Collings F-4 & UH-1

Holedigger · **Posted:** Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:23 pm

Progress being made, roadblocks, if not cleared...sidestepped :evil:

looks like things are closing in on a flyer!

So, just how fast does that truck go with those two big jet engines on it! :shock:

RickH · **Posted:** Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:30 pm

Not fast enough ! That was a looonnnggg trip in that big truck. I was coming down the backside of Tehachipi pass, in the dark, with 10,000 lbs of J-79 hanging over my head. NOT FUN !!

I don't intend to do that again,...ever ! After I unloaded in Northern CA, I still had to drive it back to Houston. The whole trip was made just ahead nad then just behind a major winter storm. Notice the white stuff under the truck, that isn't snow, it's ice !

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:45 pm

You know Rick... that sounds kinda familiar... General shows up and says contract isn't valid because the people who signed it, "Weren't Authorized"...

Looks like Collings and the CAF really need to get together and make a push at Congress to force the DoD and subordinate services to honor the contracts and titles they've assigned since it is apparent that at minimum the USAF is incapable of doing so.

mlenoch · **Posted:** Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:04 am

Rick:
I musta missed a previous post; the 'Oyster' scheme has been replaced. What is the new scheme?
Thx,
VL

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:46 am

Hi Vlado, We redid the paint inhouse it is now 63-7680. 8TFW 497 FS.

Bob Schuler( an 8TFW vet and our F4 CC ) was able to get hold of Gen Dannie James and asked him to speak with Robin regarding paint schemes. Robin was very pleased that we were considering painting one of his aircraft. He told Gen James that he would like us to do 680. He passed away two days after the conversation.

680 was the aircraft the Col Olds was flying the day of Operation Bolo. It has the single kill star. 680 was credited with an additional kill by another crew which it carried the second star until lost on a later mission. The real 680 was never recovered, her pilot was lost, and it went down in the South China Sea. Her WSO was rescued but later perished on another mission.

RickH · **Posted:** Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:26 pm

Noise heard today in clear Lake was the F-4. Trim runs are complete, a few minor things are left. We expect to be airborne within a few weeks, if not days. Will update when able !

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:45 pm

RickH wrote:

If the guys who come down the road can ignore a valid legal contract by simply saying that the people who signed it were not authorized, then NO contract signed by the USAF is worth the paper its written on.

Because of past actions by USAF personnel, I'm afraid that we have to treat any interaction with USAF hierachy as hostile.

Didn't we just go thru that with the F-82 ? a signed contract was dissmissed because it was signed by someone who was not authorized ?

Ztex · **Posted:** Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:50 pm

RickH wrote:

Noise heard today in clear Lake was the F-4. Trim runs are complete, a few minor things are left. We expect to be airborne within a few weeks, if not days. Will update when able !

I'll bet that sounded wonderful!

Thanks for the update.

aseanaero · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:00 am

Quote:

When a spare was requested the USAF balked, saying that they couldn't release an engine without first demilling it, which would render it useless. A signed copy of the agreement signed by the Collings Foundation and USAF representatives was produced and the 2 star in charge of Air Force Material Command determined through his lawyers that the contract signed in 1999 wasn't any good because the AF personnel who signed it were not authorized

I would have thought it would have been a simple matter of getting a letter from someone who is authorised to ratify the previous agreement and problem solved , I guess the mood has changed to civilian operated flying exhibits of jet fighters within the US military and government after 9-11.

Must be frustrating to have all those spares sitting at AMARC and yet you can't get easy access to it.

Quote:

his lawyers that the contract signed in 1999 wasn't any good because the AF personnel who signed it were not authorized

I'm not a lawyer but this excuse is a bit weak , I think ostensible authority and apparent authority are the terms. The air force at the time believed they were entering a contract and you also believed you were entering a contract and if someone of 'implied authority' signed that contract on behalf of the air force you have a contract. There must be some US trained lawyers here on WIX ...

The fact they offered to deliver the engines demilled means they also think they have a contract , they've just changed the delivery terms.

Either way if you do have a valid contract the damage has been done as usually in these situations it's much better to have a good relationship than a confrontational one as they can still make life difficult in other ways if there is a choice of difficult or easy solutions to problems for taking delivery of the goods. For example like refusing to load the engines onto a truck with a AF owned fork lift and then refusing entry to the base for a rental fork lift, I've been in this type of situation before and they eventually get resolved but it's EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING and time consuming.

RareBear · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:31 am

Rick,

Have you enlisted the assistance of your U. S. Senators to investigate this practice of the USAF's negating previously signed contracts? There needs to be a stop put to this practice of the USAF.

This practice casts a shadow over any type of contract signed by any USAF representative anywhere, at any level.

Walt

aseanaero · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:22 am

Quote:

Ostensible (or apparent) authority relates to the doctrines of agency. In the area of agency, there are three parties: The Principal, the Agent and the Third party.

Ostensible authority is manifested in the representation made by the Principal to a Third party that the Agent has authority to undertake certain acts or enter certain agreements even though the Agent may in fact not have any actual authority from the Principal.

The doctrine of Estoppel comes into play here to prevent the Principal from ascerting to the Third party that the Agent has authority when in fact he doesn't, and then subsequently the Principal seeks to reneg on an agreement on the basis that the Agent never had actual authority.

In law, ostensible authority refers to the apparent authority of an agent as it appears to others,[1] and it can operate both to enlarge actual authority and to create authority where no actual authority exists.[2] The law relating to companies and to ostensible authority are in reality only a sub-set of the rules relating to apparent authority and the law of agency generally, but because of the prevalence of the issue in relation to corporate law (companies, being artificial persons, are only ever able to act at all through their human agents), it has developed its own specific body of case law. However, some jurisdictions use the terms interchangeably.

Sounds exactly like your situation Rick

In this case the Air Force officer is the agent signing the original agreement on behalf of the air force (the principal), in my opinion you should have a binding agreement.

If the original agreement was signed by a janitor or something they could argue not authorised but I'm betting it was signed at least by a Colonel who you would have reason to believe to be an 'authorized person'.

If Congress handed down an instruction to DoD who then handed it down to the Air Force and then you were told to sign an agreement with that nominated person you have a legally binding agreement even if signing that agreement was not technically in his job description , he was authorised the moment he contacted you on behalf of the Air Force.

More can be read here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensible_authority

They're trying to bluff you for whatever reason.

airnutz · **Posted:** Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:14 pm

RickH wrote:

Noise heard today in clear Lake was the F-4. Trim runs are complete, a few minor things are left. We expect to be airborne within a few weeks, if not days. Will update when able !

Congratulations!!! She sounds and looks wonderful where she belongs!!!Whoopeee! :drink3:

sgt hawk · **Posted:** Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:26 pm

The GE J79's were known black smokers but the "Pencil Neck Morons" who are temporary custodians of these engines and fear anything that might be a "Career Destruction" situation will say "NO" everytime. This is an aircraft of my generation and sadly, this is the only one I may be lucky enough to see again. Some Military Officers are nothing but Bureaucrats that all wear the same clothes (In their case, blue).

airnutz · **Posted:** Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:39 pm

SUUUHHHWEEEEET!!!! :heart:

She just went directly overhead...this time a bit fatter hand at the throttle...
roaring, ripping/whistle/shriek/howl..sumbich sounds great!

K5DH · **Posted:** Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:24 pm

Rick,

Will the F-4 make it to the Cowtown Warbird Roundup this year?

Cheers!

Warbird Information Exchange

Collings F-4 & UH-1

Who is online