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

No offense intended Patrick - Peter just ****ed me off with his
pompous, know-it-all attitude. I've read a bunch of his other posts,
and this is nothing new.