• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

TBM Avenger crash in Millville, NJ

L

Lazerbrainz2k3

Charter Member
http://www.nj.com/south/index.ssf/2009/03/wwii_avenger_bursts_into_flame.html

The pilot has 2nd and 3rd degree burns, but not life-threatening ones, they say. The TBM is a write-off, though.

I'm not sure but I'd bet this is one of the two Avengers which have always been at World War II Weekend in the last few years. If so it'll be a real shame that there will only be one this year. Perhaps the pilot, Terry Rush, will recover by then and could attend.

Both his hometown and KMIV are in south Jersey, same as me.
 
Again,....this brings up the question whether certain WWII aircraft should be 'allowed' to fly,...even though they've been checked out to be air worthy. It could have been pilot error or mechanical error. No matter. One less Avenger around to enjoy. Sure,....static (museum) display is a bit of a bore compared to a warbird in actual flight. But the aircraft will be around for others to enjoy in the years to come. Especially for the youngsters who don't have a clue about WWII aviation but shows a budding interest.
 
You know Brad, with all due respect, unless this is a publicly owned airplane, it ain't much of the public's business what's done with it.

I don't mean to be so in the face on that and perhaps I've misinterpreted your post, but when people or trusts buy and own planes, they are private property, and no one else gets to decide what they do with it.

These aircraft weren't' designed to last more than a couple of years to begin with and the vast majority of them were chopped up within 3 - 5 years of their construction. It's amazing that at this point in time there are this many still around, and that's largely because private owners bought them and kept them flyable -- because they wanted to fly them.

Within 250 miles of where I'm now sitting, I know of at least 3 TBM Avengers sitting on display....of which one is flyable. The flyable one is in private ownership.
 
The same is true around here. Less than 30 miles from where that Avenger crashed at Millville, the NAS Wildwood Museum in Cape May, NJ has two more Avengers - one being a firefighting variant undergoing restoration. At 85 miles, MAAM has one of course, and it's flyable too. At less than 130 miles from Millville there are two more Avengers around: one at the Intrepid in NYC, another not far away at the Cradle of Aviation Museum near Hofstra University on Long Island.

This many aircraft within a 150 mile radius may be uncommon, but with only two (now one) of those six flyable, there are still others around - a healthy majority - to capture young imaginations even if the second flyable Avenger should crash. It isn't always as convenient to see them as it is for me, but for those really interested, making one memorable trip isn't out of the question. Being 10 hours away by car, I've only been out to the USAF Museum once - my only occasion to see aircraft far less common than an Avenger like the YF-22, XB-70, and B-36 - but the memories from that trip last to this day.

If an aircraft is privately owned, decisions on its operations ought to be privately owned as well. After all, there's almost always another grounded one sealed in a museum somewhere.
 
TeaSea said:
You know Brad, with all due respect, unless this is a publicly owned airplane, it ain't much of the public's business what's done with it.

I don't mean to be so in the face on that and perhaps I've misinterpreted your post, but when people or trusts buy and own planes, they are private property, and no one else gets to decide what they do with it.

These aircraft weren't' designed to last more than a couple of years to begin with and the vast majority of them were chopped up within 3 - 5 years of their construction. It's amazing that at this point in time there are this many still around, and that's largely because private owners bought them and kept them flyable -- because they wanted to fly them.

Within 250 miles of where I'm now sitting, I know of at least 3 TBM Avengers sitting on display....of which one is flyable. The flyable one is in private ownership.
Click to expand...

Hey TeaSea,
No offense taken. :icon_lol:In fact, I concur with your points. The last thing I'd want is the Fed. Gov. getting into what should be allowed to fly and what shouldn't. That'd be scary.
I do have mixed feelings. Nothing is niftier than watching a WWII warbird fly overhead and listen the growl of that radial engine. Like I experienced last summer watching a F4F Wildcat takeoff and fly right in front of you. Can't put a price on that.
P51's and AT-6's aside,....there isn't all that many rare type flyable warbirds left. P-39s, P-47s, F6F Hellcats,....they're getting scare like hen's teeth. Yes,...one should have the right to fly them if one owns them,....but I'd hope too that these type of aircraft would find a good permanent home. They did their part. Now it's time to view them as a part of American Aviation military history.

 
Good news, the pilot gets to fly again. Sad news is the plane doesn't. I still have to say Keep'em Flying
Curt
 
Saw this on the news this afternoon between flights of the Mig-21 and L-39 here at KILG. It's a sad day with the loss of the TBM, but at the same time a blessing Terry is alive and able to recover. I'm almost positive I met him at last years show. Terry and his partner were flying 2 Corsairs, Sky Boss and Marines Dream, that are also based in Millville, NJ.

I'm not sure but I think this TBM is one that has been at our WWII Weekend a few times. I'll find out more when I attend the Volunteers meeting next Saturday. If it was Terry's TBM, I'm pretty sure it was to be at the show this year. We had a Gate Crew meeting yesterday and another TBM was of the ones that was on the list for this year.
 
First off, I'm glad the pilot will be ok. CCMC is a top burn center.

I'm not sure what the current rules are on restoration, but perhaps it may not be the end of the road for that particular airplane. It used to be a certain percentage had to be original. If the percentage is small, this airplane may be able to be rebuilt. Although, it won't be any time soon and it won't be cheap. Cross your fingers.
 
It looked real bad RR. But then again, MAAM's P-61 was real bad and they're bringing her back to life. So you never know... a ton of money can do wonderful things.

BTW... met Colonel Kohler again today.
 
Interesting point....

Curtis P40 said:
I don't really know, but if you have the "Data Plate" you have an airplane.
Curt
Click to expand...
How many original parts does there need to be in the plane so one can say with authority: "This plane flew in combat in WWII"?

In my mind, the just the data plate doesn't cover it. But what is the threshold? Who can say?

Also, I wouldn't care if they had to build a P-61 from scratch with all new parts. I just want to see one flying!

Hmmm... I suppose one could make the argument that the design itself is historical too, whether or not the plane (or parts) were present back then.
 
Cratermaker said:
How many original parts does there need to be in the plane so one can say with authority: "This plane flew in combat in WWII"?

In my mind, the just the data plate doesn't cover it. But what is the threshold? Who can say?

Also, I wouldn't care if they had to build a P-61 from scratch with all new parts. I just want to see one flying!

Hmmm... I suppose one could make the argument that the design itself is historical too, whether or not the plane (or parts) were present back then.
Click to expand...


This is the subject of a rather heated debate that goes on in and around the warbird circuit... Truthfully there is no definite answer... Each side has its arguments... With Champaign Lady, obviously the old sheet metal can not be re-used... so that is all new... but we take the old sheet metal, lay it flat, and use it as a template for the new skin. Basically I think the rule of thumb is that most warbird restorations restore what they can, and remake what they can't restore... I'm making a brand new scratch built seat, but does that make the plane any less legit? Like I said, the argument gets rather complicated, and heated.... hopefully that helps? Maybe someone else could put some input here....

-witt
 
I had the privilege of seeing the restoration facility at Duxford once. I'm not sure exactly how far they go, but the aircraft that come out look like brand-spanking-new.

Personally, I have no objections to reverse engineering and building historic aircraft from scratch. Just don't lie to me about it. Where I would have heartburn is if someone were to try to sue Boeing over the crash of a reverse engineered (scratch built) B-17. Although I think there are now product liability limitations in place to protect the manufacturer. It's because of this that Boeing and other manufacturers won't help with restoration efforts for aircraft being restored to flight. Once the FAA or similar agency inspects the aircraft and issues a certificate of airworthiness, that should be enough (in good faith) to protect the manufacturer. But I'm digressing into another subject. Sorry...
 
brad kaste said:
Hey TeaSea,
No offense taken. :icon_lol:In fact, I concur with your points. The last thing I'd want is the Fed. Gov. getting into what should be allowed to fly and what shouldn't. That'd be scary.
I do have mixed feelings. Nothing is niftier than watching a WWII warbird fly overhead and listen the growl of that radial engine. Like I experienced last summer watching a F4F Wildcat takeoff and fly right in front of you. Can't put a price on that.
P51's and AT-6's aside,....there isn't all that many rare type flyable warbirds left. P-39s, P-47s, F6F Hellcats,....they're getting scare like hen's teeth. Yes,...one should have the right to fly them if one owns them,....but I'd hope too that these type of aircraft would find a good permanent home. They did their part. Now it's time to view them as a part of American Aviation military history.

Click to expand...


I'm glad you took my point without offense....

It's often hard to convey normal kitchen table conversation tones on a blog.

However, we do have to face the fact that one day within the next generation or so, we will hear our last WWII Pratt and Whitney or Merlin.

There will still be plenty sitting in museums though. Might as well enjoy it while we can.
 
I ran across a warbird magazine several years ago. I think it might have been "Warbirds", but I'm not sure. Anyhow, there was an article in it about how the number of flying warbirds had increased in the past ten years. I wonder if this trend has continued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top