Those who criticise non-aerobatic warbird displays as some kind of nightmare vision – have you ever seen one?

I’ve seen plenty of displays of both type and the difference between them is pretty insignificant IMHO, apart from one of them being considerably safer than the other…

There is one preserved in the EAA Museum in Oshkosh (it’s the one in the colour photo).

Someone has built a replica out of a T-6 and I’ve seen it for sale in Trade-a-plane recently.

The College Park Aviation Museum is certainly worth a look – although not particularly large it’s a modern facility based on a very historic airfield.

If you have a car, there are some good museums in Virginia – the Viriginia Air & Space Center (Hampton) & Virginia Air Museum (Richmond)

There is a very good collection at the Marine Corps Air/Ground Museum in Quantico, VA – but I’m not sure if it’s still open with post 9/11 security and all that.

For non-aviation (but somewhat related) Museums, the Holocaust Museum and Spy Museum in DC are very good.

It’s been up for sale for about the last 5 years.

Well I guess this will rain on the parade somewhat, but my question is “Is this a worthwhile project?”

There are at least 2 B-36s preserved by excellent aviation Museums – USAFM and Strategic Air & Space Museum.

We can’t preserve every aircraft that was ever built, particularly not the larger airframes.

There is a strong tendency for aircraft enthusiasts to take this general line: “Any loss of any old aircraft is bad. All old aircraft should be preserved. The sight of an airplane rotting away in a field pains me greatly. The thought of it being cut up for scrap pains me even more.”

There are already several hundred aviation museums in the USA (reference the book on my shelf “Guide to over 900 Aircraft Museums: USA and Canada”) many of them struggling for money.

Do we really need another one?

David is quite correct – these aircraft are the property of the Iraqi people – they are part of that country’s national aviation heritage and should be respectfully treated as such.

EAA Comment/Release:
LAIRD DOCTOR AND LINDA DOCTOR V. EAA AND HOWARD PARDUE

On July 29, 1999, Laird Doctor, a highly experienced pilot, was piloting a Corsair, a World War II-type aircraft, as part of the air show during the EAA AirVenture convention. Doctor was participating as part of a Navy flight of eight aircraft when he took off prematurely and struck the aircraft operated by the flight leader, Howard Pardue, who was stopped on the runway in front of him. The only injuries were to Laird Doctor, who was rendered a quadriplegic, as a result of the accident.

Laird and Linda Doctor filed a lawsuit in Houston (Harris County, Texas) against Howard Pardue, the flight leader, and subsequently, Experimental Aircraft Association. On June 16, 2003, the case proceeded to trial before a jury in Harris County, Texas, which returned a verdict favorable to the EAA.

During the closing arguments on Wednesday, July 2nd, the plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to find Howard Pardue 75% responsible and EAA 25% responsible, and further asked the jury for a verdict of $50 million. If Laird Doctor was found 51% or more responsible, he and Linda Doctor would have been barred from any recovery.
The jury found that all parties (EAA, Pardue, Doctor) were responsible and that Laird Doctor’s negligence was twice that of either the EAA or Mr. Pardue. The degree of responsibility found by the jury was as follows: Laird Doctor-50%; EAA-25%; Howard Pardue-25%.

Although the EAA believes that the accident was solely the responsibility of Laird Doctor, as determined by the National Transportation Safety Board, http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19172&key=1, the EAA is pleased with the jury finding that the majority of the responsibility was with Laird Doctor and that the jury recognized the charitable nature of the EAA, despite the obvious sympathy which the jury must have felt for Mr. Doctor because of his condition. Additionally, the evidence showed in the case that Mr. Doctor was receiving excellent medical care through the Worker’s Compensation carrier for his employer.

In Texas, organizations found to be a charitable organization under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) have a cap of $500,000 as a maximum limit of its damages. The jury found that EAA was a charitable organization and found that Howard Pardue was its volunteer. Although no judgment has been rendered, the EAA believes that the maximum that the EAA would be expected to pay is $500,000. Howard Pardue believes he will be obligated to pay no damages.

WAR FW-190 replica?