WIX Archives
Why the inconsistency?
Posted by Richard Allnutt on Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:07:03 PM
In reply top Re: The facts posted by david j burke on Mon Dec 23, 2002 05:14:06 PM
I understand there being some reservations regarding the restoration of certain crashed aircraft. However, that being said, there seems to be an overwhelmingly undue amount of attention paid to the "rebuild - or - smelt them" discussion when it relates to a recent crash versus those aircraft which crashed in wartime.
Those aircraft which crashed in wartime, and are now being rebuilt, often resulted in the deaths of one or more of their occupants, or, for that matter, the deaths of countless other souls they were sent to war against. Why the hypocrisy in which airframes should be smelted, and which should be restored/refabricated? Is it because of personal sentimental reasons, ie. those whom complain about it knew, or were familiar with the deceased in the recent crashes? If so, then their personal partiality should considered as questionable if they do not also have any reservations about earlier "killer" wrecks being rebuilt.
For instance, I doubt that anyone in this forum would rather the Canadian Halifax restoration project be sent to the smelter instead of being rebuilt (with a HUGE amount of replacement material I might add). The crash of this aircraft resulted in the deaths of 6 of the 7 crew-members (albeit from hyperthermia and drowning). I am sure that there are many other WWII wrecks, repaired or under restoration, which resulted in the deaths of their crew (take for instance the P-51 flown by Karen's uncle). We rarely hear serious debate on these issues.
It is also true that many aircraft being rebuilt today require an extraordinary amount of new, spare or NOS material in their reconstruction... should that preclude them from being rebuilt? If so, then why? Wartime aircraft were often cobbled together from cannibalized airframes at the front, and often had many of their components replaced during their normal service lives, as they do even in today's military forces. There is also the expedience of paperwork to consider as well. It is much harder to register a brand new airframe than one which already has paperwork from a largely destroyed aircraft. This, I am sure, motivates many to "restore" demolished wrecks rather than to start from scratch with no paperwork at hand.
My final point is that if an aircraft inspires people to remember the dead, and those whom fought for our freedom, why is it immoral to rebuild a crashed ruin of an airframe if it still acts as a memorial to those whose lives (either from long ago or more recently) were entwined in its representative history. Most people whom attend airshows do not worry about the content of original material in the aircraft flying... they "just want to see some old airplanes fly" and remind them of the past. Regardless of our wrangling with the issues, the final decision resides, as it should, with those whom have the desire and the resources to do the work: end of story.
Thanks. Richard