Historic Northrup N9M Flying Wing Crashes into NorCal Prison Yard

3393RP said:
The CAF's schtick about "condemn[ing] 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" has little to do with an aircraft which was not only the sole example of an important historical design that presaged the giant XB-35 and YB-49 bombers (which were intentionally destroyed by the Air Force), it was the only tangible link to the genius of Jack Northrup.

Planes of Fame exhibited massive hubris by believing they could fly this treasure repeatedly without consequence. The outcome shows the N-9M was exactly what it appeared to be, a test aircraft that was 77 years old with Franklin engines which were known to be fragile, the cause of a 2006 inflight engine fire that damaged the aircraft, and almost certainly the reason the N-9M has been swept up in a pile and carted away.

It should not have been flying.
Click to expand...

And your last line is the type of nanny-thinking that has led to the loss of many on our freedoms in the name of “think of the children”...

If I own a one of a kind aircraft and want to paint it pink with purple polka-dots, it’s my right to do so.
 
Static exhibition of the N-9M would still have exposed it to the public, without the very real prospect that flying it would lead to its destruction. It was a one of a kind test aircraft that was challenging to fly, not just another example of the 8,472 comparatively docile SPAD XIIIs that were built.

Flying a rare biplane that travels at 80 MPH over upstate New York farm fields with the occasional groundloop while landing at Old Rhinebeck isn't quite the same as flying the single remaining example of a historical plane capable of traveling 200 MPH over a congested urban area. Photos of the fragments of the N-9M vividly illustrate the difference.

Owning a rare cultural artifact doesn't mean the owners can do whatever they wish with them. Ownership also implies stewardship, a well established concept among responsible collectors of all historical items.

If the Hughes H-1 was in private hands, would it be acceptable to fly it? How about the Curtiss NC-4? The Spirit of St Louis?

The B-2 is a sorry standard bearer for Jack Northrup's abilities. It was not built directly from hand made vellum drawings and sketches of the design he created, nor was he present to oversee its construction. It cannot fly without the intervention of computers, all examples are hidden away at an Air Force Base, and its $500 million plus cost per unit makes it the complete opposite of the simple and graceful N-9M.
 
Last edited:
Omalley1537 said:
And your last line is the type of nanny-thinking that has led to the loss of many on our freedoms in the name of “think of the children”...
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous hyperbole, and a rather unintelligent argument.
 
ateamer said:
The best stewardship of an airplane - any airplane - is to keep it flying.
Click to expand...
Having been apart of a small museum at one time, it is amazing how many items of great "value" sit idle deteriorating in a corner because there is no money to restore it. But the minute you can make a connection (market) to the general public, i.e., funding, it is amazing who wants to help provided there's a tangible reward at the end of the tunnel. Based on that, I doubt the Flying Wing would have ever got to static exhibit status. Now to see it fly... where do I sign up and how much do you need. The CAF used this to great success for a period until other "issues" got in the way--I got my ride in a B-17.
 
3393RP said:
Static exhibition of the N-9M would still have exposed it to the public, without the very real prospect that flying it would lead to its destruction. It was a one of a kind test aircraft that was challenging to fly, not just another example of the 8,472 comparatively docile SPAD XIIIs that were built.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't have exposed it to the public in the same way as flying it. How do you know it was challenging to fly? Do you know why it went down?

3393RP said:
Flying a rare biplane that travels at 80 MPH over upstate New York farm fields with the occasional groundloop while landing at Old Rhinebeck isn't quite the same as flying the single remaining example of a historical plane capable of traveling 200 MPH over a congested urban area. Photos of the fragments of the N-9M vividly illustrate the difference.
Click to expand...
Those early aircraft were reputedly quite the handful to fly. Rotary engines that could spin them like a top, airfoils with bad stall charismatics, and still developing theories about stability. Rhinebeck isn't Nebraska, either, been to both places. Rhinebeck isn't exactly open farm fields.

3393RP said:
Owning a rare cultural artifact doesn't mean the owners can do whatever they wish with them. Ownership also implies stewardship, a well established concept among responsible collectors of all historical items.

If the Hughes H-1 was in private hands, would it be acceptable to fly it? How about the Curtiss NC-4? The Spirit of St Louis?
Click to expand...
You speak of freedom, but you would limit what people may do with items they own. That smacks of socialism. May as well rent them from the government. Yes, it would be fine for a private owner to fly any of those planes. The owners would be within their rights to put them in a crusher, too. It's call "property rights".

The Shuttleworth collection in the UK also has a collection of rare planes that they fly. There are other groups in New Zealand and Australia that also fly rare planes.

3393RP said:
The B-2 is a sorry standard bearer for Jack Northrup's abilities. It was not built directly from hand made vellum drawings and sketches of the design he created, nor was he present to oversee its construction. It cannot fly without the intervention of computers, all examples are hidden away at an Air Force Base, and its $500 million plus cost per unit makes it the complete opposite of the simple and graceful N-9M.
Click to expand...
Simple and graceful, yet challenging to fly? Seems a contradiction. It was graceful because we could see the N-9M fly. The B-2 was built using the information gained from Jack Northrop's work. Seeing the B-2 fly twice, it seems rather graceful. The Air Force drags them out to Nebraska and Missouri air shows. The cost per unit is a non-sequitor, all Air Force planes cost more than they should now.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
This is ridiculous hyperbole, and a rather unintelligent argument.
Click to expand...
But that's how our taxes increase and freedoms go away, one tiny step at a time. Let's say they turned your proposal into a law, that "Aircraft deemed rare and historic shall be deemed unairworthy" - how do we define "rare and historic" - how do we enforce it? What other laws and stipulation are going to come from that? Who's going to start a lobbying group and create corruption and backwater channels to ensure that *their* historic aircraft fly, but not someone else's? How many more people will the FAA need to employ, how will our costs to fly be affected. It's never "just X" - to not be aware of that or deny that is just as ridiculous

3393RP said:
Owning a rare cultural artifact doesn't mean the owners can do whatever they wish with them.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. If I own something I can do with it as a I please, within the confines of what the law permits, that is the very definition of ownership. Should the USS Constitution not be allowed to sail occasionally? Talk about a rare and historical artifact! But she's a sailing ship, and that's what she does, she gets taken out to sail, etc. Sure, the possibility exists that something could go wrong (as sadly happened with Notre Dam), but that's life.. sometimes **** happens.. she was meant to sail, as the N9M was built to fly, and that's what they did. It's far more disgraceful to turn something meaningful into a Dumbo artifact that either collects dust somewhere, or occasionally gets rolled out so a few people can photograph it

3393RP said:
Ownership also implies stewardship, a well established concept among responsible collectors of all historical items.
Click to expand...
To imply that the CAF doesn't have stewardship of their collection is just pure bonkers. Having met the team there many times they are some of the most ardent aviators out there.. their passion exudes, and these guys will talk your ears off for inordinate amounts of time about their planes. Plus, isn't the ultimate stewardship letting something do what it was built and designed to do? To go along with the point above, that's like never letting the Constitution sail, or never letting your hot girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/whatever leave the house and come out to dinner with you because "what if something happens to her"

Crazy town.
 
Tantalum said:
Should the USS Constitution not be allowed to sail occasionally? Talk about a rare and historical artifact! But she's a sailing ship, and that's what she does, she gets taken out to sail, etc. Sure, the possibility exists that something could go wrong (as sadly happened with Notre Dam), but that's life.. sometimes **** happens.. she was meant to sail, as the N9M was built to fly, and that's what they did. It's far more disgraceful to turn something meaningful into a Dumbo artifact that either collects dust somewhere, or occasionally gets rolled out so a few people can photograph it
Click to expand...
Ships are safest in harbor. But that's not what ships were made for.
Planes are safest in a hangar. But that's not what airplanes were built for.
 
Bell206 said:
Having been apart of a small museum at one time, it is amazing how many items of great "value" sit idle deteriorating in a corner because there is no money to restore it.
Click to expand...

War Eagles! The museum not the Auburn Tigers:confused::p

EVERY plane at War Eagles Dona Ana Airport is kept in flying condition. They were donated by the McGuires, and the hangar at the McGuire ranch still has several old planes that wouldn't fit in the War Eagles museum. Only two pilots were allowed to fly any of those planes, but one passed away in an accident a few years ago.
 
ateamer said:
The best stewardship of an airplane - any airplane - is to keep it flying. They were designed to fly, and they belong in the sky. I’d rather see one rare plane flying than a hundred in museums.
Click to expand...
I'd rather see a hundred in museums ... if there were only one or two examples of each extant.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I'd rather see a hundred in museums ... if there were only one or two examples of each extant.
Click to expand...
But that goes back to what I said... Can a museum afford to buy it, restore it, and keep it?

For example, I would guess most P-51s are in private hands. People whine every time one goes down that they should be sitting in museums. If I had an extra $4M, I'm not buying one to let you come look at it, I'm going to fly it. I think if we ground them, we'll find them rotting way.
 
@3393RP

I find the sentiment you express in this thread fascinating for someone that’s profile picture is of a B-17 landing. FWIW according to Wikipedia there are only 47 complete B-17s left in the world. Of which only 11 are still flying. That’s 1 B-17 per 4 million square miles of surface area on the plant. Think about how far some people would need to travel to see one. And if any of those 11 planes still flying crash, or a tornado tears down a museum containing one of the static ones...

If you really believe rare planes should be kept in museums, then why not have a photo of a B-17 on the floor of a museum surrounded by many other planes as your profile photo?
 
Omalley1537 said:
And your last line is the type of nanny-thinking that has led to the loss of many on our freedoms in the name of “think of the children”...

If I own a one of a kind aircraft and want to paint it pink with purple polka-dots, it’s my right to do so.
Click to expand...
This. I fly a WW II aircraft - of which 20-30 remain flyable. I go to great personal expense (both time and money) to bring it to events and share it with veterans and the public at large.
If someone insists it be in a museum they need to get out their checkbook. Until then, stay clear of my propeller.

If Old Rhinebeck stops flying their planes I will scratch them off my bucket list of places I need to visit. I only need to drive 20 miles to see replicas on static display. It's cool but there's no "is it real, or is it Memorex?" dilemma.

Also, pretty sure Kermit weeks has lost more planes parked "safely" in his museum than he has from flying them.
 
Tantalum said:
Should the USS Constitution not be allowed to sail occasionally? Talk about a rare and historical artifact! But she's a sailing ship, and that's what she does, she gets taken out to sail, etc. Sure, the possibility exists that something could go wrong (as sadly happened with Notre Dam), but that's life.. sometimes **** happens.. she was meant to sail, as the N9M was built to fly, and that's what they did. It's far more disgraceful to turn something meaningful into a Dumbo artifact that either collects dust somewhere, or occasionally gets rolled out so a few people can photograph it
Click to expand...
As an additional data point, USS Constitution can sail on her own. @wanttaja can probably attest that they once forgot the diagonals on a USS Constitution refurbishment; those diagonals are one of the reasons she is such a unique ship. Replacing them made her seaworthy again. HMS Victory recently has been solely a museum ship, in a dry-dock, and is starting to sag under her own weight. https://www.hms-victory.com/restora...tious-engineering-project-resupports-flagship
 
nauga said:
There's at least a teeeeeeny bit of irony in talking about honoring a man and his genius and consistently spelling his name wrong. ;)

Nauga,
who says, "ROP!"
Click to expand...



I hadn't noticed that. I just typed Northrop into my phone, and auto correct changed it to Northrup. I have no idea why it decided that was correct.

Thanks for letting me know.
 
skier said:
@3393RP

I find the sentiment you express in this thread fascinating for someone that’s profile picture is of a B-17 landing. FWIW according to Wikipedia there are only 47 complete B-17s left in the world. Of which only 11 are still flying. That’s 1 B-17 per 4 million square miles of surface area on the plant. Think about how far some people would need to travel to see one. And if any of those 11 planes still flying crash, or a tornado tears down a museum containing one of the static ones...

If you really believe rare planes should be kept in museums, then why not have a photo of a B-17 on the floor of a museum surrounded by many other planes as your profile photo?
Click to expand...

That's a photo of the Nine-O-Nine taxiing in at the Waco airport. The Collings folks were nice enough to let me fly with them to Meacham.

I guess it doesn't register with some people what the difference is between the N-9M and planes like the B-17. There were more than 12,000 B-17s built, and two N-9Ms. One crashed in 1942. The other was the sole remaining example.
 
Tantalum said:
But that's how our taxes increase and freedoms go away, one tiny step at a time. Let's say they turned your proposal into a law, that "Aircraft deemed rare and historic shall be deemed unairworthy" - how do we define "rare and historic" - how do we enforce it? What other laws and stipulation are going to come from that? Who's going to start a lobbying group and create corruption and backwater channels to ensure that *their* historic aircraft fly, but not someone else's? How many more people will the FAA need to employ, how will our costs to fly be affected. It's never "just X" - to not be aware of that or deny that is just as ridiculous
Click to expand...

This is more silly castle building. The subject has nothing to do with creating laws, and your strawman is so nonsensical you should be embarrassed.
 
3393RP said:
That's a photo of the Nine-O-Nine taxiing in at the Waco airport. The Collings folks were nice enough to let me fly with them to Meacham.

I guess it doesn't register with some people what the difference is between the N-9M and planes like the B-17. There were more than 12,000 B-17s built, and two N-9Ms. One crashed in 1942. The other was the sole remaining example.
Click to expand...
Rare planes, some are the sole example. I'd rather see them in flying shape than rot someplace. We have lost many "irreplaceable " artifacts, airplanes and otherwise, through accidents and war. The Wright Flyer...the original one...survived the blitz in WW2, being returned to to the USA in 1948. It was in London due to politics here in the USA. The Wrights almost decided to destroy the plane themselves. I'm Ok with rare planes flying.
3393RP said:
This is more silly castle building. The subject has nothing to do with creating laws, and your strawman is so nonsensical you should be embarrassed.
Click to expand...
Laws are created because people want them created, and we don't need any laws deciding on the disposal of private property. Comments like the one below are the start of such laws.
3393RP said:
Owning a rare cultural artifact doesn't mean the owners can do whatever they wish with them
Click to expand...
 
3393RP said:
The subject has nothing to do with creating laws
Click to expand...
.. "it should not have been flying" and there was a fairly strong indictment of the CAF implying that their "shtick" was reckless and not displaying good stewardship. It's that type of thinking that leads to the creation of innocuous feel good laws that spiral out of control. It's not straw man sky is falling conjecture, it's the reality of the world. Every freedom we lose starts with a well intentioned and innocent good idea. The whole frog and boiling water analogy thing

I am strongly in the camp of "you do the most honor and service for something by keeping her flying / sailing / driving / etc" it's not like this was owned by some schlep who flew it on burger runs and plowed it into a hill side in the clouds. This was an obsessive crew who kept her in flying shape in the honor of Mr. Northrup and his legacy. Jay Leno keeps all his cars in drivable condition and routinely does so, even with remarkably rare examples.. that's how you give something the ultimate stewardship. The fact that HMS Victory @Cap'n Jack is sagging under her own weight propped up by those hideous white stilts is a total disgrace to the legacy of a great sailing ship.. is that the legacy you would have wished on the N9M?

Should Neil Armstrong's Corvette not be kept driving? Talk about a rare piece of awesome history, Neil Armstrong's CORVETTE! But here it is, in drivable condition. Should this also not be driving and left in some museum somewhere so soccer mom's can go "cool, look at that pretty blue astronaut's car"

I'm not embarrassed, I'm horrified at how differently otherwise similar (pilots) people can think. Educational really.

PS.. this is well worth a watch for anyone
 
I'm not against mandating the grounding of rare aircraft, by any means, especially if privately owned. But if I had the "last of ...", I believe I would seriously consider parking it in a museum. Heck, with the cost of restoration (and some old "restored" planes have little that is original beyond the data plate) it would possibly be cheaper to duplicate the thing, and fly that.
 
Tantalum said:
.. "it should not have been flying" and there was a fairly strong indictment of the CAF implying that their "shtick" was reckless and not displaying good stewardship. It's that type of thinking that leads to the creation of innocuous feel good laws that spiral out of control. It's not straw man sky is falling conjecture, it's the reality of the world. Every freedom we lose starts with a well intentioned and innocent good idea. The whole frog and boiling water analogy thing

I am strongly in the camp of "you do the most honor and service for something by keeping her flying / sailing / driving / etc" it's not like this was owned by some schlep who flew it on burger runs and plowed it into a hill side in the clouds. This was an obsessive crew who kept her in flying shape in the honor of Mr. Northrup and his legacy. Jay Leno keeps all his cars in drivable condition and routinely does so, even with remarkably rare examples.. that's how you give something the ultimate stewardship. The fact that HMS Victory @Cap'n Jack is sagging under her own weight propped up by those hideous white stilts is a total disgrace to the legacy of a great sailing ship.. is that the legacy you would have wished on the N9M?

Should Neil Armstrong's Corvette not be kept driving? Talk about a rare piece of awesome history, Neil Armstrong's CORVETTE! But here it is, in drivable condition. Should this also not be driving and left in some museum somewhere so soccer mom's can go "cool, look at that pretty blue astronaut's car"

I'm not embarrassed, I'm horrified at how differently otherwise similar (pilots) people can think. Educational really.

PS.. this is well worth a watch for anyone
Click to expand...

Loved that episode of TGT. Even the wife was getting goosebumps during that segment when he drove Armstrong’s ‘Vette down the runway.
 
There’s rare and then there’s the only example left in existence. Personally, I’d rather see one of a kinds kept in museums.

Viewing history pieces on an iPhone ain’t the same as seeing it in the flesh. I’ve seen rare aircraft (Concord/Valkyrie) in museums where a picture just doesn’t do it justice. Just like aircraft in storage at the boneyard. Crush the majority of them but keep a few around for public viewing.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Loved that episode of TGT
Click to expand...
It took them a few seasons to get into the groove of things, but there were many episodes in this last season that were very well done. I agree, that was an epic scene, you could genuinely see the pure joy on Captain Slow's face. James May might just be my favorite of the trio

I guess my whole thing, seeing something in "usable" condition as it was originally intended shows me its soul is still there, its still "alive" but once it gets relegated to sitting in a museum, etc., it's just a relic, an artifact of what it once was.. something very sad to me about that. It's like keeping a dead body on display in formaldehyde (which has also been done)

Mind you, this plane is important to aviation enthusiasts, but I'm quite certain had it not been acquired by CAF it likely would have ended up with flat tires slowly disintegrating in one of the many open air roadside "aircraft museums" that you see along highways. Cool to go look at it and see what it once WAS, but given the choice I'd rather see what it still IS
 
3393RP said:
This is more silly castle building. The subject has nothing to do with creating laws, and your strawman is so nonsensical you should be embarrassed.
Click to expand...
The remark below shows how such laws get enacted...
Kenny Phillips said:
I'm not against mandating the grounding of rare aircraft, by any means, especially if privately owned.
Click to expand...
 
I used to visit Chino airport a lot and passed by the hangar many times where they were restoring N9M. I witnessed the early test flights after restoration and the aircraft appeared to be rather unstable in pitch and yaw. It took the test pilot many attempts to land as it had little longitudinal stability. Watching N9M fly overhead showed that it could have used more vertical surface area to dampen the yawing. Never thought that it would still be flying so many years later. It’s great that they were able to figure out how to fly it safely for so long.
I’m glad they restored it and happy it was able to fly once again. It was an experimental test aircraft and the flying qualities were not like that of a fully certified aircraft. The average pilot might get quite a surprise, especially if not flown within its limited envelope (if what I saw in early test flights was any indication.)
It’s sad to lose such a historic airplane and more sad for the survivors of the pilot. May he Rest In Peace.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I'm not against mandating the grounding of rare aircraft, by any means, especially if privately owned.
Click to expand...

Let’s parse out the double negative:

Not against — meaning for?

Is that what you meant?

Would the following sentence accurately capture your sentiment?


I’m for mandating the grounding of rare aircraft, by any means, especially if privately owned.


If that’s what you meant, then I strongly disagree.

Who gets to decide what is rare? Does a one off home built count? That is certainly rare.

By any means? Really? Vigilante justice, theft, murder, etc. all fall into the category of “any means”. Are you really advocating for controlling someone else’s personal property “by any means”?

And why does it matter if it’s privately owned? Are you saying that a public company or the government are somehow more privilaged than a private owner?

Wow... just... wow.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
3393RP said:
I guess it doesn't register with some people what the difference is between the N-9M and planes like the B-17. There were more than 12,000 B-17s built, and two N-9Ms. One crashed in 1942. The other was the sole remaining example.
Click to expand...

But there are only 47 complete examples of B-17s left in the world. That's EDIT: .3% of all that were built. I'd classify that as pretty rare.

What about a plane like the Transavia PL-12 Airtruk? 118 examples built, 8 remaining, 4 airworthy. Should we let those planes fly?

What about the Mooney M-18. Certainly that has historic significance as the first model produced by Mooney. There may be a dozen left flying. Should we let those continue to fly?

How about the VariViggen. Another historically significant aircraft, Burt Rutan's first offering to the homebuilt aircraft world. Maybe 1 or 2 of those left flying.

The Taylor Aerocar? The Anderson Greenwood AG-14? McCulloch J-2? Air and Space 18A?

I could list rare aircraft all day long that are still flying. Who decides whether we should let them continue?
 
Last edited:
skier said:
What about a plane like the Transavia PL-12 Airtruk
Click to expand...

Transavia-PL12-Airtruk.jpg


If I get one, I am so flying it, baby..!!!!
 
Glad they were able to fly the thing. Bummer the pilot died.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
If they find the data plate, they can rebuild it. There's a couple of threads about that.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Omalley1537 said:
And your last line is the type of nanny-thinking that has led to the loss of many on our freedoms in the name of “think of the children”...

If I own a one of a kind aircraft and want to paint it pink with purple polka-dots, it’s my right to do so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, screw the children. To hell with the people in the future. Let's do what we want today. :rolleyes:

The "greatest" generation is nearly gone, but their kids, the great selfish generation is still around doing whatever the hell they want and screwing future generations in the process. It is their legacy to the future.

This isn't about "rights", it's about what is right.
 
Dav8or said:
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.
Click to expand...

Calling the crashed N9M original is like calling George Washington's axe original. It was a hulk when POF recovered it. In addition to all of the other work, they built new wing panels for it. Years later, they had an engine fire, had to do a bunch more rebuild/restoration. That engine fire meant one of the original engines was unusable, so they had to source another engine.

Here's AOPA's take on the first restoration:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1996/october/pilot/the-wing-will-fly
 
Dav8or said:
Yeah, screw the children. To hell with the people in the future. Let's do what we want today. :rolleyes:

The "greatest" generation is nearly gone, but their kids, the great selfish generation is still around doing whatever the hell they want and screwing future generations in the process. It is their legacy to the future.

This isn't about "rights", it's about what is right.
Click to expand...

It’s about ownership and freedom. If I own something, you should have zero right to tell me what to do with it. To say otherwise is a slippery slope of loss of freedoms. Unfortunately we are already on that slope.
I’m not going any further, or I’ll reach spin zone territory.
 
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?

iu


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top