P-51D

[Big John]

Any further info on this Heavy Iron accident?

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````

NTSB

On July 9, 2005, at 1020 central daylight time, a North American
P-51D, N10607, collided with the terrain following a loss of engine
power on takeoff from runway 18 (3,773 feet by 60 feet, concrete) at
the Peterson Municipal Airport (K57), Tarkio, Missouri. The airline
transport rated pilot was seriously injured. The airplane was
substantially damaged. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91
personal flight was operating in visual meteorological conditions
without a flight plan. The flight was originating at the time of the
accident.

The pilot reported that he experienced a total loss of engine power on
takeoff. He stated he banked to the left to avoid the 30 foot dike off
the end of the runway. He stated that when he banked the airplane, the
left wing contacted the ground. The airplane then rocked to the right
and the right wing contacted the ground prior to the airplane coming
to rest.

[Jay Honeck]

> Any further info on this Heavy Iron accident?
>
> NTSB
>
> On July 9, 2005, at 1020 central daylight time, a North American
> P-51D, N10607, collided with the terrain following a loss of engine
> power on takeoff from runway 18

Sad. That's "Barbara Jean," the Mustang and pilot who made a terrific
appearance at our local "Big Kids Toy Show" in May. I've got quite a few
publicity shots they took with our Mustang convertible "posing" with that
beautifully polished P-51.

I was in Seattle throughout, and missed all the fun -- but from everything
I've heard the pilot was a truly generous gentleman, giving rides to a few
volunteers and asking nothing in return.

Friends have told me that he walked away with just a "scratch on his
elbow" -- which surely contradicts the NTSB's description of his "serious"
injuries. If I hear more, I'll let you know.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Big John]

Jay

Tnx for background.

As you may remember, I have about 650 hrs in the bird and am always
interested in any accidents that takes one of the few left flying out
of the gene pool.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:37:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Any further info on this Heavy Iron accident?
>>
>> NTSB
>>
>> On July 9, 2005, at 1020 central daylight time, a North American
>> P-51D, N10607, collided with the terrain following a loss of engine
>> power on takeoff from runway 18
>
>Sad. That's "Barbara Jean," the Mustang and pilot who made a terrific
>appearance at our local "Big Kids Toy Show" in May. I've got quite a few
>publicity shots they took with our Mustang convertible "posing" with that
>beautifully polished P-51.
>
>I was in Seattle throughout, and missed all the fun -- but from everything
>I've heard the pilot was a truly generous gentleman, giving rides to a few
>volunteers and asking nothing in return.
>
>Friends have told me that he walked away with just a "scratch on his
>elbow" -- which surely contradicts the NTSB's description of his "serious"
>injuries. If I hear more, I'll let you know.

[Jay Honeck]

> Tnx for background.
>
> As you may remember, I have about 650 hrs in the bird and am always
> interested in any accidents that takes one of the few left flying out
> of the gene pool.

No problem. I hate to see this sort of thing happen, too. With so few
left, I don't want Mustangs to become like the Boeing 307 -- only seen in
pictures and museums.

Unfortunately, drawing the trend lines out into the future, that scenario is
inevitable -- but let's hope we can extend it out as far as possible.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Wizard of Draws]

On 7/17/05 9:06 AM, in article nJsCe.182276$xm3.13043@attbi_s21, "Jay
Honeck" > spewed:

>> Tnx for background.
>>
>> As you may remember, I have about 650 hrs in the bird and am always
>> interested in any accidents that takes one of the few left flying out
>> of the gene pool.
>
> No problem. I hate to see this sort of thing happen, too. With so few
> left, I don't want Mustangs to become like the Boeing 307 -- only seen in
> pictures and museums.
>
> Unfortunately, drawing the trend lines out into the future, that scenario is
> inevitable -- but let's hope we can extend it out as far as possible.

I assume the answer is yes, but I'll ask it anyway. Are the plans and
drawings still available to rebuild these planes from scratch?
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[George Patterson]

Wizard of Draws wrote:
>
> I assume the answer is yes, but I'll ask it anyway. Are the plans and
> drawings still available to rebuild these planes from scratch?

The stumbling block there is the limited supply of Packard engines. It would be
astronomically expensive to start making those again.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:06:27 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Unfortunately, drawing the trend lines out into the future, that scenario is
>inevitable -- but let's hope we can extend it out as far as possible.

aren't humans weired? they are happy to see war machines
(yeah, I know ... people kill people).
if mice are happy to see any mouse traps?

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Peter Duniho]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> aren't humans weired? they are happy to see war machines

Well, for many it's more about the technical achievement that war drives
humanity to. The war itself is seen as glorious by some, but have that
impression isn't necessary in order to appreciate war technology.

That said, I personally find it ironic that people bemoan the loss of an
object that was designed specifically for the purpose of putting it into
harm's way. We destroyed thousands (?) of these planes through their normal
usage, but lose one or two here and there each year, and it's some great
loss.

> if mice are happy to see any mouse traps?

If there was a mouse out there that had the capacity to appreciate
technological achievement, that mouse would probably be happy to see a
well-designed mouse trap. There are plenty of people who are appreciative
of the technological achievements of "the enemy" (today, the Japanese and
German aircraft are studied and appreciative as well as Allied models).

Pete

[gregg]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> That said, I personally find it ironic that people bemoan the loss of an
> object that was designed specifically for the purpose of putting it into
> harm's way. We destroyed thousands (?) of these planes through their
> normal usage, but lose one or two here and there each year, and it's some
> great loss.

If 14,000 of them remained, maybe people would not consider losing one or
two as great a loss. Except, of course, the owners (and assuming no one got
hurt).

From http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/survivors/index.shtml

Total Complete P-51 Survivors 281
P-51's in airworthy condition 152
On Display (non-flying) 57
Repairs / Restoration 45
In Storage 22
Unknown 5

that's 152 flyables out of something like 14,000 built. Probably less than
152 as P-51D 44-74466 "Barbara Jean" had an engine failure last weekend and
ended up bent and battered - luckily the pilot is safe.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Peter Duniho]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> If 14,000 of them remained, maybe people would not consider losing one or
> two as great a loss. Except, of course, the owners (and assuming no one
> got
> hurt).

A single P-51 lost still represents well under 1% of the total fleet. What
percentage was lost during their intended use? A lot greater than that, I'd
guess.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 7/17/05 5:42 PM, in article , "Peter
Duniho" > spewed:

> "gregg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If 14,000 of them remained, maybe people would not consider losing one or
>> two as great a loss. Except, of course, the owners (and assuming no one
>> got
>> hurt).
>
> A single P-51 lost still represents well under 1% of the total fleet. What
> percentage was lost during their intended use? A lot greater than that, I'd
> guess.
>
>

Each P-51 represents more than just a number in a fleet, they are history.
And damned good looking history at that. As the numbers slowly diminish,
each one takes on a greater representative portion and the history buffs
among us cringe at each passing.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Each P-51 represents more than just a number in a fleet, they are history.
> And damned good looking history at that. As the numbers slowly diminish,
> each one takes on a greater representative portion and the history buffs
> among us cringe at each passing.

My son has grown up appreciating the unmistakable song of the Merlin engine
in a P-51 Mustang. He has been able to identify Mustangs in flight,
without looking up, since he was five years old. (He's attended Oshkosh 14
times...)

I suspect he will, one day, hear if for the last time. I hope I don't live
that long.

For those who don't know the song, here it is:

http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/merlin[1].wav

And, just because I love the sound, here's another:

http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/p51[1].wav
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I suspect he will, one day, hear if for the last time. I hope I don't live
> that long.

I expect Mustangs will be flying somewhere long after he's dead, but people may
have to really work to go hear one. After all, you can still see and hear a 1911
Bleriot fly if you're willing to travel to mid-State New York.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Jay Honeck]

>> I suspect he will, one day, hear if for the last time. I hope I don't
>> live that long.
>
> I expect Mustangs will be flying somewhere long after he's dead, but
> people may have to really work to go hear one. After all, you can still
> see and hear a 1911 Bleriot fly if you're willing to travel to mid-State
> New York.

I hope you're right, George.

With insurance more and more dictating who flies what, when, and where, it
doesn't seem likely -- but maybe we'll some day find a way around the
problems of decreasing numbers, increasing values, and chicken-sh*t
liability laws...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> With insurance more and more dictating who flies what, when, and where, it
> doesn't seem likely -- but maybe we'll some day find a way around the
> problems of decreasing numbers, increasing values, and chicken-sh*t
> liability laws...

Well, you might have to take a trip overseas to hear one, then. Perhaps Duxford?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[[email protected]]

As long as warbirds fly there will be an attrition rate. What makes me
NUTS is the people who have the priviledge (and $$$) to own/fly these
irreplaceable aircraft and race them putting them at risk of damage or
total loss. Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane. I'd
like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.

Will

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> As long as warbirds fly there will be an attrition rate. What makes me
> NUTS is the people who have the priviledge (and $$$) to own/fly these
> irreplaceable aircraft and race them putting them at risk of damage or
> total loss. Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
> the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane. I'd
> like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
> air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.
>
> Will
>

The people who build and restore warbirds for racing are restoring aircraft
that may not have been restored if it weren't for racing.

[Big John]

Some history.

I read some place, some time, that the average life of a '51 in the
ETO was about 70 hours. If this be true then they were almost used as
throw away birds. If they couldn't be fixed with duct tape they class
26'd the bird and got a new one. I have also heard about over night
engine changes on CO's birds, so there may be some or just a little
truth in these war stories?

In the original issue configuration out of factory they were red lined
at 505 mph. I've had some well over that figure but was careful
pulling out and did not pull max G's. Several friends, who were in the
ETO, said they would dive the bird well over red line to get away from
a 109 which had a weak tail and couldn't follow them and stay
together. I have no reason to not believe these stories but never saw
this put out in an official publication or taught in training.

Following the War there were several instances of the wings coming off
D's in dive/glide bombing runs and they reduced the max IAS to 450
mph.

On sound, there is no other bird that ever sounded like a Merlin in
the '51. Closest I ever heard was a British Halifax with it's four
Merlin's that sounded like a flight of four 51's.

So be it.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``


On 18 Jul 2005 08:22:16 -0700, wrote:

>As long as warbirds fly there will be an attrition rate. What makes me
>NUTS is the people who have the priviledge (and $$$) to own/fly these
>irreplaceable aircraft and race them putting them at risk of damage or
>total loss. Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
>the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane. I'd
>like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
>air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.
>
>Will

[George Patterson]

Big John wrote:
>
> I have also heard about over night
> engine changes on CO's birds, so there may be some or just a little
> truth in these war stories?

"Book" time for an engine change on a B-17 was 5 hours.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> As long as warbirds fly there will be an attrition rate. What makes me
> NUTS is the people who have the priviledge (and $$$) to own/fly these
> irreplaceable aircraft and race them putting them at risk of damage or
> total loss. Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
> the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane.

What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the first
place.

More importantly, it's irrational to be concerned about not being able to
replace the airplanes. They aren't useful objects anymore (except, perhaps,
for the entertainment value they provide at air races and other airshows).
It is a fundamental truth that every last P-51 will eventually be destroyed,
just as every other thing that humanity has ever created will eventually be
destroyed. Even if P-51s were important to our survival as a species (and
they clearly are not), it would be futile to expect any to not eventually be
destroyed.

I find this irrationality even more amusing in the context of a newsgroup
where there were a handful of folks talking about how "irrational" people
with religious faith are. I suppose folks here don't mind being irrational
as long as it's their own preferential brand of irrationality. If it's
someone else's, that's apparently cause for derision.

> I'd
> like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
> air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.

Oh. So it turns out, you're not actually against the destruction of these
warbirds after all. You would just rather see them destroyed for your
pleasure at airshows, rather than for someone else's pleasure at air races.

The only way to guarantee there won't be a crash is to not fly the plane.
Even stored in a building, they will all eventually be destroyed (though
perhaps not in our lifetime). But flying them, even just for display at
airshows, they are unlikely to suffer significantly less attrition than for
air racing (your statement was obviously made without bother to compare
accident statistics for the air races to those for flying displays at
airshows).

Pete

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
wrote:

> As long as warbirds fly there will be an attrition rate. What makes me
> NUTS is the people who have the priviledge (and $$$) to own/fly these
> irreplaceable aircraft and race them putting them at risk of damage or
> total loss. Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
> the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane. I'd
> like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
> air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.
>
> Will

I have a friend in CA, who has a whole warehouse full of Mustang parts
that he bought surplus, back in the '50's/'60's.

He refuses to sell to racers for the very reason that they tear the
planes up.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Jose]

> More importantly, it's irrational to be concerned about not being able to
> replace the airplanes. They aren't useful objects anymore (except, perhaps,
> for the entertainment value they provide at air races and other airshows).

The Mona Lisa isn't useful either I suppose.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
> the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane. I'd
> like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
> air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.

Seems like many people are real quick to tell other people what to do with their
money. Most of these "warbirds" never saw any action and arguably aren't
particularly historical at all. Many of the real warplanes weren't worth
ferrying back to the U.S. and were crunched overseas.

Some Luftwaffe pilots destroyed more P-51s after the war than during it. And the
U.S. government paid them to do it.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Big John]

In Japan, following the War, I saw a Fighter Group (75 aircraft) of
almost new P-38's have primer cord wrapped around the booms and the
tails cut off. Bull Dozers then pushed the pieces into a big pile and
we either sold at a penny a pound or gave to the Japanese who sorted
the different metals out and re smelted to make things since they
didn't have any source of metal at that time.

What is it they say about beating swords into plow shares???

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:20:07 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> Risking the loss of a piece of history, to say nothing of
>> the pilot, just for the sake of a 400mph thrill ride is insane. I'd
>> like to see them all restored to their military condition and flown at
>> air shows. Much less chance of accidents there IMHO.
>
>Seems like many people are real quick to tell other people what to do with their
>money. Most of these "warbirds" never saw any action and arguably aren't
>particularly historical at all. Many of the real warplanes weren't worth
>ferrying back to the U.S. and were crunched overseas.
>
>Some Luftwaffe pilots destroyed more P-51s after the war than during it. And the
>U.S. government paid them to do it.
>
>George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

[gregg]

Peter Duniho wrote:


> What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
> these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
> preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the
> first place.

> Pete

Yuo pointed it out, yes, but it was then, and is now, a non sequitur.

Value of things can change with time. It's not impossible to take something
that was throwaway at one point and have it's value redefined at another
point. Especially if it became historically important and there are only a
veyr few left.

Often when something is built one doesn't realize how important,
historically, it will turn out to be.

Very few things were built to last forever. That doesn't mean that when
there are only a few left, they shouldn't increase in value. civil War
swords were made by the thousands. They are more valuable now than they
were then.

Lots of furniture was built in the 1700's. Much of it wasn't expected to
last forever. Those few pieces that still exist command huge prices. A
simple dough box - a utilitarian piece of gear - made in the 1700's is now
very expensive if it's in decent shape.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> The Mona Lisa isn't useful either I suppose.

No, it's not. It's wonderful that it exists, but there would be absolutely
no suffering in the world should the original Mona Lisa painting be
destroyed. Some people would irrationally bemoan the loss of the painting
(forgetting that the painting WILL eventually be destroyed one way or the
other), but that doesn't make it useful.

Of course, I am assuming you're talking about the original. Most people
have not even seen the original, but there is no shortage of replicas for
those people to appreciate. Likewise, even if the very last P-51 were
destroyed, it would take a LOT longer for there to be no replicas, no
reference, no knowledge whatsoever of it.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with people holding as precious objects like
the P-51. They should recognize the irrationality and futility of doing so,
however (though, of course most probably do not).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Value of things can change with time. It's not impossible to take
> something
> that was throwaway at one point and have it's value redefined at another
> point. Especially if it became historically important and there are only a
> veyr few left.

If and when the P-51 actually becomes so valuable that it is "historically
important" for them to cease flying, then they will cease. This will happen
because those who deem it so "historically important" will buy all of the
flyable ones and ground them.

Until then, they obviously are not so precious that we cannot afford to have
them flying, even in air races (as if that were somehow more hazardous to
the fleet than other types of flying).

> [...]
> Very few things were built to last forever. That doesn't mean that when
> there are only a few left, they shouldn't increase in value. civil War
> swords were made by the thousands. They are more valuable now than they
> were then.

Only to people who irrationally place such a high value on them. Many
people wouldn't pay even a fraction of the time-adjusted cost of production
of a Civil War era sword.

To those people who think the P-51 shouldn't be flying: buy your own and
ground it, if you think it's so important.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Frankly, I don't have a problem with people holding as precious objects
> like the P-51. They should recognize the irrationality and futility of
> doing so, however (though, of course most probably do not).

Well, if we're to go down that philosophical sinkhole, you had better be
prepared to have all of your best-loved, most cherished beliefs and ideals
shattered.

Taken over geologic time, everything is dust in the wind. That doesn't mean
we shouldn't strive for some semblance of permanence and order -- it only
means that we are, inevitably, finite.

For the purpose of sanity, however, most of us choose to think in historic,
not real, time. While this may not be 100% truthful, it is neither
irrational nor futile.

Thus, we must preserve the Mustangs!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:anZCe.186202$xm3.145092@attbi_s21...
> Well, if we're to go down that philosophical sinkhole, you had better be
> prepared to have all of your best-loved, most cherished beliefs and ideals
> shattered.

Why? I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold those beliefs. Just that they
are irrational.

Human beings are irrational. It should be no surprise that human beings
hold irrational beliefs. More importanly, it should be no surprise to find
that other human beings hold different irrational beliefs.

> [...]
> Thus, we must preserve the Mustangs!

You are welcome to hold that irrational belief. I don't happen to share it,
but many people agree with you. They are just as irrational about it as you
are. :)

My comment was simply one of observation, and I probably wouldn't have even
brought it up except for a handful of people here criticizing religious
beliefs as irrational. As if those people didn't have their own irrational
beliefs.

Pete

[Jose]

> I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold those beliefs [that P51s
> and fine art should be preserved]. Just that they
> are irrational.

I'm not convinced that they are irrational beliefs. Fine art brings joy
to (some) people, and restoring and flying warbirds brings joy to (some)
people. Given that, while we all end up dead, we spend a fair amount of
time alive, the pursuit and spread of joy seems like an eminently
rational thing to do.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not convinced that they are irrational beliefs.

By the definition used to describe those with religious faith as
"irrational", they most certainly are "irrational beliefs".

> Fine art brings joy to (some) people, and restoring and flying warbirds
> brings joy to (some) people.

Racing warbirds brings joy to (some) people as well. Why is it so insane,
then, to race them? Especially if it's perfectly rational to do something
that brings joy to people?

Pete

[Jose]

> By the definition used to describe those with religious faith as
> "irrational", they most certainly are "irrational beliefs".

What definition is that?

> Racing warbirds brings joy to (some) people as well.

Then racing warbirds is an eminently rational thing to do.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm not convinced that they are irrational beliefs. Fine art brings joy
> to (some) people, and restoring and flying warbirds brings joy to (some)
> people.

Oh, no. You've brought up "fine art" -- surely the sign of a dying
thread...

;-)

Seriously, "fine art" is truly in the eye of the beholder. What brings joy
to some brings pain to many.

An example: Here in Iowa City, a certain percentage (2%?) of all public
building budgets must go to the purchase of "fine art" to be displayed in
front of/inside the facility.

Since, as home to the University of Iowa, virtually ALL buildings are
public, we have an enormous amount of "fine art" that is both (a) incredibly
expensive, and (b) truly awful. Yet, despite the number of
horrible/laughable pieces on display, each and every one went through some
sort of a selection process, and was selected by a committee of "experts" on
its merits -- so *someone* thought it was "fine art"...

P-51 Mustangs as art? While I like the concept, I don't think you'll get
too many non-aviation nuts to agree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Apparently Peter D. has no appreciation of history and the epic
struggle these warbirds represent. The fact that they were destroyed in
huge numbers after the war is completely irrelevant.. they were
purpose-built to win a war - not be destroyed as you so inelegantly put
it. You say these aircraft have no purpose? Reread my first sentence.
You also mentioned irrationality and religious faith? Try posting to
the appropriate group for that topic. And don't confuse the issue
further with your dime-store psychobabble.

I would like to see warbirds flown at airshows, which IMHO is much less
dangerous than a bunch of hot-rodded aircraft in close proximity
circling pylons at 100ft. No I haven't compared airshow vs air race
statistics - have you? It's true you can only guarantee a plane not to
crash if you park it, but that would be a waste. Given the choice,
don't you think people would rather see & hear these planes fly instead
of just sit in a museum? "Gee, Grandpa flew in one of those planes?
Wow. Let's get a t-shirt at the gift shop."

Just my .02 here. I think the folks lucky enough to own these planes
have an obligation to preserve them. If they want to risk their
aircraft by racing that's their right. I just think it's a shame to see
otherwise irreplaceable historic aircraft being risked for a thrill
ride.

Will

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
[snip]
> P-51 Mustangs as art? While I like the concept, I don't think you'll get
> too many non-aviation nuts to agree.


<http://info.detnews.com/joyrides/story/index.cfm?id=537>
Is Ralph Lauren's collection of rare classic cars really art?

Yes.


<http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/past_exhibitions/motorcycle/motorcycle.html>
Art of the Motorcycle - Guggenheim 1998
(Click the dates on the left side)

Speaking of flying art, the B-24 Liberator (Witchcraft) is sitting on the
ramp at Golden Wings Museum this morning with an engine removed. Another
engine is being flown or trucked in today.

Collings Foundation was at our airport this weekend, B-17 and the B-24.
<http://www.collingsfoundation.org/menu.htm>

Witchcraft (8th Air Force) is the same B-24 as Dragon & His Tail (Pacific
Theater) ...just repainted in olive drab.


Montblack

[Jose]

> Seriously, "fine art" is truly in the eye of the beholder. What brings joy
> to some brings pain to many.
>
> An example: Here in Iowa City, a certain percentage (2%?) of all public
> building budgets must go to the purchase of "fine art" to be displayed in
> front of/inside the facility.

I am arguing from the point of view that the =owner= of a piece of fine
art gets to perform that piece, not that the government gets to charge
us for his privelage. In the case of the P51s, we are discussing
whether or not the owner of the P51 should be able to do stuff with or
to it, and whether or not the desire to do so is "rational". I don't
argue that the P51 is (or isn't) fine art, just that its =usefulness=
(now) relates to the joy it brings, and because of that preserving a P51
is not irrational, neither is flying it.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Apparently Peter D. has no appreciation of history and the epic
> struggle these warbirds represent. The fact that they were destroyed in
> huge numbers after the war is completely irrelevant.. they were
> purpose-built to win a war - not be destroyed as you so inelegantly put
> it. You say these aircraft have no purpose? Reread my first sentence.
> You also mentioned irrationality and religious faith? Try posting to
> the appropriate group for that topic. And don't confuse the issue
> further with your dime-store psychobabble.

lol. I've never seen a single person miss so many points in a single
paragraph before. Very impressive.

> I would like to see warbirds flown at airshows, which IMHO is much less
> dangerous than a bunch of hot-rodded aircraft in close proximity
> circling pylons at 100ft. No I haven't compared airshow vs air race
> statistics - have you?

I'm not the one claiming that air racing is more hazardous to the airframes.
Why should I make a comparison for a claim I'm not the one making. You want
to prove your point? Do the legwork.

In any case, even if air racing were more hazardous (and I'm sure it's
not...and that's coming from someone who was actually at one of the Reno Air
Races when a fatal accident occurred during a race), you still have an
undefensible position. If the relative degree of hazard were a useful
debating point, then the only logical conclusion is that the use of least
hazard (grounded in a museum) is the proper use. You can't even bring
yourself to take your argument to its logical conclusion. You just want to
rationalize an irrational position.

> It's true you can only guarantee a plane not to
> crash if you park it, but that would be a waste.

A waste for whom? Not for anyone who's concern is the preservation of the
airplane. It would be a waste for you, because you want to see the planes
fly, in spite of the risk. But why is your desire of higher precedence than
that of people who enjoy air racing? I'll tell you: it's not.

> Given the choice,
> don't you think people would rather see & hear these planes fly instead
> of just sit in a museum? "Gee, Grandpa flew in one of those planes?
> Wow. Let's get a t-shirt at the gift shop."

Which people? Everyone has a different opinion. Lots of people don't have
any interest in the airplanes at all. Others WOULD prefer to see the
airplane in a museum.

> Just my .02 here. I think the folks lucky enough to own these planes
> have an obligation to preserve them.

Well, I don't. And that's even assuming you had proven your assertion that
air racing poses a greater danger than air show flying (which you have not).

> If they want to risk their
> aircraft by racing that's their right. I just think it's a shame to see
> otherwise irreplaceable historic aircraft being risked for a thrill
> ride.

Then buy one yourself and keep it as "safe" as you think is reasonable.

Pete

[[email protected]]

>>>I've never seen a single person miss so many points in a single
paragraph before. Very impressive. <<<

My, what an obnoxious tone you take. I could say the same thing about
you. My guess is you are not a pilot, otherwise I think our viewpoints
would be a bit closer here. We'll just have to agree to disagree. (I
suppose you find that "irrational" too?) I'm not about to debate this
ad nauseum online..

However, if you really think a group of planes buzzing around pylons at
400mph 100ft off the ground is less risky than simply flying a low
approach down a runway during a demonstration then there's no reasoning
with you.

My opinion (and that's the part you missed - it's just an opinion) is
that warbirds are enjoyed more in the air, vs sitting in a museum as a
boring static display. That's all. At some point they will all be
grounded when the cost to keep them airworthy is excessive even for the
well-heeled that own them now.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...] My guess is you are not a pilot

lol. Again, you display your ignorance. Anyone suggesting I'm not a pilot
is quite ignorant indeed.

> [...]
> However, if you really think a group of planes buzzing around pylons at
> 400mph 100ft off the ground is less risky than simply flying a low
> approach down a runway during a demonstration then there's no reasoning
> with you.

Actually, if YOU really think that you can make a claim about relative
safety without having statistical evidence to justify that claim, there's no
reasoning with YOU.

Air racing is an extremely controlled environment. There's no reason,
absent some genuine data demonstrating otherwise, to believe that air racing
is more hazardous to the airframes than air show performances (and other
similar uses, for example the P-51 flights offered at Crazy Horse in
Kissimmee).

You continue to insist on basing your beliefs on your personal intuitive
impressions, rather than real-world, hard evidence. Now *that* is
irrational.

Pete

[[email protected]]

>>>Again, you display your ignorance. Anyone suggesting I'm not a pilot is quite ignorant indeed.<<<

Hmmm... did't realize you were known Internet-wide for your commercial
pilot skills... The way you've been sounding off I figured you were an
ATP with all the ratings.

If you recall, I'd been posting just my opinions since the beginning -
and all along you've prattled on about "statistical evidence" like Rain
Man and berated me for my opinions. Very big of you. So much so that
you've lost sight of the original post's intent. But, whatever.. you're
happiest being an obnoxious a-hole. Clearly you're a genius and maybe
we all could learn something from you? Other than personal skills(!)

I once read "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special
Olympics - even if you win you're still retarded." With that thought
in mind I'll take the moral high road here and end this pointless
debate. Happy Flying, sunshine...

[W P Dixon]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I once read "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special
> Olympics - even if you win you're still retarded." With that thought
> in mind I'll take the moral high road here and end this pointless
> debate. Happy Flying, sunshine...
>
Hmmm,
Well I rarely would agree with Peter on anything, but was this
last little tidbit really necessary? Though the statement in itself is
true,..as my little brother can attest to, here it was just meant as
hateful. And very offensive to some of us . My brother is a Special Olympic
Gold Medalist and I am right damn proud of him.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[[email protected]]

No offense intended Patrick - Peter just ****ed me off with his
pompous, know-it-all attitude. I've read a bunch of his other posts,
and this is nothing new.

[W P Dixon]

I can sure agree with you there, to me his posts say college student that
doesn't have the sense God gave a turnip,..but considers himself the know
all see all Carnac! ;) I usually do not bother reading his posts, just
happened to be following the P-51 thread though! I wouldn't waste my time
trying to reason with him, be like sitting in the backyard arguing with a
rock ;) Hard to remember sometimes that people born with afflictions can not
help it, I remember a time when getting a laugh from making fun of someone
like that got you "corrected" very quickly by a parent . Sorry to say that
is not the case anymore. Strange how parents and schools have to teach such
PC things to not offend people,...but nothing is ever said of kids going
around calling each other "retarded". It sure is a bad habit of the youth
around here anyway.
Those folks can not help it, but I hope that Peter can get help and
learn to play with others ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> No offense intended Patrick - Peter just ****ed me off with his
> pompous, know-it-all attitude. I've read a bunch of his other posts,
> and this is nothing new.
>

[Ken]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>A single P-51 lost still represents well under 1% of the total fleet. What
>percentage was lost during their intended use? A lot greater than that, I'd
>guess.

Your point, such as it is, merely demonstrates that sometimes absolute
numbers are more relevant than percentages.

> It's wonderful that it [the Mona Lisa] exists, but there would be absolutely
>no suffering in the world should the original Mona Lisa painting be
>destroyed. Some people would irrationally bemoan the loss of the painting
>(forgetting that the painting WILL eventually be destroyed one way or the
>other), but that doesn't make it useful.

Most parents would mourn the death of their young child. By your
logic, such mourning would be "irrational" because the child would
"eventually be destroyed one way or the other". If you claim that
such parental mourning is not irrational, then your arguments in this
thread fail. If we accept that such parental mourning is indeed
irrational but nevertheless reasonable, understandable, and
acceptable, then your arguments in this thread fail. If you claim
that your arguments in this thread apply only to inanimate objects,
then your arguments fail. If you don't agree that such parental
mourning is reasonable, understandable, and acceptable, then you are
disconnected from normal human feeling and your arguments in this
thread become irrelevant.

- Ken -

[Peter Duniho]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
>I can sure agree with you there, to me his posts say college student [...]

It's funny seeing you and "kingfish" try to one-up each other making
ignorant assumptions about who or what I am. You guys are cracking me up!
Hilarious! The funniest part, you're being so ignorant about it, you can't
even tell how ignorant you're being.

Ignorance is bliss...so they say. You guys must be the happiest folks in
the world.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ken" > wrote in message
...
> Most parents would mourn the death of their young child. By your
> logic, such mourning would be "irrational"

It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that is,
irrational) process.

It seems many people in this thread would benefit from consulting a
dictionary and reading up on the definition of "irrational". In particular,
to note that there are several definitions, not all of which imply insanity.
Those people seem to think that being "irrational" is somehow something to
be avoided. The fact is, as human beings, we act irrationally all the time.

Get over it.

[W P Dixon]

The only ignorance ever witnessed is in any post you have ever created.The
ignorance of your own arrogance and just how much of a horse's ass you are.
"PLONK"

Bye !

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I can sure agree with you there, to me his posts say college student [...]
>
> It's funny seeing you and "kingfish" try to one-up each other making
> ignorant assumptions about who or what I am. You guys are cracking me up!
> Hilarious! The funniest part, you're being so ignorant about it, you
> can't even tell how ignorant you're being.
>
> Ignorance is bliss...so they say. You guys must be the happiest folks in
> the world.
>

[Jose]

> It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that is,
> irrational) process.

However, attepmting to prevent something which would cause one to mourn
is entirely rational.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that is,
>irrational) process.
>
>It seems many people in this thread would benefit from consulting a
>dictionary and reading up on the definition of "irrational". In particular,
>to note that there are several definitions, not all of which imply insanity.
>Those people seem to think that being "irrational" is somehow something to
>be avoided. The fact is, as human beings, we act irrationally all the time.
>
>Get over it.

Pete, not sure that mourning equals irrationality. Mourning is an
emotion and emotions are normally pretty unrestrained and
uncontrollable. There's really nothing irrational about it, it's kind
of automatic.

We may act irrationally frequently, as human beings, but mourning is
not rational or irrational, it just is.

Corky Scott

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 at 12:00:02 in message
>, Peter Duniho
> wrote:
>What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
>these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
>preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the first
>place.
>
Peter,

That last sentence above does not make sense to me. We did not build
them to be destroyed, we hoped they would not be, but correctly realised
that many would be destroyed. It is obviously not important to you to
preserve them but it is to many people. So what? Both points of view are
valid.

The Mustang was designed and built to fight and help win the war for us.
That does not stop it being a thing of beauty and something that people
wish to enjoy for whatever internal reason they may have. 'Irrational'
admiration for a thing of beauty satisfies some curious internal
mechanism of the human being..

Part of being human is to be irrational in the way you describe.
However it is important to recognise you are being irrational and then
get on and enjoy what you want to do.

Mind you, in the words Professor Joad, 'it all depends what you mean by
irrational'. Rational thought to me follows strict logic from initial
premises and assumptions through to a conclusion.

Perhaps the starting point should be to ask what are your objectives?
Why do people listen to opera? Why do they watch sport? Why do they read
novels? What are legitimate activities for human beings?

If you never do anything except what is strictly rational in your terms
then any activities that give people pleasure without any obvious
purpose are presumably insane? That defines the majority of humans as
being insane! Well perhaps they are and you are the only sane one.

Remember that man is not a rational animal but a rationalising animal.
That means he is adept at finding reasons for what he wants to do. That
applies equally to those who wish to preserve and to those who don't.

>More importantly, it's irrational to be concerned about not being able to
>replace the airplanes. They aren't useful objects anymore (except, perhaps,
>for the entertainment value they provide at air races and other airshows).
>It is a fundamental truth that every last P-51 will eventually be destroyed,
>just as every other thing that humanity has ever created will eventually be
>destroyed. Even if P-51s were important to our survival as a species (and
>they clearly are not), it would be futile to expect any to not eventually be
>destroyed.
>
I presume you feel exactly the same about works of art: that it is
irrational to wish to protect and preserve them? No doubt the world and
the human race will change, if either or both of them survive. In the
long run all may be destroyed but it sure helps to pass the time before
doomsday in an activity that you get pleasure from.

>I find this irrationality even more amusing in the context of a newsgroup
>where there were a handful of folks talking about how "irrational" people
>with religious faith are. I suppose folks here don't mind being irrational
>as long as it's their own preferential brand of irrationality. If it's
>someone else's, that's apparently cause for derision.

That's life and the human condition. To me tolerance of other people
foibles is something good. But that is probably irrational as well.

--
David CL Francis

[Peter R.]

David CL Francis > wrote:

> Perhaps the starting point should be to ask what are your objectives?
> Why do people listen to opera? Why do they watch sport? Why do they read
> novels? What are legitimate activities for human beings?

There's a very simple explanation to all of this.

Peter D. is a Vulcan.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter Duniho]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> That last sentence above does not make sense to me. We did not build them
> to be destroyed, we hoped they would not be, but correctly realised that
> many would be destroyed.

It's hard to convey a complex idea in a short paragraph. Conversely, a long
paragraph is likely to go unread. What to do?

Anyway, if it clarifies things a bit, with respect to the numbers of fighter
planes made, they were manufactured with a clear understanding that a large
number of them would be destroyed. The whole point of war is to destroy
things and people. That is, that may not be the desired end, but that
certainly is the chosen means to that end.

> It is obviously not important to you to preserve them but it is to many
> people. So what? Both points of view are valid.

I agree. My problem is with people who criticize others who happen to not
share their belief. Statements like saying that a person is irresponsible
for flying a P-51 in an air race, for example. It's one thing for a person
to take the time and effort to ensure that a P-51 is preserved for posterity
as best they can. It's quite another for them to try to take away *another*
person's right to use *their* P-51 as they see fit.

> [...]
> That's life and the human condition. To me tolerance of other people
> foibles is something good. But that is probably irrational as well.

Most of what defines humanity is, in my opinion, irrational. I find
behavior of "lesser" animals to be much more rational and predictable than
that of human beings. My point is that humans would do well to recognize
their own irrationality, and not pretend that they have some logical
justification for their biases, especially when they are attempting to
exercise those biases to restrict the freedoms of someone else.

Of all people who ought to understand this, it is pilots flying in the US.
It doesn't surprise me that many don't, of course. That's part and parcel
of the irrationality that defines us all. But that doesn't stop me from
observing and commenting on it.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Peter D. is a Vulcan.

I wish. Life would be so much easier.

[Big John]

I started this thread in an aattempt to find out what caused the P-51
accident the 9th of July. So far no additional data except what was in
the NTSB report.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:58:14 -0500, Big John >
wrote:

>Any further info on this Heavy Iron accident?
>
>Big John
>`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````
>
>NTSB
>
>On July 9, 2005, at 1020 central daylight time, a North American
>P-51D, N10607, collided with the terrain following a loss of engine
>power on takeoff from runway 18 (3,773 feet by 60 feet, concrete) at
>the Peterson Municipal Airport (K57), Tarkio, Missouri. The airline
>transport rated pilot was seriously injured. The airplane was
>substantially damaged. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91
>personal flight was operating in visual meteorological conditions
>without a flight plan. The flight was originating at the time of the
>accident.
>
>The pilot reported that he experienced a total loss of engine power on
>takeoff. He stated he banked to the left to avoid the 30 foot dike off
>the end of the runway. He stated that when he banked the airplane, the
>left wing contacted the ground. The airplane then rocked to the right
>and the right wing contacted the ground prior to the airplane coming
>to rest.
>

[vlado]

Big John:
My sources have no information as to the cause of the accident. It was
an older engine, however the owner had a reputation for good care.
Vlado

[Big John]

Vlado

First thing I thought of was you when I heard about the accident.
Thank the Lord you weren't involved.

By 'old' do you mean years or hours? After WWII we changed engines
around 300 hours +/-. Some we changed under 100 hours and others a
little over 300. Can't remember any going to 400.

One problem we had was internal coolant seals leaking either from
drying out or ????

They gave each Squadron 5 attrition birds and we rotated them through
the fleet each month. This let us use short time pickling vs long term
pickle/unpickle. Setting for 30 days without flying, a lot of things
would go bad and take extra hours and parts to get flyable again.

What does the average private War Bird now fly a year? 25-50 hours?

Thinking about why engine quit at 50-100 feet:

Bad gas (Jet A)

Taking off on empty tank?

Is there a single point of failure that would take out both mags? I
forget how they are driven.

Looking at the pictures Jay sent me, to repair will probably take a
wing, engine, prop, horizontal stab and massive repair where radiators
were torn out destroying a large section of bottom of fuselage.

Lots of TLC and devotion to that airframe.

Tnx for info.

Fly safe.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````

On 20 Jul 2005 21:09:19 -0700, "vlado" > wrote:

>Big John:
>My sources have no information as to the cause of the accident. It was
>an older engine, however the owner had a reputation for good care.
>Vlado

[gregg]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter D. is a Vulcan.
>
> I wish. Life would be so much easier.


Except every 7 years or so...when you have an unstoppable drive to swim
upstream and spawn. ;^)

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[gregg]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Ken" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Most parents would mourn the death of their young child. By your
>> logic, such mourning would be "irrational"
>
> It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that
> is, irrational) process.

I suspect not. I suspect it has strong evolutionary origins:

mourning..feeling badly about a dead offspring - tells parents that keeping
offspring alive is a Good Thing (tm).

I suspect it's entirely rational.



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[gregg]

Jose wrote:

>> It IS irrational. Mourning is an entirely emotional, non-rational (that
>> is, irrational) process.
>
> However, attepmting to prevent something which would cause one to mourn
> is entirely rational.
>
> Jose

Jose,

Exactly.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Peter Duniho]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Except every 7 years or so...when you have an unstoppable drive to swim
> upstream and spawn. ;^)

It would only happen every 7 years? Even better. :)

[gregg]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> It seems many people in this thread would benefit from consulting a
> dictionary and reading up on the definition of "irrational". In
> particular, to note that there are several definitions, not all of which
> imply insanity. Those people seem to think that being "irrational" is
> somehow something to
> be avoided. The fact is, as human beings, we act irrationally all the
> time.


Except that you also used the word "insane" when referring to people's
responses to a cracked up plane.

You can play word games all you want with "irrational" - although I suspect
most consider it a pejorative.

But not with the word "insane".

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Peter Duniho]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Except that you also used the word "insane" when referring to people's
> responses to a cracked up plane.

I used the word with exactly the same definition as that used by the post to
which I replied. If you have a complaint about the usage, direct your
complaint to the person who originally used the word.

What this has to do with the definition of "irrational" is beyond me.

Pete

[gregg]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "gregg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Except that you also used the word "insane" when referring to people's
>> responses to a cracked up plane.
>
> I used the word with exactly the same definition as that used by the post
> to
> which I replied. If you have a complaint about the usage, direct your
> complaint to the person who originally used the word.
>
> What this has to do with the definition of "irrational" is beyond me.
>
> Pete


Here is exactly what you said:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 at 12:00:02 in message
>, Peter Duniho
> wrote:
>What's insane is thinking that it's for some reason important to preserve
>these planes. As I already pointed out, if they were so important to
>preserve, we shouldn't have been building them to be destroyed in the first
>place.

Those are your words no one elses. YOU said it was insane to think it's
important to save those planes.

Don't blame someone else for a word you chose to use.

What it has to do with irrational is that you used both to describe your
viewpoint of the same phenomenon. Above, you said it was insane. Other
places you said it's irrational.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Peter Duniho]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Here is exactly what you said:

Very convenient of you to forget to quote the post that I quoted.

> [...]
> Those are your words no one elses. YOU said it was insane to think it's
> important to save those planes.

I used the word "insane" in context. A context which you removed in your
asinine attempt to divert attention from your lack of a point.

> Don't blame someone else for a word you chose to use.

I chose to use a word that was used in the previous post, in the exact same
way in which it was used. My use is no more or less inappropriate than the
previous use. If you don't like the use, it is the previous post, to which
I was replying, that you ought to direct your ire.

> What it has to do with irrational is that you used both to describe your
> viewpoint of the same phenomenon. Above, you said it was insane. Other
> places you said it's irrational.

Are you saying that you think insane people are rational? That seems like
an odd point of view to me. You are welcome to it, of course. I don't
expect you to be rational.

Pete

[[email protected]]

>>>My problem is with people who criticize others who happen to not
share their belief. Statements like saying that a person is
irresponsible
for flying a P-51 in an air race, for example. It's one thing for a
person
to take the time and effort to ensure that a P-51 is preserved for
posterity
as best they can. It's quite another for them to try to take away
*another*
person's right to use *their* P-51 as they see fit.<<<

Just for clarification, Pete, I do not criticize warbird owners that
race their airplanes. I don't agree with it, but certainly that's their
choice. And I would never want to see anyone's right to fly their
airplane "taken away." 'Nuff said on this

Will (aka kingfish)