T-37 Tweet, what now???

[tex-fan]

now that the T-37 has been retired from service and several hundred are at AMARG WHAT NOW?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-37_Tweet says "At least two airworthy T-37s and six A-37s are currently registered under private ownership with the FAA and are currently flying" so does this mean we might be seeing more pop up in priviate hands? and maybe some more going to museums? [i'm assuming those going to museums would not be flying, except maybe to get there] any info????

[richkolasa]

I hope to see more, but how about a "hush-kit" version? Man, they are screamers!

Rich

[T33driver]

now that the T-37 has been retired from service and several hundred are at AMARG WHAT NOW?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-37_Tweet says "At least two airworthy T-37s and six A-37s are currently registered under private ownership with the FAA and are currently flying" so does this mean we might be seeing more pop up in priviate hands? and maybe some more going to museums? [i'm assuming those going to museums would not be flying, except maybe to get there] any info????

Laws are very restrictive regarding former US military aircraft being transferred to private parties. It can be done vis-a-vis a museum but keeping it from being de-militarized is a tall order. Ask the Collings guys (F-105). I've heard some of the retired Tweets are being sold to Pakistan...maybe someone else can confirm that. I'm currently flying one of the two civilian owned T-37s which was originally imported from Peru by US warbird collectors along with it's sister ship. Growing the (airworthy) warbird Tweet population in the US will be best accomplished by warbird operators importing them.

[tex-fan]

thanks T33driver, so does that mean that the 2 buckeyes flying did not come from AMARG? and does the Tweet drink fuel at a pretty high rate? i've also heard your T-33 drinks the fuel pretty good also?

[RickH]

There are 3 T2s, and none came from AMARG. The path out of AMARG to civilian is narrow and dangerous ! Hardly ever happens !

Here's a couple that made it.

[tex-fan]

thanks RickH,,LOVE the A-4, i hope to get to see one flying someday, at an airshow or where ever, do you fly an A-4? thanks

[wendovertom]

the gov't should think twice about reselling the tweet. It is a great little plane and has a good service record. Loud? yes, but they could ask a reasonable amount for them and get more $$ than the scrappers would pay for them I think.

Tom P.

[RickH]

In the USAF/DoD mindset, all surplus jets are just waiting for the first opportunity to take a suicidal dive into an ice cream parlor. They will quickly tell you that NO civilian can maintain a military jet as well as a military organization. Therefore US DoD policy states that NO turbine/tactical aircraft may be released in flyable condition to a civilian operator.

Oh and don't try to cloud their comments with historical facts ! They're from the govt. and they know best how to protect us from ourselves !

[Matt Gunsch]

Tom,
That would require the use of logic, and we all know the govt can't do that.
Also they can't go selling surplus airplanes to american citizens, since they might be used in a terrorist attack, and everyone knows that civilians could not possiably be able to fly such a complex plane safely.......

I agree, they should be sold on the market, along with the C-141s There are a few companies that could use a heavy lifter like that.

[wendovertom]

oh, you are right! I forget that we (collectively) cannot handle such impossibly complex planes. Just look at all the poorly maintained T-33s around here gad, the logic or lack of sometimes displayed by the powers that be is amazing I agree.

Another great plane I wish they would pull thier heads outof the sand on is the S-3 Viking. It would be a great fire bomber and or executive jet. Long live the MAULERS!!

Tom P.

[T33driver]

thanks T33driver, so does that mean that the 2 buckeyes flying did not come from AMARG? and does the Tweet drink fuel at a pretty high rate? i've also heard your T-33 drinks the fuel pretty good also?

Can't speak for the Buckeyes...don't quote me on this but it seems to me I recall some jets somehow made it to museums then to private owners. Perhaps there's a roundabout way. I believe a museum in North Carolina aquired a recently retired complete T-37 or two on the condition they wouldn't fly them.

T-37 fuel flow low-level at 200ish kts is around 180 gal/hr, 300 gal/hr at military power. T-33 is 300 gal/hr down low at 250 kts, 500 gal/hr + for the 400+ kts air show flybys.

[BHawthorne]

Makes me wonder what sort of business license is required to purchase that kind of surplus? A salvage license? A federal supply code? I know about the rare case of F-16A's in Texas and other aircraft complete in private business hands. I'm assuming they're NOS surplus parts businesses. Do the state air guards adhere to different demil procedures? Or are these things just falling through the cracks?

[Avn-Tech]

Group,

A friend of mine had the first F-16 & F-18 in Civilian hands. He purchased them through DRMO and they fell through the cracks. He also prchased an AH-64. But when he arrived to pick it up, they cut it into peices. As the aircraft was being cut into peices it caught fire and burned to the ground.

The F-16 & F-18 have been in magazines and listed for sale on ebay numerous times. When I asked if he was selling them he always said no, and I do not know who is listing them.

He has since lost the F-16 in a lawsuit (long story, not involving the government), but last time I talked with him he still had the F-18. The plne will probably never fly, as the cost of engines and electrical items.

He also has two F-111 aircraft purchased out of DRMO. I would not count on being able to purchase aircraft from the government in these times, just look at what Retroaviation is going through.

LAterrrrr
Avn-Tech

[Rajay]

It would be interesting to figure out just how much money the government could raise, to pay down the deficit for example, if they just through open the doors (gates) at AMARC and let anyone who was interested make an offer for the plane(s) of their dreams. Of course, I assume that they would still have to exclude any aircraft that would serve as spares for active-duty aircraft.

It would make for a double-action economic stimulus. First of all, a lot of money would quickly flow into the Federal coffers. Secondly, both the warbird market and the airshow industry would skyrocket.

Maybe we should start a letter writing campaign to the President and to Congress. Afterall, those particularly tight sticks-in-the-mud who work at the DOD and control AMARC still work for the people we elect. In other words, for us.

[tex-fan]

ok i guess i took it wrong, BUT the way i understood it was; it a AMARG policy if the plane was NOT a weapons platform [fighter or bomber] it could be sold to cilivians. if that's not it, where did the trackers and C-130s and such come from?