Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:29 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine Luftwaffe Resource Center WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:21 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm
Posts: 919
Quote:
Its really going to get sad here in the US when in 8 to 10 years, 8 B-17's, 17 B-25's a B-24 and several WW2 fighters are made into Miller Lite cans!


Isn't that getting a bit carried away? I know people get emotional about warbirds but scrapping 8 B-17's, 17 B-25's a B-24 because there are duplicates in other musuems will never happen.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:43 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 8:26 pm
Posts: 583
PinecastleAAF wrote:
Quote:
Its really going to get sad here in the US when in 8 to 10 years, 8 B-17's, 17 B-25's a B-24 and several WW2 fighters are made into Miller Lite cans!


Isn't that getting a bit carried away? I know people get emotional about warbirds but scrapping 8 B-17's, 17 B-25's a B-24 because there are duplicates in other musuems will never happen.



I hope you are correct, but I doubt you are. Many of these aircraft are on active bases. The vast majority of the current crop of officers don't have much attachment to history. If they begin to become an eyesore they may go away. Museums in general will continue to struggle for funding in the current economic climate, especially the military funded. We may wake up one day and find one scrapped because it is easier for the commanding officer of the base to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.

Hasn't the NMUSAF recently themselves scrapped a B-47, probably more rare than a B-25 or B-17? I know for sure they authorized the scrapping of an F-84 in Kenosha, WI a few years ago. Not a rare airplane...at this point. But how many more will go the same route?

I think we need to constantly remind ourselves that warbird fans are few and far between. When you are an enthusiast it is hard to recognize that. When I was running a warbird enthusiast centric buisness (Warbird Digest) it was altogether obvious how small our community of interest really is. It will get even smaller as the last of the WWII vets go west, and then as their children follow them. Sadly, most kids today don't even know what Pearl Harbor is. You think they care about a B-17?

As for the B-25s..some of the ones on outdoor display are in such poor condition they would be monumental restoration projects for a private collector. A couple I have seen won't keep their wings on for much longer if the intragranular corrosion continues on the attach angles

Just my two cents...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:52 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:23 pm
Posts: 2101
Location: Atlanta, GA
I think Tim is correct. Although it is "unlikely" that a WWII airframe would be scrapped in a forgiveness-over-permission scenario, it is "possible".

When I visited Robins AFB the other day I noticed a number of airplanes with decals which said, "STOP, consult so and so before entry", which I assume referenced the presence of radium/radioactivity. Maybe the NMUSAF should rivet a placard somewhere on every loaned airframe that says in essence, "STOP, do not tamper/alter/repair/destroy this museum artifact without contacting 1-800-SAV-AVET", or whatever. Although it is popular to believe that every base commander is a rogue destroyer of static airframes, it is more likely that simple ignorance down the chain (which now includes a lot of contractors) could see a static chopped by mistake. This is another plus for the placard idea, as it may not stop Base Contracting, but it might provide necessary pause to the guy with the torch.

MH also made some great points about not being able to save them all. I've got two words: politics and money. If a person (private or public) decides that anything in this world will get attention, and rallies the necessary amount of support to accomplish that goal, then that's essentially politics, with some leadership sprinkled in. And, without funding, politics is impotent.

Shift of gears: can anyone say where the new home of the Robins T-38 will be???

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:58 am 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:46 pm
Posts: 515
Location: CYYJ
Ken wrote:
Shift of gears: can anyone say where the new home of the Robins T-38 will be???

Ken
Vance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:20 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:23 pm
Posts: 2101
Location: Atlanta, GA
WallyB wrote:
Ken wrote:
Shift of gears: can anyone say where the new home of the Robins T-38 will be???

Ken
Vance.

Is there a chance this airplane will be indoors? Paging Hacker ...

Everyone has their deal, mine is to keep statics as much as time capsules as is possible, even when that goes against the desire of the museum. An example of where this was botched was when the NMUSAF stripped their VT ANG B-57 time capsule in order to make it look like it did in SEA. Lots of good details lost forever.

I've seen this T-38 in person a number of times and I flew them back in the day. This airplane looked as if it was towed indoors right off the flightline. I know the Museum has its reasons, but, d@mn, a jet with such a small floorspace footprint, which appeared to me as needing no attention or funding, in time capsule condition, being sent to Vance where AETC's MO is typically to repaint in base colors, strip of parts, and paint the canopies ... UGH.

Maybe there's a happy ending here I'm not aware of ...

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:52 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:23 pm
Posts: 2101
Location: Atlanta, GA
A few cellphone pix (my apologies) from my visit on 29 Mar 2013:

Four of the evicted:
Image

Five birds waiting to be returned indoors; not sure if they're keeping this F-4C or the F-4D (all looked immaculate):
Image

Super sweet White Rocket:
Image

IIRC, this was a former Lackland police trainer; now indoors:
Image

I logged about :15 sitting in and studying the F-105D procedures trainer next to the F-105D which was apropos since I just finished Rasimus' first book. Thankfully there were no 10-year-olds waiting their turn :wink: :
Image

Sometimes I'm reminded of some of the gems in museums that aren't the aircraft themselves. Wish there were some sort of online repository so everyone could enjoy these works of art. This is one of MANY on display and the photo doesn't do it justice:
Image

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:58 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 5163
Location: Waukegan,Illinois
PinecastleAAF wrote:
Quote:
Its really going to get sad here in the US when in 8 to 10 years, 8 B-17's, 17 B-25's a B-24 and several WW2 fighters are made into Miller Lite cans!


Isn't that getting a bit carried away? I know people get emotional about warbirds but scrapping 8 B-17's, 17 B-25's a B-24 because there are duplicates in other musuems will never happen.

Then what will happen to them?

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:58 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:23 pm
Posts: 481
I visited the museum for the first time yesterday. Of course as soon as I got there it started raining, but it stopped long enough for me to look at everything outside. In relation to the posted photos above the 102 and 106 are inside the Century of Flight hanger now. As is the T-33 which is up on stilts but only about 4 feet. The recently painted Phantom is still outside missing it's outboard wings. The F-100 fuselage is in the "restoration area" of the Scott hanger along with the other F-100, F-86, Jetstar, H-19, H-21 and U3 (which was being painted). The F-105 is still there in pieces outside. I didn't see a F-104, so it must be gone. Some aircraft were missing pieces, The Albatross had no engines and the Caribou had no leading edge on the wings.

There was a rendering of what the Hanger One would look like. It had the Phantom and F-100 (in SEA Camo) along with what aircraft are already there. It appears the U6 Beaver will be removed from the Hanger. The three outlying buildings (Hanger One, Century of Flight, and Scott Hanger) all had room to include more (fighter size) aircraft. There has obviously been a lot of movement of planes within the hangers. The B-29 is on the upper level of the Scott Hanger now which makes it hard to see the whole plane.

I talked to one of the employees about what was going on. He said that all of the aircraft that had been or were going to be moved so far were all going to other museums. When I asked about the larger planes he admitted all would likely be scrapped as the costs to move them were likely too much for other museums to afford. I bought some swag at the gift shop and made a drop into the donation box as I left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:23 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm
Posts: 919
Quote:
Then what will happen to them?


Best case scenario is they are put up for sealed bid to the public like some of the other duplicates the Air Force Musuem has had. Worst case is some get scrapped. I think the scrapping of WW2 airframes currently on display at a musuem somewhere is highly unlikely no matter how poor the condition is. I can't imagine any situation where they all get scrapped short of WW3.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:40 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 3123
Location: Eastern Washington
Things would have to get pretty bad for a base to give up its static aircraft.
At most of the bases I was at or am familiar with, the unit (and local civilians/retirees/vets groups) takes some pride in a noce collection...BUT (and there is always a but.. :) ), I could see the NMUSAF willingly scrapping an aircraft before selling it...especially anything newer than a B-17.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:08 am 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 am
Posts: 445
Location: Shalimar, FL
If you are a bonafied museum, contact Ken Emory (478) 926-6870 to find out if you CAN get one of the aircraft. It will still be property of the USAF; but, you will have an A/C that all you have to do is get from point A-B.

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:58 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10022
I know that at a minimum, POF has returned all their USAF and USN owned static display aircraft due to the hassle of dealing with the military "oversight."

I think they would be considered a bonifide museum.

I'm sure other museums have done the same. And no, POF didn't return the F-102 because the military wouldn't let them get it airworthy.

One of the problems is that a museum can spend a lot of money in upkeep and restoration, only to have the military devise a flimsy excuse to recall the aircraft to give to another, more politically favored museum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:32 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:43 am
Posts: 319
I saw the B-17 there last week, Brandon. Has ownership been transferred to the Museum now?
Chris...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:35 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10022
Years ago. That's why they are trying to collect funds for restoration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:28 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 am
Posts: 445
Location: Shalimar, FL
So, all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about getting rid of the MoA Aircraft and saving them is pointless?

I've seen so many pole dancers and grass shade machines that, technically, are still property of the USAF in such terrible shape and the NMUSAF doesn't do squat to pull them back. I think the chicken sugar that the NMUSAF has is with organizations that have flying aircraft in addition to the USAF loaners and they are worried that the ones they've loaned to that type organization may be returned to flight behind their back. NOT SAYING ANYONE WOULD DO THAT just conjecture on my part.

If you have a real museum and want to TRY to save one of these birds PLEASE do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ew51, Google [Bot], HMFischer, leo and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group