This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Re: Legit

Mon May 05, 2008 9:17 am

Vulture wrote:Well I will not profess how legit it is or not .... What I know of my friend over the last 16 years is that he has brought in many odd things from the former USSR and has been doing so for years legit. I will be able to confirm more as he finishes translating the documentation.

As for FAA ..... I would assume that if the a/c is demilled, there should be no issues importing a non us manufactured aircraft no?


V

Good luck :!: We had to jump threw so many hoops with the US government just to export Tango Tango a replica ME 262 to Germany because it was a "modern war machine" :shock: :bs:

Mon May 05, 2008 9:23 am

That was an export issue. This would be an import issue. Totally different problems.

Mon May 05, 2008 9:29 am

Also you have to realize that several models of the TU-95 are NOT considered Bombers under SALT I and II.

They are considered trainers and maritime recon aircraft. The TU 95U has a permenantly closed Bomb Bay. Which I think would nullify any problems in that regard.

And; again with the compactness of some nucular weapons even a Cesna would be considered as Nucular capable.

Mon May 05, 2008 9:34 am

I think the biggest issue would be feeding it. Though I guess if you can afford to buy it,....

Re: ???

Mon May 05, 2008 9:36 am

Jack Cook wrote:
Yeah, the government tends to frown on private citizens owning intercontinental nuclear delivery systems.

Like Fifi :shock: :idea: :!:


Big difference here Jack. No one had to intercept FiFi on an overflight into their airspace in the last ten years. THey are still using the Bear, and just recently turned some away with F-18's and another occasion with F-22's. While I think it would be cool to see one in a museum, or flying, I think the first comment here is very correct.

Mon May 05, 2008 9:45 am

RickH wrote:That was an export issue. This would be an import issue. Totally different problems.

My point being Tango is more Lear jet then war machine. So importing a nuke capable bomber might be more difficult to get into civil registration.

Mon May 05, 2008 10:14 am

In my humble opinion, I believe the idea of getting a TU-95 on the civil register is a moot point. It's not like we have anyone exactly lining up to attempt to get a B-47, early B-52, B-36, or even a B-57 (though thank goodness AUS has a flyer) for that matter. The cost of restoring and operating even a medium-level bomber is prohibitive and not for 99.9% of current museums and operators. Look at the Vulcan project and you have proof.

Plus, if I am not mistaken, though the Bear would probably have no problem with certification as an experimental aircraft, the FAA has limited the types of aircraft that can be flown under an exemption letter to non-turbine pre-1946 models (RickH, can you clarify?). With that, the means to fund an operation of that caliber would be significantly decreased.

I DO believe it would be interesting to see an example at NMUSAF and/or Pima... however, the funding to ferry a TU-95 to each would not be easy and surely would not be a profit-making proposition for an importer.

Re: ???

Mon May 05, 2008 12:12 pm

mustangdriver wrote:No one had to intercept FiFi on an overflight into their airspace in the last ten years. THey are still using the Bear, and just recently turned some away with F-18's and another occasion with F-22's. While I think it would be cool to see one in a museum, or flying, I think the first comment here is very correct.
So but for the presence of F-18s or F-22s, exactly what would have happened? "They" would have bombed the US? :shock: "They" probably just wanted some close up F-22 photos is my guess...

sell them to Iran...they will be in the market for

Mon May 05, 2008 12:38 pm

a nuclear delivery platform pretty soon!

Re: ???

Mon May 05, 2008 1:02 pm

bdk wrote:["They" probably just wanted some close up F-22 photos is my guess...


You are correct, sir. I've spoken with pilots who've flown intercept missions such as the ones we're speaking of. While our pilots are busy shepherding the Bear away from our airspace, the Bear's crew members are busy clicking away with cameras, taking closeup shots of whatever fighter jets we send up to meet them, monitoring our pilots' radio transmissions, analyzing our radar signal signatures, and so forth. The Bears are unarmed recon platforms, and they're only here to check us out and keep up to date on our latest capabilities and tactics.

It would be very cool to have a Bear flying here in North America, although, as many have said, the cost would be astronomical. Having one on static display would be a great second choice. That's the only way most of us would ever have the chance to see one in person.

Cheers!

Re: ???

Mon May 05, 2008 1:42 pm

k5dh wrote:It would be very cool to have a Bear flying here in North America, although, as many have said, the cost would be astronomical.

Too bad Putin's concentrating on chest-beating nowadays. He could go back to the good ol' days
of Perestroika and send the Bear on a "sales tour" of US airshows making a few goodwill points with
me! He He He... :roll:

Since they've essentialy stifled the privatization of their petro industry...he could go
a step further in the goodwill department and pay the Bears fuel bill during the visit! :D

Re: ???

Mon May 05, 2008 1:58 pm

bdk wrote:
mustangdriver wrote:No one had to intercept FiFi on an overflight into their airspace in the last ten years. THey are still using the Bear, and just recently turned some away with F-18's and another occasion with F-22's. While I think it would be cool to see one in a museum, or flying, I think the first comment here is very correct.
So but for the presence of F-18s or F-22s, exactly what would have happened? "They" would have bombed the US? :shock: "They" probably just wanted some close up F-22 photos is my guess...


I'm just saying that there is a difference.

Mon May 05, 2008 3:27 pm

Don't know about your side of the pond, but we have had a problem with those pesky bears for a while now!!!

Image

Image

Image

Image

Persistant , aren't they! :shock:

Mon May 05, 2008 3:36 pm

Aren't they still the world's fastest production propeller driven airplanes?

Gary

Mon May 05, 2008 3:48 pm

I think it is at 575 m.p.h. although I think it may be the civil version (Tu-114) that holds the record.
Post a reply