Warbird Information Exchange

Not a lot of info yet-
https://www.europeanairshows.co.uk/news ... BEYohQetjs

This is sad news. I guess it can be taken several ways when you look at this. Is this the beginning of the end? Maybe a couple aircraft need to be sold off to off set some costs from the law suits? Or maybe its because they already have the other P-40 so this one is expendable. Hopefully its just logistics such as when the wings of freedom tour was going, the p-51 had many more people wanting to fly on that instead of the p-40? Either way a sad loss

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

The warbird Ride business is booming over there, and has been ever since the CAA changed the rules.

I don't actually know if that's the plan for this aircraft though.

Is it possible Collings has filed paperwork to provide flight experiences in the UK? I have absolutely no idea how that works. There seems to be some doubt in the article about whether the aircraft is changing hands.

_________________
Matt

The intention, as far back as when Betty was still on tour, was to eventually overhaul her and send her to England once Toulouse came online. Maybe with Contrary Mary doing well, leasing the P-40 made more sense. Now there will be some incredible fighter options for those that want to taste apples

Jim

_________________
www.spiritof44.com

so it wasnt sold to another organization in england? From what we know its being leased?

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

This is a great looking airplane in person!

https://www.facebook.com/FlyASpitfire/p ... 4536043588
Can't wait .....

Or maybe they are hiding assets by leasing to a foreign company......

_________________
remember the Oogahonk!
old school enthusiast of Civiltary Warbirds and Air Racers

Isn't there a FAA ruling about using limited category aircraft for joyrides? I remember reading the FAA found issues with Thom Richards and Collings last year.

I guess it would make sense for them to lease to a UK operator and take a slice of the profits.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I don't see how the Collings foundation could hide anything unless they had the money going to an "offshore" bank account. I've never heard rumors, innuendo or info suggesting that they were doing this. Is there something you know, that we don't?

The Collings Foundation previously had an Exemption Letter which allowed them to sell rides for money. That was rescinded by the FAA after an initial investigation shortly after the crash, so they can no longer sell rides in their Limited and Experimental category aircraft.

Thom Richards never had an Exemption Letter and was giving flight training and rides in his P-40 illegally, according to the FAA. He was given a "cease and desist" letter by them to stop those activities.

Both of these cases are extremely similar as they are relying on the same legal basis for their justification. These cases are going before a judge to determine who wins. Whoever the winner is, and they will both be the same verdict, imo, will set a legal precedent that will determine these types of operations for many, many decades in the future.

I have no inside information on all of this, but my guess is that Collings is leasing their P-40 to the group in the U.K., since they can still make money off of it. Right now, the P-40, and indeed almost all of their aircraft, are making zero money sitting on the ground. Collings can lease the P-40 and still make a cut of the profit from the U.K. group, depending on their arrangement. A lot of people are not aware that Collings has leased their aircraft to other groups before, so this is nothing new for them. It's simply another avenue at generating income. I don't see how one can draw negative inferences about this, other than Collings is switching "business models". When you can't make money yourself, you lease the aircraft to other groups that can make the money for you, indirectly - all legal and aboveboard. In this case, it is much, much easier for U.K. operators to sell rides. Their CAA requirements in England are much less stringent than FAA requirements here in the States. That does not mean they are less safe, just less regulations and red tape to deal with.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. There is a tremendous amount at stake in these legal cases that will impact the next several decades, dependent upon how the NTSB and FAA decisions are decided.

"Collings has leased their aircraft to other groups before" who ?

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

I don't know if that info is in the public realm, so I'll stay quiet on this one. I know there are Collings people who read this forum, so if they choose to relay that info, then that's their call, not mine.