It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

N9M destroyed

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Personally I think the Smithsonian should try flying their Arado Blitz or their Aichi Seiran, and imagine how cool it would be to watch their Do 335 do an aerobatic routine at Oshkosh! /sarcasm

Seriously though, what a tragic and entirely avoidable loss, both for the pilot and his family and for aviation as a whole.
edit on 24-4-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How far are you going to take that argument?



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

At a certain point, aircraft that are important to history shouldn't be flying anymore.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

To quote Indiana Jones: "IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!"

I feel especially strongly about that point when it comes to demonstrators, prototypes, and other one-offs. They're living primary sources of the history of aircraft design and the testing process, and serve as physical testaments to the heights of ingenuity that the human mind is capable of soaring to when given the right inspiration and put to the right task.

It's for that reason that I sincerely hope that whatever might be collecting dust under tarps at Dyson's Dock, TTR, or the odd corners of Plant 42 or Vandenberg eventually gets to see the light of day and take their places at Wright-Pat or the Udvar-Hazy center where they belong.

Also, the EAA got it right with the Bugatti. Let the original live on forever as a museum piece, and let some faithful reconstruction be the expensive lawn dart.
edit on 24-4-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
So assuming the people who actually own it disagree, how do you resolve to tell them whst to do with their airplane? What is the "certain point" anyway? Only a handful left? Two? One? When do you get to decide what other people do with their property?



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

They're free to do what they want with it, and we're free to lambast them for it when they destroy something priceless. It's no different from when some collector totals their priceless car at Goodwood, etc. Only the N9M was way, way cooler than even Ralph Lauren's Bugatti Atlantic.
edit on 24-4-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 09:38 PM
link   

edit on 4/24/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 02:06 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 02:51 AM
link   
while i feel a twinge for the loss of this airframe

wow - so of the replies are bordering hysterical

there are 100s of hings we has lost - and will never see again

it was a plane - it was airworthy - they are meant to be flown - fly the dammed thing

f we take the attitude " we should not ............... because ................... might occur "

we would sit around with our fingers up our arses doing nothing

RIP the crew



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape
You and RR totally missed the point of what Zaph and I were saying. If you have something unique or very rare, as a generation we DON'T have the right to be selfish to future generations by wanting to see it risked in something relatively trivial like an airshow display. The solution I pointed out that has ALREADY been used for some rare aircraft is to build accurate replicas., another example of the FW-190 replicas comes to mind. This is especially important with single engine types for which only a single example may exist. We are NOT advocating stopping people from flying say a P-51 of which there is still a healthy stock, and its reasonable to expect that multi engine types like the BBMF Lancaster or B-29 Fifi can continue to be safely flown for a few more years, although the day will probably come when they will need retirement. In both cases its to be pointed out that fully restored static versions still exist if they were to meet an untimely end. I well remember the international uproar in the early 90's when a Japanese billionaire Ryoei Saito bought two art masterpieces by Van Gogh and Renoir and claimed he would have them burnt with him when he was cremated. Eventually logic prevailed and they were saved for future generations.

Loosing the Northrop N9M was a waste that could have been avoided and a risk that was unnecessary and generationally selfish. Insisting that people can do what they want might be legally correct, but that doesn't make it morally right.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
You don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their property. That isn't the moral high ground. Whether I agree with someone's choice or not in regards to the property's value is not the moral hinge on which this swings.

Fifi in the air is a hell of a lot more inspiring and reaches far more people than a non-flying museum piece on static display in a hangar somewhere. If they ground Fifi, it'll be because it gets too expensive to keep her in the air. Not because it is too rare to fly.

Unless you can show the N9M was not airworthy, there is no reason to believe a crash was anymore likely than any other aircraft. Snip happens.

If you can show flying it was "reckless" because it was not airworthy, than sure, make that argument. Otherwise, no. They had an airworthy aircraft. The determination was made that it was safe to fly, and it was flown.

If you're convinced something shouldn't fly on whatever basis, then fund it or buy it so you get a voice in the decision-making process. Or fund a nonflying replica that easily fulfills the museum role you believe outweighs it's value in the air. Or fund a flying replica or restoration so there are more of them.

If you find so much value in it, donate your time and money and step up to the plate!
edit on 25-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I happened to be visiting the Planes of Fame Museum in 1996. It was my lucky day, because it happened to be the unveiling of the rebuilt plane, and first flight. Here are some film scans from my visit :

imgur.com...


edit on 25-4-2019 by SeanU because: Fixed Link



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SeanU

I used to love watching the N-9MB fly, but it was always terrifying because I was afraid this one-of-a-kind treasure would be lost in a crash. This is exactly what I feared.

www.aerotechnews.com...



posted on Apr, 27 2019 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk
My point exactly....



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's ridiculous Zaphod. It's property. So you're arguing that personal property should be taken from private hands and nationalized. Should we seize old Cadillacs and put them in some warehouse for preservation? Who pays? Should we nationalize the workforce that preserves it as well? Honestly, it's private property. If I had an antique airplane I would try to get it airborne. If it crashed and burned than it would be my problem, my loss. There are antique biplanes still flying and making money all over the country. Nothing like an aerial view from a biplane.

In a secondary note: nothing last forever. If you try to preserve an old car in a very good box for a thousand years you'd be surprised to find out that much of that car would be unrecognisable at the end of that thousand years.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

Yes, I know it's unpopular. I won't apologize for it, and I stand by it.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

Guys (and some gals) spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours rescuing these things. In the case of N9M it was literally rotting. They turned it back into a flying machine with money and sweat. They have a vision, a passion, and they work to make it happen. If the best you can do is bemoan their decision to fly it, at least acknowledge you never would have seen it to begin with without their efforts: thier weekends and evenings, their busted knuckles, their money.

I hope everyone puts their time and money where their mouths are. Go volunteer somewhere. Turn a wrench, mop the floor, make a donation. There are a lot of flying and static restorations taking place. Find one you believe in and want to succeed. You can actually help "preserve history".



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I agree with you wholeheartedly based on how I've read your previous comments. If you want them preserved so bad make enough money to buy it; otherwise, it's someone else's property to decide whether to display or to fly.



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So you are saying antiques should be seized and nationalized.. 🤮



posted on Apr, 30 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

I'm saying that important items, such as the N9M, that changed our understanding of something, deserve to be preserved and protected in a museum somewhere. No, I'm not saying "antiques should be seized and nationalized". But it would have been nice to see something this important preserved somewhere, not smeared across the ground. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single surviving Jack Northrop designed and built flying wing. And that's really sad.
edit on 4/30/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join