Peter Duniho wrote:

What a surprise. The person making the accusation doesn't feel like finding
the proof for the accusation.

Guess what? That's called a false accusation. No proof, no justification.
Put up or shut up.

I guarantee you can't find anything in Google Groups posted by me that
qualifies as "jumped ugly all over me for expressing my opinion that
irreplacable warbirds shouldn't be risked in air races". The reason that
you "don't care to" find such a post is because you know it doesn't exist.

Pete

Here it is, sunshine.. Reference the "P-51D" thread from July 2005.

I opined:

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.

You replied:

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.

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.

This thread quickly degenerated into a commentary on species survival,
and the irrationality of people placing value on inanimate objects,
religious faith, and questionable "historical importance".

Although I was just expressing my opinion, you called me out for not
providing statistics comparing relative safety between air racing and
airshows. I couldn't provide any (still can't) but my assertion was
based on a reasonable assumption that aircraft racing around pylons at
400+ mph @ 100' AGL are at greater risk of loss than aircraft that fly
a (relatively) tame airshow routine. Regardless of my inability to cite
stats, any reasonable person familiar with this subject would probably
agree to the greater risk in racing, although you will no doubt argue
this ad infinitum.

I reiterate: 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
irreplaceable historic aircraft being risked for a thrill ride. That's
all. It may well be more of an emotional connection which you called
irrational (so be it). My decision to learn to fly wasn't based on any
need, it was purely for emotional reasons (fun? challenge? being part
of a select group?) Why did you learn to fly?