the "value" of an airplane. The ones we are talking about are weapons - pure and simple. Their "value" is as a weapon, and weapons are expendable. Yes, is was tragic to see Geenemyer's efforts result in a burned out hulk, but I got over it. Maybe it's because I'm an aviation professional, but my take is fly 'em if you're gonna build 'em. I hate watching airplanes break from sitting still. Yes, you're gonna crash some...do it, and move on. Signature- Rufus ---snippage--- > Yes. I guess it depends on what you think of as the "value" of an > airplane. The ones we are talking about are weapons - pure and simple. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if you're gonna build 'em. I hate watching airplanes break from sitting > still. Yes, you're gonna crash some...do it, and move on. Okay, whatever our backgrounds... but let me ask you this, so as not to twist your words, Rufus. You would agree: 1) Airplanes in museums are destroyed/damaged less than flying aircraft? 2) It is more important to you (not assuming you speak for anyone else) to see the plane in the air, rather than in static display, until the aircraft is eventually destroyed? If you agree to the two previous statements, you would have to agree that it is more important to you to see (name the plane here) fly than it is to have some kid see the plane at all. Is that correct? If so, that seems not only short-sighted, but kind of selfish. I don't mean to say that you are short-sighted or selfish, Rufus; I don't mean to offend. But do you see what I'm getting at? > ---snippage--- > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 1) Airplanes in museums are destroyed/damaged less than flying aircraft? Depends on your definition of "destroyed". A lot (most?) of aircraft in most museums are not airworthy - and yes, in that case I would consider them "destroyed". It's the same way I feel about cutting those holes in the side of the U-505...disgusted. > 2) It is more important to you (not assuming you speak for anyone else) > to see the plane in the air, rather than in static display, until the > aircraft is eventually destroyed? It's more important to me to see an airplane in the air. To do that is to risk it's loss, and to me that is a fully acceptable risk. It's just something that is part and parcel of flying - a statement of fact. As a pilot myself, flying is what is important to me. Not so much the aircraft. One respects an aircraft, but accepts the risk. > If you agree to the two previous statements, you would have to agree > that it is more important to you to see (name the plane here) fly than > it is to have some kid see the plane at all. Is that correct? Yes. Furthermore, I think it's even more important to have that kid see it fly. > If so, that seems not only short-sighted, but kind of selfish. Not really. There are many artifacts, items, and trinkets which history loses - that is the nature of history, and the passage of time. Just another statement of fact. > I don't mean to say that you are short-sighted or selfish, Rufus; I > don't mean to offend. But do you see what I'm getting at? Like I said before, it gets down to what sort of "value" you place on an aircraft. I've been working on and around military aircraft long enough to place more value on what one does with them than on the aircraft itself, and I don't particularly care how old or new that aircraft might be. I've had jets that I've spent years of my life working on end up on a stick, the scrap heap, shot up in testing, or lost due to mechanical failure. I've seen the back end of one wreck grafted onto the front end of another wreck only to watch this Phoenix run off a runway during a landing gear failure and get rebuilt yet again. I get over it, and move on to the next one. As long as I get my crew back. So far, I've only lost one of "my guys"...and that was in a helo, during on an op that wasn't mine...I've never liked helos. And I've had a friend killed practicing for an airshow - because they didn't let him fly enough before they tapped him. I know guys that won't fly airshows - but I wouldn't try to stop anyone from flying. Personally, I think that to value the aircraft more than the purpose for which it was built is "selfish and short-sighted". I guess I do even find it a bit "offensive". Military aircraft aren't built just so we can make neat models and visit museums. They exist for one purpose and one purpose only - to fight for a cause. When they fly and/or when they are lost they remind us of that, and in so doing continue in the purpose for which they were built. To relegate that to a secondary status just so the public can have something to gawk at in a display is an offense to that cause and that purpose. Signature- Rufus >> ---snippage--- >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >so the public can have something to gawk at in a display is an offense >to that cause and that purpose. the beauty of a tool is it's function, not the elegance or craftsmanship of design. >>>---snippage--- >>> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > the beauty of a tool is it's function, not the elegance or > craftsmanship of design. Well stated. Signature- Rufus >>>>---snippage--- >>>> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >Well stated. that's actually mine and not a quote. (sometomes i surprise me.) e said the following on 20/08/06 19:51: [snipped] > the beauty of a tool is it's function, not the elegance or > craftsmanship of design. I'd have to disagree as the term beauty at least used to be based on a reaction of the senses to a visual stimuli and some boffins have worked out that in the human face, it's based somewhat on the evenness of the left and right hand sides. You might be thinking of the term picked up and used by the hippies now known as 'inner beauty' which is as true a term as when the press used to report things such as "a woman was chased down an alley, mugged, beaten and 'made love to'." A work of art or design can have no apparent function but be beautiful to the beholder. Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" >e said the following on 20/08/06 19:51: >[snipped] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Richard. sure it can, but that's secondary if it is a real tool, not an artwork. >>e said the following on 20/08/06 19:51: >>[snipped] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > sure it can, but that's secondary if it is a real tool, not > an artwork. I used to not think much of Harriers until I spent four yearrs working on them and found out what they could do...I could say the same about A-10s too. Signature- Rufus > e said the following on 20/08/06 19:51: > [snipped] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Richard. I can find beauty in function - I think that's what he was getting at. Signature- Rufus >> e said the following on 20/08/06 19:51: >> [snipped] [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >I can find beauty in function - I think that's what he was getting at. jawhol. Rufus said the following on 21/08/06 19:57: >> e said the following on 20/08/06 19:51: >> [snipped] [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I can find beauty in function - I think that's what he was getting at. As in something looping the loop or banking elegantly then yes I can understand that but to use the term 'beauty' in a sense of function unseen, then another term rather than beauty would have been more correct, although there are always people who will use the term to obfuscate. Take 'bad' to mean good, for instance! <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/function> In the correct sense of the term 'beautiful' if a Walrus and Hunter did exactly the same thing (had the same function) then I'd hazard a guess that both wouldn't get the same votes for beauty! Although we should all be happy that a woman could also choose a Walrus for its character (or 'inner' quality). Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" > Rufus said the following on 21/08/06 19:57: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Richard. ...ahhh...but beauty is in the eye of the beholder...and most people's eyes are usually closed when it comes to such. One, if not both of them anyway... I can find beauty in efficiency, in economy of motion, in simplicity, in things far from conventional "elegance". If, as the saying goes - "form follows function" - then if form and function are in harmony and balance, then I would consider that beauty without being obscure. Two women don't have to act (let alone, be) identical to both be beautiful, do they?..but I digress... Signature- Rufus > It's more important to me to see an airplane in the air. To do that is > to risk it's loss, and to me that is a fully acceptable risk. It's just > something that is part and parcel of flying - a statement of fact. Oh to see those Titan II's, scuds, V1s and V2s flying again! Its a shame they sit idly in museums and air parks only to be gazed at on the ground. ;) Um. Maybe not such a good idea that all things remain in their intended ultimate state for which they were designed. Remember, even airplanes were designed to remain on the ground 99.9% of the time. That's why they had landing gear and a kill engine switch. There comes an end time to every machine's useful life. I am thankful that there are those out there who see that and have the foresight to preserve such historical if not beautiful machines for future generations to admire. After all, Rome's coliseum is no longer used for gladiator fights and Greece's Parthenon is no longer used as a temple, but I am still glad they were not torn down to make room for other more useful structures and remain for all to admire so long after their useful life ended. I'd rather see a real P-51 on the ground in a museum than a picture of one in a 10 foot deep burned out hole. I know my future great grand kids would understand my point. Kaliste Saloom (IPMS #30703) IPMS/Acadiana Plastic Modelers Lafayette, LA (USA) Okay, we are miles apart here, Rufus. You're a flyer and not a historian. Can't really talk, I guess, because we're not even using similar definitions. Do let me know next time that B17's hit Bremerhaven, since that is their sole function... Be well. --- Stephen > Okay, we are miles apart here, Rufus. You're a flyer and not a > historian. Can't really talk, I guess, because we're not even using [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > --- Stephen Not their sole function - their intended function. We shouldn't forget that. Signature- Rufus Yesterday and today the Wings over the Wine Country show had eight P-51Ds in the air. Quite a sight. As far as the few and far between there was a FM-2 Wildcat and a P-51H flying, but they just did a circuit or two each. In the PCAM display area hundreds of people sat in the cockpits, climbed around in the Il-14 and generally enjoyed thoroughly our aircraft, none of which will ever fly again. So, I think that there is plenty of room for both flying and static arcraft. When they get down to just one or two still flying that should be taken nto consideration. The Collings Foundation B-24 is unique, the only one still flying. Their safety record is astounding, but should the 50+ years old brd continue to fly? I thnk so as there are several more in museums. Tom > > Okay, we are miles apart here, Rufus. You're a flyer and not a > > historian. Can't really talk, I guess, because we're not even using [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not their sole function - their intended function. We shouldn't forget > that. > Yesterday and today the Wings over the Wine Country show had eight > P-51Ds in the air. Quite a sight. As far as the few and far between [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Tom Well stated Tom. If you all (y'awl?) want my opinion... If you put your money into it, you're damned well entitled to do with it as you please. If you want to fly it, fly it. If you want to put in a museum, do so. If you want to stunt it until a wing falls off and you auger in, well, that's your choice, too. And until we all manage to own our own vintage airyplanes, we should damn well shut up and just be glad that there are crazy rich men out there who are willing to spend money on pieces of machinery that are well past their use-by date, and are also willing to share their obsession with us! Just my $.026 worth... Rob >> Yesterday and today the Wings over the Wine Country show had eight >> P-51Ds in the air. Quite a sight. As far as the few and far between [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Just my $.026 worth... that is a truth. if it's tax payer money, i want a voice, if it's your nickle, it's none of my goddam business. people who own house are a sad example of preservation gone wrong. an easy example would be the this old house in england. they had a $40,000 "correction" they were forced to make by a hyterical, oops, historical society. some of that is obtrusive, the rest is obnoxious. >Rob WOW!!! That's unusual...I've gotten to walk around them, but not climb in them (unless I was working on 'em - only WWII era fighter I've ever been at the controls of is a P-38). VERY generous of the owners, and something I wouldn't mind seeing more of. What an opportunity. Signature- Rufus > Yesterday and today the Wings over the Wine Country show had eight > P-51Ds in the air. Quite a sight. As far as the few and far between [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>Not their sole function - their intended function. We shouldn't forget >>that. > > Okay, we are miles apart here, Rufus. You're a flyer and not a > > historian. Can't really talk, I guess, because we're not even using [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not their sole function - their intended function. We shouldn't forget > that. I was being kind of sarcastic; all of your posts so far have stressed that their function was to drop bombs, be weapons of destruction, therefore we should see them fly. Well, if so, we should see them kill as well, don't you think? Yes, my tongue is firmly in cheek, but that is the gyst of your argument. And with that, I'm done talking about it. I was the one who reported the Hunter lost out of news interest, without any editorial comment, until Richard (I believe) brought it up. Stephen Tontoni said the following on 21/08/06 07:53: > And with that, I'm done talking about it. I was the one who reported the > Hunter lost out of news interest, without any editorial comment, until > Richard (I believe) brought it up. Yours I believe! > I agree that it's much safer to run up engines from time to time over > actually flying the artifacts. Better still is flying replicas while [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -- Stephen Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" >>>Okay, we are miles apart here, Rufus. You're a flyer and not a >>>historian. Can't really talk, I guess, because we're not even using [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that their function was to drop bombs, be weapons of destruction, > therefore we should see them fly. Then you've missed my point entirely - we should see them fly because they were built to fly. But we should also never forget that they were designed to be the most efficient means of killing - not for our amusement. > Well, if so, we should see them kill as well, don't you think? Yes, my > tongue is firmly in cheek, but that is the gyst of your argument. No - not that we should see them kill, but that we should remember that they can. And that this rememberance not only fosters respect, it also helps make their operation safer. My argument also is that their loss is acceptable becuase they were built to be disposable in the first place, and that the loss of aircraft is simply a fact which is part and parcel of flying. That is all. > And with that, I'm done talking about it. I was the one who reported the > Hunter lost out of news interest, without any editorial comment, until > Richard (I believe) brought it up. Editorials are always welcome. Signature- Rufus >>>>> "Enzo" == Enzo Matrix <enzo55@hotmail.com> writes: Enzo> Richard Brooks wrote: >> Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:59: >>>> In article <GaKdncqHgtfB53jZRVny3w@bt.com>, >>>> Richard Brooks <richardbrooks@vickers-supermarine.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue >>>>> (it was built/born solely for a specific reason) and that >>>>> was the fully-understandable mentality of the crew who flew >>>>> the Vulcan on its last season and who I chatted to about >>>>> this subject. >>>>> >>> Or further, Richard, let me ask you this.... if the Spirit of >>> St. Louis could be restored to airworthy condition, do you >>> really think that it should be flown? I mean, it was designed >>> to be flown, and modified to be able to cross the >>> Atlantic... it's a crying shame not to. in the Smithsonian, >>> it's really wasted because everyone wants to hear that plane's >>> huge (yes kidding) engine roar again, right? >> >> [tonnage snipped] >> >> Case in point: the BBMF Lancaster. Enzo> During my last five years in the RAF, I had to buy my own Enzo> boots because the air force couldn't afford to issue me any Enzo> new ones. And it's not as though I take a size 37 or Enzo> something... I take size 8! Enzo> When the RAF cannot even afford to properly clothe and equip Enzo> its own personnel, I think it is pretty much criminal that Enzo> they spend goodness knows how much money keeping vintage Enzo> non-operational aircraft flying. Enzo> I do love the aircraft of the BBMF, but I believe very Enzo> strongly that they should be funded from the lottery or Enzo> public subscription, *not* from the defence budget. It's always smart to have a backup. SignatureG Hassenpflug /* IJN & JMSDF */ > And they auger in, frequently taking the rich guy with them. We got lots > of rich guys... I don't much care about them...I'm concerned about the > airframes, because we are losing our aviation heritage through sheer > stupidity. (eg the Boeing 307 that ditched in water in Seattle because > the most experienced pilots in he business just ran it out of gas... > dumb!!) That Boeing 307 isn't "lost." It sits in its intended spot inside the Udvar-Hazy annex of the Air and Space Museum at Dulles. It may not be the best example to illustrate the point. I often feel the same about warbirds each time one of them - and the pilot - are lost. The other side of the coin is that they aren't usually the sole remaining examples of the type, which leads me to wonder if they were to be flown no longer, how many "museums" would be available to keep them for display in restored condition? I look at the many airshows featuring warbirds and antiques that take place around the country in the spring and summer months as living traveling museums. Without them we would have to travel to more distant cities to see aircraft indoors, or outdoors in various states of weathering. Some outdoor displays have weathered to where they are little more than derelicts. As for the rich guys that keep them flying, it's great that there are people with the resources and the passion to maintain so many aircraft in excellent and flyable condition. Not just warbirds, either. Looking at pictures of a couple of polished Spartan Executives that visit Oshkosh each year makes me wish I'd be lucky enough to see one of them stop off nearby. Back in the mid-90's I got up close and inside of FIFI, the only flying B-29. It was a Saturday evening in summer, they had just landed and were going to be doing tours of the plane and a flight demo the following day. I pulled up just after they had shut down and the crew graciously showed me the plane - an "insider's tour." Unbelievable! Flying them allows millions of people to see, touch, smell and honor these planes and the thousands of crews that manned them. Despite the risks and losses, it's a fitting tribute. BobbyG > > And they auger in, frequently taking the rich guy with them. We got lots > > of rich guys... I don't much care about them...I'm concerned about the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Udvar-Hazy annex of the Air and Space Museum at Dulles. It may not be the > best example to illustrate the point. True, the airframe wasn't lost, but a great example of sheer stupidity. Your point is well taken though. According to my father C-rations weren't fit to eat when new. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >According to my father C-rations weren't fit to eat when new. ;) > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. the cigs were stale, the chocolate turned white and the condoms had leaks. > >According to my father C-rations weren't fit to eat when new. ;) > > > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > > the cigs were stale, the chocolate turned white and the > condoms had leaks. I got no report on the condoms. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> >According to my father C-rations weren't fit to eat when new. ;) >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. my dad said the ones from the medics worked for girls and guns and the c ration were sh.t on either. Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:11: >> I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was >> built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > were designed to fly, they were designed to drop bombs, strafe people, > you name it.. does that mean they have do it? I couldn't possibly say that whereas you probably could! If you go to a museum and look at aircraft at an airshow the thoughts are probably the same or do you look at an aircraft in a museum and see it in a totally different light ? They were there for a purpose then if they were scrapped at the end of it, it was usually some romantic public who cried of the fact so why have them in a museum at all ? > laughing... reminds me of the line from Harold and Kumar Go to White > Castle... Kumar says "just because you're hung like a moose, it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > appreciate them while they are carrying guns into battle? Every time > these planes fly, they are in danger. It probably is impossible for you to understand at the moment, the lines and curves, the grace of the thing, the sound of the engines even without thinking for one moment of its purpose but when you get into long trousers you might understand - one day! You will reply to this as you have to. It's your purpose to think you have the right and only way of thinking and I envy you for that. > So exposing them to danger is extremely selfish. Just like assuming that > Uncle Jim who was at Tarawa should be in Iraq now. > > You wanna do analogies? I do analogies! You wanna do analogies ? I couldn't give a rat's arse! Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" > Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:11: > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > You wanna do analogies ? I couldn't give a rat's arse! Richard, we were having a discussion..what was the talk about my not being able to understand til I was in long trousers? and what? Oh... abuse. Killfile. I don't do abuse. Stephen Tontoni said the following on 19/08/06 04:45: >> Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 16:11: >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > being able to understand til I was in long trousers? and what? Oh... > abuse. Killfile. I don't do abuse. The image of a sage on a hillside is never of a young man and the sticker I saw on the back window of a van "if there's something you don't know then ask a teenager. They know everything!" will always be true so long as there are humans on this planet. As to the museum pieces, there could be a time when CGI or DVDs of the objects will take over as an experience. It's already happened with books in the British Library and it looks promising, whether it's an ancient scroll or the Domesday Book, you get to feel and hear the sounds of the material although it's just a representation. For me it would be a lot harder to actually take a trip to look at a silent B-47 for a few minutes on another part of the planet. I'd rather buy the DVD and hear it. As to airshows I agree with the Office in Charge of the BBMF at that time "no more than about 2g for the Lanc' and no night flying. There is no replacement for that aircraft..." so in my mind, anyone who decides to do a roll low over the runway in a P-38 or decide to do an unrehearsed "touch and go" in a Blenheim without even talking to old pilots who knew of the reaction of the engines in such a maneuver deserve what they get. Flat turns and banks at not too low an altitude is fine enough to experience the aircraft. If the audience want thrills then bring back the cardboard castle with the pyrotechnics with simulated attacks by the aircraft of the day, that or the old car dropped by helicopter which the announcer says was a car from the car park that was blocking an entrance. The last time I saw that I think it was Harriers at RAF Abingdon. Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" >> I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was >> built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >--- Stephen why are there so few reproductions, especially considerein what a restoration cost and losing a unique plane means? >>>I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was >>>built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > why are there so few reproductions, especially considerein > what a restoration cost and losing a unique plane means? Because it costs way more to get a repro built and certified than it does to refirb a vintage aircraft. The closest I've seen are the folks in Germany that will build you an FW 190 to run on a DC-3 engine/prop. Signature- Rufus >> In article <tontoni-BAD584.08113018082006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Stephen >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >does to refirb a vintage aircraft. The closest I've seen are the folks >in Germany that will build you an FW 190 to run on a DC-3 engine/prop. we need a venture cpatalist, bud. i think we could make a few bucks.... >>>why are there so few reproductions, especially considerein >>>what a restoration cost and losing a unique plane means? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > we need a venture cpatalist, bud. i think we could make a > few bucks.... I wonder sometimes...those guys in Jersy (or wherever) didn't seem to get too far with their Me 262 sales...and last time I checked thier site they also had plans for an Arado 234 and a He 162. Wonder how they're doing... Signature- Rufus >>>>why are there so few reproductions, especially considerein >>>>what a restoration cost and losing a unique plane means? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >they also had plans for an Arado 234 and a He 162. Wonder how they're >doing... i thought they built and sold 4 262's and that was the plan? i would buy a 234. if i was rich. i'd use it for personal transport just to mess with people. i'd want a 4 engine using my friend's emgines, the one's from a talon. that would have some oomph with enough fuel and room for a blonde and some luggage. the 162 doesn't excite me.... >>>>>why are there so few reproductions, especially considerein >>>>>what a restoration cost and losing a unique plane means? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and room for a blonde and some luggage. > the 162 doesn't excite me.... A 162 could be a fun sport plane, bu I agree - a 234 would turn some heads. I thought they had planed to offer a full production line to anyone that wanted one initially...I think they were all to be built around the engines used on a Learjet, though I think the Williams turbofan might be a bit more fuel effiecient - if it will fit the form factor. Hell, I'd build up a 162 from scratch myself if I had the bux...it's a pretty simple airframe, what with all the wooden components. If I REALLY wanted to turn soe heads though, I'd do an Ho 229... Signature- Rufus >> In article <_0sFg.142059$1i1.2500@attbi_s72>, Rufus <srollin2@mchsi.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >pretty simple airframe, what with all the wooden components. If I >REALLY wanted to turn soe heads though, I'd do an Ho 229... yes that would have them lined up. you'd have to have a guard at anywhere but home and home would need a hanger. ok guys, what's everyone's fantasy airplane to own? i think a 1/2 scale do335 with some cheap strait 6 motors could be viable and efficent. with scale mk108's, of course. pehaps a two seater if the so needs to be along. after all, the intercom could "break". > >>>>why are there so few reproductions, especially considerein > >>>>what a restoration cost and losing a unique plane means? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and room for a blonde and some luggage. > the 162 doesn't excite me.... Yep, some guy started the project, it went to court, as these things tend to do, and the aircraft were built in Everett Washington. I don't know as they were all sold though. One has test flown, and it had a taxiiing oops. As I recall, a gear collapsed and it taxied into a ditch of some sort. No one was injured, and since it was a replica, the news of the mishap was greeted with a big yawn. As it should be... it was a fender bender. Now if any of you have some jet time, and I forget how much money, I think one or more may be available! >> >>>>why are there so few reproductions, especially considerein >> >>>>what a restoration cost and losing a unique plane means? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Now if any of you have some jet time, and I forget how much money, I >think one or more may be available! last i saw on tv, two are in chermany and flying. >>I think the last three letters in 'butterfly' give the clue (it was >>built/born solely for a specific reason) and that was the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > were designed to fly, they were designed to drop bombs, strafe people, > you name it.. does that mean they have do it? ...er...yes. Warplanes are weapons - pure and simple. > laughing... reminds me of the line from Harold and Kumar Go to White > Castle... Kumar says "just because you're hung like a moose, it doesn't > mean you have to do porn'.... ...maybe it does. You'd sure make more money than a pilot. > Or more further to your analogy that you've done your job girl, etc.... > do you honor soldiers from WWII and other wars, or do you only > appreciate them while they are carrying guns into battle? Every time > these planes fly, they are in danger. Precisely. That's why we respect them. But more to the point, we should respect those that flew in them. > So exposing them to danger is extremely selfish. Just like assuming that > Uncle Jim who was at Tarawa should be in Iraq now. Nope. It's what they were made for. They did their duty when they were called upon, and now they rest. But Uncle Jim's spirt still moves on from Tarawa to Iraq. And I'd wager that's true of just about any combat vet - at least it is of most I know. > You wanna do analogies? I do analogies! > > --- Stephen Ditto. Signature- Rufus > Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 07:49: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Richard. You get it. I'm still working on aircraft at present...they come, they go. And they're meant to fly. And I always get surprised when an aviator stops flying and goes off to do something else. I guess you're right - you have to fly to get it. Signature- Rufus Rufus said the following on 18/08/06 19:22: >> Stephen Tontoni said the following on 18/08/06 07:49: >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > I guess you're right - you have to fly to get it. It's a mindset that is repeated often and recorded recently in the disbandment of 10 Squadron just earlier this year at RAF Brize Norton. Kermit Weeks must be hated for wanting to get the Sunderland flying again and one of the best things about that aircraft is that slight high-pitched whistle above the radials as it flies past and the spray of water as it takes off and lands. Pure majesty! Let's not talk about Imperial Airways for building an HP42 to flying condition, or for even thinking of having built that Vimy. Then, that one special engine sound even far off or high in the sky - that, once heard, is not forgotten. The Merlin! It seems that the area around Oxford is used a lot for people practicing their airshow patterns and aerobatics. To look up into a blue summer sky and see that little elliptically winged aircraft (that year with invasion stripes) dive, loop and turn, the pilot in their own world is a scene I will never forget. Another memorable sound is the low muffled throbbing "wooowowoooowowow" of a Lanc' in a holding pattern some distance off from an airshow, the air turbulence making the sound drift in and out. That and with eyes watching the action around a once still aircraft, the first Merlin kicking in with a smooth growl. That's enough from me. I've got a Werther's to unwrap! :-) Richard. SignatureCust. - "Fine salmon in the rivers." Will Hay - "Grouse on the moors." Cust. - "Deer in the hills." Will Hay - "Ah! but cheaper in the towns!" > Rufus said the following on 18/08/06 19:22: > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Richard. I was jumping down at Lake Eslinore, CA once...as I was falling out of the sky, a B-17 and B-24 with two P-51s passed in formation below, then beside me in my full view. Now THAT was a moment in time...what a sound. And what a view. Signature- Rufus --snippage-- > It's a mindset that is repeated often and recorded recently in the > disbandment of 10 Squadron just earlier this year at RAF Brize Norton. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > watching the action around a once still aircraft, the first Merlin > kicking in with a smooth growl. Ummmmm I think replicas are excellent, and the way to go for these aircraft. It's the originals that we can't afford to fly. I said that earlier... >>>>>>>>"Bill" == Bill Woodier <bill.woodier@comcast.com> writes: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -- Stephen No - I really meant that tieing an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a butterfly - I think it's cruel. An airplane (or any machine that is purpose built) was built to operate - not to gawk at. If you really respect those who fly, the machines they fly, and those who keep them flying, then you have to let them fly. You're going to lose one every now and then, and that's part of it. I'd rather see one crash and burn and remembered in reverence than to see one out of context and tied down, opened up, and put on parade...and I don't care much for airshows, either. Signature- Rufus >>>>> "Rufus" == Rufus <srollin2@mchsi.com> writes: >>>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Woodier <bill.woodier@comcast.com> writes: >> >> Bill> It has been my oft-stated opinion as well. I also get a Bill> charge out of seeing and hearing the warbirds flying but I'd Bill> rather enjoy them on the ground in a static display for the Bill> next 20-30 years than flying for 2-3 years, then crash and Bill> become a pile of worthless junk. >> >> Imagination is a powerful thing. It is easy to compromise a >> little on reality and leave a little more to the imagination. A >> running engine on a taxying plane can conjure up images of >> flying hordes in anyone's mind, probably even those >> disenpowered by years of television anaesthesia. Rufus> Trying an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a Rufus> butterfly... Like I said, imagination is a powerful thing. But mate, you also need to learn how to control the thing! :lol: SignatureG Hassenpflug /* IJN & JMSDF */ >>>>>>"Rufus" == Rufus <srollin2@mchsi.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Like I said, imagination is a powerful thing. But mate, you also need > to learn how to control the thing! :lol: Heh...then I would just be a control freak... There's a guy down at Mojave that has a Hunter. What a beauty in the air. Signature- Rufus >>>>> "Rufus" == Rufus <srollin2@mchsi.com> writes: >>>>>>"Rufus" == Rufus <srollin2@mchsi.com> writes: >> >> Rufus> Trying an airplane down is like pulling the wings off a Rufus> butterfly... >> >> Like I said, imagination is a powerful thing. But mate, you >> also need to learn how to control the thing! :lol: Rufus> Heh...then I would just be a control freak... Rufus> There's a guy down at Mojave that has a Hunter. What a Rufus> beauty in the air. WE've got a couple down in Cape Town too, painted jet black. Lovely sight indeed! 50's jets rock. SignatureG Hassenpflug /* IJN & JMSDF */ > WE've got a couple down in Cape Town too, painted jet black. Lovely > sight indeed! 50's jets rock. Much, much more importantly Gernot, there's a couple of Mr Petter's big beautiful babys there... the EE Lightning. Going to visit there, real soon. (c: Rob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.