P-51D

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.

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

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

Will

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

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

My, what an obnoxious tone you take. I could say the same thing about
you. My guess is you are not a pilot, otherwise I think our viewpoints
would be a bit closer here. We'll just have to agree to disagree. (I
suppose you find that "irrational" too?) I'm not about to debate this
ad nauseum online..

However, if you really think a group of planes buzzing around pylons at
400mph 100ft off the ground is less risky than simply flying a low
approach down a runway during a demonstration then there's no reasoning
with you.

My opinion (and that's the part you missed - it's just an opinion) is
that warbirds are enjoyed more in the air, vs sitting in a museum as a
boring static display. That's all. At some point they will all be
grounded when the cost to keep them airworthy is excessive even for the
well-heeled that own them now.

wrote in message
oups.com...
[...] My guess is you are not a pilot

lol. Again, you display your ignorance. Anyone suggesting I'm not a pilot
is quite ignorant indeed.

[...]
However, if you really think a group of planes buzzing around pylons at
400mph 100ft off the ground is less risky than simply flying a low
approach down a runway during a demonstration then there's no reasoning
with you.

Actually, if YOU really think that you can make a claim about relative
safety without having statistical evidence to justify that claim, there's no
reasoning with YOU.

Air racing is an extremely controlled environment. There's no reason,
absent some genuine data demonstrating otherwise, to believe that air racing
is more hazardous to the airframes than air show performances (and other
similar uses, for example the P-51 flights offered at Crazy Horse in
Kissimmee).

You continue to insist on basing your beliefs on your personal intuitive
impressions, rather than real-world, hard evidence. Now *that* is
irrational.

Pete

Again, you display your ignorance. Anyone suggesting I'm not a pilot is quite ignorant indeed.

Hmmm... did't realize you were known Internet-wide for your commercial
pilot skills... The way you've been sounding off I figured you were an
ATP with all the ratings.

If you recall, I'd been posting just my opinions since the beginning -
and all along you've prattled on about "statistical evidence" like Rain
Man and berated me for my opinions. Very big of you. So much so that
you've lost sight of the original post's intent. But, whatever.. you're
happiest being an obnoxious a-hole. Clearly you're a genius and maybe
we all could learn something from you? Other than personal skills(!)

I once read "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special
Olympics - even if you win you're still retarded." With that thought
in mind I'll take the moral high road here and end this pointless
debate. Happy Flying, sunshine...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I once read "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special
Olympics - even if you win you're still retarded." With that thought
in mind I'll take the moral high road here and end this pointless
debate. Happy Flying, sunshine...

Hmmm,
Well I rarely would agree with Peter on anything, but was this
last little tidbit really necessary? Though the statement in itself is
true,..as my little brother can attest to, here it was just meant as
hateful. And very offensive to some of us . My brother is a Special Olympic
Gold Medalist and I am right damn proud of him.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 at 12:00:02 in message
, 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.

Peter,

That last sentence above does not make sense to me. We did not build
them to be destroyed, we hoped they would not be, but correctly realised
that many would be destroyed. It is obviously not important to you to
preserve them but it is to many people. So what? Both points of view are
valid.

The Mustang was designed and built to fight and help win the war for us.
That does not stop it being a thing of beauty and something that people
wish to enjoy for whatever internal reason they may have. 'Irrational'
admiration for a thing of beauty satisfies some curious internal
mechanism of the human being..

Part of being human is to be irrational in the way you describe.
However it is important to recognise you are being irrational and then
get on and enjoy what you want to do.

Mind you, in the words Professor Joad, 'it all depends what you mean by
irrational'. Rational thought to me follows strict logic from initial
premises and assumptions through to a conclusion.

Perhaps the starting point should be to ask what are your objectives?
Why do people listen to opera? Why do they watch sport? Why do they read
novels? What are legitimate activities for human beings?

If you never do anything except what is strictly rational in your terms
then any activities that give people pleasure without any obvious
purpose are presumably insane? That defines the majority of humans as
being insane! Well perhaps they are and you are the only sane one.

Remember that man is not a rational animal but a rationalising animal.
That means he is adept at finding reasons for what he wants to do. That
applies equally to those who wish to preserve and to those who don't.

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 presume you feel exactly the same about works of art: that it is
irrational to wish to protect and preserve them? No doubt the world and
the human race will change, if either or both of them survive. In the
long run all may be destroyed but it sure helps to pass the time before
doomsday in an activity that you get pleasure from.

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.

That's life and the human condition. To me tolerance of other people
foibles is something good. But that is probably irrational as well.

--
David CL Francis

David CL Francis wrote:

Perhaps the starting point should be to ask what are your objectives?
Why do people listen to opera? Why do they watch sport? Why do they read
novels? What are legitimate activities for human beings?

There's a very simple explanation to all of this.

Peter D. is a Vulcan.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Peter D. is a Vulcan.

I wish. Life would be so much easier.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Peter D. is a Vulcan.

I wish. Life would be so much easier.


Except every 7 years or so...when you have an unstoppable drive to swim
upstream and spawn. ;^)

--
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