Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:14 am
There is a flaw, but it's not with the legal system but with people. Didn't someone try and sue the Navy after that PB4Y broke up?
Mauler Projects
Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:46 am
I wonder if the Navy's attitude and position has more to do with "what's in it for us?" than "it's still our Mauler, always was and always will be".
I'm not privy to the details of the original agreement or the recent CAF/Navy dialogue on these Maulers but it's obvious that they feel they have enough standing to to be dealt into the game. Of course I'm assuming they are even interested in playing. Maybe this deal needs to be more of a "three way" with the Navy getting something that they want or need for their museum.
"What they say, they don't really mean. What they mean, they don't really say.
I'm not privy to the details of the original agreement or the recent CAF/Navy dialogue on these Maulers but it's obvious that they feel they have enough standing to to be dealt into the game. Of course I'm assuming they are even interested in playing. Maybe this deal needs to be more of a "three way" with the Navy getting something that they want or need for their museum.
"What they say, they don't really mean. What they mean, they don't really say.
Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:54 am
daveymac82c wrote: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.
-David McIntosh
Davey hit the nail on the head here. This has been the Navy's attitude for years. And my personal opinion is that very little of it has to do with liability, rather "what is mine is mine" and even though I have the intention of letting it rot don't you dare touch it.
Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:13 am
Not trying to tempt anything, but.............
If the NHC truely beleive that all former USN and USMC aircraft are legally their's then what is stopping them from coming a getting them?
Just show up on people's doorsteps with warrants, ferry pilots and flatbeds.
Surely transportation costs for already restored aircraft would be cheaper than procuring and restoring costs.
So I ask again, why don't they?
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
If the NHC truely beleive that all former USN and USMC aircraft are legally their's then what is stopping them from coming a getting them?
Just show up on people's doorsteps with warrants, ferry pilots and flatbeds.
Surely transportation costs for already restored aircraft would be cheaper than procuring and restoring costs.
So I ask again, why don't they?
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:30 pm
Just curious.....
How about you just export the thing out right ?
What difference does it do if I buy a flying Wildcat in the US & I re-register it in Canada ?
I.E. what would be the angle here ? Form a new Co in X country. Fly & operate from there.
Am i over simplyfing here ?
How about you just export the thing out right ?
What difference does it do if I buy a flying Wildcat in the US & I re-register it in Canada ?
I.E. what would be the angle here ? Form a new Co in X country. Fly & operate from there.
Am i over simplyfing here ?