Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:22 pm
naturally, i'm all for homeland security..... but this de-mil philosophy while it has it's merits, also has it's de-merits, mostly in wasted time. yes, render them inoperable to deter wacko's foreign & domestic, but logistically as somebody stated, it's inherently impossible to obtain every component to get a vietnam jet aged war horse flying again in the private sector, & even the towel heads couldn't muster the wrenching needed to do so. it's nothing but feel good foolishness from the defense dept re-utilization division that holds the auctions after they got some egg on their face some years back involving an f-18 that slipped through the cracks, & was sold, along with sensitive electronics. as to the sensitive stuff???? hack the crap out of it!!! but to hack a helmet, a wing from a plane with no power plant is a waste of our tax dollars. i've seen the defense dept. rules for their auctions, mostly absurd, but your uncle sam calls the shots & we taxpayer peckerwoods pay the bill!!!
Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:35 pm
MX304, legally anyone with a static aircraft, tank, jeep, or whatever on loan from a Govt entity cannot remove or sell parts off of that item. If you accept the loan of the item you are bound by the guidelines of the loan agreement ( see the A-12 Minneapolis thread ). So Evergreen MAY NOT work with anyone on parts from this aircraft. It is what it now is. A BIIIGGG paperweight ! 
Things are progressing on several fronts as far as the Foundation is concerned. Unfortunately as you guys now know the optimum candidate is now a nonstarter. Doesn't make it impossible but it sure doesn't make it any easier.
As far as anyone getting a Viet Nam era jet back into the air Tom, let me refer you to http://www.collingsfoundation.org. See F-4D, TA-4F. There are also a couple of F-100s out there. This one just flew on Dec. 15.
Things are progressing on several fronts as far as the Foundation is concerned. Unfortunately as you guys now know the optimum candidate is now a nonstarter. Doesn't make it impossible but it sure doesn't make it any easier.
As far as anyone getting a Viet Nam era jet back into the air Tom, let me refer you to http://www.collingsfoundation.org. See F-4D, TA-4F. There are also a couple of F-100s out there. This one just flew on Dec. 15.
Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:54 pm
point made rick, but i'm not referring to a foundation with the vast resources of deep pockets, govt. connections etc, such as collings, i'm talking about john q. wacko disgruntled american citizen, or some terrorist in a cave. while scary, the thought of some little enclave pulling off such a scheme is beyond the realm, it's what is tearing apart the confidence of the public. i sure don't have all the answers, but on the broad scope it's a long shot at best to get a jet warbird of that era built from the ground up WITH the weaponry from a small group of people with no equipment, support, or accessories & facilities to be a threat to national security.
Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:12 pm
I will tell you that this paranoia of the bureaucrats goes back way before 9-11. But don't think that they aren't willing to whip out the terror card.
While we were negotiating to get the TA-4 released to the Foundation a couple of things happened.
The TA-4 was released to the Foundation by Congressional action that resulted in a Public Law that authorized the transfer of an aircraft for flight purposes.
After 9-11 while fighting with a Navy lawyer about moving the selected aircraft and being sure that we got parts that had removed we recieved a letter. This letter hit on a bunch of points but one of the main ones was that the Navy was understandably nervous about releasing a tactical jet aircraft to a civilian organization. I pointed out that a 10,000 lb A-4 could be loaded up with all the fuel it could carry and if it flew into a building they would likely just hose it off of the sidewalk where it fell. There was very little correlation to the jet we wanted and a B757 loaded with 100,000 lbs of JP-8. They just couldn't grasp the concept.
In their arrogance they were still fighting and delaying the inevitable. The Law said they HAD to give it up. But they didn't have to like it !
I asked verbally and in writing multiple times "since when did DoD policy supercede public law?". I never got an answer. It took us a year to actually move the aircraft out of AMARC,...to the day. We were told that a Deed of Gift would be ready within a couple of weeks of movement. Took another year ,...almost to the day. The aircraft sat and couldn't be touched, inspected or anything until the DoG transferring the aircraft was executed.
These people "who work for us" are going to fight any release of a flying, tactical, turbine aircraft.
While we were negotiating to get the TA-4 released to the Foundation a couple of things happened.
The TA-4 was released to the Foundation by Congressional action that resulted in a Public Law that authorized the transfer of an aircraft for flight purposes.
After 9-11 while fighting with a Navy lawyer about moving the selected aircraft and being sure that we got parts that had removed we recieved a letter. This letter hit on a bunch of points but one of the main ones was that the Navy was understandably nervous about releasing a tactical jet aircraft to a civilian organization. I pointed out that a 10,000 lb A-4 could be loaded up with all the fuel it could carry and if it flew into a building they would likely just hose it off of the sidewalk where it fell. There was very little correlation to the jet we wanted and a B757 loaded with 100,000 lbs of JP-8. They just couldn't grasp the concept.
In their arrogance they were still fighting and delaying the inevitable. The Law said they HAD to give it up. But they didn't have to like it !
I asked verbally and in writing multiple times "since when did DoD policy supercede public law?". I never got an answer. It took us a year to actually move the aircraft out of AMARC,...to the day. We were told that a Deed of Gift would be ready within a couple of weeks of movement. Took another year ,...almost to the day. The aircraft sat and couldn't be touched, inspected or anything until the DoG transferring the aircraft was executed.
These people "who work for us" are going to fight any release of a flying, tactical, turbine aircraft.
Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:26 pm
i feel your pain!! the u.s. cog wheel of red tape just mounts!! it totally sucks!! your trying to do some good for the historical benefit of the u.s. public, & they are putting you under a magnifying glass like a criminal threat. 
it's not fair.
it's not fair.
Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:26 pm
When was that first pic taken? Whose C-97 is that in the foreground?
Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:26 pm
When was that first pic taken? Whose C-97 is that in the foreground?
Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:54 pm
Airlift48 wrote:When was that first pic taken? Whose C-97 is that in the foreground?
Picture taken at AMARC, Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ. I believe the yard its in, along with the C-97, is a civilian operated salvage company located at AMARC.
Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:59 pm
The first picture was taken Saturday a week ago. C-97 is in the Aircraft Restoration yard ( as stated previously, a civilian yard outside of the AMARC fence.)
F-105G 62-4432
Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:48 pm
Hey all,
I don't usually post on here, but I figured I would. This bird is, in fact, over at Evergreen. I was standing under it this afternoon. She's in ok shape. Not great, but certainly not terrible. The guy I spoke to said that she's their next restoration project. As a Thud fan, I can't wait! Too bad about the engine mounts though.
They've got some other incredible pieces there, although all are in need of full restorations.
Jon
I don't usually post on here, but I figured I would. This bird is, in fact, over at Evergreen. I was standing under it this afternoon. She's in ok shape. Not great, but certainly not terrible. The guy I spoke to said that she's their next restoration project. As a Thud fan, I can't wait! Too bad about the engine mounts though.
They've got some other incredible pieces there, although all are in need of full restorations.
Jon
Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:28 pm
Is it correct to assume that a Thud's motor mounts are some kind of major structural part? I usually hear of them cutting spars etc.
Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:20 pm
I know lots of thuds got grounded because of broken wing spars. We had one sitting at England AFB for months, waiting on a plan to scrap it or fix it when it was discovered with cracked spar during preflight while it was TDY for some war games back in the 70's. They finally fixed it and flew it home to George AFB.
Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:49 pm
RickH wrote:Info that was submitted stated that the aircraft would be restored for static display at Evergreen's facility located at Marana. It would then be shipped to Oregon.
Tim, yes this was the potential flyer. The demil was fast tracked and the motor mounts cut to preclude any further hope of flight. This airframe is done for flying. Word has it that when the cockpits were opened they were pristine.
Thats sad thay have to hack up a piece of history like that.
Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:02 pm
For thos who asked about the spar.
About the time that the motor mounts were cut several museums with static Thuds recd cryptic phone calls from folks with NMUSAF. They were asked if the spars were cut on the aircraft the museums had on display. When informed that they were not and could not be cut because of main gear placement the calls stopped. Apparently the decision was made to cut the motor mounts to disable the aircraft since the aircraft can't stand up with a cut spar.
About the time that the motor mounts were cut several museums with static Thuds recd cryptic phone calls from folks with NMUSAF. They were asked if the spars were cut on the aircraft the museums had on display. When informed that they were not and could not be cut because of main gear placement the calls stopped. Apparently the decision was made to cut the motor mounts to disable the aircraft since the aircraft can't stand up with a cut spar.
Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:59 pm
that's a bit ridiculous,
B
B