>I mean don't get me wrong, display-only museums have their place too.
>If nothing else, it can be ravenously expensive keeping vintage
>aircraft flying, and I've known museums to put themselves out of
>business trying to go that extra mile, which ultimately does no one
>any favors. But if they have the wherewithal and the curatorial
>vision for it, I'm always up for that.

I'm of the opinion that aircraft and automobile museums which present their pieces as inoperable static displays rather miss the point. There are exceptions, such as the one-of-a-kind pieces that are so historically relevant that any amount of danger is too much, and I certainly don't expect museum staff to put the USS Intrepid back out to sea anytime soon. But if it can still fly and you can find an insurance company that will agree to sell you a policy, then let her stretch her wings once in awhile.

Of course, it does help that many of the men who maintain the museum as well as the planes are volunteers and the museum is located in a Navy town full of retirees with a lot of time on their hands. Plus they loan out pieces to other museums, such as the replica Me 262 that's presently on loan to a museum in Germany.

>Fair enough; not everyone believed the P-63 or its predecessor were
>airworthy at the time. :)
>
>--G.
>don't give me a P-39
>with an engine that's mounted behind
>it will tumble and roll
>and dig a big hole
>don't give me a P-39

Kobrastochka suffered from that problem that started cropping up as designers moved into designing jet fighters: center-of-gravity. They designed and tested assuming a full load of ammunition in the nose, which is why they could never get it to tumble in a wind tunnel. But remove that ammunition and the COG goes all to hell.