N9M destroyed

I agree with this.

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.

Noting it WAS in a museum preserved where people could see it.
A LOT more people saw it flying at Airshows.Its a hard choice to preserve/restore to flight.Nothing stirs the dreams of many future aviators than seeing something cool in the air.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Like I said, mine isn't a popular opinion, I realize that, and I respect those that don't agree with it. It is what it is.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I've spent time, sweat and blood, helping to restore (2) Corsairs, (2) Mustangs, (1) B-25, (1) B-17, (1) P2V and (1) C-123. What made it worth it was getting to see them fly, knowing the condition they were in when we started work on them. Planes belong in the air. Did the people who restored the N9M document their work enough that a replica can be made? If not that is the only problem that I see.

I regret the loss of the pilot and my sympathy goes out to his family. He died doing something that he probably loved doing and I can think of worse ways to go.

I have a real problem with people who think that they have the right to tell others what to do with their property. I have a bigger problem with people who use the force of government to force them. A few years ago a small town near where I live voted the town center as a "Historic District" The majority of the people who had houses in the "District" voted against it, while those outside of the district voted for it. Well it passed and now a commission of people, the majority of them people don't live in the district get to tell the people in the "District" what they can and cannot do with their homes.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Nothing compares to seeing and hearing them in the air. That's where they belong.

Another relic of the past. On one hand, it's a piece of aviation history and probably should be preserved. On the other hand, we can't save every old airplane, and in order for them to be something more than dusty museum pieces they would best be seen in action. If people don't experience them outside of a museum, they'll never have a full appreciation for them.

This is what happens when people get old, not airplanes. The things we liked when we were young fade away or are destroyed. We become more and more irrelevant as society and culture toss us on the scrapheap or into a museum.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I'm not going to start running around to airshows and telling people they have to put a plane in a museum, or start advocating that they be seized. I am simply expressing my personal opinion. I had hoped that being Planes of Fame, they'd take steps to preserve it, especially after the fire, but they chose not too, and we lost something invaluable.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
[...] we lost something invaluable.

Yeah, seems like people are always destroying something invaluable.
Oh well. You break it, you buy it.

a reply to: JIMC5499

When someone crashes a P-51 or a B-25, that's sad but there were thousands of them built during the war. Thousands. And, there are quite a few examples preserved in museums. The N-9M, on the other hand, was the sole surviving airframe of only four ever built. It's nice that they got it flying again at Planes of Fame but I think they should have quit while they were ahead.

a reply to: Shadowhawk
Again, my point exactly.

a reply to: Blackfinger
Exactly, a faithful replica. Nobody gets deprived, we dont loose a valuable piece of history, everybody wins.

I'm really astounded at some of the blinkered and frankly selfish and short term comments this thread has unearthed. Had to bite my tongue on a number of occasions. What I dont get is WHY some of you are so precious about wanting to see originals flying whatever the risk, and yet anyone who suggests we preserve it is somehow a big brother communist or something. We dont as a society (western societies at any rate) have a problem with placing preservation orders on historic buildings or structures that limit what you can do with it, or even how you can do it. But some of you have invented a different set of rules because its an aircraft. Talk about blind aerosexuals....

a reply to: thebozeian

I'm not the one that compared people who loved it enough to take the time and money to restore something from the rubbish heap to share their passion with everyone else to a guy who was willing to deliberately destroy something for his ego.

Again, if you have any evidence at all that the pilot or aircraft was not safe to fly, present that and make a case.Otherwise, it is no more "selfish" to fly one airworthy plane than another.
I don't need to pretend that I care as much as the people who cared enough to restore it. A group of people loved it, restored it over decades, flew it and had it a museum so everyone could see it instead of hiding it away in a private hangar, spent their money and time to share it with you and the rest of the world, lost a friend when it crashed as well as the airframe, but some of you have to pretend you cared more about it crashing than they do. That's sort of offensive to me. I don't pretend to understand that sort of "selfish*.

If you want to see flying replicas, go fund a flying replica. Or build one. Support a project. Any project. Do. Something. When you care enough to actually do something, then you get a voice.

If you have a one-off and don't wish to fly it, that's your choice. I get the reasoning. I'm not about to suggest you must fly it. I don't see the value in forcing you to fly it, even though I think it does more good in the air. I know faux outrage is everbloom these days, but really...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Just a matter of opinion. I understand where you are coming from. The funny thing is that the group that I used to work with on this has enough documentation that we could probably build a Mustang or Corsair from scratch. Hell I think we almost have enough spare parts. I miss working on them. I finally have a job where I have enough spare time, but, after tearing my knee up a few years ago, I just can't do it.

Damn I pretty much built a Spitfire from flat sheets of aluminium.All that was missing was the $2 million dollar serial plate ;-P
Pretty much every warbird today can be new built these today.There are a couple guys rebuilding B17,s from scratch in the USA.

a reply to: thebozeian

Perhaps you should get the money together and purchase the aircraft that you don't think should fly. The government certainly has no right to seize them for preservation nor does the government have a legal precedent or a reason to do so. I'm guessing if you're going to try to purchase them you'll need a new career because that kind of money doesn't hang out on ATS. maybe you can start a go fund me 🤑🤑🤑🤑

Perhaps you should get the money together and purchase the aircraft that you don't think should fly. The government certainly has no right to seize them for preservation nor does the government have a legal precedent or a reason to do so.

Unless your dealing with the US Navy but think they are changing that slightly.