USAF museum and the CAF
Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:43 pm
On another thread I said if the AF museum is not stopped over the ownership of the F-82, that the B-29 could be next. I was not joking, the agreement for the B-29 was not much different. Also, several years ago, in a defense dept funding bill, there was a item that called for the Demilling of ex military items, including items sold years and decades before. If it had not been stopped, in theory, they could have gone to a owner of a P-51 and demand it be demilled and rendered unusable, as well as doing the same to any surplus items, such as trucks, jeeps, rifles. It was only stopped because warbird owners, and groups like the EAA raised h e l l.
The 900 lb gorilla needs to be reminded where his bananas are coming from.
The 900 lb gorilla needs to be reminded where his bananas are coming from.
Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:46 pm
Didnt the Navy own Fifi when she was at China Lake?
Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:48 pm
Yes, but stop getting facts in the way of my his NMUSAF bashing fun.
Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:14 am
From "Fifi" Boeing B-29 Superfortress, American Air Power Heritage Series No. 002 copyright 1981 The Confederate Air Force:
P. 21 "As word of the search [for a B-29] spread, CAF Headquarters finally received a report from a pilot who recalled seeing a large number of aircraft resembling B-29's in the desert area of California. This focused CAF attention on The Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California. An inquiry to Naval personnel confirmed that the aircraft were indeed B-29's - but that they were still the property of the United States Air Force. They had been supplied to the Navy to be used as targets in weapons tests and could not be disposed of without prior approval of the Air Force Logistics Command.
In following up this report the Air Force was hesitant to believe that there were B-29's still in existence. However, the Air Force Logistics Command agreed that if such was the case the CAF could have its choice of any that were determined to be surplus to needs of the Navy at China Lake."
And a few paragraphs later, now on page 22: "Following weeks of paperwork with both the Air Force and the Navy, the CAF finally became the owner of a B-29 Superfortress."
P. 21 "As word of the search [for a B-29] spread, CAF Headquarters finally received a report from a pilot who recalled seeing a large number of aircraft resembling B-29's in the desert area of California. This focused CAF attention on The Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California. An inquiry to Naval personnel confirmed that the aircraft were indeed B-29's - but that they were still the property of the United States Air Force. They had been supplied to the Navy to be used as targets in weapons tests and could not be disposed of without prior approval of the Air Force Logistics Command.
In following up this report the Air Force was hesitant to believe that there were B-29's still in existence. However, the Air Force Logistics Command agreed that if such was the case the CAF could have its choice of any that were determined to be surplus to needs of the Navy at China Lake."
And a few paragraphs later, now on page 22: "Following weeks of paperwork with both the Air Force and the Navy, the CAF finally became the owner of a B-29 Superfortress."
Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:32 am
I would be interested in seeing the original documents, but I think that rational analysis of the court decision in the other thread establishes that the situations are very different and there is no obvious reason for concern about Fifi.
CAF publications have always mixed fact with self-serving myth and legend, and I don't regard them as credible on this.
August
CAF publications have always mixed fact with self-serving myth and legend, and I don't regard them as credible on this.
August
Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:35 am
k5083 wrote:CAF publications have always mixed fact with self-serving myth and legend, and I don't regard them as credible on this.
So unlike any air force or its museum, of course.
Let the lawyers and politicians sort it out?
Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:21 am
History has a funny way of repeating itself when we aren't looking.
Matt is dead-on correct with the background behind this odd piece of political wiggling within the DoD a few years back. Had it passed, there could have been all kinds of ripples in our warbird pond (that isn't very deep or wide to begin with). The issue of a USAAF, USN or any piece of mil equipment from any service branch would have fallen under this perverse little bit of proposed legislation.
Hate to bring it up, but I remember this issue like it was yesterday. I even went so far as to contact my political representatives here in AZ to voice my concern and to enquire about their positions on said.
One senator here from Arizona was very vocal about his opinion on this proposal, and stated he "didn't believe that it was in the general public's best interest to have military surplus equipment in the hands of civilians." Admittedly, this was a direct quote from the Senator's public relations office and not whispered into my ear directly by the man himself, but this was his official position.
I enquired just how inclusive this position was - did he mean ALL mil surplus, or anything in particular, such as vehicles - or airplanes?
Again, the response from the PR office was quite specific - that the general public had no business owning hardware that had been specifically built by or for the military - and yes, that included airplanes. Reasons cited included technology, operational cost, trained manpower to fly and maintain, etc. Standard canned-response stuff you'd expect from a public relations person attached to a Senator. When pressed from me specifically about vintage aircraft versus contemporary aircraft surplused into the civilian section, there was no specific comment. They hadn't made a distinction between someone owning a P-51 or wanting to own an F-15 other than these were both types of military airplanes. Military plane + John Q. Public owning = BAD. That was the formula on the media rep's notepad when people called.
I watched this issue flop around in Washington and for whatever reason it never gained full political support. Fortunately for us, it died on the vine and for once, a little common sense prevailed. Final analysis of it all was that it was far too encompassing. But the tail end of this proposal did indeed grow legs. As a result ALL of our nation's surplus aviation technology is disposed of in such a way that private ownership of a complete airframe - or something that could be made into a flyable aircraft - is completely impossible.
I never forgot about this Senator's position on ownership of military hardware - as I found it rather ironic, himself having been a Naval aviator, and his father-in-law having flown in a CAF B-17 for his 70th birthday just a few years prior. I'd kinda suspected he liked military airplanes.
Seems to me this very same fellow has been on the news here once or twice lately and could possibly take charge of the most important political office position in our nation. Wonder if his political position has changed on this issue any over the years?
Again, Matt is correct as the issue between a private organization and a national museum could indeed set a precedent on ownership issues - or at least bring it back again into the light for public review and debate.
Matt is dead-on correct with the background behind this odd piece of political wiggling within the DoD a few years back. Had it passed, there could have been all kinds of ripples in our warbird pond (that isn't very deep or wide to begin with). The issue of a USAAF, USN or any piece of mil equipment from any service branch would have fallen under this perverse little bit of proposed legislation.
Hate to bring it up, but I remember this issue like it was yesterday. I even went so far as to contact my political representatives here in AZ to voice my concern and to enquire about their positions on said.
One senator here from Arizona was very vocal about his opinion on this proposal, and stated he "didn't believe that it was in the general public's best interest to have military surplus equipment in the hands of civilians." Admittedly, this was a direct quote from the Senator's public relations office and not whispered into my ear directly by the man himself, but this was his official position.
I enquired just how inclusive this position was - did he mean ALL mil surplus, or anything in particular, such as vehicles - or airplanes?
Again, the response from the PR office was quite specific - that the general public had no business owning hardware that had been specifically built by or for the military - and yes, that included airplanes. Reasons cited included technology, operational cost, trained manpower to fly and maintain, etc. Standard canned-response stuff you'd expect from a public relations person attached to a Senator. When pressed from me specifically about vintage aircraft versus contemporary aircraft surplused into the civilian section, there was no specific comment. They hadn't made a distinction between someone owning a P-51 or wanting to own an F-15 other than these were both types of military airplanes. Military plane + John Q. Public owning = BAD. That was the formula on the media rep's notepad when people called.
I watched this issue flop around in Washington and for whatever reason it never gained full political support. Fortunately for us, it died on the vine and for once, a little common sense prevailed. Final analysis of it all was that it was far too encompassing. But the tail end of this proposal did indeed grow legs. As a result ALL of our nation's surplus aviation technology is disposed of in such a way that private ownership of a complete airframe - or something that could be made into a flyable aircraft - is completely impossible.
I never forgot about this Senator's position on ownership of military hardware - as I found it rather ironic, himself having been a Naval aviator, and his father-in-law having flown in a CAF B-17 for his 70th birthday just a few years prior. I'd kinda suspected he liked military airplanes.
Seems to me this very same fellow has been on the news here once or twice lately and could possibly take charge of the most important political office position in our nation. Wonder if his political position has changed on this issue any over the years?
Again, Matt is correct as the issue between a private organization and a national museum could indeed set a precedent on ownership issues - or at least bring it back again into the light for public review and debate.
Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:46 am
JDK wrote:k5083 wrote:CAF publications have always mixed fact with self-serving myth and legend, and I don't regard them as credible on this.
So unlike any air force or its museum, of course.
Quite right James. It just happened to be a CAF publication being quoted here.
August
Re: Let the lawyers and politicians sort it out?
Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:33 am
Pooner wrote:
Seems to me this very same fellow has been on the news here once or twice lately and could possibly take charge of the most important political office position in our nation. Wonder if his political position has changed on this issue any over the years?
Scary. I had no idea.
Re: Let the lawyers and politicians sort it out?
Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:34 pm
Django wrote:Pooner wrote:
Seems to me this very same fellow has been on the news here once or twice lately and could possibly take charge of the most important political office position in our nation. Wonder if his political position has changed on this issue any over the years?
Scary. I had no idea.
This same fellow also made a statement about airline workers a few years back, "Airline workers make to much money".
Our group of employees had gone 8 years without a pay raise and wanted to strike. I guess we were being greedy.
The Senate still votes in thier own raises, right?
Last edited by mike furline on Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let the lawyers and politicians sort it out?
Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:56 pm
Django wrote:Pooner wrote:
Seems to me this very same fellow has been on the news here once or twice lately and could possibly take charge of the most important political office position in our nation. Wonder if his political position has changed on this issue any over the years?
Scary. I had no idea.
To look at the other side with a fanatical approach to killing gasoline powered cars and no new drilling for oil I can see other issues for fuel
costs and availability. To have and be able to operate these aircraft would be nice.
Hopefully common sense will prevail. Otherwise we can form a PAC and lobby Piper Palin. At least she should be able to be approachable on keeping aircraft flying. I think she is named after their Super Cub's maker.
Rich
Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:54 pm
k5083 wrote:I would be interested in seeing the original documents, but I think that rational analysis of the court decision in the other thread establishes that the situations are very different and there is no obvious reason for concern about Fifi.
CAF publications have always mixed fact with self-serving myth and legend, and I don't regard them as credible on this.
August
I have seen the original documents on both aircraft. Who's self serving?
Everyone wants to take a shot at the CAF. You work for the media?
The CAF has legend we should all be thankful for. You don't have to join.
Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:18 pm
There might be an opportunity to educate the Senator about civilians operating former military aircraft firsthand in the very near future.
I was right in the middle of said proposed legislation all three times it has come up. In order to get anywhere with your elected representatives you have to get past the gatekeepers. I'll venture that said Senator knew nothing about what was going on. Most didn't until they were shown first hand then they couldn't believe that DoD had nearly snuck by with a pece of language that went against so many tenets of the Constitution. Once one Senator's Chief of Staff found out that his M-1 collection was at risk, he became a very strong advocate for killing this part of the bill !
I was right in the middle of said proposed legislation all three times it has come up. In order to get anywhere with your elected representatives you have to get past the gatekeepers. I'll venture that said Senator knew nothing about what was going on. Most didn't until they were shown first hand then they couldn't believe that DoD had nearly snuck by with a pece of language that went against so many tenets of the Constitution. Once one Senator's Chief of Staff found out that his M-1 collection was at risk, he became a very strong advocate for killing this part of the bill !
Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:36 pm
FG1D Pilot wrote:k5083 wrote:I would be interested in seeing the original documents, but I think that rational analysis of the court decision in the other thread establishes that the situations are very different and there is no obvious reason for concern about Fifi.
CAF publications have always mixed fact with self-serving myth and legend, and I don't regard them as credible on this.
August
I have seen the original documents on both aircraft. Who's self serving?
Everyone wants to take a shot at the CAF. You work for the media?
The CAF has legend we should all be thankful for. You don't have to join.
Facts need to decide this one. Opinions are like A Holes, we all got em. If you don't like the CAF, take that fight up on your own ground, this is very serious business that can affect ownership of any ex military aircraft. Pick your side on this one very carefully. I usually don't get in peeing matches, but I can't let this one go by. Seems to me, once again, power & ego are trying to offset dedication, & patriotism.
LEST WE FORGET!
Robbie
CAF Life Member
Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:00 pm
The next Law 101 lesson......................looks like the case won't go your way...just outspend the other side. That way only the sharks (I mean lawyers) win. If the CAF wins the appeal what keeps the gumbit from appealing the appeal? Not lack of money. Remember lessson number one....throw out common sense and reason.