Warbird Information Exchange

Django wrote:

I have thought about that idea, but part of the Navy's response was not to even discuss ownership, it was that they own it regardless of previous paperwork showing transfer of ownership. Their position is actually quite interesting, regardless of ownership, they don't want it flown. If it does fly, they will possibly revoke the "loan" status of the other airframes they do clearly have control over.

They were open to someone putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into it for static display. I'm not wealthy enough to be spending big bucks on sh.t to look at.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Ain't THAT the truth!

Too bad it didn't work out for you, Eric. I'll withhold further comment about the policies of the Navy with regard to historic aircraft.

An A-26 would be cool, though. . .

Cheers!

_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Port Charlotte, Florida

Looks like your machine on Wiki, down at the bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider

Hellcat wrote:

Yes, that's it. I wonder who took that pic and put it on there. A few years ago after 2006 Thunder over Michigan several people emailed me pictures of the plane, unsolicited. At the time, I didn't realize how protective photographers were of their pics of my airplane. I liked one of the pics alot and posted it on WIX. A sh.t storm immeadiately followed. Live and learn.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

I may understand the copyright issues many photographers have concerning their work, but I will never understand some tight*ss camera kook who would be offended by you using a photo of YOUR AIRPLANE they took as you wish. It seems you both would have a right to that photo. Unless you had posters made and were selling them at airshows for a $100.00 a pop. I don't see the big deal. Sign a disclaimer and move on I say.

Been there, done that. I build wood boats, and there are bunches of photos of me and my boats out there I can't touch unless I ante up like anyone else; it's a very, very strange feeling. I'm afraid those photographers give me mixed feelings ... a pro popping up and shooting at you is sort of like seeing your daughter come home from a date at a decent hour on Saturday night with a Gideon's Bible in her hand.

Okay, 'nuff of that. Why is the Navy so adamant about no flying Maulers?

This situation with the Mauler literally makes me sick, Eric. You were almost certainly the last hope to get what I think is the finest looking single-engine fighter-bomber ever designed back in the air. And the Navy won't let it happen? If Wildcats, Corsairs, Avengers and Hellcats can fly, why can't a Mauler? And what purpose is served in denying the public a chance to honor such an aircraft at airshows? I'm just looking for something rational regarding this, and I can't find it.

On the Mauler, I'm really starting to get interested in EXACTLY what the issue was; as we see in the F-82 case, it's seldom just a black-and-white issue of who owns it. But I respect Eric's choice not to spell out all the details.

On the photo, most photographers appreciate the owner of the airplane and will let him use the photo for personal use IF HE ASKS FIRST. The steal-first-and-ask-only-when-busted approach might not get such a warm reception. And no, the owner of property doesn't have any rights in a photo of it, which is a good thing if you think through all the ramifications.

August

I commend you for at least taking a serious look at that neat old beast.
This thing about the Navy brings up a thought. In the 1980's Reagan military budget years, Congress approved every military spending bill they could think of. One of those was called, IIRC, the Air Force Heritage program. It involved trading flyable B-17's , A-26's, B-18's and B-23's,C-119's etc., etc., to Air force bases in exchange to the Air tanker guys for more modern airplanes like the S2F, P2v-7, OV-10's and King Air C-12's among others.
The truth of the matter is that the air tanker business needed to be revamped and they didn't have the money, so it was basically a free govt. windfall.
That was over twenty years ago, and I have two basic questions to ask of The Air Force, Navy and Federal Govt.?

1) WHy are they hoarding priceless antiquities and letting them waste in value when the govt. needs money right now?
2) Or, for the stuff non aviation types would see as junk, why are they in the junk business?
It's time the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal to run some stories about the millions of dollars of equipment, no longer of any use whatsoever that needs to be in some cases brought indoors and restored or sold, or just sold to the highest bidder and released back to the taxpayers.
One final thought, they understand the popularity and significant value of the Heritage FLights as a recruiting tool to harvest young recruits, why can't they understand every warbird that has NAVY, AIr FOrce or whatever painted on it's side attending airshows is free billboard advertising!!!

August wrote:

The honest answer about what the issue with the Navy and their position is............I'm not really sure. I am not holding anything back, I wasn't in direct contact with the Navy, I got all of my info from the CAF after their face to face meeting. I, like everyone else, can only speculate about their motives. I think that it's a situation where they don't want any airframes flying that are not currently flying. I think it's just a "safe" position for the Navy, taken by people at the Navy who really don't care much about this one way or the other. The part that fascinates me about this is that the Navy doesn't really deny that the CAF owns the Mauler airframe, they don't run out and say that the own it either. The simply addressed it as, if the Mauler is transfered and/or flown, the Navy may resind the loan status of other flying/non-flying aircraft that the CAF has. How do you continue to pursue that? Very effective.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Well the Navys attitude is interesting.

Basically it is 'No possible good could come from someone flying a Mauler'

Very very sad.

Sure is cool that you tried. Not many people can say that. In fact only one.

I almost sounds like the Navy doesn't want anything to do with their "apparently owned" airplanes.... unless someone fixes them up all nice, then they have the option of taking them back, but as long as they're collecting dust they're not really interested. That's just what popped into my head when I read a few of the previous posts.

Oh, and I had a curious thought:

What if the CAF never went to the Navy to confirm proper ownership. Would avoiding confronting the Navy with this "opportunity" have allowed the transaction to slip under their radar?

Sometimes with-holding information and then begging forgiveness if they find out, is far better than asking and being told NO.

My two cents.

-David McIntosh

From the military or bureaucrat's point of view, privately-owned flying warbirds are literally 'an accident waiting to happen'. While I don't like it, the warbird safety record isn't good enough to counter that view, either.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

My thought on James comment is, "What does the Navy, Air Force, etc have to lose if a privately owned warbird does have an accident?"

What kind of responsibility does the military have in an airplane that they haven't owned or operated in several decades? Someone can't go and sue the Navy after they crashed an old plane that they restored from the ground up, replacing every single piece of metal besides the dataplate, can they?

Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am wrong, there is a serious problem with our legal system.

It would be like me selling someone an old beater of a car, and then them spend 6 years restoring it, putting in a new engine, new brakes, new suspension, new everything, then they get into a wreck, and sue me because I sold it to them? How is that rational?

-David the curious

It's not a legal issue, it's an emotive one.

It runs like this (And it's not MY view, it's how some people see it).

A warbird crashes. Generally, it's regarded as a unfortunate private problem, too bad. But a big or fast warbird crashes - 'what was the Army/Navy/Air Force doing letting some cowboy fly one? That can't be safe.'

Why are they flying an old clunker anyway? Could be a) Because it's fun. Hmmm. Your fun, my risk of you landing on my head? Funtime over please. b) To commemorate the sacrifice. Yeah, sure, go lay flowers or volunteer in a vets hospital. If we need flying vet aircraft, let's have the military do it. (See the BBMF, RNHF etc.) c) because it's doing some other useful job (water-bombers etc) - We'd rather have shiny new 'planes doing that.

For all the noise about 'commemoration' by warbird owners, it's really about having a blast while wearing funny hats.

Ducks, runs...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com