On 22 Mar 2006 20:37:33 -0500, "Bill Turner" wrote:

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Woody wrote:

There's a fine line between being a
keep-the-box-because-it-matters-to-other-boxkeepers packrat, and
preserving history.

Do you get it??
rb



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Absolutely, I get it.

You and the two or three posters who agree with you are self-centered
pigs who care nothing about preserving history. Your temporary
adrenaline rush is much more important, and the risk of splattering a
priceless aircraft means nothing beside your momentary thrills. How sad
that people like you are allowed to own such an aircraft.

A hundred or five hundred years from now, if your ilk prevails, people
will be saying "Gosh, I wish someone had kept a B-17G preserved
somewhere. I would have really loved to see the real thing".

I hope and pray there are not many like you.

Bill T.

If you don't fly it, there is no incentive to restore it, other than
cosmetically. I suspect there wouldn't be nearly as many people
preserving these old warbirds, were it not for a chance to pilot or
ride in the things. While there is some risk in sending them into the
air, the positives probably outweigh the one big negative, they may
crash.

Any figures on how many have been lost, flying these old warbirds in
shows and such?

bob
k5qwg

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Bob Miller wrote:

If you don't fly it, there is no incentive to restore it, other than
cosmetically. I suspect there wouldn't be nearly as many people
preserving these old warbirds, were it not for a chance to pilot or
ride in the things.



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

The word "Smithsonian" comes to mind. Thank goodness they have some
common sense.

I suppose if you had the original Apollo 11 command module you'd want
to sell rides in that too.

Bill T.

On 24 Mar 2006 17:05:51 -0500, "Bill Turner" wrote:

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Bob Miller wrote:

If you don't fly it, there is no incentive to restore it, other than
cosmetically. I suspect there wouldn't be nearly as many people
preserving these old warbirds, were it not for a chance to pilot or
ride in the things.



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

The word "Smithsonian" comes to mind. Thank goodness they have some
common sense.

The Smithsonian is certainly a fine museum. But I think there is a
place for stored, museum-only aircraft strictly for display purposes,
as well as for fully-restored, flyable historical aircraft that are
used to tour the country and put on air shows. The idea that it has to
be all one or the other is new to me, and has little merit.


I suppose if you had the original Apollo 11 command module you'd want
to sell rides in that too.

I've "ridden" in that module, via actual rocket-camera film, and it
was a hell of a ride, seeing the earth falling behind at great speed.
Not too practical, getting such a pod in flyable condition, tho'

bob
k5qwg


Bill T.

The word "Smithsonian" comes to mind. Thank goodness they have some
common sense.

I suppose if you had the original Apollo 11 command module you'd want
to sell rides in that too.


The Smithsonian? Oh yeah, they would never truck [or fly!] any of their
exhibits around the country, or loan them out....

I'm sure an aircraft has a much better chance on US highways than in the
air... LOL.

C'mon Bill... dig up a valid point! I know you can do it!
:-)
rb


PS:
FYI again... we *do* have Columbia, [at the Smithsonian] and it doesn't fly,
it rides and it falls, so no tickets.