wrote in message
oups.com...
Apparently Peter D. has no appreciation of history and the epic
struggle these warbirds represent. The fact that they were destroyed in
huge numbers after the war is completely irrelevant.. they were
purpose-built to win a war - not be destroyed as you so inelegantly put
it. You say these aircraft have no purpose? Reread my first sentence.
You also mentioned irrationality and religious faith? Try posting to
the appropriate group for that topic. And don't confuse the issue
further with your dime-store psychobabble.

lol. I've never seen a single person miss so many points in a single
paragraph before. Very impressive.

I would like to see warbirds flown at airshows, which IMHO is much less
dangerous than a bunch of hot-rodded aircraft in close proximity
circling pylons at 100ft. No I haven't compared airshow vs air race
statistics - have you?

I'm not the one claiming that air racing is more hazardous to the airframes.
Why should I make a comparison for a claim I'm not the one making. You want
to prove your point? Do the legwork.

In any case, even if air racing were more hazardous (and I'm sure it's
not...and that's coming from someone who was actually at one of the Reno Air
Races when a fatal accident occurred during a race), you still have an
undefensible position. If the relative degree of hazard were a useful
debating point, then the only logical conclusion is that the use of least
hazard (grounded in a museum) is the proper use. You can't even bring
yourself to take your argument to its logical conclusion. You just want to
rationalize an irrational position.

It's true you can only guarantee a plane not to
crash if you park it, but that would be a waste.

A waste for whom? Not for anyone who's concern is the preservation of the
airplane. It would be a waste for you, because you want to see the planes
fly, in spite of the risk. But why is your desire of higher precedence than
that of people who enjoy air racing? I'll tell you: it's not.

Given the choice,
don't you think people would rather see & hear these planes fly instead
of just sit in a museum? "Gee, Grandpa flew in one of those planes?
Wow. Let's get a t-shirt at the gift shop."

Which people? Everyone has a different opinion. Lots of people don't have
any interest in the airplanes at all. Others WOULD prefer to see the
airplane in a museum.

Just my .02 here. I think the folks lucky enough to own these planes
have an obligation to preserve them.

Well, I don't. And that's even assuming you had proven your assertion that
air racing poses a greater danger than air show flying (which you have not).

If they want to risk their
aircraft by racing that's their right. I just think it's a shame to see
otherwise irreplaceable historic aircraft being risked for a thrill
ride.

Then buy one yourself and keep it as "safe" as you think is reasonable.

Pete