Warbird Information Exchange

Sorry Mudge, that was me. I did it. Someone please remove me from the audiance.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

Nathan why don't you go back and edit out some of those $$$ ?

I want to elaborate on Mark H. comments on the B-58 and why none can be restored to airworthy even if people wanted to.
At Lone Star we have one of the eight surviving 58's, the ONLY TB-58 left. Something I learned at the museum is that back in the eighties when Reagan and Gorby were having the SALT disarmament talks, one condition the Russians absolutely would not budge from was total deactivation of the B-58. They were that scared of what it could do. (Not withstanding the fact that its strategic mission was obsoleted by ICBM' by then. ) They were mostly scrapped. The eight that are left have gutted cockpits and avionics, empty engine nacelles and sawed wing spars.
Lone Star's came from Carswell I think. It was delivered in several pieces and the AF guys bolted the tail back on inside the hangar. Last summer we had to move it and discovered that the tail is a foot and a half taller than the sprinkler mains along the roof beams. aaarrrrghhh!
The 58 was a real expensive, complicated, and cantankerous aircraft. My uncle, ex career AF pilot, retired from SAC, was solicited for a 58 sqn. He refused flatly, because he was scared of it and flew his Buff for a few more years.
We need to get jetheads into the warbird community but the pickings seem kinda slim.
Hope this clears up the mud. Scroll on, Mudge.

Canso42.

First, I apologize. I was under the impression that there were 2, the late Gen. Olds's airplane, and one other.

Second, I consider the Navy's stance on ownership to be a policy decision on their part. Obviously the regulations are sufficiently vague for the Air Force and Army have one view (if you find it or buy it, for the most part you can fly it if you make it airworthy with some, mostly reasonable, restrictions) and the Navy has another (extremely restrictive, no matter how you come upon it). The fact that there are more USAF jets flying and, for the most part, easier procedures to follow to get items from AMARC or other storage locations to be somewhat telling of this policy decision on the part of the Navy.

Either way, there is no need to become hostile in this discussion. The original post and several subsequent gave the impression that the posters believed the US government was more restrictive than the UK government and that was the reason for few US-built jets to be in the air compared to former Soviet Bloc and other European aircraft.

Thank you CAPflyer you hit it on the Head.
And thankyou to everyone else that also responded as well.
I have learn so much since I have joined this group.

_________________
Always Keep Em Flying !

Glen

Lookie Capt Jim! Wham! Wham! ...............................Termights

Are you suggesting that this is not true? The UK has sold off operational Lightnings and (nearly operational) Harriers, as well as an operational Phantom (stored at Duxford) as I recall. Wasn't there also a tradition in the UK of actually selling operational aircraft to officers?

This is my recollection, someone please chime in that knows for sure!

I wasn't trying to be combative, sorry if it came across that way. It's awfully hard to get your point across and to convey the proper amount of emotion while doing so.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. There is one set of rules that the two museums go by when it applies to WWII era derelict or submerged aircraft wrecks and another set of rules enacted after WWII to deal with tactical turbine aircraft. ie:, the JETS.

Having said that, please reread my post. The ONLY civilian F-4 Phantom flying ANYWHERE belongs to the Collings Foundation, it took a Congressional action to make it happen. People within the DoD establishment would, to this day, see the aircraft scrapped or at the very least permantly grounded. Lies have been told, innuendo spread, and aspersions cast, all done to cast a shadow on the hard work done by some very dedicated individuals on behalf of the US public. Done at no expense to that same public, I might add. This has come from a few of the bureaucrats and a few AF officers, most of whom are in support positions in Washington and Dayton.

See the recent thread on the F-105 that was mentioned to see to what lengths these people will go to see their agenda succeed.

I was personally told " if what you do with the F-4 is so important then the USAF would do it so that it could be done right ! " This was said after the aircraft had been successfully and safely operated all over the US for 3 years.

Now for the Navy side, I have been heavily involved with the transfer of the Collings Foundation TA-4 Skyhawk directly from Navy stocks. It took essentially the same legislative language ( with some tweaking ) to transfer the TA-4 for flight purposes. The Navy has done none of the above referenced actions, true we had one he!! of a time with one civilian lawyer and officers who wouldn't take any action unless said Navy lawyer bleesed the action, but these guys weren't willing to risk their hard earned careers over one old airplane. However, we did get it done, the Skyhawk flies and even the Navy Museum seems to like it.

Most of the problems with the Navy that you allude to were once instigated by the Naval Air Museum personel but they have since been superceded in these actions by the Naval Historical Center.

There are really no restrictions on operation from either service, operating limitations come from the FAA, the main one is no supersonic flight. Everything else is standard FARs for this type of Experimental Exhibition aircraft.

The main DoD goal is to fight tooth and nail to keep these aircraft out of civilian hands, once they lose the battle they really have no option but to comply. They won't have to like it and they can continue to make waves as we have seen, but, the aircraft WILL be transferred. If it isn't then they have broken the law and would be in contempt of Congress.

There is no real process to release these aircraft directly, they only go out as demilled statics through 1 of 2 programs or they go out as scrap to be ground down to chunks no bigger than a quarter, period. The few that have gotten away have done it simply by luck. When that happens the powers that be analyze and investigate how it happened and if it was a lgal sale they figure out how to close the loophole so that it can never happen again. We are considered by some in Govt. to be no better than pirates, they feel that we went outside the system in getting the 2 aircraft, these people consider the US Congress to be outside the system.

I didn't intend for this to be a rant, but intended it to educate and erase some of the continuing misconceptions that seem to perpetuate themselves. I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it was intended.

The Ft.Worth B-36 was being restored to fly way back in the early 70's. but there were sufficient problems in the fuel management and flow systems that it was never possible to get all 6 recips running at one time. Any three would run, but the guys never could get all six going at once. There was also going to have to be some serious engineering analysis done prior to flight due to someone being overly aggressive on removing some support structure in the bomb-nav compartment.
The three biggest reasons that the aircraft was moved and all the others taken away from the museum there were:

1. Continual funding problems. Lots of promises with no carrythrou.

2. Politics The museum got severely back-stabbed on some things by certain personnel in a nameless state up north.

3. Just for spite. No matter what was done to try and please Dayton, it was never good enough. Yet Dayton allowed other aircraft at many other small museums and VFW Posts to be kept in much worse shape than here, and never required the upkeep to the level we were being held to.

a witty thread. bottom line............$$$$$$$ talks, bullsh*t walks!!! even with the best of intentions collings, & other historical groups have pockets that are only so deep. the vulcan will have brief glory in the air thanks to av gas prices / operating expenses, liability insurance, etc. don't want to be a doubting thom ass .......... but i'd say it will be a very limited time for the opportunity to see it strut it's stuff in the air.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!