Warbird Information Exchange

Ober,
If you weren't talking about the C-60, then why did you post your comments on the page for our "Lady Lodestar"????? And just so you know, we have seen some of this money that you say Midland is hording. It was with those funds that we were able to purchase a Ryan PT-22 that we know maintain. Although I do not like the fact that the CAF has sold off some of their aircraft I can't fault them for doing it. When you decide to get a new car, do you park your old one in the back yard or do you sell it/ trade it in? When you buy a new TV, do you keep the old one next to the new one or do you try and sell the old one? This is kind of like the predicament HQ is in with some of the aircraft, if a unit can no longer maintain it and turns it into HQ then it is HQ responsibility to find the best home for that aircraft. If no other unit in the organization would like it, what do you expect HQ to do, let the aircraft rot on the tarmac or find the best home for it even if that home is outside the organization? Me personnally I want to see the aircraft in the air not rotting away.

_________________
Col Craig Duck
Life Member CAF
Life Member YAF
Life Member EAA

Guys! Every Wing/Squadron in the CAF tries thier hardest to make enough money to sustain their assets and give back to headquarters. No matter how small or big the wing/squadron is, they all try to make it work! I've been accosiated with the Arizona Wing for over 22 years, and we have busted our butts to make it what it is today, and we give our fair share back to HQ. I hope that when some of the other wings are having issues to get some of their airplanes back in the air, the last resort from HQ is to sell the asset.

Dan, thanks for the info on the C-46. I'm not looking at just going to airshows, but other angles to market the airplane. Thanks again!

_________________
Scott Apple
Experience on the following aircraft: B-17, B-25, He111, T-6/SNJ, C-45/D18S, O2A, L-19, Various General Aviation, and Corporate Aircraft.

One more thing for coldaffyduck, we/ the AZ Wing did want the JU-52, and had a financial plan, but it still got sold. So, I don't know what to say about that? And, I am not sure what the time frame was on that sale?
Thanks,

_________________
Scott Apple
Experience on the following aircraft: B-17, B-25, He111, T-6/SNJ, C-45/D18S, O2A, L-19, Various General Aviation, and Corporate Aircraft.

Ditto what Scott said regarding the JU-52. We had a lot of support for it but it was sold before we ever really got to present our plan. Here's my question. If the planes were not sold off, wouldnt' they still at least make good static displays in Midland and still guarantee the possibility that somewhere down the road, some group MAY take on the assignment? Once sold, that possibility is eliminated forever.

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.

Keeping an airplane as a static display still costs money especially if you are considering flying someday. You must pay insurance. Also you have to consider things like engine and system maintenance. P/W R-2800s for instance need to be ran on a regular basis. There is a debate as to how beneficial ground run-ups are. I have been told the only way you get it done right is to fly them so now you might consider pickling the engines. Other systems deteriorate from non- use. There are no simple answers.

_________________
Check out our new website.
CAF SoCal Wing http://www.cafsocal.com/

I agree Dan. My only point is that it is cheaper to keep them as static than to try to acquire one at a later date. Also, if the planes are kept at Midland as static displays but are not truly mothballed, they can still be flown on occasion to keep them in flyable condition. It would seem that HQ should have some provision for that, wouldn't you think?

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.

My points were strictly over the sale of the C-60. My opinion on the sale of the Ju, it sucked. We had also considered the Ju but could not get over the $80,000 debt it had with it. What also really struck me as odd with that deal is that we were told HQ could do nothing for us to help us pay down the debt, mind you from what I was told that debt was incurred from when they converted the engines to Pratts and redesigned the brake system, but yet they could give money to other aircraft for restorations and engine changes. Is it me or is it a double standard? I also wasn't happy with the sale of the Casa (or as some people like to call an Me-109) but I do remember that it was up for assignment for a long time with no takers so I can not blame them for selling it, at least now it will have a better chance of flying than collecting dust. Needless to say I am not thrilled with all the decisions made out at HQ (I still think with the increased ANNUAC and dues it is going to hurt membership not help) but with the C-60 that was our decision not HQ's to turn it in.

_________________
Col Craig Duck
Life Member CAF
Life Member YAF
Life Member EAA

Chris you have entirely to much common sense to be in the CAF. All your ideas have merit with some down side but not that which could not be overcome. Col Duck has now said some things I agree with. Just the chosen few get help with maintenance and they are the planes that CAN make money. While I see the reason to keep them up do we forego the lowly L-3 (insert whatever non heavy iron here) to keep up the P-51? Are we a flying club or an educational museum? I think our charter says the latter and I know the public would rather see a B-17 than a C-60 but we should still try to teach them the importance of the non fire breathing types.

Hey Cuz, not all CAF aircraft that can make a buck on their own get help from HQCAF. The Yellow Rose went through the same process as did Texas Raiders, with corrosion, and engine changes, but we were turned down when we applied for matching funds. We were told we were doing maintenance, not restoration. Seemed to us we were doing the same thing Texas Raiders was doing, we just hadn't been down as long.

No slight intended towards Raiders, I'm glad she got some help getting back in the air!

_________________
Mike

As an educational entity, our goal is to fly the aircraft that made history and tell their stories. The aircraft whose popularity-educational ratio is the greatest is the heavy iron type, there's no way to argue that. Even as an owner and enthusiast of "light fabric" warbirds, I would rather see the VERY LITTLE money that MAF has to offer go to airplanes like red tail, red nose, raiders, etc. A lot more history is told to the thousands who ask about a mustang than the few that ask about a defender.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson