Are warbirds in need of protection

RE: Are warbirds in need of protection

David,

>we are only passing these items on to the next generation<

I dearly wish this was true, and it may be so for many enthusiasts who have truly altruistic motives, but it often seems that those with the money have other motives. Too many people see historic aircraft as an investment opportunity. This is not only true with historic aircraft, it encompasses every area of society. People will pay £100,000 for a Victoria Cross which is never seen by the public again.

I know we would like things to be different but this seems a symptom of the society we live in today.

As for Macdonalds in the background of a Constable, the judges for the Turner Prize may well approve!

Regards,

kev35

RE: Are warbirds in need of protection

Roger, i agree entirely. While the owners have the right to do what they want, people tend to forget our rights to opinion!

RE: Are warbirds in need of protection

I have to agree with you on this one. Too many aircraft are being modified for the purposes of gaining an extra dollar. My pet hate is the conversion of ‘low back’ Spitfire LF.XVI’s into ‘high back’ machines – it’s completely unnecessary . Too many rare or one-off’s are being lost. Another prime example is the conversion of NAA A-36’s to P-51B’s – why bother ?
A forum member noted that it’s very much up to the owners and indeed it is but in reality we are only passing these items on to the next generation – what would anyone think if I bought a ‘Constable’ of a water mill and added a ‘McDonalds’ in the background to update it a bit !
Most aircraft are designed by skilled engineeers for a purpose – let’s try and avoid re-writing history for the sake of it.
By the way Tony Haig-Thomas has a TBM-3R in the U.K flying sans turret – lets hope she stays that way!

RE: Are warbirds in need of protection

I have wondered long and hard why Champlin sold off the second cockpit of the P-38M to the CAF. I can somewhat understand his desire to display the aircraft as a single seater in order to fit in better with the collection but at least keep the parts with the airplane just in case! I would love to see that airplane returned to night fighter status complete with black paint and even the ugly little radar pod under the nose. Don’t suppose it’ll happen now. Regards, Chad Veich.

RE: Are warbirds in need of protection

Roger,

As soon as I posted my last reply I thought ‘I bet Roger knows the guy with the Avenger’.

In light of what you say I stand corrected and in this case I have to agree with you. It’s a pity some kind of deal couldn’t have been done to save the radar Avenger while still finding a stock Avenger for this guy.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Are warbirds in need of protection

Kev,

I know the man who messed up the Avenger. I spoke to him several times and I also met him. He had absolutely no interest in the aircraft at all. His argument was that he wanted to fly a bomber and “not a ……. radar plane”. That is why I am so angry over especially the TBM 3W2. Now all these aircraft, made to find the kamikazes before they arrived over the American fleet, are gone. Even the museum in Pensacola has several “standard” TBM-3’s , but no 3W2. I am sure that they had wanted to exchanche one of their aircraft for the 3W2. When I asked what he had done with the 3W2 parts, as radome, radars, radio’s and extra tailparts, he said that he trew uit away as he had no use for “the junk”. There are some strange thinking people in the preservation scene. He has no idea what he has done as he had a big billboard standing in front of it at Sun’n Fun, claiming it to be “the world’s sole surviving TBM 3W2”. It isn’t a 2W2 anymore, but a mix of TBF-1, TBM-3E, TBM-3U parts fitted to a rebuilded 3W2 fuselage. In my opinion historicly of no value at all.

Best wishes, Roger

RE: Are warbirds in need of protection

Roger,

“Over the years several rare and unique warbirds have been historicly “kiled” by their owners.”

First of all, I think that’s a bit strong. I can understand your outrage to an extent but we as enthusiasts have to remember that these aircraft have owners who have to pay for the purchase of the aircraft, pay again for it’s restoration (or destruction) depending on your point of view, and then pay for the maintenance and operation of the aircraft.

“A rare photorecce P-38 Lightming is now just another P-38L, the same goes for the last 2 seat nightfighter variant of the P-38, which now also is “just” a p-38L,”

How many P-38’s are there , of whatever mark? Perhaps we should just be grateful that it’s still airworthy.

” The owner trew all stock WW2 equipment of the 3W2
away, and is now flying his Avenger bast.rd!”

That’s one hell of an insult to place at the door of someone I presume you don’t know.

“Why should all the non fighting variants or biplanes being rebuilded
(destroyed) into the more glameroud armed/fighter versions.”

Maybe this is because to help recoup some of their costs the owners of these aircraft participate in airshows. It seems that to satisfy the majority of airshow visitors, organisers do prefer to book the more glamorous aircraft.

I have no doubt that you are far from alone in holding these views, you may even be right, but other than registering your disapproval of this practice I fear there is little that could be done to prevent it.

Regards,

kev35