Well, I want the opportunity to be able to fly in these sorts of aircraft, regardless of the danger or lack of adherence to modern airworthiness standards.
Collings have another hideously dangerous machine in their collection (sarcasm alert).
The design is nearly 60 years old.
It's so dangerous that it took a special act of Congress for them to be allowed to obtain it.
The passenger sits on an explosive seat, in a machine that weighs 30 US tons MAUW.
That passenger has an 18,000 lb thrust turbojet just behind them on either side - being fed by 2000 US gallons of jet fuel.
This entire, hideously dangerous machine can travel at just over Mach 2.
And God only knows - if I ever get the chance to fly in 65-0749 - I will grab it with both hands.
And if I died doing so - I couldn't think of a better way to go.
Very sad to hear of the dead and injured - but I fully agree with the sentiment of marvelling at a real WW2 bomber in flight, and the passion of those who restore them.
The safety of people on the ground is a perfectly valid consideration.
But if accidents like this and Shoreham lead to overzealous regulatory crackdowns - we will be much the poorer for it in my view.
Maybe part of the B-17 experience is appreciating that some very brave and frightened young men defended their country flying in machines that weren't massively over engineered, and rapidly churned out.
A decade later, but look at the interior of a Vulcan.
Black, full of wires, pipes, gauges and dials.
No concessions to comfort - beaten up and scratched and scarred.
The odd cushion, and piece of padding - insulation, but its designed for a purpose - as confronting as that may be.