Flying Warbirds

Let them fly or ground them?

  • Let 'em fly!

    Votes: 101 95.3%

  • Make them all static.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't care.

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • Total voters
    106
Lowflynjack

Lowflynjack

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,390
Display Name
Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
I haven't seen it on this forum, but every time we lose a warbird, I see chatter about how we shouldn't fly them. They say they're irreplaceable, they're part of history, etc.

It does seem like we lose a P51 about once a year. They were designed to win a war, so they're not for everyone and they're not docile. A lot of the owners that die in them are older guys. Maybe it's because they're the only ones who can afford $4M+ for a P51.

However, for those that argue they shouldn't be flown, most of these planes would be rotting somewhere if not being flown. A lot of the planes you see in great flying condition were brought back from the dead. Most museums are not going to pay the price to restore one.

As an owner of a warbird, you have to decide if you can afford it and afford to maintain it and fly it enough to stay current. You have to decide this on any airplane you buy. I personally know if you gave me one, I couldn't afford to fly it safely. I've flown plenty of warbirds, but none that belonged to me.

I'm sure the poll will be biased since this is an aviation website, but I have a friend who is an airline pilot and thinks the warbirds should be grounded and there should be no airshows.

Example of a crashed P51. This guy died when he tried to execute a go-around in a botched landing. He was killed and the plane was destroyed.
image.ashx

This plane was completely rebuilt and is now owned by a friend of mine in Texas. They are too rare and too coveted. They are almost always rebuilt, even if only the data plate survives.
22943917674_bde844a070_b.jpg
 
There are quite a few in museums on static display so I say let them fly. The exception might be for something that is one of a kind though it should entirely be left to the judgment of the plane’s owner.
 
Zeldman said:
Does he also believe that only the airlines should be allowed in the air, and no one else.??
Click to expand...
No, he flies a Cirrus...

He will argue the airframes are very old and shouldn't be flown the same way they were 70+ years ago. The pilots were considered old in their early 20's. I've seen some of the restorations and understand there are very few parts that are that old, but I can at least understand the point. I've heard this from a lot of people, not just him. You can see it on message boards right now about this latest crash.
 
I think everyone here understands that I'm 100% for keeping them flying. I don't think the poll will show everyone here is, though I think it will heavily favor flying them.

I knew Cowden and think he was a great pilot. I'm not going to assume any kind of error on his part, but I'm open to the what-if discussion. I'm 45 and I will tell you that aerobatics has a lot more of an effect on me physically than it did when I was 25. A lot of the guys flying these warbirds that fly very fast and are very agile are retired. Does it make a difference?
 
Keep 'em flying. Those who know these airplanes well realize there is more risk in flying a warbird, be it P-51, B-29 or AT-6, than in flying a GA family cruiser. WW2 combat aircraft were never intended to have an 80-year service life. But on balance I believe it's worth the effort, money and even risk, to keep the memory alive as long as possible. We're already forgetting too much of the heroes of that generation. Sadly, it shows, and we're the worse for it.

Not to minimize the seriousness of these events, but here's a little perspective on how treacherous wartime non-combat flying was, especially training. The link below contains a list of US military aircraft accidents -- stateside only -- for one month, June 1943. Presumably flying weather would be relatively benign that time of year. The number of fatalities/injuries is not shown, but if the "Action Code" begins with a 'K', somebody was killed. Aircraft damage ("D" column) is shown, 0 to 5, 5 being a total loss.

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/AARmonthly/Jun1943S.htm
 
Last edited:
Lowflynjack said:
I think everyone here understands that I'm 100% for keeping them flying. I don't think the poll will show everyone here is, though I think it will heavily favor flying them.

I knew Cowden and think he was a great pilot. I'm not going to assume any kind of error on his part, but I'm open to the what-if discussion. I'm 45 and I will tell you that aerobatics has a lot more of an effect on me physically than it did when I was 25. A lot of the guys flying these warbirds that fly very fast and are very agile are retired. Does it make a difference?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're getting at. Very few warbirds are lost during aerobatics or similar aggressive maneuvers. The generally seem to crash after a loss of power event or botched landing. I don't think a single aircraft has ever existed that I wouldn't want flown regularly. Same goes with autos. Trailer and garage queens mean little to me. A warbird was born to run, not collect dust, sometimes they go out in a blaze of glory.
 
While I personally appreciate the war birds, they don't really interest me anymore. There must be plenty of Mustangs around as you see one at just about every flyin and airport at least around here. They certainly demand more respect on landing than a normal airplane which can somewhat be compounded by having an audience. Let them fly, if they diminish to dangerous levels people will stop flying them due to parts availability.
 
Definitely let em fly. Its a managed risk, but I would jump at the opportunity to ride in one, even now before we know what happened in the latest loss.
 
This is an interesting topic, and one I've been thinking about after this last accident. There are a lot of people saying they're too old to fly safely but all I can think about are the other airplanes that are just as old that people don't think twice about flying. When are the other equally old airplanes too old to fly if the warbirds are already too old?

It is my opinion that it is up to the owner of the airplane to decide if they're going to fly it or not. I can respect either decision.
 
I would think that a plane built to take the flight loads and abuse of aerial combat can withstand the ravages of time as well as or better than other aircraft.
 
[QUOTE="Lowflynjack, post: 2634539, member: 23076]...However, for those that argue they shouldn't be flown, most of these planes would be rotting somewhere if not being flown. A lot of the planes you see in great flying condition were brought back from the dead. Most museums are not going to pay the price to restore one...[/quote]

absolutely. maybe 8-10 years ago while on vacation with some friends in South Dakota we stopped in at a small air museum east of Rapid City. from the parking lot we could see a number of vintage war birds on static display but upon closer inspection we found them all with flat tires, broken glass, missing parts, etc. years of neglect. not saying this was intentional on the part of the museum but likely lack of funds but it was difficult to experience. its akin to the hysteria some folks in this country are exhibiting with regards to certain statues...ignore or forget our history at our own peril and while rotting war birds may not rise to the same level as the group-thinking social justice "warriors" who are hell bent on destroying statues but with thousands of WWII vets dying each year (and Korea vets not too far behind) there may soon be nothing left to memorialize those generations and their sacrifice. so I say let 'em fly but at the same time those on static display should be properly cared for and maintained.
 
I suspect the biggest problem is pilot proficiency. I know a guy who owns an AT-6. He says it's the funnest airplane he's ever flown, and also the most demanding airplane he's ever flown, that he would have to fly it at least once a week and preferably more often to stay sharp enough to deal with it... so he hasn't flown it in years, but he's reluctant to see it because it was his father's plane. Flying a warbird once or twice a week is expensive even for rich guys.
 
Dana said:
I suspect the biggest problem is pilot proficiency. I know a guy who owns an AT-6. He says it's the funnest airplane he's ever flown, and also the most demanding airplane he's ever flown, that he would have to fly it at least once a week and preferably more often to stay sharp enough to deal with it... so he hasn't flown it in years, but he's reluctant to see it because it was his father's plane. Flying a warbird once or twice a week is expensive even for rich guys.
Click to expand...
I'm checked out in AT-6s and have enough hours to be pretty good... well, at least I was! It's been 5 or 6 years since I've even been in one and there is not a chance I would jump in one and assume I would be current. They are a demanding plane that will bite you in the butt if you don't stay ahead of them... or at least you might watch your butt pass you when landing! They were called advanced trainers for a reason.
 
This will sound a little down, but it's the truth as I see it:
Fly the warbirds until they are dust. In a few more years, almost no one will care about them except a very, select, few.
I live in Dutchess County, NY. Almost within spitting distance of the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome.
It is a remarkable place, staffed, run, and maintained by some of the best people I know. Clay Hammond, his wife, and the rest of the team risk life and limb, and financial ruin to keep Cole Palen's dream alive.
And no one cares.
Every year attendance falls off.
No one learns about aviation in school anymore.
No one learns about WWI and the air battles over France.
No one knows who "Lucky Lindy" is and why he is so important.
No one cares that some of these plane are over 100 years old, and that even the replicas require a level of skill to fly that is almost unheard of in these modern times.
You can do everything humanly possible to save and preserve the warbirds, of any era, but eventually no one will care anymore. It was too long ago,and too far away and it doesn't affect people anymore.

I'm at Rhinebeck every year for the Jamboree, most years, multiple times. and I get to see what's going on, first hand.
It's just a crying shame that we are losing such an important part of what makes us America.
 
I loved the comment that Scotty Crossfield gave when someone asked him a question about warbirds. It went something like:

"Put one in a museum and melt the rest of 'em down into canoes. I'm tired of fighting WWII. We could go to the moon again with the money wasted on this stuff."
 
flyingron said:
I loved the comment that Scotty Crossfield gave when someone asked him a question about warbirds. It went something like:

"Put one in a museum and melt the rest of 'em down into canoes. I'm tired of fighting WWII. We could go to the moon again with the money wasted on this stuff."
Click to expand...

No disrespect to Crossfield but he never fought in WWII. Definitely was a fine aviator but that comment sounds like someone who was frustrated for missing his chance to serve in combat. For those that did fly and fight, you’ll see an overwhelming support for keeping some of them flying. WWII members of CAF being a prime example.
 
A bunch of pilots believe,if I can’t fly one ,no one should. I did a ride in an AT 6 it was great.
 
The warbirds you see flying today are not 70 years old. Nearly every part on most of them has been recreated to some extent. Most are maintained better than the airliners people fly on everyday. The only thing that makes them unsafe in the least, is that they can be unforgiving of mistakes or inattention. Even some of the best pilots in the world have been bitten by a warbird at the wrong place and wrong time. They are especially not good for off airport landings due to their mass and energy. Others have been lost just due to the nature of the type of flying they do, airshows and aerobatics.

Let them fly and keep them flying. There is nothing like the sound of a Merlin or radial passing by.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The warbirds you see flying today are not 70 years old. Nearly every part on most of them has been recreated to some extent.
Click to expand...
That isn’t true. It may be true for some rebuilds like Glacier Girl for example, but most warbirds are still very original and are being kept in the air by original surplus parts that were manufactured during WWII.

My T6 is 77 yeas old and the vast majority of the airframe is original 1941 metal.
 
The way I’ve always looked at these debates is that if the airplane is the last example of its kind left in existence, it probably should stay static preserved in a museum.

Barring that, if it can be made to safely fly, by all means fly it and share it.
 
Not just warbirds, but all old aircraft deserve to be flown. Mrs. Fast and I enjoyed our flight in a Ford Trimotor last year.

Keeping these planes airworthy is the most sure way to preserve them.

There are certain planes, specific tail numbers, that belong in museums and shouldn’t be risked in flight. Like the Spirit of St Louis. Or the Enola Gay. Otherwise, let ‘em fly.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That isn’t true. It may be true for some rebuilds like Glacier Girl for example, but most warbirds are still very original and are being kept in the air by original surplus parts that were manufactured during WWII.

My T6 is 77 yeas old and the vast majority of the airframe is original 1941 metal.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions, but most of the warbirds I have been around have been heavily reconstructed, such as the work Air Corps in Bemidji, MN does. A lot of their projects start with a lot either missing or unusable and they have to fabricate new.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I would think that a plane built to take the flight loads and abuse of aerial combat can withstand the ravages of time as well as or better than other aircraft.
Click to expand...

Flight loads and aerial combat abuse I agree with. But these airplanes were meant to be disposable. Produced in large quantities, never intended to have an extended life. As I recall the airframes of the P-51 can experience intergranular corrosion. Like some forms of cancer, that's an age related issue.

I suspect the typical flying P-51 today is in far better shape structurally and mechanically than the numerous surplus ones that were flying in civilian hands by the 60s. Most of these have been pretty meticulously restored/reconstructed.
 
Last edited:
Lowflynjack said:
...I'm sure the poll will be biased since this is an aviation website, but I have a friend who is an airline pilot and thinks the warbirds should be grounded and there should be no airshows...
Click to expand...

Is this because he is concerned about saving the planes? Or saving the people who fly them? Or both?
 
Lowflynjack said:
...but I have a friend who is an airline pilot and thinks the warbirds should be grounded and there should be no airshows.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that guy is nuts. You should stop being friends with him because he just ain’t right.

Or maybe I’m the weird one? I’m an airline guy (737 capt) that actually likes to fly stuff outside of work. I built/fly a RV-8, which is a hoot to play with... but then I went really crazy and joined the CAF 9 years ago. I’m having a ball with it, getting to fly and work on these fantastic old machines, taking them to airshows and ride hops, meeting veterans to talk about their experiences and talking with kids about the history of the planes and the people that built, flew, and maintained them. I’m currently checked out in the B-17, C-60 Lodestar, C-45 Twin Beech, AT-6, PT-19, plus I’m part owner on a T-28D... yep, I’m a bit nuts I guess.

So, in short, my vote is to “Keep ‘em flying!”
 
Last edited:
Alluded to earlier, someone tally how many warbirds have been lost to an age related issue (spar failure, linkage failure, etc.) vs all other (pilot error, engine failure - which happens to plenty of Cirri). I’ll bet the former category approaches zero statistically.

That may not answer the question but it takes away the most common reason given for one answer.
 
Keep ‘em flying forever. The pilot who wants them grounded and no more airshows has lost his passion for flying - if he ever had it to begin with. Those wonderful warbirds want to fly - they are alive as much as those who fly and fix them.
 
I’m in my early 40s. No recollection of WWII, but I can respect those that like to fly the antiques.

Personally, for $4m, I’d rather fly an L-39, or some kind of other Turboprop or jet warbird.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The way I’ve always looked at these debates is that if the airplane is the last example of its kind left in existence, it probably should stay static preserved in a museum.

Barring that, if it can be made to safely fly, by all means fly it and share it.
Click to expand...
Museums can burn down, fall into sinkholes, etc. Fly it!
 
Salty said:
Museums can burn down, fall into sinkholes, etc. Fly it!
Click to expand...
Anything can happen, but I suspect if you look at the number of airplanes destroyed in flying accidents vs the number destroyed on the ground in natural disasters, the statistics would not favor flying.
 
Velocity173 said:
No disrespect to Crossfield but he never fought in WWII.
Click to expand...
Bullpoop. Crossfield served in the Navy as both an instructor and a fighter pilot in WWII. It was his test pilot career he did as a civilian for NACA and North American.
 
I say keep them flying, but only if they are flown from the ground like the military drones...best of both worlds: plane keep flying and pilot stays safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top