Warbird Information Exchange

The NMNA has done much for the preservation of our aviation heritage, I don't think anyone here will argue that. Most of us do take issue with how the NHC has been dealing with sunken aircraft by allowing them to return to nature.



I seem to be missing something here. Is there a perception in the warbird community at large that the NMNA is somehow responsible for the lack of recoveries in recent years? It is my impression that recoveries have stopped due to the NHC policy of leaving them as "archeological sites"

_________________
Dan Johnson

The attacks by the war bird community on the National Museum of Naval Aviation gave the NHC the opportunity to claim, to the Navy, that they would be better “Stuarts” of the resources. The law suits, the nasty news articles and all the other non-sense from the war bird community, which placed the Navy in a defensive position has caused them to go to the option of no access. From their point of view, at least there will no longer be any lawsuits, from which they will have to defend.

If you wish to try to fix something, join with the people you should have supported the whole time, the NMNA.

Taras

_________________
www.ATRecovery.com

Taras
I see that one of the SBDs recovered had Zebra Mussels on it. How much damage to the aircraft did they cause and what risk do they pose to the other a/c that are still in the lake?

I remember this topic was brought up before but that picture on your website reminded me of it again.

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

Being fairly new active participant to this scene (warbirds) this topic is a bit hard to separate personal feelings from "whats best".

I would ten times rather see a plane in the air than behind ropes with no access. I have often wondered why go to the expense of a full on flight worthy restoration when maybe only 10 people over the next 50 years will actually see the work inside the plane. But I also recognize that there is only 1 "Enola Gay" and to preserve it is critical. Or, to stick with Navy birds, there are precious few Buffalos left.

I think that it will take A LOT of sensible, objective communication between both sides - Navy and Private citizens to smooth this out. On the collectors side If I owned a Wildcat or Hellcat legally would I be mad about the action being made to "take away" MY PLANE?? do I need to answer that?? Somehow I fail to see the Wildcat falling into the same catagory as a Dauntless or Kingfisher as far as needing protection. As airfield museum volunteer and citizen I am greatful (though I have yet to visit) for private collectors like Paul Allen and PoF - restored to flight AND preserved for many more generations. AND not only that - you can get right up close and smell the fuel and grease.

I (we?) should have been talking with our legislators long before it came to this. My guess is that the folks wokring at and directing the Naval Museum can be found at airshows on the weekends admiring the FLYING WARBIRDS - It just doesn't make sense that they would be a bunch of stodgy "take the train" type people.

Ok - I'll get off the stump now.

Tom P

They are ripping the airplanes apart, even at great depth.

Taras

_________________
www.ATRecovery.com

This issue is best handled by groups such as EAA Warbirds of America. Want to help? Then join! Your membership will help to pay for the lawyers and lobbyists in Washington who really can make a difference in keeping America's Warbirds flying.

So, unless you're in the warbird recovery or restoration business, own an ex-USN warbird or project that you don't have clear title on, or are a major museum or collector then I respectfully suggest that you get out of the way and let professionals handle this. Making threats on an internet website does nothing to achieve a common goal of seeing USN warbirds in the air.

www.warbirds-eaa.org/

Thank goodness my Sea Fury is an ex-Iraqi Air Force warbird. I don't think Saddam Hussein will be coming after it anytime soon!

Steve Patterson

From the EAA Warbirds of America website...

2004 - 10/29 - EAA Reacts to Aircraft Salvage Language in Defense Authorization Bill
EAA and its Warbirds of America division are responding to a measure that could end underwater salvage operations of abandoned military aircraft, removing the possibility that some vintage warbirds could be saved and restored instead of lost forever.

The provision, included in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, would ban any U.S. citizen from engaging in any activity "that disturbs, removes or injures any sunken military craft," including airplanes. This would halt attempts, for instance, to pull World War II-era warbirds from waters and restore them to airworthy condition. Although there is language in the provision that allows the Department of Defense to issue permits for salvage operations on a historical or educational basis, EAA and Warbirds of America officials are concerned that such permits may be nearly impossible to obtain or issued in an arbitrary manner.

The provision is listed under Title XIV-Sunken Military Craft, Sections 1401-1408, located on pages 721-728 of the document (Large PDF download - 2.6MB).

"There are numerous cases of individuals or groups using their own time and money to save aircraft that the U.S. military had abandoned and had no intention of recovering," said Doug Macnair, EAA's vice president of government affairs and Washington Office Director. "These airplanes pose no military threat and had basically been left to rot by the Pentagon. People who want to invest the time and money to resurrect these aircraft and perhaps return them to the air should be encouraged, not banned."

There are examples of individuals restoring such aircraft, then being ordered by the U.S. Navy to return them after having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in restoration, with no recompense by the military.

Although Congress has officially adjourned until the new House and Senate are seated in January, there is always the possibility of a lame-duck session after the Nov. 2 election to finish some legislative business. EAA and Warbirds of America representatives will continue to work on the issue and use the groups' many strong relationships in Washington to ensure no last-minute legislation closes this resource for historical warbird restorations.

However, as your Sea Fury was supplied to the Iraqi Government of the time on very generous T&C's by her Britanic Majesty's Government, have you considered that a man in a pinstripe suit and bowler hat, umbrella and brief case might be paying Lee's Summit a visit one day.
After all, my father paid tax to help pay for that aircraft and the wheels of HMG might grind slowly but they grind far and wide and make a finely ground product.
So beware.
Later
A...
PS. Best lock the hangar at night

Hmmm, best search my bags before I leave in a couple of weeks Steve. Perhaps the UK 'touring team' could reclaim it a bit at a time over the course of this summer.

We'll leave the engine and prop, of course.

I have not seen any threats on this website thread, what I have seen are people trying to get a clear understanding of what has and is occurring.

As one of those “professionals” who lobby in Washington (do a Google search on “Taras Lyssenko”), I disagree with anyone who would say that people should get out of the way. Please do not try to claim you have respect when you say such things. If you wish to know my war bird pedigree; I have owned in my brief time on this earth 2 F4F Wildcat fighters, a SBD Dauntless Dive-bomber, a T-6, a T-28, a HU-16 (big pain in the back side), and my favorite airplane to fly around in a Piper Cherokee 180.

Some of you have asked (in private E-mails) about what you can do. Next week I will be on Capitol Hill, I will speak to one of my friends who has the capability of bringing about change, hint: he is a committee chairman. I will have a better idea of how I personally wish to proceed at that time, and anyone who wishes to proceed with me is very much welcome.

Taras

_________________
www.ATRecovery.com

What about aircraft that were sold after the war via the RFC? Or is anyone trying to "overlook" that little detail?

So, this isn't going to apply to aircraft that have a civilian type certificate? What's the logic there? I would think that whether an aircraft is type certified for civilian use or not would be of little interest to anyone trying to "hoard heritage" if they were to deem it an historical property.

Good news for the world's C-47/R4D/C-45/C-46/C-54/C-118 fleet operators if that's the case - they're off the hook. The sounds a little out of whack to me. A legitimate Bill of Sale for the aircraft I can see - especially one from a government agency like the RFC - but immunity due to eligibility under a Type Certificate?

If the U.S. government sold one of its airplanes to a civilian for flight purposes there is no problem with title issues, as is the case of the individual RFC/WAA/GSA/DOD sales. There were many cases, though, of aircraft being lent to schools or towns for war memorials, and many of those airplanes were later "sold," only for the new owners to find out that the U.S govt actually held the title to the airplanes. Any time an individual purchases an airplane with questionable paperwork he is leaving himself open to later title disputes, and this includes airplanes sold by the govt as scrap, or released by the govt with scrapping provisions (i.e. Military Assistance Programs).

I would imagine the rush has started to find long gone Navy warbirds (destroyed in crashes) that have good clean paperwork which can be purchased with clear title chains. These airplanes may be miraculously resurrected, while some of those airplanes with questionable titles may be tragically lost in hangar fires.

A few years ago clean paperwork was sold on a long-gone but still civil-registered B-17 that may yet be borne again.

Interesting. It would seem that the historians and serial number freaks (I count myself as one) will be every more challenged in the future to keep things straight!

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

I spoke with the General Counsel (or is it council) for the House Armed Services Committee today. Aside from the fact that he said he handled the legislation in the FY05 Defense Authorization Bill concerning the submerged aircraft, then sort of back peddled and claimed it was a lot of lawyers. Aside from him changing his reason why the act was drafted: first it was because of the Buffalo from the swamp, then it was that they wanted to protect grave sites (he mocked me when I told him for the Lake Michigan planes were not), then it was because Congress did not want anyone messing with the airplanes. When I told him (he knew nothing about it) that in 1989 Congress changed the law to provide the funding avenue to recover lost airplanes, thereby showing him that Congress intended different in 1989, he ended the conversation at that time, with a, “we changed our minds” snap at me.

Beside that fact that I practiced my award winning win friends and influence people skills, he did not seem to enjoy my pointed criticisms of what I see as bad piece of Congressional Legislation. A side conversation that stood out in the conversation for me, was that when I mentioned the EAA objections to the legislation, he seemed honestly to never have heard them. Those professional lobbyists we heard about must be doing a fine job, at something. Does anyone know what that is?

Taras

_________________
www.ATRecovery.com