Yes I am aware that replicas have been built/flown and crashed I was just pointing out that should they wish to build one then it wouldnt be as expensive as say another comet or name your own particular favorite aircraft.

In terms of risk I dont think they would dare fly the Wright Flyer again.

I think we would both agree it is probably quite right that they dont fly the Wright Flyer anyhow. And it is probably considerably less expensive to build a replica of this aircraft should they ever wish to and fly that than to build a replica of some of the aircraft we have been talking about on here.

For me there a LOT of song that get me but all at different levels and for different reasons. And they are not always slow mellow songs either.

for instance a song that means a lot to me and is all about my new life after seperation and divorce is Life is Beautiful by Sixx AM.

Well worth a listen and pay attention to the lyrics they tell you something.

A lot of Foo Fighters song mean a lot to me as do some Nirvana and some Pearl Jam.

Not strong enough by Apocalyptica is another that just just sends me elsewhere as does Black gives way to blue by Alice in Chains.

So many songs mean so much to me. I really love my musical freedom and after a 13 year break essentially from music I am so glad I have it back.

There are plenty of other examples of sole surviving examples of aircraft being destroyed -its about risk. If something is benign maybe its worth risking -however if it has a reputation for being a handful sometimes what a pressure your putting on the pilot to bring it back in one piece!

So one would say to even build a replica of such an aircraft and fly it would be equally risky. So why fly any at all.

If this was so then Delmar Benjamin should never have built his Gee Bee racer and should have never have flown it.

I think he may have grounded this aircraft due to the risk involved and the fact that it gave him a scare but in your argument this aircraft should never have been built and flown.

At #32

Well said Robbo thats what I was trying to get at but couldnt quite say it in the excellent way you have put it.

Pagen – I have worked on most marks of RAF Harrier and the GR Tornados. None of these will likely get in warbird owners hands . Similarily in the helicopter world been on Wessex -Apache -Black Hawk and Chinook -most will never get in the hands of private operators .

A few people are trying though and one day they might succeed.

You never know whats round the corner.

Do you think they RAF might form a heritage flight rather than a BBMF and keep a Tornado (add your own favorite aircraft here) flying.

It is a nice idea but somehow I think I already know the answer.

So someday private hands might very well fly a vintage jet.

Hi David,

Sorry about the ‘so called aircraft enthusiasts’ comment. I do realise and know there are far more experianced people on here than me and having thought about it and reread the comment I retract the statement. We are all enthusiasts no matter what our interest or experiance.

As for doing what the comet was designed for. Well you are right it will probably not operate at 100% of what it was designed for but at a guess….. Speed- maybe 75% of the designed specification will be used. As for range well I aint got a clue but given the race was to Australia it may well do about 1% at any given time. With the collection it is not really about that though is it. Its to give people the sight and sounds of the past.

As for your argument about raising the risks to the airframe. Well its a risk everytime you start the engine as we saw with the Dragon at Duxford a few years ago now. Its also a risk to store aircraft in a hangar close to each other. How many aircraft and indeed rare cars and motorbikes have we lost in hangar/storage fires and collapses? I think everyday we have these aircraft it is a risk so why not fly them and have some fun with them.

As for combat aircraft a lot of these are scrapped or used for spares long before the life of the airframe or engines are completely up. True or not?

It would be possible to keep all of these aircraft flying for a lot longer than they actually do but for reasons either political or economical they are grounded and scrapped/used for spares/sold. Is this not just the way of goverment.

There are those people around that want to fly Jaguars/Tornadoes/Harriers etc some may eventually be succesful or not only time will tell.

As for the Gull sold by the collection I dont know all the history on that particular aircraft but a couple of things spring to mind. Was it a collection aircraft or privately owned but OW based. Was it sold to fund other projects so for the greater good so to speak. Was it a replica. Was the history of the aircraft correct. Was the aircraft complete having never been crashed/repaired etc. I must admit I dont know much about this one but there must have been reasons for them to sell the aircraft.

And for the record nobody is scared by the fact that an aircraft may be grounded one day. When that day comes it will come. I am sure there will be many tears on the very day the BBMF finally retire the Lancaster but I am sure it will be the right decision at that point. Doesnt scare me one little bit. But it does annoy the hell out of me when people ground airframes that have a good long life on them for little or no reason. But it is their aircraft to do what they will with them I just dont have to like it though.

We are all different and we all have our own points of view.