real Polikarpov 153

Didn't they rebuild that A/C after that accident?

Where was that? There's one in the museum in Paris and I doubt that it would ever be permitted to fly. Is there another somewhere?

Bubbamoosecat, there seem to be (or were) three in New Zealand. This link shows one of them last year. I believe that they were all rebuilds and all were airworthy. -Ed http://users.argonet.co.uk/users/vicsmith/DownUnder/I153.html

I think they said it was in New Zealand and they said it was the only flyable one left. It was probably rebuilt as it didn't appear to too badly damaged

I don't know about the rest of you, but IMHO these very rare a/c should not be flying. Too many have been destroyed over the years, making certain types even more rare, or even extinct. Just one man's opinion....

Park 'em, paint 'em and view 'em. I'd rather have someone disappointed at not seeing an old a/c fly than saying "gee, too bad that pile of scrap used to be a Mk II Whatever." JMHO - Ed

I can think of four incidents when I lived in England. On two consecutive weekends, a P-38 and a Mosquito were destroyed in crashes with loss of their pilots. A year or so later, the beautifully restored Bf-109G "Black 6" cracked up on landing. The '109 was damaged and could be repaired for museum display.
Then there was the Bristol Blenheim destroyed in a crash, after a 17 year restoration. Keyworth - I looked at the website you posted above. I saw a Polikarpov I-16 there as well as the I-153. The shame about this is that there is no I-153 at Monino (the main Russian aviation museum) and the I-16 they have is only a poor reproduction.

What your saying about preservation is true, but what a sight to see them fly. Another point is all the birds parked in the weather slowly rotting. I talked to a fellow at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo and if not for the fact that crowds came to see the WWII birds fly that museum couldn't stay afloat.

It's more than wanting to see an a/c fly: these birds are worth millions to av. collectors. Would you want to see your investment as a pile of scrap? I think not. A museum is better than nothing( indoors preferably.)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against most of these older planes flying. Just the ones where there are only a precious few left. P-51's, B-25's etc. are nice to see. It's too bad people risk the real rare ones that should be in museums.
I've never been over to Kalamazoo, but I'm sure I'd enjoy what they put up. I once saw the flying day at the Planes of fame in California. I enjoyed that show too, but if that Zero were to crash....

I have mixed feelings about the issue of flying warbirds in general, especially the very rare examples. However, one all too prevailing stance in worldwide society these days seems to be to take the cautious route, whatever the issue may be. I have to vehemently disagree with this tendancy in general, not just in regards the issue of whether or not to fly old airplanes. We are slowly turning into a society of wusses.

Too many people nowadays are just plain AFRAID to do something of which the outcome is uncertain. Certainly, flying warbirds involves risk. So does getting in a car and driving to work. The prime difference is that a car can be replaced (unless it's a '40 Ford! ), a Bf 109G cannot.

The REAL issue should be the safety of the person(s) involved and NOT the machinery, no matter how rare it may be. Regardless of whether or not a piece of machinery can be replaced, a human life cannot be replaced. If the individual who is to take that 60 year-old aircraft up is comfortable with doing so, and if the owner of said aircraft is equally confident, then the bird should fly. It'll be more valuable in the air than on the ground.

Having said that, if one chooses not to fly their exceedingly rare Bf 109 so be it; and I have no real problem with that. I'd like to see it fly if possible. And that's a bit of selfishness on my part, but mostly an overwhelming desire to see that bird displayed, in the air, for all to see so that all have the opportunity not only to see and hear what it was like but to learn more about the machines, the men who flew them and the deeds they have done while doing so.

Seeing a P-51 in the air leaves a helluvalot BIGGER impression than seeing one in a museum somewhere. And all the film in the world cannot convey the feeling one gets from seeing that Stang roar past on the deck and pitch up and around for another pass, or the thunder felt in one's chest that accompanies an overflight of several heavies. There is no substitute for this type of experience, and as long as it's possible I say "KEEP 'EM FLYING!"

Fade to Black...

Fly 'em, rare or not! It is great that there are museums and I think if there are only one or two of a certain a/c left they should be preserved. I know I look forward someday to seeing the XB-70 in Dayton. But if there are a handfull of a type, fly 'em, when they all crash, then they are gone and that's that. It is tragic to see a vintage A/C crash, not to mention the loss of life, but they belong in the air. I would rather see the A/C fly and maybe someday crash then not fly at all. When I was a kid I saw "Blue Max" an F-4U Corsair crash at a then Confederate A.F. show. It was very upsetting but it was incredible to see it fly.

I personally beleive if an aircraft can be restored to flying condition, LET IT FLY! The value of seeing and hearing a warbird fly far exceeds seeing it sit in a museum.A flying aircraft is more accesible to the public than one that stays sitting in a museum. Most "rare" warbirds typically are more new construction than original anyway. If they crash, if there is a will there is a way, they can be rebuilt. I was saddened to hear the Boeing 307 crash landed in Washington. However, because it was a flying example, hundreds of thousands of people including myself were able to appreciate hearing and seeing it in the skies over Oshkosh and across the US the year before. And the best part is, last I heard, it is almost back to flying condition again. At the same time I do respect the decision made by the Kalamazoo Air Zoo when they decide to restore their SBD to static display only. This was decided when they learned that this particular aircraft actually operated in Opertion Torch. They had determined too much of the original aircraft would have to be replaced to make it flyable. Since there are other Dauntlesses in the air I think this was a wise decision. I fell in love with Warbirds when I was 7 years old, the first time I heard a pair of Mustangs run up there thottles on take off roll at Oshkosh 73, I've been hooked ever since. The most incredible thing was in 1978 when we were at Oshkosh with my father, leaving the field after the show. All of a sudden my Dad says "I hear a B-17"! We looked up to see the CAF's "Texas Raider" approaching the field. That was the first time my dad had seen a B-17 since WWII in Framlingham England. To top off the experience, as we were walking around Texas Raiders after it landed, a man with a German accent asked my Dad and I if this was a Flying Fortress? it turned out this man flew a Bf-109 during the war. Just think 33 years earlier my Dad and this man where trying to kill each other, now they were talking as friends at an airshow. The final time I saw a B-17 with my Dad was in 1999, two days before he died. The CAF B-17 Senimental Journey was at Crites Field in Waukesha, and the crew let us drive my Dad right up to it. At that time we didn't know this would be the last time I would see a B-17 with my Dad. Sorry for the long post, but this is why i am so passionate about "KEEPING 'EM FLYING"
John L

Acft were built to fly, not stay on the ground. My Grandmunsters have seen all kinds of jet acft around the air base, but I remember one year I took them to a local airshow. I was telling them about B-17's, B24's F-86's etc. At the air show they saw the P-51 and Zero perform. They watched the F-86 and MIg 17 duel it out. They were able to walk into and set in the cockpit of a B-17.

After the air show my grand daughter asked if I had a model of the F-86 I could give her to put together. We spent many hours working on the Hasagawa 1/32 scale F-86E. It was all inspired by her watching the F-86 perform.

Having worked as a aircraft restoration crew chief for the Travis Air Museum, I've
gotta say "Let 'em fly". Airplanes sitting in a museum slowly deteriorate into junk.
None of Travis Museum's planes will ever fly again but, we tried to keep them
serviced as if they would. They last longer that way. Let the NASM, the AFM, and
the NAM have pristine examples to display to this and future generations and let
the private owners and museums do as they like.

I agree with letting them fly. Ten years ago my father gave me the birthday present of paying for me to take a ride in a B-17 when it was on tour here, and there is nothing like it in the world. It was an experience that I still treasure today. I would hate to think that others would not be able to have the same experience someday. Seeing the B-17 on the ground was not the same as hearing the engines run up or seeing it flying overhead...or, perhaps, taking a ride in one. All of my imagination of walking...or should I say crawling through...many parts of the plane could never get me the "real" thrill of seeing and hearing one doing one of the things that they do best...fly.

Jerry

I am an A&P mechanic in training, and one day I hope to be able to restore a F9F-2 Panther jet. The idea of restoring one to its original 1950's configuration (operating 20mm cannon, ejection seat, working period radios, etc.)is a dream of mine. Getting it to run with the original engine is also very cool, but I would like to fly it a few times. Only on very special occasions though. Authentic, yet operational. Don't fly it too much and be careful when you do. That is just my opinion.

IMHO if it can be restored to flyable condition it should be. This is assuming the cost isn't astronomical, think of trying to replace the wing spar in a B-29. ANYONE that can afford an F-4U etc can afford a Cherokee or similar for "daily" flying and use the warbird for shows or the rare jaunt around the countryside. Of course there is nothing like a warbird going over low and fast.

Rebel99: Operating cannon? Sorry but it will never happen. You could own the cannon with proper permits but the police can't even arm aircraft, ONLY the military.

Sorry! Should've clarified [/i]never [i] for actual use. I was just meaning feed chutes, electrial wiring, charging units and the like. There's a P-51 painted up like Preddy's 'Cripes a Mighty' that is restored to those specs. After seing that, I use it as what my restoration standard is. I do not want people to think there is some nut from the U.S.A who wants to fly around firing 20mm. Real weapons are dangerous, and not to be taken lightly. I apologize for any concerns.

There are some people that have "firing" MGs using CO2 tanks to create a loud "bang" and a puff of "smoke". Works quite well to. Maybe bleed air from the ACs engine could create the same effect. Blank firing (with a restricted bore like Hollywood guns) would be cool too.

Right now I worry more about armed foreign wackos than Americans although if we could go armed it wouldn't be a worry but that is another can of worms and I won't go into it here.

Yeah, take rare & beyond their design life airframes and attempt to make them safe enough to fly again.  All for the sake of putting on a show.  I say, build a replica if you must, but leave the 'hulks of history' on the ground so they can't kill anyone and will be around for a long time to appreciate.  You'll end up basically spending near the same wealth on it (in the long run, because the very first accident will come with a huge bill...)

Spoken like true non-aviators...

Robert

Wow!  Back from the dead...eleven years on! 

Been happening a lot on the FSM forum lately......................

................zombie members arise in time for Halloween? 

...Mom!...someone's digging up old threads again...

Might be a new record

Yikes!  I didn't notice the date... guess the search tools are working well!

R/

Robert

Rob Beach

Yeah, take rare & beyond their design life airframes and attempt to make them safe enough to fly again.  All for the sake of putting on a show.  I say, build a replica if you must, but leave the 'hulks of history' on the ground so they can't kill anyone and will be around for a long time to appreciate.  You'll end up basically spending near the same wealth on it (in the long run, because the very first accident will come with a huge bill...)

Spoken like true non-aviators...

Robert

Just wondering...... How do you know that the comments are from "non-aviators"?

I don't know for sure, DD.  Just sounds like it since seasoned pilots would generally agree that airframes do have a finite service life - depending on a great many factors - and be leery of putting anyone's life on the line just for a little entertainment, no matter how cool.  Not to mention the risk of losing unique historical artifacts forever (guess it doesn't apply to airframes that are relatively plentiful...)  That is why I think replicas are a better way to go if you want to fly an archaic design (of course, many aircraft cannot be replicated - the Vulcan for example.)  Another way of looking at it, would anyone expect King Tut's headpiece to be 'worn' just to see it walking around?

Point is, an aviator will not see an antique aircraft as the same as an antique car.  Talk about 'restoring' something belongs on the ground not the air.

But it is just my opinion.  Folks with the resources and the desire - like Kermit - will continue to keep 'em flying.  But those like Kermit don't worry me so much as those who don't have quite the resources but try anyway.  Though not directly applicable (since the crash was due to the airframe being incorrectly or improperly modified and not fully maintained), the 'Galloping Ghost' incident tends to highlight the mentality I'm talking about.  Talk about "the sight & sound" and future generations is just a smoke screen to block the true motivation, which is to play with the coolest toys ever.  It is the distinction between professionals and non-professionals, I suppose.

Regards,

Robert

So we keep flying the rare birds until they're gone?  At some point we maybe have five of a type.  then four, three, and then two.  So one of the two crashes and we fly the last until it's gone.  Museums serve a purpose and that purpose is greater than the need of one pilot to fly the last of a kind warbird into the ground.  At some point they will all be gone at this rate.  They will no longer fly, or be seen.  The public will no longer  be able to touch and feel these rare aircraft, take photos, etc.   A case in point is the restored FW 190 restored in Louisiana a while back.  theadvocate.com/.../world-war-ii-plane-runs