|
Sadly, keeping historic aircraft "safe on the ground" doesn't guarantee survival. Aircraft collections are still vulnerable to natural disasters, intentional destruction, and neglect. Some museum exhibits have been damaged or destroyed by tornados and hurricanes, others simply discarded when the current curators decide they simply "don't fit" with the rest of the collection. Even the Smithsonian Institution once chopped up an intact Mitsubishi G4M3 Model 34 "Betty" (keeping only the forward fuselage), because they didn't have enough storage space at the time!
And the devastating 1978 arson fire that destroyed the San Diego Aerospace Museum and many irreplaceable artifacts poses a question -- is it any safer to concentrate so many rare aircraft under one roof while limiting potential visitors due to geographic proximity, or should some continue to barnstorm the country where they can be appreciated by a much larger audience?
Mind you, I cringe when the Northrop N9MB Flying Wing flies, since it's a priceless one-of-a-kind aircraft. But on the other hand, it's only in the air when you truly appreciate the Wing's significance and beauty. Watching that boomerang-shaped plane virtually disappear when "edge-on" is an unforgettable lesson in how "visually stealthy" that classic design remains.
So should we fly replicas instead? I'd venture to say that most airshow fans would prefer the real thing. But remember that spare parts are dwindling, and engines can't run forever. Imagine assembling brand new "zero-time" Merlin engines to keep those P-51 Mustangs flying into the late 21st Century. Even if you still have the fabricating equipment and the expertise, such a production line would be financially impossible. So eventually most of the remaining WWII warbirds will be permanently grounded, or severely restricted to short "hops".
In a sense, we've already seen this happening with the WWI generation of aircraft. Only a few genuine veterans still fly on a limited basis. Most "dogfighters" on the air show circuit are replicas, including all the "Fokker Triplanes". And the vast majority of replica planes aren't equipped with authentic rotary engines, either. But the audience still loves them.
As for WWII replicas, consider the Tora! Tora! Tora! T-6 Texans, and the Spanish-built Me-109s and He-111s. So it may be a matter of time before replicas of more warbirds enter the show circuit -- considering the relative scarcity of flightworthy examples, I wouldn't be surprised if Spitfires and Hurricanes are cloned sometime during the next decade. (And I hear that the much-maligned Brewster Buffalo was actually a pleasant flyer when not loaded down with guns, ammo and armor -- fancy seeing a flying replica in pre-war colors.) Larger multi-engined bombers probably are less likely, due to their increased complexity and expenses.
The biggest obstacles would be cost, regulatory approval and insurance. A solitary enthusiast building his dream project in his garage might gain an "experimental" registration with comparatively little hassle, but starting a production line of "Neo-Luftwaffe" Stukas could be another matter. And you probably have to pre-sell a good number of replicas before production can commence, meaning that someone has to pay for the preliminary design work and prototype construction. Unfortunately we can't rely on Hollywood anymore -- instead of commissioning squadrons of replica Japanese aircraft for Tora! Tora! Tora! , today's moviemakers simply use computer-generated warbirds. So I assume that future replica aircraft will mostly come from privately-run limited production projects, similar to those new Me-262s. But consider that Stormbird project officially began in 1993, with several production difficulties over the course of a decade before the first plane even got off the ground.
|