Fleet Status of CAF Aircraft

[bomberfan]

I see they have the P-51C listed as flying, is this an older list?

[Kyleb]

3) As was said above - the pilots available. Getting qualified pilots for the bigger aircraft is getting harder and harder, not just because of the needed financial commitment, but also the seemingly ever increasing minimum requirements from #1 - Insurance. I know several pilots who 10 years ago would've been able to get insurance without problems on a Cessna 210 finding it nearly impossible now. Not just being insanely expensive to get it, but literally not being offered insurance at all. So, think how hard it is to get someone qualified for insurance on a B-17?

I was gonna write exactly the same thing, but you beat me to it. When these airplanes went from very valuable to crazy valuable, owners and underwriters noticed and acted accordingly. You don't turn your 17 YO loose in the Porsche, nor do you turn a 25 YO loose in your Mustang.

[kalamazookid]

I see they have the P-51C listed as flying, is this an older list?

The cover says Year in Review 2021 so I'm assuming it's probably from December. The P-51C has a pretty full airshow schedule planned for 2022, so whatever repairs were needed don't appear to be a long-term concern.

https://cafriseabove.org/events/

[Dan K]

I see they have the P-51C listed as flying, is this an older list?

The cover says Year in Review 2021 so I'm assuming it's probably from December. The P-51C has a pretty full airshow schedule planned for 2022, so whatever repairs were needed don't appear to be a long-term concern.

https://cafriseabove.org/events/

Doug Rozendaal reported in January that all that was left for repairs was riveting.

The February "Rise Above" newsletter should be out in a few days. Here's hoping for some uplifting news.

[bomberfan]

I see they have the P-51C listed as flying, is this an older list?

The cover says Year in Review 2021 so I'm assuming it's probably from December. The P-51C has a pretty full airshow schedule planned for 2022, so whatever repairs were needed don't appear to be a long-term concern.

https://cafriseabove.org/events/

Doug Rozendaal reported in January that all that was left for repairs was riveting.

The February "Rise Above" newsletter should be out in a few days. Here's hoping for some uplifting news.

That is great news!! I hadn't heard any updates since the incident, so I wasn't sure how it was coming along. I'm looking forward to seeing it again very soon.

[Andy Marden]

Where does the West Texas Wing Helldiver actually live?
Their website doesn't say...

[StangStung]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

I used to be a member and regularly get the Dispatch ages ago. Always enjoyed fleet updates.

Can someone who is current explain to me the proliferation of post-WWII aircraft? L-17, T-28, etc.? It seems a good portion of the fleet is now non-WWII aircraft. How/why did this come to be?

Also, back in the day ('80s) there were a few Buchons, and a Spanish Ju-52. What happened to all the adversaries? I seem to recall some controversy about the Ju-52 sporting a swastika being an issue. Did the CAF finally just throw up their hands and say, "forget it"? Also, did the Swordfish and I-16 go away?

So many questions....thanks for the patience of the WIX braintrust!

You may be overthinking it a bit, I would imagine it is a question of economics, not a deliberate conspiracy. The aviation "entry market" for most civilian operators would naturally be a less costly aircraft. One that be can purchased, fueled, hangered, maintained, insured and trained on by a casual civilian owner is always going to be more prevalent than an increasingly costly and rarer WWII aircraft. You can not compare the "costs" of a Navion between a Buschon or a Swordfish. L-17's, Russian/Chinese trainers and T-28's (although getting more expensive) are easier to obtain and afford. Light liaison types are also popular for this very reason. Sure everyone would want their own a P-51, but fewer can afford it.

Perhaps, though I was not asking about a "deliberate conspiracy." That's not a word I'd bandy about these days. I know that money is the ultimate reason for many changes in the warbird arena over the hears and fully get that it's cheaper to fly and insure say, an L-17 than a P-51. All of that makes total sense. But what I was asking was little more nuanced.

Rather, it appears to me (and I could be totally worng about this) that a deliberate policy decision was made as to the scope of the CAF. Not a conspiracy, rather a plan, set forth and enacted. Back when I was an associate member (many moons ago) the stated policy was something along the lines of "preserving American history by preserving American aircraft of WWII." Knowing full well the CAF was more of an "old boys" club at the time and has at least attempted to modernize and become somewhat more professional since (I do not want to get into a debate about all that as it's been done to death elsewhere on the forum) It appears the self-described scope of the CAF has been expanded beyond WWII. Now, if the answer is "the current policy is the public doesn't know the difference between a T-28, which is much cheaper to fly than say, a P-40" then I get that. But while I have heard here that "the WWII planes are expensive to fly" and I get that too, what I haven't heard is "the CAF enacted a policy in 20XX to use post-WWII aircraft to preserve the memory of WWII because (a) post WWII aircraft are cheaper to gas up/insure/maintain than actual WWII aircraft." Or maybe even, "the CAF enacted a policy to memorialized ALL veterans (some? during an expanded time frame from 1939-??) by not flying solely WWII aircraft." That's the idea I was going for.

Same with the foreign aircraft. Was there ever a deliberate policy decision to focus on American aircraft? It may be that you are entirely correct and the answer is "no", it was just natural over time that the various CAF units traded out their foreign aircraft for cheaper to fly/insure/maintain American aircraft. And so over time, the foreign planes just drifted away from the CAF. Becuase many of those aircraft are still preserved and flying under new ownership, it would seem that economics isn't the sole reason for this change. In any case, I wonder if the depletion of Axis aircraft from the CAF was due to economic factors, a deliberate policy change, some combination of both? Looks mainly like it was just natural drift due to economics.

I suppose I would have better posed the question by asking was there a deliberate decision to expand the scope of preserving the memory of WWII by expanding the scope of flight operations to aircraft that were not operated during WWII, and was a deliberate decision made to dispense with foreign aircraft. If so, what were the specific policies (if they exist), and when were they enacted?

Clearly, the discussion of money is informative. No flying with out gas/oil, the prices of which may ultimately make flying WWII aircraft - especially larger ones - economically unfeasible for a volunteer organization. Further, there's definitely on flying without (a) an insured aircraft and (b) an insurable pilot to fly it. No bucks, no Buck Rogers an all that.

Anyhow, an enlightening thread. Thanks to all above who chimed in.

[CAPFlyer]

I seem to remember the CAF also enacting a policy about not adding any more "one of a kind" aircraft to the flying fleet not long after the He-111/CASA-111 crash. The negative PR from that and pressure from other museums I think kinda finally got through that maybe with limited exceptions the CAF shouldn't be in a position where it might be an issue.

[StangStung]

I seem to remember the CAF also enacting a policy about not adding any more "one of a kind" aircraft to the flying fleet not long after the He-111/CASA-111 crash. The negative PR from that and pressure from other museums I think kinda finally got through that maybe with limited exceptions the CAF shouldn't be in a position where it might be an issue.

I remember that. Of course, B-29 says "hello"...but I know, it's the Queen of the Fleet, American, etc., etc.

I don't think there have been any regularly flying Casa/He-111s since that crash, have there? Am I forgetting one? I know I see the one up in Addison gathering dust when I do my yearly visit. Personally, I'd love to see it fly. But I can understand why it doesn't and likely never will.

[CAPFlyer]

I remember that. Of course, B-29 says "hello"...but I know, it's the Queen of the Fleet, American, etc., etc.

I don't think there have been any regularly flying Casa/He-111s since that crash, have there? Am I forgetting one? I know I see the one up in Addison gathering dust when I do my yearly visit. Personally, I'd love to see it fly. But I can understand why it doesn't and likely never will.

Which is why I think it was couched as "add" not "continue". Both Fifi and Diamond 'Lil are arguably extremely unique aircraft. However, the argument to both is that there are still plenty of B-29s and B-24s on display. The Casa-111 that crashed in Cheyenne was one of a very small number period, and I think that was the bigger driving force. Cavanaugh was flying their Casa-111 as well up until the Cheyenne crash and it was why it hasn't flown since. It's also why their Panther and B-25 no longer fly. The B-25 was flown once to Oshkosh so it could be put on display and won't be flown again. It's nose art was redone by the original artist and thus can never be re-done, so it will never be risked. I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, but it's still sad that it continues to reduce the number of possible flying aircraft around to help educate and inspire new generations.

[StangStung]

I remember that. Of course, B-29 says "hello"...but I know, it's the Queen of the Fleet, American, etc., etc.

I don't think there have been any regularly flying Casa/He-111s since that crash, have there? Am I forgetting one? I know I see the one up in Addison gathering dust when I do my yearly visit. Personally, I'd love to see it fly. But I can understand why it doesn't and likely never will.

Which is why I think it was couched as "add" not "continue". Both Fifi and Diamond 'Lil are arguably extremely unique aircraft. However, the argument to both is that there are still plenty of B-29s and B-24s on display. The Casa-111 that crashed in Cheyenne was one of a very small number period, and I think that was the bigger driving force. Cavanaugh was flying their Casa-111 as well up until the Cheyenne crash and it was why it hasn't flown since. It's also why their Panther and B-25 no longer fly. The B-25 was flown once to Oshkosh so it could be put on display and won't be flown again. It's nose art was redone by the original artist and thus can never be re-done, so it will never be risked. I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, but it's still sad that it continues to reduce the number of possible flying aircraft around to help educate and inspire new generations.

All of that makes perfect sense. Especially when you throw in the subtext of costs of insurance for plane and pilot/lack of spares for any maintenance issues.

[Warbird Kid]

This would be a good addition for the CAF.
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Multi+Engine+Piston&make=LOCKHEED&model=LODESTAR+18-56&listing_id=2395452&s-type=aircraft

[Chris Brame]

^^^ Per Baugher:

(42-)32213 (MSN 18-2347) to NC58492, to NC1201/N1201, to N40DC. Converted Howard 250 Sep 16, 1963. To N442D, cancelled Mar 11, 2013

[Firebird]

I remember that. Of course, B-29 says "hello"...but I know, it's the Queen of the Fleet, American, etc., etc.

I don't think there have been any regularly flying Casa/He-111s since that crash, have there? Am I forgetting one? I know I see the one up in Addison gathering dust when I do my yearly visit. Personally, I'd love to see it fly. But I can understand why it doesn't and likely never will.

Which is why I think it was couched as "add" not "continue". Both Fifi and Diamond 'Lil are arguably extremely unique aircraft. However, the argument to both is that there are still plenty of B-29s and B-24s on display. The Casa-111 that crashed in Cheyenne was one of a very small number period, and I think that was the bigger driving force. Cavanaugh was flying their Casa-111 as well up until the Cheyenne crash and it was why it hasn't flown since.

Both CASA 2.111's having been ferried over from the UK to Texas within a few days of each other by Neil Williams, in late summer of 1977. There was only one other airworthy CASA 2.111 at the time by then, which Neil again accepted the task of ferrying (along with his wife, and two others) from Spain back to the UK for Doug Arnold a few months later in Dec '77, but they never made it, crashing into the mountains in bad weather north of Madrid.