Warbird Information Exchange

Here it is:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... 137e24613&

This part is key: "The bill signed Monday allows for US museums to buy F-14s, or parts for them... but nothing deemed militarily sensitive. The jets must also be rendered useless for military purposes."

From the article it sounds like it means that the F-14 will never fly again.

So, how does this bode for the debacle at Chino? Has Yanks or TAM gotten their F-14's back? What is the latest status on this?

Don't know the situation, but neither Yanks nor POF have gotten their planes back. Yanks still has another F-14 from a different source that was not confiscated though.

This is all well and good....but are there any Turkeys left after the mass scrap-ex for museums to buy? (not counting the Chino birds or others that got confiscated and are in limbo somewhere)

To bad the Prez didn't stick something like "the Navy can pound sand regarding wrecks that are not war graves and not on govmt propitty....have at 'em fellas"

_________________
Rob

i doubt that even a guy like microsoft's paul allen could keep a tomcat flying

_________________
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!!

There are still F-14's left at D/M. Most of what people saw being cut up were some of the oldest A models.

Mike

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f14_6.html

Is a very good link on Iran's F-14s. It deserves a look...........

Of course they would LOVE THESE (and I would too)

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

The F-14 at Chino, Planes of Fame, last year was not in great shape.

It will never fly again without large amounts of tax backed money. Hope that it is returned to POF without too much more cutting and hacking.

It is good that some F-14s will be saved in museums and a few are currently at locations like the Pima Air Museum and at the Midway in San Diego.


In the future when we have better relations with Iran we may get to go to Isfahan to see the F-14As that can be seen on Google Earth at locations like:
32 45' 56.12" N 51 52' 54.37" E
and
32 45' 52.27" N 51 52' 58.16" E

Fly fast, fly safe,
Larry

Not necessarily true. I can think of several examples of flying civilian fighter high performance jets:

1) Colling's foundation F-4

2) The civilian owned flying Harrier on the East Coast (down right now for a landing accident)

3) The civilian owned Mig-23 on the East Coast (Vermont or New Hampshire?) - a "complex" swing-wing just like the F-14!

4) The Starfighters team flying F-104's.

In addition, there were plans to restore to flying condition civilian owned airplanes including an F-16, F-18, and Mig-29. I don't know the final plans on some of those, as the FAA might have shot them down, but they all supposedly had the financial backing to make it happen.

Anything is possible, as improbable as it sounds.

sorry, i don't agree. while the f-4 & 104 for example are high performance aircraft operating in the civilian sector, they don't have many of the systems that the f-14 has which the govt deems to sensitive. also the main reason for pulling the f-14 from service was because of high maintenance cost & man hours spent with upkeep were to cost prohibitive.

_________________
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!!

Apples and Oranges and inconsistent information Tom.

The F-14 was cost prohibitive to maintain at a WARTIME readiness rate when compared to the F/A-18E/F which is coming online. By accelerating the acceptance of the Super Hornet, they were able to retire the F-14s faster than previous. Had there not been a replacement, I'm sure the argument of them being "cost prohibitive" would have quickly disappeared. Look at the B-52, typically takes 3 planes to make 1 sortie due to maintenance items, yet they still soldier on and the Air Force doesn't complain much about how much it costs to keep them flying do they? Now, take an airplane that was flying hundreds of hours a year to flying maybe a hundred a year (at least a 50% decrease). Many of those parts that broke and had to be replaced were due to wear of the airplane flying in combat situations. Remove that situation, and suddenly things tend to last a heck of a lot longer and thus cost goes down somewhat. There are tradeoffs.

The F-104 and F-4 had as much or more sensitive information when they came to the civilian sector as the F-14. What exactly do you think they're talking about when they say "militarily sensitive"? They're talking about the Have Quick radios, the radar, and the fire control system. These are all items that have to come off anyway. The Collings F-4's radar, FCS, and encrypted radios had to come off too, and it was the same on all the F-104s that are in civilian or museum hands.

Sorry Tom, but you're reading way too much into it.

i know this thread is as old as dirt but I just wanted to say...That Warbirds are in general maintained by folks with much higher levels of experience than what is found in the average military unit. My personal experience has been that military maintainers, while bright and dedicated, just aren't kept on the job on a specific type long enough to really get truly proficient. Most personnel are reassigned to a different duty/School/aircraft type/ or separate from service just when they are getting good at their jobs. For example, the company I work for now does all aircraft MX work for the navy test pilot school at Pax river. Availability rates have gone up , parts usage (cost) has gone down and it's a win -win for everybody. Warbirds just need a good wrench assigned!

_________________
All I did was press this red button here...

I think that is pretty good news. Its nice to hear something positive for a change rather then the usual hardacks that probe the aviation community.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

Don't forget Chuck Thorntons hangar full of F5's & T38's etc at VanNuys....

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

I'd like to get Rick's take on what it costs to fly the F-4 per hour. Bloke is here every once in a while, and he can comment on what it costs to fly the F-104s on the airshow circuit.

The "civil" F-18 and F-16 still have yet to see the any air under their wings. They are "fantasy" so far as I'm concerned until they actually fly under their own power and finance.

The F-15E costs something on the order of $10,000 per hour in fuel cost alone (and that's a number generated prior to the oil cost spikes of the last couple years). None of that counts other parts and labor. For those of you that own/operate aircraft, you know that fuel costs are NOT the most significant part of operating costs.

My understanding is that the F-14 was a VERY maintenance intensive airplane. It was also a big gas hog. That means it would be a very MONEY intensive airplane to fly. My opinion is that it would be in a COMPLETELY different league than an A-4, a T-38, a T-33, etc. in the same way that a T-28 is much more expensive and complicated than a T-6.

I have to go with Randy. I think the private operated F-14 just isn't going to happen. I also have to admitt that I don't think many civilian pilots are capable of handling such a complex machine. SO that will narrow the field down on who can fly it. I know that there are some that will argue that the government said the same thing about warbirds like the P-51 and F4U, but lets face it the F-14 is in a completely different class than these aircraft. Unless you were a Tomcat driver in the Navy, I don't think it would be a great idea.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director