P-51D

wrote in message
ups.com...
As long as warbirds fly there will be an attrition rate. What makes me
NUTS is the people who have the priviledge (and $$$) to own/fly these
irreplaceable aircraft and race them putting them at risk of damage or
total loss. Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane.

What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the first
place.

More importantly, it's irrational to be concerned about not being able to
replace the airplanes. They aren't useful objects anymore (except, perhaps,
for the entertainment value they provide at air races and other airshows).
It is a fundamental truth that every last P-51 will eventually be destroyed,
just as every other thing that humanity has ever created will eventually be
destroyed. Even if P-51s were important to our survival as a species (and
they clearly are not), it would be futile to expect any to not eventually be
destroyed.

I find this irrationality even more amusing in the context of a newsgroup
where there were a handful of folks talking about how "irrational" people
with religious faith are. I suppose folks here don't mind being irrational
as long as it's their own preferential brand of irrationality. If it's
someone else's, that's apparently cause for derision.

I'd
like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.

Oh. So it turns out, you're not actually against the destruction of these
warbirds after all. You would just rather see them destroyed for your
pleasure at airshows, rather than for someone else's pleasure at air races.

The only way to guarantee there won't be a crash is to not fly the plane.
Even stored in a building, they will all eventually be destroyed (though
perhaps not in our lifetime). But flying them, even just for display at
airshows, they are unlikely to suffer significantly less attrition than for
air racing (your statement was obviously made without bother to compare
accident statistics for the air races to those for flying displays at
airshows).

Pete

More importantly, it's irrational to be concerned about not being able to
replace the airplanes. They aren't useful objects anymore (except, perhaps,
for the entertainment value they provide at air races and other airshows).

The Mona Lisa isn't useful either I suppose.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
The Mona Lisa isn't useful either I suppose.

No, it's not. It's wonderful that it exists, but there would be absolutely
no suffering in the world should the original Mona Lisa painting be
destroyed. Some people would irrationally bemoan the loss of the painting
(forgetting that the painting WILL eventually be destroyed one way or the
other), but that doesn't make it useful.

Of course, I am assuming you're talking about the original. Most people
have not even seen the original, but there is no shortage of replicas for
those people to appreciate. Likewise, even if the very last P-51 were
destroyed, it would take a LOT longer for there to be no replicas, no
reference, no knowledge whatsoever of it.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with people holding as precious objects like
the P-51. They should recognize the irrationality and futility of doing so,
however (though, of course most probably do not).

Pete

Frankly, I don't have a problem with people holding as precious objects
like the P-51. They should recognize the irrationality and futility of
doing so, however (though, of course most probably do not).

Well, if we're to go down that philosophical sinkhole, you had better be
prepared to have all of your best-loved, most cherished beliefs and ideals
shattered.

Taken over geologic time, everything is dust in the wind. That doesn't mean
we shouldn't strive for some semblance of permanence and order -- it only
means that we are, inevitably, finite.

For the purpose of sanity, however, most of us choose to think in historic,
not real, time. While this may not be 100% truthful, it is neither
irrational nor futile.

Thus, we must preserve the Mustangs!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:anZCe.186202$xm3.145092@attbi_s21...
Well, if we're to go down that philosophical sinkhole, you had better be
prepared to have all of your best-loved, most cherished beliefs and ideals
shattered.

Why? I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold those beliefs. Just that they
are irrational.

Human beings are irrational. It should be no surprise that human beings
hold irrational beliefs. More importanly, it should be no surprise to find
that other human beings hold different irrational beliefs.

[...]
Thus, we must preserve the Mustangs!

You are welcome to hold that irrational belief. I don't happen to share it,
but many people agree with you. They are just as irrational about it as you
are.

My comment was simply one of observation, and I probably wouldn't have even
brought it up except for a handful of people here criticizing religious
beliefs as irrational. As if those people didn't have their own irrational
beliefs.

Pete

I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold those beliefs [that P51s
and fine art should be preserved]. Just that they
are irrational.

I'm not convinced that they are irrational beliefs. Fine art brings joy
to (some) people, and restoring and flying warbirds brings joy to (some)
people. Given that, while we all end up dead, we spend a fair amount of
time alive, the pursuit and spread of joy seems like an eminently
rational thing to do.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
I'm not convinced that they are irrational beliefs.

By the definition used to describe those with religious faith as
"irrational", they most certainly are "irrational beliefs".

Fine art brings joy to (some) people, and restoring and flying warbirds
brings joy to (some) people.

Racing warbirds brings joy to (some) people as well. Why is it so insane,
then, to race them? Especially if it's perfectly rational to do something
that brings joy to people?

Pete

I'm not convinced that they are irrational beliefs. Fine art brings joy
to (some) people, and restoring and flying warbirds brings joy to (some)
people.

Oh, no. You've brought up "fine art" -- surely the sign of a dying
thread...

;-)

Seriously, "fine art" is truly in the eye of the beholder. What brings joy
to some brings pain to many.

An example: Here in Iowa City, a certain percentage (2%?) of all public
building budgets must go to the purchase of "fine art" to be displayed in
front of/inside the facility.

Since, as home to the University of Iowa, virtually ALL buildings are
public, we have an enormous amount of "fine art" that is both (a) incredibly
expensive, and (b) truly awful. Yet, despite the number of
horrible/laughable pieces on display, each and every one went through some
sort of a selection process, and was selected by a committee of "experts" on
its merits -- so *someone* thought it was "fine art"...

P-51 Mustangs as art? While I like the concept, I don't think you'll get
too many non-aviation nuts to agree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho wrote:


What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the
first place.

Pete

Yuo pointed it out, yes, but it was then, and is now, a non sequitur.

Value of things can change with time. It's not impossible to take something
that was throwaway at one point and have it's value redefined at another
point. Especially if it became historically important and there are only a
veyr few left.

Often when something is built one doesn't realize how important,
historically, it will turn out to be.

Very few things were built to last forever. That doesn't mean that when
there are only a few left, they shouldn't increase in value. civil War
swords were made by the thousands. They are more valuable now than they
were then.

Lots of furniture was built in the 1700's. Much of it wasn't expected to
last forever. Those few pieces that still exist command huge prices. A
simple dough box - a utilitarian piece of gear - made in the 1700's is now
very expensive if it's in decent shape.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Value of things can change with time. It's not impossible to take
something
that was throwaway at one point and have it's value redefined at another
point. Especially if it became historically important and there are only a
veyr few left.

If and when the P-51 actually becomes so valuable that it is "historically
important" for them to cease flying, then they will cease. This will happen
because those who deem it so "historically important" will buy all of the
flyable ones and ground them.

Until then, they obviously are not so precious that we cannot afford to have
them flying, even in air races (as if that were somehow more hazardous to
the fleet than other types of flying).

[...]
Very few things were built to last forever. That doesn't mean that when
there are only a few left, they shouldn't increase in value. civil War
swords were made by the thousands. They are more valuable now than they
were then.

Only to people who irrationally place such a high value on them. Many
people wouldn't pay even a fraction of the time-adjusted cost of production
of a Civil War era sword.

To those people who think the P-51 shouldn't be flying: buy your own and
ground it, if you think it's so important.

Pete