Re: Warbird airframe lifespan

[Tom[_15_]]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 13:42:40 -0500, bob urz wrote:

> After a number of recent accidents involving restored WW2 aircraft, one
> has to wonder what the lifespan of the airframes are.

About the same as those who flew them. Dead, dying, decrepit.

[george152]

On 6/10/2011 7:09 a.m., Tom wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 13:42:40 -0500, bob urz wrote:
>
>> After a number of recent accidents involving restored WW2 aircraft, one
>> has to wonder what the lifespan of the airframes are.
>
> About the same as those who flew them. Dead, dying, decrepit.


Another wrong answer.
So far you're batting 100 in the ignorance of things aviation

[Tom[_15_]]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:13:10 +1300, george152 wrote:

> On 6/10/2011 7:09 a.m., Tom wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 13:42:40 -0500, bob urz wrote:
>>
>>> After a number of recent accidents involving restored WW2 aircraft, one
>>> has to wonder what the lifespan of the airframes are.
>>
>> About the same as those who flew them. Dead, dying, decrepit.
>
> Another wrong answer.

Fine. What is the right answer and cite your sources. You absolutely do
not count as one.

Or STFU. Either will do.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Tom >
wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:13:10 +1300, george152 wrote:
>
> > On 6/10/2011 7:09 a.m., Tom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 13:42:40 -0500, bob urz wrote:
> >>
> >>> After a number of recent accidents involving restored WW2 aircraft, one
> >>> has to wonder what the lifespan of the airframes are.
> >>
> >> About the same as those who flew them. Dead, dying, decrepit.
> >
> > Another wrong answer.
>
> Fine. What is the right answer and cite your sources. You absolutely do
> not count as one.
>
> Or STFU. Either will do.

If we told you, we'd hve to kill you! You, obviously, have zero "need to
know."