Vandalism at Airshows

I’m an opinionated B******

Jay

So am I. I cannot agree with your answers though. Vandals should be put up against a wall and shot! It doesn’t matter what it is, what it’s used for, vandaslism is a crime. Are you really naieve enough to think that it’s the aircraft that’s killing the people? It’s the weaponry that does the killing.

Even if you do vandalise it well enough to stop people flying it, there’s going to be another one in reserve…

By throwing paint at it or damaging it, you aren’t making a statement about freedom, you’re just making yourself the equivalent of the louts that go around keying cars for fun.

Regards,
Richard

A preserved aircraft was used as an implement of war several years ago-and is not likely to be again! It exists as a monument and a reminder of history-it should remain as such.

Which one are you thinking of – The Invader, Mitchell, Harvards or the (nearly got there!) Meteor in Biafra (none of which were, I believe, from museums) or the Ivory Coasts (former airshow favourites) Strikemasters? The mass of Mustangs, Corsairs, P-47s or whatever from the various South American air forces (again museum pieces, but not from museums and most of them not to museums), or have I missed something obvious? – Nermal

In response to a couple of queries.

Jonathan:

I am aware the SR71 Blackbird was a reccon aircraft.

Yak11 fan:

If someone attempted to rearm an old warbird with the intention of killing people with it my reccomendation would be that it was taken away and ‘rehomed’ sharpish!

A preserved aircraft was used as an implement of war several years ago-and is not likely to be again! It exists as a monument and a reminder of history-it should remain as such.

I’m an opinionated B******

Jay

Okay that sounded pretty bad-made me look pretty stupid etc, can i try to clear it up

I am sorry. some of the right-wing anti-freedom bullsh*t (re Eddie Izzard/Germaine Greer as well) i have seen in these forums winds me up. I guess i was knowingly being provocative with that one.

I think if you vandalise it well enough no-one is gonna try and get into it and fly it. i am totally opposed to endangering life in this way, and resent the suggestion that i would ever condone such a thing. 😡 😡

I was being specific to aircraft in service or on the production line, which are liable to be used in war to kill people in the forseeable future, (barring of course defensive actions) I very much doubt i would be let off scot free for damaging an aircraft, and its not something i have any plans to do. I would never endorse the endangering of life-if one is going to participate in this kind of direct action it is vital to make clear the damage has taken place, any concealed damage which may allow the pilot to attempt to take off eg with a fuel tank of gravel is absolutely abhorrent and no better than murder, an anathema to most peace activists.

If you re-read it you will find that half of my post was condeming the vandalism of aircraft at museums. I am sorry if i was unclear, i have a personal preference to world war two aircraft. If an aircraft of whatever age is vandalised in a museum i get as angry if not more so than anyone in here! i apologise to the duxford etc. folks if i gave the impression i was saying it was okay to damage your newer aircraft. this is totally not what i meant and was what the second half of my post was being angry at/apologising for. I hope i am not followed around on my next visit-i love the place.

these aircraft are historical sources, whatever age they are, and are preserved, unless i’m misunderstanding things, for the benefit of those with many different viewpoints-whether its as a barbarous weapon or something that delivered us freedom, a monument to those who served or a beautiful technological object.

To an extent i was stressed and trying to get a reaction :dev2: -congrats to those who did not rise to it. On the other hand i stand by my sentiments about the illegality (or at least inherent immorality) of BAe trading policy and the actions of our government esp. post cold-war.

I hope i have not taken this too far off topic. My original post was confused at best and did me no service at all. I hope the mods see no need to delete this one (as i swear has happened before) :confused:

Love Jay

You might as well go bend a few RAF and USAF fighters then Damien to prevent the slaughter of more Iraqis in that illegal war. Don’t worry, the court precedent will get you off scot free afterwards!

To return perhaps to earlier on in the thread i notice a lot of nasty things are being said about various “peace activists” vandalising aircraft. I am surprised the Hawk jet on the production line for indonesia has been mentioned.

It is my opinion that an aircraft which is to be used for illegal acts of war should not be protected from vandalism, i think it is our duty as citizens of the world to prevent such murders happening, and i have no problem if this involves spray painting an sr71 or some such.

However as an individual with a strong interest in the aircraft of world war 2 and their preservation i am horrified to hear about the acts of vandalism in museums to old aircraft which present no threat at all anymore…….
Jay

You what???????

Let me get this straight, it’s OK to vandalise and endanger lives of serving military officers, but if the aircraft is locked away in a museum then it’s OK in spite of the fact that a number of years ago it may too have been a weapon of war????
So where does a preserved airworthy warbird fit into this picture??? Would it not be possible for said warbird to be armed again if the owner had a sudden rush of blood to the head to therefore become a weapon again??? Would you then wish to vandalise this machine as well???
Vandalism is wrong no matter what the circumstances are.
By the way seeing as the SR71 and the P51 are both out of military service why is it OK to vandalise one and not the other???? Isn’t the B52 still in service???? In which case I assume you are saying that an operational B52 should be vandalised but if it’s in a museum it’s OK????
Sorry, still not got it straight, now even more confused than ever!!!!!
Would you mind if I came round and spray painted your car for all the little bugs and insects that have been murdered by it during the summer months??? That may help me in understanding your point of view….

Vandalism…..the up side.

For the September 1946 Battle of Britain display at RAF Little Rissington,The A&AEE at Boscombe Down sent over a Seafire test aircraft for display in the static park.

It would appear that the general public had access to the aircraft and could even sit in the cockpit.

The accident report says:- ‘Hood possibly tampered with by visitors’ and by this one could imagine that the emergency release ball was partially ‘pulled’.

The aircraft took off to return to Boscombe and the canopy flew off striking the tailplane. The pilot landed back at Boscombe without a problem but the aircraft had to be dismantled and trucked by road to the Naval Repair Yard Fleetlands. A replacement Seafire completed the tests – Handling with 8 x 100lb RP’s. The original Seafire was eventually repaired and alloted to 767 and 738 Squadrons at Yeovilton and Culdrose respectively.

Without this vandalism the Seafire would not have ended up at RNAS Anthorn and been scrapped off to Carlisle.

It is a survivor and now awaiting its turn for a full restoration to flight sometime in the next ‘who knows when’ years. During the restoration of the fuselage the canopy rail structure still showed evidence of ‘brinnelling’ where the slider had torn off, back in 1946.

Here is a photo of the replacement Mk 46 at Boscombe – LA541.

I understand there is a substantial reward available for anybody who has a shot of the original machine LA564 at Little Rissington, Boscombe or the aforementioned Naval units.

Robbo: A Photoshop image will not qualify for the reward. 🙂

Mark

To return perhaps to earlier on in the thread i notice a lot of nasty things are being said about various “peace activists” vandalising aircraft. I am surprised the Hawk jet on the production line for indonesia has been mentioned.

It is my opinion that an aircraft which is to be used for illegal acts of war should not be protected from vandalism, i think it is our duty as citizens of the world to prevent such murders happening, and i have no problem if this involves spray painting an sr71 or some such.

However as an individual with a strong interest in the aircraft of world war 2 and their preservation i am horrified to hear about the acts of vandalism in museums to old aircraft which present no threat at all anymore, in the name of peace activism. I think education is the key-whatever side you’re on surely its important to preserve such artifacts as B29s or B52s as our duty to history-the way you interpret it on display is down to you. I find it hard to believe that a peace activist would see any a museum aircraft as a target. i am shocked. But i would like to assure you most of us “anti-war” types would never dream of such a thing

Just a few honest thoughts from a slightly shocked individual

Jay

Morning folks.

Regardless of moral and legal considerations, an SR-71 or even a Tornado, Hawk, F-15, you name it, are still historic as far as a museum is concerned and are considered (for the purposes of collections care, conservation and interpretation) just as important as the older aircraft.

I take it you are aware that the SR-71 was/is a reconnaissance aircraft? (I expect there’s some debate as to whether the F-12/A-12 was ever planned as an interceptor, but it certainly didn’t operate as such).

I remember visiting DX a while back, just after the Lancaster had been finished, and noticing that someone had driven something into the port tail fin – there was a most interesting scrunched patch about six inches long in the bottom of the lovely new paintwork. Jonathon, ‘oo was it? I think we should be told!

Adrian

The above happened when the Lanc was being moved, at the time I was working for one of the private owners and when we came out of 3 hanger the Lanc had been pushed into one of the big waste bins they had at the time in front of the tower (accidently I might add). most of the people involved still work at DX, I’m sure if you ask around they will let you know who it was, I really couldn’t let you have the names, my arms could be twisted perhaps ?????????????? :diablo:

Sorry Guy’s Can of worms opened on the phones. I deal in Facts as far as possible.
“Intinsicly safe”= safe for use in “Explosive Atmosphere” ; as I said litres liquid in must displace litres fumes/vapor/gas = “Explosive atmophere” on Assesment of Danger Possibillity =100% Probabillity ? 2% more/less ? I dont know. But do u want to be 1%
When u hit the Hairy great spark machine called the “starter”, the cap is on the tank u stood in line for a week to pay, in the mean time the wind dispersed the fumes to a non-explosive mixture. Life goes on as usual, unless ????

Who is Guy and how did you open his can of worms whilst on the phone? :confused:
Actually can anyone translate this because it looks like it might be interesting – but as someone not versed in whatever a ‘Hairy great spark machine called the “starter”‘ is I just can’t get my mind around the syntax errors, the punctuation, the text speak, and the confusion!;)

Flood

I happened to be at work one day sitting about 4 or 5 feet away from someone else who had a lighter in his pocket. I had been on my phone at the time and as i pressed the button to end the call his lighter blew up in his pocket. I don’t know if it was just a coincidence or not. And on the subject of phones at flying legends surely the flames that come out of those exhausts when they start up are more of a risk than someone with a mobile.

Sorry Guy’s Can of worms opened on the phones. I deal in Facts as far as possible.
“Intinsicly safe”= safe for use in “Explosive Atmosphere” ; as I said litres liquid in must displace litres fumes/vapor/gas = “Explosive atmophere” on Assesment of Danger Possibillity =100% Probabillity ? 2% more/less ? I dont know. But do u want to be 1%
When u hit the Hairy great spark machine called the “starter”, the cap is on the tank u stood in line for a week to pay, in the mean time the wind dispersed the fumes to a non-explosive mixture. Life goes on as usual, unless ????

I recall Tom Moloney having his Harrier gate guard sprayed one night at Shoreham while he was out on a trip, and just prior to the press coming to visit. (Could it have been FP perhaps..?) Cost a thou or two to have it cleaned I believe.

Another time, I was admiring the Berkut G-REDX at Cranfield when a family from one of the former colonies arrived and suddenly you had the kids sitting on the stub wings, which were of course invitingly close to the ground. Needless to say, Glen was not amused!

Must admit I’m not free of itchy fingers either, but at least my collection of bits and pieces has been acquired quite legally, except that is, for all those warning signs removed from Russian bases (in the good old DDR), most of which state that you are likely to be shot (….if caught removing this from the fence, etc).

I even zapped an SU-27 with the company sticker at an open day in Damgarten, but Anatoly Kvotchur allowed me to do it, and seemed to be quite chuffed too. He could have cared less, he was on a high, being back at the base where he had spent some of his BBC time. (thinks, when did HE work for the BBC?)

He almost caught me that time grabbing the helmet off his head as he floated down to earth at Paris in 1989. It took me a couple of year’s to get it, but there it was at last (and if I can get it to work, there might be a photo of it too).

Lots of tongue in cheek, and half a gotlle of Clot de Gleize (honest) later, I wish you all happy snapping, spotting (or whatever you like doing most) in 2005!

Yours till the cows come home.

b_d

didn’t work…aaarghhh 🙁

Seriously? So it’s okay to vandalise aircraft then? Perhaps you might like to reflect that without aicraft like the SR-71 (and indeed, the entire US air force/RAF) you might not have the freedom to write on a forum like this.

As for people vandalising aicraft in producation, it’s just putting peoples jobs (and lives) on the line based on pure speculation on what they might be used for.

Paul.

To return perhaps to earlier on in the thread i notice a lot of nasty things are being said about various “peace activists” vandalising aircraft. I am surprised the Hawk jet on the production line for indonesia has been mentioned.

It is my opinion that an aircraft which is to be used for illegal acts of war should not be protected from vandalism, i think it is our duty as citizens of the world to prevent such murders happening, and i have no problem if this involves spray painting an sr71 or some such.

However as an individual with a strong interest in the aircraft of world war 2 and their preservation i am horrified to hear about the acts of vandalism in museums to old aircraft which present no threat at all anymore, in the name of peace activism. I think education is the key-whatever side you’re on surely its important to preserve such artifacts as B29s or B52s as our duty to history-the way you interpret it on display is down to you. I find it hard to believe that a peace activist would see any a museum aircraft as a target. i am shocked. But i would like to assure you most of us “anti-war” types would never dream of such a thing

Just a few honest thoughts from a slightly shocked individual

Jay

Mechanic FODs are another recurrent accident.. everything started with the Sabre and her nice air intake!

Earlier than that, old boy (twirls end of handlebar ‘tache he doesn’t have), and it was a pilot! 1942-3 at a guess.

The Gloster F.9/40 (and we all know what that became) was being run up by a mechanic when he noticed out of the corner of his eye the pilot, Michael Daunt, suddenly vanish from his position near the leading edge of the wing. He immediately cut the throttles and found that Daunt had been sucked into one intake 😮 – thankfully without going far enough in to do any damage. Screens were promptly produced for the intakes, nicknamed “Dauntstoppers”!

Source of anecdote – Daunt’s obit. in a well-known aviation magazine beginning with F!

In his defence, I doubt anyone had realised then just how much suck a jet intake had – but he learnt fast!

That happened to a bloke named Pitchfork at bruggen, he went up the intake
of a F86, my father helped to pull him out, he was in hospital for months. 😮
Phil.

From Mechanic FOD to Pilot FOD

Mechanic FODs are another recurrent accident.. everything started with the Sabre and her nice air intake!

Earlier than that, old boy (twirls end of handlebar ‘tache he doesn’t have), and it was a pilot! 1942-3 at a guess.

The Gloster F.9/40 (and we all know what that became) was being run up by a mechanic when he noticed out of the corner of his eye the pilot, Michael Daunt, suddenly vanish from his position near the leading edge of the wing. He immediately cut the throttles and found that Daunt had been sucked into one intake 😮 – thankfully without going far enough in to do any damage. Screens were promptly produced for the intakes, nicknamed “Dauntstoppers”!

Source of anecdote – Daunt’s obit. in a well-known aviation magazine beginning with F!

In his defence, I doubt anyone had realised then just how much suck a jet intake had – but he learnt fast!

Wasn’t the P47 designed with an ashtray in the cockpit – or is that another myth?

Flood

My C-17’s have Ashtrays in them.

Well if mobiles emit radio frequencies then another good reason to not take them onto a flightline is the case of the USS Forrestal.

Many people killed and aircraft destroyed, plus a badly burned ship, simply due to some poor sod turning on a transister radio on deck! Transister radios and walkmen were another thing banned completely from the flightline when I was in the air force. The walkman for another obvious reason too of course!

Now you wouldn’t want to switch on Radio Four for the news, or make a call, at an airshow and see some Air Force’s participating modern jet you’re standing next to fire it’s missiles inadvertantly into the BBMF Lancaster, or Sally B, would you? You’d be lynched! (I know it is unlikely that any airshow participant would be carrying live missiles, but you never know!)

As for using your phone at a servo, is it more dangerous than when you restart the ignition on your car? (serious question, not statement)

All this talk about mobi’s being unsafe near petrol stations and the like and Intrinsically Safe items being the only way around that.
Would someone please tell me of a single example of any part fitted on any model, make etc of car that is Intrinsically Safe?
What about Police radios etc, they are always on and they always fill up at petrol stations?
I firmly believe the suggestion with regards to earlier pumps being affected and giving free/cheap or otherwise, petrol.
Also as you all visit different airfields, just have a good look at the condition of some of the vehicles servicing aircraft, you can’t tell me they are all suitable for their purposes.

Don’t think for the first minute that I am suggesting it’s ok to do anything with anything around petrol stations or aircraft etc, it isn’t, its about reducing risks and it would be daft not to agree to that.

Bomberboy