As a huge naval aviation history buff I was in a tough position on the
Seagull matter. I personally wanted to see the aircraft built, and did a
fair amount of work getting the Naval Aviation Museum involved. As I recall
they were quite receptive to the idea of accepting a "crippled" airframe
that was authentic in all other respects.

On the other side was the Company's legal exposure and the position taken by
its aviation underwriters: the less risk, the better. That made a "flying
deal" impossible.

People who blame "the lawyers" for problems like this don't live in the real
world. Attorneys are RESPONDING to marketplace risks in an extremously
litigious society. It isn't simply "the lawyers" who want to get $$ if
people are killed in an air crash.

It is ironic that Mayo would have had a better chance to make a flying
Seagull if C-W had gone out of business long ago; then there would have been
no one to sue if he had used the Company's plans. Of course, it was the
Compant who donated the plans to the Smithsonian, with strings attached.

As for airframe manufacturers' efforts to extract license fees from scale
model aircraft manufacturers for use of the company name, I think that's
OUTRAGEOUS, especially when one realizes that in most cases Uncle Sam paid
for the designs! But I'll wager the drive for that comes from greedy
executives, not inhouse counsel.

I'm of two minds about relics, restored WWII aircraft and flying replicas.

We wouldn't have "Glacier Girl," the sole flying P-38E, if that
mega-millionaire hadn't made an incredible investment to pull her out of the
ice and rebuild virtually everything. But if she crashes, well, we won't
have any P-38Es, flying or not.

I give the owner a Glacier Girl a pass, but pray that she doesn't come to a
bad end.

Other than that, I think owners of SOLE surviving examples have a moral duty
not to put historic aircraft at risk "for fun." For example, I think it
would be an obscenity to restore the world's only Brewster Buffalo, Vought
Vindicator and Brewster Buccaneer to flying condition, and try to actually
fly them. They truly belong in the naval aviation museum.

As for the in-betweens in numbers, I enjoy seeing the old birds fly, but not
crash. I've seen both at airshows.



On 20-Jan-2008, Niccolo wrote:

it
isn't really a P-26 unless it actually flys

I guess my response is that the P-26D isn't a "real" P-26. But then again,
the one in the air force museum isn't either, though only cognicenti would
know. ;-)

Brian