Historic Northrup N9M Flying Wing Crashes into NorCal Prison Yard

[MauleSkinner]

Good job at preserving aviation history for the future. That's OK, THIS generation got to see it fly and that's the only generation that matters. Go ahead, find the data plate and rebuild it. See how many care.

Soulless my ass. can you spot the soul in the picture?

Just to be clear, I am posting opinion in an attempt to try to get the aviation community to reconsider it's stewardship policy of America's and in fact, the world's aviation artifacts. I am NOT arguing in favor of any kind of legislation, or regulation. I understand private property rights. I understand that the CAF are well within their rights to take the whole fleet out to the desert, shoot them full of bullet holes and then set fire to them if they want to. Like I said before, this is not about rights, but doing what is right. Doing the right thing doesn't have to mandated and in fact it shouldn't be. One should want to do the right thing without mandates.

As long as everyone does what you think is right?

 

[weilke]

Wow some folks really have very strong feelings on what others are to do with their property.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Then it's not the original, is it?. It would be a replica and that's what they should have been flying all this time, a replica, not the real deal. Other museums around the world that "keep history alive" by continuing to operate old airplanes have a rule- if it's the last one of it's type in the world, it stays on the ground. It's smart and logical policy.

This is ridiculous- ""Condemning these aircraft to becoming dusty, soulless relics in museums and within pages of history books, soon to be forgotten along with what they stood for and the price that was paid by a generation of people to preserve our freedoms". Where is N9M now? How are future generations going to enjoy it, or even see it? I'm sure most people of the future would much rather see a soulless, dusty relic on a museum floor than a cool GoPro video of what it looked like flying back in grandpa's day. I've been to the Smithsonian, they aren't soulless to me.

Are these machines actually important artifacts of our history, or not? If they are important artifacts, they should be cared for and preserved for the future by custodians that recognize that they are only in temporary possession of something that actually belongs to the ages. If they're just old collectable toys, then sure, do whatever you like with them.

There is a compromise. If it's the last original one of it's type in the world, then it's grounded. If there are multiple copies, like there are with P-51s, B-25s, B-17s and Spitfires, then sure, fly them. Seems pretty simple to me. If you insist on flying the only original example in the world, IMO, that is just plain selfish and poor custodianship.

Define "original".
The USS Constitution, HMS Victory, and all other wooden sailing ships need routine maintenance throughout their working lives. Those ships were "refit" very regularly. Wood, being what it is, had a finite life. Most of those ship aren't made from the original timbers. Let's say you made an axe and used it. You replaced the handle 4x and the head once- is it the same axe? Is it original? Is Glacier Girl the same plane as the one that landed during WW2? Even the plane in question was restored- how much was original?

The "original" Wright Flyer has new wing covering, it was made in the same way, from the same materials, as the original, but it is new material. The same plane was tumbled after those first flights, and was repaired. Is it original?

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2...stored-uss-constitution-across-the-centuries/

I can see static displays anywhere, even here in Nebraska- there are few places where I can see old planes flying, in their context. So many static displays are nothing but a shell. A post-guard, but inside.

 

[kyleb]

One should want to do the right thing without mandates.

Do you think Jim Maloney and Planes of Fame thought they were doing the wrong thing when they rescued, restored, and flew the N9M? Of course not.

And here's the crux of the problem. Your definition of what is right is different than mine which is different from everyone else's.

 

[Dav8or]

As long as everyone does what you think is right?

The point is to start a dialog. What do you think is right to do with one of a kind aviation history and why?

 

[Dav8or]

Wow some folks really have very strong feelings on what others are to do with their property.

To have feeling and to care is definitely a burden and a curse, I'll give you that.

 

[Dav8or]

Define "original".
The USS Constitution, HMS Victory, and all other wooden sailing ships need routine maintenance throughout their working lives. Those ships were "refit" very regularly. Wood, being what it is, had a finite life. Most of those ship aren't made from the original timbers. Let's say you made an axe and used it. You replaced the handle 4x and the head once- is it the same axe? Is it original? Is Glacier Girl the same plane as the one that landed during WW2? Even the plane in question was restored- how much was original?

The "original" Wright Flyer has new wing covering, it was made in the same way, from the same materials, as the original, but it is new material. The same plane was tumbled after those first flights, and was repaired. Is it original?

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2...stored-uss-constitution-across-the-centuries/

I can see static displays anywhere, even here in Nebraska- there are few places where I can see old planes flying, in their context. So many static displays are nothing but a shell. A post-guard, but inside.

Cool, you want to see an airplane fly? So do I. Since you don't care much about originality, build a replica and fly it. Tell me why the last known example of an original interesting piece of American aviation history must fly and why a replica wouldn't be just as good for our amusement?

In your opinion, what is wrong with my suggestion that vintage aircraft that are numerous continue to fly an those that are the last one in the world be grounded? The discussion I'm trying to have is about stewardship, not personal property rights.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The point is to start a dialog. What do you think is right to do with one of a kind aviation history and why?

Let the owners determine how best to handle it. They’re the ones who cared enough and are invested enough to save them from the scrap pile.

 

[Dav8or]

Do you think Jim Maloney and Planes of Fame thought they were doing the wrong thing when they rescued, restored, and flew the N9M? Of course not.

And here's the crux of the problem. Your definition of what is right is different than mine which is different from everyone else's.

I do think they were wrong for flying it, but not rescue and restoring it. From your sentence above, it sounds like your definition of what is right is unique. Tell us, what is your definition of what's right that is different than everyone else's definition?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Cool, you want to see an airplane fly? So do I. Since you don't care much about originality, build a replica and fly it. Tell me why the last known example of an original interesting piece of American aviation history must fly and why a replica wouldn't be just as good for our amusement?

In your opinion, what is wrong with my suggestion that vintage aircraft that are numerous continue to fly an those that are the last one in the world be grounded? The discussion I'm trying to have is about stewardship, not personal property rights.

Was it original? How much was replaced? Was it truly original?

The original plane was taken from the trash heap and repaired so it can fly. That is much better stewardship than most artifacts get. If it wasn’t for planes of fame, it would have been gone long ago. A private group took it from junk to something nice and shared it with the rest of us.

 

[Dav8or]

Let the owners determine how best to handle it. They’re the ones who cared enough to save them from the scrap pile.

We did let them decide and will continue to do so in the future I suspect. Good for them. They resurrected an artifact, had their fun with it and burned it down in a prison yard. Some got to see it fly and now there are pretty pictures and videos. The story ends there though for future generations.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

We did let them decide and will continue to do so in the future I suspect. Good for them. They resurrected an artifact, had their fun with it and burned it down in a prison yard. Some got to see it fly and now there are pretty pictures and videos. The story ends there though for future generations.

It need not be, perhaps it can be restored in the same fashion they did before.

I do think they were wrong for flying it, but not rescue and restoring it. From your sentence above, it sounds like your definition of what is right is unique. Tell us, what is your definition of what's right that is different than everyone else's definition?

Maybe your definition of right, in this instance, is different than others?

I can’t speak for the Planes of Fame people, but perhaps it wouldn’t have been rescued and restored if they couldn’t fly it. It would have lost entirely. Would that have suited you?

 

[kyleb]

I do think they were wrong for flying it, but not rescue and restoring it. From your sentence above, it sounds like your definition of what is right is unique. Tell us, what is your definition of what's right that is different than everyone else's definition?

My definition is that the owner gets to decide. I'm not trying to impose my sense of right or wrong on someone's use of their material possessions.

 

[SoonerAviator]

As far as seeing “originals” in a museum on static display, I think I’ll pass. If they’re going to relegate an aircraft to a life of collecting dust (I don’t care if it’s 1 of 1), I’d rather they build a replica to sit on display and fly the original. When I’m in the NASM, I don’t look in awe of an aircraft because people actually flew in THAT aircraft, I look in awe of it because of what it represents. I’d much rather the original be flying around instead of having the fluids/engines stripped to sit for decades. Just my opinion.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

My definition is that the owner gets to decide. I'm not trying to impose my sense of right or wrong on someone's use of their material possessions.

Well said.

 

[weilke]

To have feeling and to care is definitely a burden and a curse, I'll give you that.

Feelings are fine. Where you use the political process to turn your feelings into rules that apply to others, that's where start to get a problem.

N9M existed because the folks who ponied up the money wanted to have a flyable copy. They made it, they decided to fly it, and I am sure they are heartbroken that it got 'substantially damaged'.

 

[MauleSkinner]

We did let them decide and will continue to do so in the future I suspect. Good for them. They resurrected an artifact, had their fun with it and burned it down in a prison yard. Some got to see it fly and now there are pretty pictures and videos. The story ends there though for future generations.

Even if they don’t rebuild it (and I suspect they will), “the story” won’t go away, and “the story” the airplane has to tell pretty much would end if it was parked in a museum...if it’s not flying, it’s not creating any stories.

I’m also fairly convinced that the survival of future generations is hinging on something far more significant than whether a particular last surviving example of an airplane survives or not.

 

[Dav8or]

It need not be, perhaps it can be restored in the same fashion they did before.


Maybe your definition of right, in this instance, is different than others?

I can’t speak for the Planes of Fame people, but perhaps it wouldn’t have been rescued and restored if they couldn’t fly it. It would have lost entirely. Would that have suited you?

Did you not see the crash site? I IS lost entirely. There is no rebuilding it. They can build a replica, that is all.

That airplane was saved a long time by somebody. Had Planes of Fame not restored it, somebody somewhere would have done something with it. There is now way it would have been "scrapped" at this point. Likely it would have ended up in a museum somewhere. Possibly the Smithsonian.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Did you not see the crash site? I IS lost entirely. There is no rebuilding it. They can build a replica, that is all.

That airplane was saved a long time by somebody. Had Planes of Fame not restored it, somebody somewhere would have done something with it. There is now way it would have been "scrapped" at this point. Likely it would have ended up in a museum somewhere. Possibly the Smithsonian.

What is the definition of rebuild? How much original plane do they need? Seems you haven’t looked at my entire comments or links.

Just who would have restored it the first time? To most people, it would have been a pile of aluminum to be recycled into beer cans. Would they have done such a good job as to make it flyable?

The proper form of stewardship is to keep it in a flyable condition and fly it.

 

[kyleb]

Did you not see the crash site? I IS lost entirely. There is no rebuilding it. They can build a replica, that is all.

That airplane was saved a long time by somebody. Had Planes of Fame not restored it, somebody somewhere would have done something with it. There is now way it would have been "scrapped" at this point. Likely it would have ended up in a museum somewhere. Possibly the Smithsonian.

Right in there with a hundred other airplanes in a warehouse restoration queue which won't see the light of day for 100 years. The NASM has bigger fish to fry. The flying wings were an aerodynamic dead end. They are an item of interest, not an item of particular importance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Did you not see the crash site? I IS lost entirely. There is no rebuilding it. They can build a replica, that is all.

That airplane was saved a long time by somebody. Had Planes of Fame not restored it, somebody somewhere would have done something with it. There is now way it would have been "scrapped" at this point. Likely it would have ended up in a museum somewhere. Possibly the Smithsonian.

So why didn’t you make them an offer they couldn’t refuse? Or maybe convince the museum that you support to do so?

 

[Bell206]

Possibly the Smithsonian.

FWIW: if you get a chance, take a stroll through the back lot of any top shelf museum: Pensacola Naval Air, Air Force at Wright-Pat, Smithsonian Air/Space, etc. I have. You will encounter dozens of "projects" that will never see the light. As "new" or more important aircraft are discovered in order to make room for these additions, these same top level museums sell, trade off, or in some cases scrap these projects. Fortunately, most get into private hands before the bone yard. And if you are to follow the paper trail I'll bet that's where this flying wing came from. After all it was probably government property at one time.

I wish we could save every historic aircraft, but it's not feasible even at the Smithsonian level. But you don't need to take my word. Visit one of these museums and ask to speak the curator. You might be surprised at their answers.

 

[jimhorner]

The point is to start a dialog. What do you think is right to do with one of a kind aviation history and why?

There can be only one correct answer here:


Whatever the owner wants to do with it.

To do otherwise is to begin to infringe on our freedoms as Americans.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Omalley1537]

Wow some folks really have very strong feelings on what others are to do with their property.

Which is why, ironically, the freedoms fought for with these airplanes may be lost.

 

[Omalley1537]

To quote a t-shirt I saw:

“My rights don’t end where your feelings begin.”

 

[skier]

FWIW: if you get a chance, take a stroll through the back lot of any top shelf museum: Pensacola Naval Air, Air Force at Wright-Pat, Smithsonian Air/Space, etc. I have. You will encounter dozens of "projects" that will never see the light. As "new" or more important aircraft are discovered in order to make room for these additions, these same top level museums sell, trade off, or in some cases scrap these projects. Fortunately, most get into private hands before the bone yard. And if you are to follow the paper trail I'll bet that's where this flying wing came from. After all it was probably government property at one time.

I wish we could save every historic aircraft, but it's not feasible even at the Smithsonian level. But you don't need to take my word. Visit one of these museums and ask to speak the curator. You might be surprised at their answers.

The Cessna CH-1 Skyhook is one example. It was the first IFR certified helicopter and set altitude records. There is a single example left in the world, housed at the Fort Rucker Army Aviation Museum. It isn't currently on display and I wouldn't hold my breath that it will be on display in my lifetime.

There are tons of other aircraft in exactly the same situation.

What if the Rutan Boomerang wasn't flying (or Catbird)? Do you really think they would still exist. They aren't interesting enough (to most people) to be a draw at a museum, so why would a museum waste time/money/storage on one when they could show an F-14, etc.

What about the YL-15 that was restored a few years ago and brought to Oshkosh. If someone didn't do that it likely wouldn't exist. Again, it just isn't interesting enough to most people to be a big enough draw to warrant the cost of restoring and displaying (for a museum).

Hundreds of designs have been relegated to scrapyards when people are no longer interested in flying them.

At least with the N9M we now have great photos and videos of it in its natural environment for people around the world to see and enjoy. I never had the chance to see the N9M in person, but seeing videos of it on the internet definitely made it more interesting to me than seeing photos of it surrounded by other aircraft in a sad museum in the middle of the country collecting dust and cobwebs.

 

[NoHeat]

But there are only 47 complete examples of B-17s left in the world. That's .003% of all that were built. I'd classify that as pretty rare.

Or classify it as a 100-fold math error.

They actually built 12,731, so
47 / 12,731 = 0.0037 = 0.37%

 

[skier]

Or classify it as a 100-fold math error.

They actually built 12,731, so
47 / 12,731 = 0.0037 = 0.37%

oops, you're right. I meant .003x or .3%. Went back and fixed the initial post. Thanks for the correction.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

Very unfortunate, the N9M crash and death of the pilot. Condolences to friends, family and the extended family at Chino.

I think the decision to keep flying N9M was the right one. Nothing...NOTHING...can inspire young minds like the sight of a rare and unusual aircraft doing a low-fly-by at an airshow. I was one of those young minds. You can see the aircraft in its entirety, hear its engines, see it arc gracefully over the crowd. A placard and a dusty static display in the corner of a museum is perhaps a sadder fate that a plane that performed before millions, inspired awe and ultimately met its demise. As noted, there is a ton of documentation, photos and film of N9M, so it will live on for generations. The loss of human life is tragic, but we all know the risks before we suit up. Some aircraft are riskier than others.

There was very little outcry for N9M to stop flying until it did indeed crash.

Here's a few photos I took at Chino back in 2015 or so. I'll be out there again this coming Saturday to honor the lost pilot and aircraft.

 

[ateamer]

I think the decision to keep flying N9M was the right one. Nothing...NOTHING...can inspire young minds like the sight of a rare and unusual aircraft doing a low-fly-by at an airshow. I was one of those young minds. You can see the aircraft in its entirety, hear its engines, see it arc gracefully over the]

Well put. I was another of those young minds inspired by antiques and other rare airplanes flying at airshows. Seeing a Jenny, a Santos-Dumont Demoiselle, or a Beech Staggerwing actually flying hooked me far beyond what planes in a museum ever could.

What about Fifi? How many more people did the CAF reach by flying Fifi to so many places instead of confining her in some corner of the country beyond the reach of most people? I say it’s wrong to ground a plane that could be kept airworthy. A working, active, hands-on museum educates, enriches and inspires more than a bunch of mummies sitting motionless.

 

[Polarisguy]

After having seen a parent battle and die from cancer I patently said F**** that. If I become terminally ill I'm skipping the treatment and meds and buying a boat and sailing around the world until either a storm or pirates take me out.. that's a much cooler way to go at least than "well Tantalum was taken off the ventilator at St Mary's Hospital and 3:07PM" <- yuck!


Amen brotha! The N9M was a remarkably cool aircraft, especially since it served as a tech demonstrator for the whole flying wing concept


I'd like to have fun at my funeral, like pay two dudes to stand in a corner in suites somewhere talking into earpieces so everyone will have thought I lived a secret double life

The decision is, quality or quantity. I vote for quality. Have already made that choice, I am at peace


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Stingray Don]

Performed a barrel role just prior to crashing

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...D=20190422X61451&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA

 

[Brad Smith]

Perhaps he had an engine out and stepped on the wrong rudder and tried to recover and stalled it? Doesn't seem like he would be dumb enough to do a "barrel" roll at low altitude with an experimental, historic flying wing.

 

[kyleb]

Perhaps he had an engine out and stepped on the wrong rudder and tried to recover and stalled it? Doesn't seem like he would be dumb enough to do a "barrel" roll at low altitude with an experimental, historic flying wing.

I agree. I don't think the N9M is an aircraft any knowledgeable pilot would stunt. Odds are, something unexpected happened - control failure, engine failure, bird strike, etc. which led to the roll and the subsequent crash.

 

[weilke]

Sounds like a control system malfunction. Plenty of computers on board of a B2 whose job is to keep the thing from flying a spontaneous barrel roll.

 

[kyleb]

Sounds like a control system malfunction. Plenty of computers on board of a B2 whose job is to keep the thing from flying a spontaneous barrel roll.

But not from premature rotation and liftoff, followed by a stall and crash.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

I went to the airshow today, and near the main gate they had this tribute to the fallen pilot, so thought I'd share.

RIP, David Vopat.