'I Agree 100% With Chuck Yeager'

this is as deep as a thread gets, issues-wise, IMO
 
Latest issue of AAHS has a story about the Pond Racer. Designed by Burt Rutan, who thinks the same as Yeager. Google Pond Racer and see what you find. :costumes: It may a future FSX project....
 
It such a shame the Pond Racer ended the way it did, if not then we probably would not have this as a topic right now. From memory Bob Pond had the same idea as Yeager and he commissioned Rutan to design and build the racer.
 
The Pond racer was the single greatest effort to save warbirds from racing. And in a sense, almost returned air racing back to the same glory as in the 30's.
 
I agree that the historical warbirds shouldn't be raced. And that includes them all, not just the P-51s. But then again it won't be long that any of the warbirds from WWII will be flying unless you're very very rich.

Hopefully, with a lotta luck, in 2009 I can get to see the jets race out at Reno. :jump:
 
I contacted once Scaled Composites looking for permission to develop the Pond Racer for FS9, i was building this project as a personal favor to a close friend.As it turned out, Scaled Composites don´t own the PR copyright but Bob Pond, on contacting him (and i´m sorry to say...)i got very disappointed on his answer and even more on his attitude, denying permission (and in fact, threatened with legal action if i actually go ahead and make it)for a simulated version.All this happened in 2005
Best regards
Prowler
 
I contacted once Scaled Composites looking for permission to develop the Pond Racer for FS9, i was building this project as a personal favor to a close friend.As it turned out, Scaled Composites don´t own the PR copyright but Bob Pond, on contacting him (and i´m sorry to say...)i got very disappointed on his answer and even more on his attitude, denying permission (and in fact, threatened with legal action if i actually go ahead and make it)for a simulated version.All this happened in 2005
Best regards
Prowler
 
This thread reminds me of the post-WW2 photos that I've seen showing row upon row of decommissioned warbirds awaiting a date with the scrap-man. Makes you wonder what if you could jump into the ole WAY-BACK machine with a pocket full of coin......

And while we're talking about saving things for historical record, I think that in our own way, simmers are helping to "keep them flying" by supporting the developers, repainters, and other tinkerers that help produce the a/c that we are now flying in FS9 and FSX and other flight sims. Tho nothing will ever replace the thrill of being able to walk-around and touch the real deal, the flightsim allows us the chance to experience to some degree what history has already laid down in the records.

Between accurate models, historically correct paints and other items that are developed for freeware and payware, we now have good representation of every era of flight. Within our PC flightsim world, we can somewhat maintain a sense of historical presence from now on. No matter what era, what country, or what a/c, I think everyone feels personally about a certain a/c. For me, it's the F-14. I watched the Big Cat from when it was first rolled out until it was retired. It'll fly on within my FS-world.

Never started out to be a museum curator, but I like to think that my personal hangar of FS9 aircraft represents parts of history that tho I didn't witness, I can still experience via the humble flight-sim.
 
Prowler1111 said:
I contacted once Scaled Composites looking for permission to develop the Pond Racer for FS9, i was building this project as a personal favor to a close friend.As it turned out, Scaled Composites don´t own the PR copyright but Bob Pond, on contacting him (and i´m sorry to say...)i got very disappointed on his answer and even more on his attitude, denying permission (and in fact, threatened with legal action if i actually go ahead and make it)for a simulated version.All this happened in 2005
Best regards
Prowler
Click to expand...

Reminds me of when Paramount used to threaten legal action on FS developers for doing Star Trek stuff. As far as I know, they still do.
 
Willy said:
Reminds me of when Paramount used to threaten legal action on FS developers for doing Star Trek stuff. As far as I know, they still do.
Click to expand...

If any studio has ever squeezed every cent out of a franchise, Paramount has done it with Star Trek....very agressive in terms of keeping an eye on anything that isn't officially sanctioned.
 
if they like the mustang design so much, why don't they just start making them again? there is plenty of old detroit iron on the road that is patched together with reproduction parts. if the hot rod industry can do it, i see no reason that aviation couldn't do it also. there is not one part for a 68 ford mustang that you couldn't buy reproduction or rebuilt. same with the chevelle and the nova. they could do the same thing with a plane
 
I became very pissed off with the unlimiteds when the owners began to stick 'corncobs' onto the front of their Sea Furys.
I know why (a sleeve valve radial is RPM limited) but it made a botch of a very handsome aeroplane.
IMHO, the 'Un-Limited' class should be purpose built racong aircraft following the bloodlines of the designs begun by the Granville Brothers, Matty Laird and Benny Howard, to name a few.
:kilroy:
 
I can very well see both sides, but I tend to lean more towards the direction at which accurate and substantial facts are presented, instead of just blatant remarks, as I believe Yeager's to be. I personally don't see how a person's wealth changes their piloting skills, or how they handle their warbird(s) - I have seen excellent pilots and care-holders from all walks of life.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
I'm glad that there are folks, who in this day-in-age, can keep up with the rising costs of insurance and maintenance to keep the aircraft flying, in any shape or form, and present them to folks almost entirely free of charge, or have the resources to increase the realm of authenticity in current restorations, as have the oil and business-tycoons. As an example, if it weren't for the USAF museum stepping in, we might even very well have a P-82 close to flying, thanks to actor Tom Cruise and his resources. From my viewpoint, Yeager should be thankful enough that he has had the opportunity to fly the Mustang, in recent years, due to the generosity of wealthy owners and pilots.
<o:p></o:p>
From Yeager's Reno-air-racing comment, 'many' is a very far stretch all of its own. The average number of flying P-51s is somewhere around 150 (3-4 on average are added each year), and of those I can only think of maybe 8-10 that partake in the Reno air races, probably less, of which only 4-5 actually push the limits and are highly modified. Of those, when was the last accident? Why then, I have to ask, is this being brought up when safety is actually being increased each year, as it has been for quite some time. Not just at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Reno</st1:place></st1:City>, but in the warbird community at large. The limited amount of warbird accidents that I can think of, which have taken place at <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Reno</st1:place></st1:City> over the last decade, don't seem to be the results of pushing the aircraft to the limits either. Frankly, I would have worded it better, aimed at the specific minority of pilots/owners, of which there might only be a couple that could use some better judgment, though it is their property after all. (I have my own reasons to believe why Yeager might have said what he did, but I won't bring those up).
<o:p></o:p>
Not entirely related, but thankfully, as there are becoming less airframes to restore (they're flying instead), several restoration companies have the ability to make Mustangs (and other warbirds) from practically nothing these days. Both P-51B's, "Old Crow" and "Impatient Virgin?", which completed restoration this year, are estimated at 75-80% new-build. Currently, there are two or three more P-51B/C's being built practically from all new parts (while a couple other originals are also undergoing restoration to fly next year). Without the skills of these shops the P-51B/C would not be seeing the rebirth that it currently is, when the option of restoring an actual P-51B/C airframe is extremely minimal at best. Tri-State Aviation has built enough components for 9-10 new P-51A's, and there are multiple companies building all-new P-51D sections for new-builds - the demand is definitely there.
 
How can you bump heads with Gen Yeager, he's one of my Heros. That being said, what would you rather do, walk around a muesum of old aircraft, or down a flightline with the aircraft ready to takeoff, or better yet a Flight in one, for a price. Thur my years I have built 100's of models, as a kid I had carboard wings and a tail taped to my bike, me and my buddy even built a plywood Beufighter, that saw penty of action. Now in life I've had the chance to fly in a B-17, and Collings P-51c. Thank You, to all of you that keep these aircraft flying, that's what aircraft are suppose to do. As far as "the rich Reno boys" the pilot I flew with in the P-51, Will Whiteside, flies a Yak at Reno. Mr Whiteside had already completed an hour flight in the hot July sun before my flight with another waiting behind me. He seamed like a kid in candy store, just like me, before we climbed aboard. Man what a ride, right down to the mock strafing run on CSX train, liked to have seen the face on the engineer. The Betty Jane is a beautiful aircraft inside and out, and better yet in the air.
www.teamsteadfast.com/ I'm out of hot air, Curt, Keep e'm flying
 
TeaSea said:
The reality is, if it weren't for these spoiled little rich kids, few of these aircraft would be around, and fewer would be flying.

Spoiled little rich kids often make the world go 'round, and someone can always argue that their monies could be used more appropriately for some other just cause.

The wonder of a free market is that spoiled little rich kids get to use their money for pretty much whatever they damn well please.

Thank goodness.
Click to expand...

Damn staight


(BTW, that was pretty badass.):jump:
 
Panther started a wonderful thread and I did not mean for my comments to to be so in your face. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion....and Gen Yeager has certainly earned the right to state his (and earned it for many of us as well). However, with all due respect, Gen Yeager flew these and subsequent machines at the expense of the American taxpayer.

The reality is that the only reason these machines are flying now is because private individuals are willing to fund them. Here in the U.S. we do not provide DOD funds to anything but the basic types of heritage organizations. We fund static museums, and we provide basic information (my annual CFC donation is to the Civil War Heritage which buys up real estate near battlefields so they are not developed). We do not use our defense funds to maintain increasingly expensive aerial weapons platforms for the enjoyment of the masses. We use our Defense funding to defend the nation.

There are of course many groups that keep these aircraft flying like the CAF and the Collins foundation. I have found myself writing a check out to these folks on more than one occasion...

But, it just so happens that many of the private individuals Gen Yeager refers to are racing these platforms. More power to them. Were they not, these aircraft would long ago been recycled into environmentally friendly hybrid automobiles, and generations would not be hearing the raw power and sound of a Merlin at high rev consuming vast amounts of petrol and spewing tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere . My Lycoming 0360 just isn't quite the same thing.

Another thing I would add is that unlike today, where we develop aircraft to last a generation or so, these warbirds were built to get through the next year or two. Their maintenance and upkeep is therefore expensive. They were not designed for economics, they were designed for raw power.

The Cessna 172 I fly was designed for economics. That's why there are so many of them around and I suspect there will be no need for spoiled rich kids to purchase them....
 
Thanks for the publicity Fr. Bill, slowly but surely she's coming along :isadizzy:

EDIT: Eeek! Haven't posted since the new forums went up and I'm back to one post. Sheesh! :mixedsmi:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top