Originally posted by Mark V
I was refering to the entire world, not just the UK. The museum fires include Le Bourget, CWH, South America (can’t remember which country). If you go back to 1978, San Diego. The point I was trying to make was that if it is being suggested that flying warbirds in the way we do at the moment (ie: not just flat manouevers) should be stopped, the alternative (keeping aircraft in static museums) does nothing to improve the long term chances of survival.
All very well, but surely the issue here is loss of life.
You don’t mention how many museum staff were lost per aircraft.
If a single seat fighter crashes and the pilot dies it is a personal tragedy. As we have seen though, sometimes the aeroplane is rebuilt to fly again (Rolls-royce Spit being an example).
If a museum catches fire and 15 single seat fighters are destroyed it is a collosal waste and very sad, but no-one has lost their life. Look at the recent fire at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham. Losing 600 bikes in a fire is a loss to the national heritage, but losing 1 bike and rider is a personal tragedy
for somebodys family and friends. It’s a big difference.
Stuffing aeroplanes into museums may not save them, but it may save lives.
That point made, however, I agree that aeroplanes should remain in the air. The BBMF and Shuttleworth aeroplanes are, in my opinion, displayed very well without the need for loops, rolls, and cuban eights.
I would be quite happy to see a Spitfire in the air without it needing to be either inverted or only 35ft AGL. Formations such as the ‘balbo’ finale to Legends are fine, but tight formation aerobatics (i.e. loops), although spectacular, add just too much risk. Even the Red Arrows and Thunderbirds have accidents occasionally, and they do a hell of a lot of practise.
In short…. keep ’em flying – safely
Willow
Sign In
