You'll find these DH 82/84/86 chippies etc owner pilots are festidiuos and would hate to see their pride and joy rolled up into a ball. To debunk your "rich man " theory, remember the Boomarang, the Wirriway Projects, and one going on now with the Catalina, recovery and restorations being done by ordinary boys and girls of modest incomes, and some no income possibly on pensions but with a heap of experience to offer so all of us can see these gems. Not 100 hr.PPL's, and that's not to say some couldn't. Have a look and the Pilot experience of Aircraft (restored) flown from Col Pays collection over time,Narromine,Temora,HARS, Judy Pays aircraft,The Lowey's. They would be destined to rot in old feed sheds and the like as do many more now, I know of quite a few. Surely you must realise that without these entrepreneurial Aviation enthusiasts these treasures would never see the light of day let alone fly again. "facts, nothing but the facts" where this has happened in Aussie or Nzud. REMOAK you say you are sick of rich boys restoring these toys then destroying them implying with no regard. I'm just glad I got to fly a few of these aircraft before they all disappear.Ī couple of the replies here intrigue me. Some types will run out before others - anyone know when we will another airworthy Blenheim take to the skies? Nobody will care until there are no more airworthy (or potentially airworthy) airframes left in the world. Buy 'em, fly 'em, crash 'em, move on to the next toy. Money DOES talk, and I'm convinced it talked a bit too persuasively in some cases.īut hey, what do I know. Personally, I think it is a gross insult to the memory of the pilots who lost their lives fighting wars in these aircraft, to allow them to be damaged or destroyed due to the inexperience or foolishness of their owners.Īnd on that topic, I have met a few of these people with lots of money and classic aviation toys, and most of them were pretty ordinary pilots, low hours, sometimes only a PPL - but enough money to buy the expertise they need. What I am talking about is the moral responsibility of those who own these aircraft, to preserve them for the nations that originally flew them. The losses of those years (60's-80's) WILL come back to haunt us. Not for the rest of us, at any rate.Īnd yes, the rate of hull loss is less these days - but then, there are lot less of these aircraft around now, and they are increasingly expensive to restore. Sure, the rich might get them flying again, but that is pretty pointless if they all end up wrecked. Over the years I have watched several warbirds crash at European airshows, in many cases at the hands of pilots who only seemed to have a passing knowledge of aerobatics and display flying. This has nothing to do with capitalism, it's actually about protecting our heritage so that our kids and grand-kids can see these aircraft too. Now, if you owned an old house or building that was designated as a "heritage" site, you wouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING to it - change the plumbing, put in a new power point, whatever - without written approval from the appropriate authority (the Heritage Trust in the UK). The owners may legally be able to trash their toys if they want (or if they simply can't help themselves), but that is only because the law offers no protection. These aircraft, as well as being rich boys toys, are part of our collective heritage. If they paid for it they can break it if they want.thats capitalism What a (predictably) immature and asinine comment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |