Courthouse F-86

Chris · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:24 am

Gary, the person I spoke to several years ago was Patricia Ochs. Don't know if shes still in charge though since that was pre "GENERAL" days.

ProfromDover · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:38 am

Years ago (20+) I remember driving around Texarkana and there was a T-33/P80 in a little park or cemetary looking somewhat forlorn but fenced off. Always wondered if it ever got to a good home...

Bill

retroaviation · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:56 am

Chris wrote:

Gary, the person I spoke to several years ago was Patricia Ochs. Don't know if shes still in charge though since that was pre "GENERAL" days.

Chris, any contact numbers for her? Even if she's not there anymore, the number might still get me to the right department.

Scott, I hear what you're saying, but from my past experience with a big ol' B-29, the NMUSAF will have no part of taking parts off of one airplane to supply for another.....ESPECIALLY if those parts will end up flying! Heaven forbid we further their legacy by honoring the men and women who operated this aircraft, through flight. :roll:

Things may be different now, but I'm only talking about a few years ago when I dealt with this issue. Of course, I was with the CAF then, and it's a fact the MNUSAF has a bit of an "issue" with that organization.

Gary

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:12 am

Gary, PM sent.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:16 am

retroaviation wrote:

Okay, I'll bite.......

Mustangdriver, who do I need to contact at the museum to discuss this F-86 with then? PM me with the details if you wish.

Gary

Gary I sent an e-mail off to get a name and address for you. I will let you know what I hear.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:20 am

retroaviation wrote:

Chris wrote:

Gary, the person I spoke to several years ago was Patricia Ochs. Don't know if shes still in charge though since that was pre "GENERAL" days.

Chris, any contact numbers for her? Even if she's not there anymore, the number might still get me to the right department.

Scott, I hear what you're saying, but from my past experience with a big ol' B-29, the NMUSAF will have no part of taking parts off of one airplane to supply for another.....ESPECIALLY if those parts will end up flying! Heaven forbid we further their legacy by honoring the men and women who operated this aircraft, through flight. :roll:

Things may be different now, but I'm only talking about a few years ago when I dealt with this issue. Of course, I was with the CAF then, and it's a fact the MNUSAF has a bit of an "issue" with that organization.

Gary

Gary is correct unfortunately. THe NMUSAF won't supply parts to an aircraft that is going to fly, now before all of the complaining starts here is the reason I was told. The museum did a swap of airworthy parts for non airworthy ones on an aircraft. The airworthy aircraft crashed(the parts had nothing to do with the crash), but people were trying to sue the NMUSAF because they had supplied parts to the restoration. So from that day forward the policy has been not to do it. Not saying it won't happen again some day, just that there is a bit of a history to it. I will see who I can find on this as I will be at the Museum Tomorrow and Friday

BHawthorne · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:32 am

[devils_advocate]

Maybe the parts fell off the airframe while restoring it to static display condition... :wink:

[/devils_advocate]

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:38 am

Quote:

The museum did a swap of airworthy parts for non airworthy ones on an aircraft. The airworthy aircraft crashed (the parts had nothing to do with the crash), but people were trying to sue the NMUSAF because they had supplied parts to the restoration. So from that day forward the policy has been not to do it.

I can see the Museum's point on this one. Unfortunately in today's increasingly lawsuit-happy society, they have to cover their butts. Even if the restorers using the parts signed some kind of release of responsibility, a savvy lawyer could still get around it..and even if they won the lawsuit, the Museum would still be on the hook for legal expenses. Best for them to just avoid the problem entirely.

SN

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:41 am

ProfromDover wrote:

Years ago (20+) I remember driving around Texarkana and there was a T-33/P80 in a little park or cemetary looking somewhat forlorn but fenced off. Always wondered if it ever got to a good home...

Bill

It was still there 6 or 7 years ago. The location is Spring Lake Park, it's south of I-30 just west of
State Line Ave. IIRC, it's in TexANG markings.

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:47 am

Steve Nelson wrote:

the Museum would still be on the hook for legal expenses. Best for them to just avoid the problem entirely.

I wonder if this is the reason the AF are dragging their feet in regards to Collings' spare F-4 engines..regardless
of what was in the contract?

Second Air Force · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:56 am

mustangdriver wrote:

retroaviation wrote:

Chris wrote:

Gary, the person I spoke to several years ago was Patricia Ochs. Don't know if shes still in charge though since that was pre "GENERAL" days.

Chris, any contact numbers for her? Even if she's not there anymore, the number might still get me to the right department.

Scott, I hear what you're saying, but from my past experience with a big ol' B-29, the NMUSAF will have no part of taking parts off of one airplane to supply for another.....ESPECIALLY if those parts will end up flying! Heaven forbid we further their legacy by honoring the men and women who operated this aircraft, through flight. :roll:

Things may be different now, but I'm only talking about a few years ago when I dealt with this issue. Of course, I was with the CAF then, and it's a fact the MNUSAF has a bit of an "issue" with that organization.

Gary

Gary is correct unfortunately. THe NMUSAF won't supply parts to an aircraft that is going to fly, now before all of the complaining starts here is the reason I was told. The museum did a swap of airworthy parts for non airworthy ones on an aircraft. The airworthy aircraft crashed(the parts had nothing to do with the crash), but people were trying to sue the NMUSAF because they had supplied parts to the restoration. So from that day forward the policy has been not to do it. Not saying it won't happen again some day, just that there is a bit of a history to it. I will see who I can find on this as I will be at the Museum Tomorrow and Friday

Thanks for the reply, Chris. I supposed that such a scenario had already happened and didn't expect the Museum to be in a position to get involved with such a deal. I appreciate your asking around, anyway. I don't want to get a firestorm started either, I'm just curious if such a situation could one day be worked out.

Scott

Second Air Force · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:57 am

BHawthorne wrote:

[devils_advocate]

Maybe the parts fell off the airframe while restoring it to static display condition... :wink:

[/devils_advocate]

gale_dono · **Joined:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:32 pm **Posts:** 328

mustangdriver wrote:

I do. ALot of people are not fans of the General, BUT he is all for craking down on aircraft not being taken care of. He is trying very hard to come down on these static aircraft at public places to either get some attention or get reassigned. He is all for preserving the aircraft. Just as it says in our daily brriefing at the museum, these aircraft are not playgrounds, but memorials to honor the men that flew, crewed, and worked on these aircraft. The aircraft assigned to gate guard status at bases, are only partly under control of the NMUSAF, and also the USAF. But the ones at VFW's and such are.

The understanding I was given about the Lunken bird by the Airport Manager is that it was formerly at the playfield at the end of the base, and was moved up to the aiport because a group had the intent of restoring it. However, the group couldn't come up with the money to insure the bird properly, so the AF wouldn't allow it. Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on what the exact details of what he said on this were, but it was something like they had tried to sell it, but the AF refused to release it because of some legal detail, and because the Airport was a gov't agency they couldn't do something that was required to release it. It is still annually inspected by the AF because of the radium instruments, and from what he told me it's pretty well corroded. But I think it'd be nice if she'd at least get a polish to clean the bird crap off her every once in a while.

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:17 pm

ProfromDover wrote:

Years ago (20+) I remember driving around Texarkana and there was a T-33/P80 in a little park or cemetary looking somewhat forlorn but fenced off. Always wondered if it ever got to a good home...

Bill

I may be misremembering it being visible from I-30 so I edited my fmr. post. Baugher has that bird as T-33A-1-LO,
c/n 580, 51-4025. Donated in 1962, he has confirmation of her being there still in 2008. 4025 was the first bird in the
1951 serial block. Aerial Visuals has it linked if you'd like a satellite view of 'er...
www.aerialvisuals.ca/LocationDossier.php?Serial=3894

Warbird Information Exchange

Courthouse F-86

Who is online