Vulcan Bomber still flying Why not a B-47 or B-58

[RickH]

CAPFlyer, you are WRONG ! There is only ONE civilian F-4 flying in the world. The other USAF F-4s are USAF assets with the drone program. They are first and foremost drones, they WILL be expended eventually, fancy paint not withstanding.

There is no individual AF or Navy policy when it comes to flying jets. It is DoD policy that the services follow. Yes, it is true that when it comes to WWII aircraft that they two museums approach them in different ways. The Navy maintains that the AF Museum has no authority to use the hands off policy that they do. Therefore the NHC maintains that they hold ownership in perpetuity regardless of location.

Jets are a different matter, both services approach them the same way.

CIVILIANS and CIVILIAN ORGANIZATIONS have no busines owning and operating high performance jets. They are a continued liability and a threat to the US Govt.

Even when faced with Congressional action they will fight the release of any tactical turbine aircraft till the bitter end, in some cases they will continue to fight it long after the turnover.

Once again, I'll state that the policy is assinine and it is perpetuated by govt. bureaucrats who are afraid of their own employers, ie: the citizens of this country. If it was left up to the people in the DoD and DLA demil offices they would trash the Constitution in order to sieze these types of assets from their rightful legal owners and scrap them. This doesn't just affect aircraft, it also affects military vehicles, weapons, etc...

[Steve Nelson]

I thought the last B-47 to fly was the one at Pueblo, CO..I remember seeing an N-number painted on it back in the mid '80s.

SN

[Mike]

I thought the last B-47 to fly was the one at Pueblo, CO..I remember seeing an N-number painted on it back in the mid '80s.

http://www.elite.net/castle-air/boeingb47.html

And here's what it looked like when I visited 2 weeks ago.

[KRM_Bear]

Didn't the Navy have a couple of modified B-47's that flew as some sort of "electroninc threat simulators" or something to that effect into the 90's? I remember reading something about their retirement...

Nope, my mistake, Google says Navy EB-47E were retired in 1977...

I don't know where I came up with 90's...

[JohnH]

I thought the last B-47 to fly was the one at Pueblo, CO..I remember seeing an N-number painted on it back in the mid '80s.

SN

No I've been there, and that airplane's last flight was definitely before the Castle AFB airplane.

John

[mjanovec]

Yes, but there are F-4s (USAF only), T-33s, T-38s, P-80s, F-86s, ect. flying.

There are no P-80s flying that I know of. But there are several T-33s.

I also believe Cavanaugh has an airworthy F9F, but I'm not sure how much it flies.

I would love to see an F-84 Thunderjet fly someday. I wonder if any are under consideration for airworthy restorations.

[RickH]

MJANVEC, as long as the AF Museum or the NMNA hold title, they will never fly.

I assure you that if any airframes out there are considered to be in a gray area as it relates to qwnership, any hint of flying one will have the investigative authorities all over the individuals contemplating operation.

[rwdfresno]

We sold a very restorable F9F-2 with a good engine to Kermit several years ago, I wouldn't be surprised to see it fly one of these days.

[Firebird]

The USAF has been much more ameniable to allowing its former aircraft fly in the civilian world

Yeah right.......

That theory didn't work out too well with the recent sorry saga of that last AMARC F-105 did it..........

[mustangdriver]

I heard that there was a guy trying to rebuild a B-47 somewhere? It could be just one of those rumors I guess. I also heard that the guys that used to have the B-36 in Ft. Worth wanted to fly it one last time to KOSH, and that Gulf oil said that they would donate all of the fuel and oil. Of course it never took place, but I wonder if that is true or not.

[rwdfresno]

That B-36 in Ft. Worth (now at Pima) was far from flyable in my opinion.

[Nathan]

$$$$$

Last edited by Nathan on Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[mustangdriver]

That B-36 in Ft. Worth (now at Pima) was far from flyable in my opinion.

That is one of the reasons that the NMUSAF moved it I believe, though there were other reasons.

[P51Mstg]

One need remember why these planes were owned by the GOVT in the first place. Its not simple money and hands to turn wrenches that kept them flying, but there were a LOT of people behind the sidelines, ENGINEERS, etc that you would rarely see connected with warbirds.

Maybe the closest you find to this is Jack Rouche with his Merlin rebuilds and new pistons, fingers, etc. He finds the problem and engineers a solution.

At best the B-58 was a hard plane to keep flying once you got into it. The crews (maint and flight) would have to be about full time. Since they lost so many of them in crashes (26 crashed of 116 built) when they were fully supported by the USAF and manufacturer, imagine how long one would last in civilian hands?

Someone (I forget who) said that the only thing that was good that came out of B-58 Program was that the Russians tried to copy it (and spent a fortune on theirs).

Personally I think the B-58 was about the coolest thing ever to fly up to the F-22. Think that the B-58 crews went to their planes in 57 Chevy Nomad Wagons. Neat.

Civilian B-58 not possible.

Mark H

[Mudge]

Why did this thread get 4' wide allofasudden?

Mudge the scroller