Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:45 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:10 pm
Posts: 641
Location: tempe, az
Are there any active plans to raise more birds from the lake bottom?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:02 am 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:00 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Niflheim
michaelharadon wrote:
Are there any active plans to raise more birds from the lake bottom?


The simple answer is no the US Navy isn't salvaging any more aircraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:44 am 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 pm
Posts: 987
Location: Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
Is there a rough inventory of what is still down there?

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in '05.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:16 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 486
Col. Rohr wrote:
michaelharadon wrote:
Are there any active plans to raise more birds from the lake bottom?


The simple answer is no the US Navy isn't salvaging any more aircraft.

So, the next question is, are there any non-U.S. Navy groups planning on raising any more birds from the lake?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:45 pm 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:00 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Niflheim
OD/NG wrote:
Col. Rohr wrote:
michaelharadon wrote:
Are there any active plans to raise more birds from the lake bottom?


The simple answer is no the US Navy isn't salvaging any more aircraft.

So, the next question is, are there any non-U.S. Navy groups planning on raising any more birds from the lake?


No, because the Navy still owns the aircraft and has already stated that no one can recover them no matter what the So-Called meeting that they had a few months back that neither myself nor Mike Rawson was invited to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:20 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 486
Col. Rohr wrote:
No, because the Navy still owns the aircraft and has already stated that no one can recover them no matter what the So-Called meeting that they had a few months back that neither myself nor Mike Rawson was invited to.

Thanks for the info, Col.! I was under the impression that the Navy had opened up recoveries to outside entities subject to Naval approval and some kind of "agreement" or contract between them. I didn't know that the Navy still would retain title.

Well, with that being the case, that so-called, "change in recovery policy" a while back is completely worthless!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:45 pm 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:00 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Niflheim
OD/NG wrote:
Col. Rohr wrote:
No, because the Navy still owns the aircraft and has already stated that no one can recover them no matter what the So-Called meeting that they had a few months back that neither myself nor Mike Rawson was invited to.

Thanks for the info, Col.! I was under the impression that the Navy had opened up recoveries to outside entities subject to Naval approval and some kind of "agreement" or contract between them. I didn't know that the Navy still would retain title.

Well, with that being the case, that so-called, "change in recovery policy" a while back is completely worthless!


Needless to say, I and NHHC had a few choice words about the So-Called meeting and the fact what they stated and what really actually was said are two completely different things. They especially didn't like the fact that I pointed out to them that if there was ever going to be a meeting that both Mike and I were to have received both emails and phone calls. And when they try to state that there was no truth to that I sent them copies of emails I had between Buddy and myself and later Buddy sent me an apology over the fact neither of us was invited. I also called them out over the fact only certain Warbird Owners were invited to the meeting and that it wasn't held at the Navy Yard in Washington DC where the original meeting was going to take place. Basically a lot of Smoke and Mirrors


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:54 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:36 pm
Posts: 486
Col. Rohr wrote:
OD/NG wrote:
Col. Rohr wrote:
No, because the Navy still owns the aircraft and has already stated that no one can recover them no matter what the So-Called meeting that they had a few months back that neither myself nor Mike Rawson was invited to.

Thanks for the info, Col.! I was under the impression that the Navy had opened up recoveries to outside entities subject to Naval approval and some kind of "agreement" or contract between them. I didn't know that the Navy still would retain title.

Well, with that being the case, that so-called, "change in recovery policy" a while back is completely worthless!


Needless to say, I and NHHC had a few choice words about the So-Called meeting and the fact what they stated and what really actually was said are two completely different things. They especially didn't like the fact that I pointed out to them that if there was ever going to be a meeting that both Mike and I were to have received both emails and phone calls. And when they try to state that there was no truth to that I sent them copies of emails I had between Buddy and myself and later Buddy sent me an apology over the fact neither of us was invited. I also called them out over the fact only certain Warbird Owners were invited to the meeting and that it wasn't held at the Navy Yard in Washington DC where the original meeting was going to take place. Basically a lot of Smoke and Mirrors

That's a shame. The Navy has a real chance to work with the private sector to recover history that they wouldn't be able to afford or want, but to also deal in "horse-trading" to fill in important gaps in their collections.

That's really too bad. I had high hopes that things were going to change for the better.

My one last great hope is to see a TBD at Pensacola before I die. I don't think that is going to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:51 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 pm
Posts: 2146
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Rob, you know the Navy and D of D changed the policy and they can sell any of the obsolete antiquities if they want. I would like to buy a Wildcat or Dauntless project.
My latest thought on the matter is that the supply of viable fighter projects is drying up. After the Connie Edwards aircraft all get restored, sold and consumed , there aren’t too many excellent projects only very difficult, most expensive projects. Hawker Tempests, a few Mosquitoes, and partial wrecks etc. Soon in a few years it will make sense for someone to buy five, ten or twent of these Lake Michigan birds “ as is, where is.” That’s the best deal for the Navy. They release the claim of ownership and paperwork . Now someone owns ten on the lake bottom. Then they ate offered for sale where they sit or brought up on land.
One question is could these aircraft be restored to airworthy or are they too far gone. They won’t bring very much if they’re unrestorable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:08 am 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:00 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Niflheim
marine air wrote:
Rob, you know the Navy and D of D changed the policy and they can sell any of the obsolete antiquities if they want. I would like to buy a Wildcat or Dauntless project.
My latest thought on the matter is that the supply of viable fighter projects is drying up. After the Connie Edwards aircraft all get restored, sold and consumed, there aren’t too many excellent projects only very difficult, most expensive projects. Hawker Tempests, a few Mosquitoes, and partial wrecks, etc. Soon in a few years, it will make sense for someone to buy five, ten or twenty of these Lake Michigan birds “ as is, where is.” That’s the best deal for the Navy. They release the claim of ownership and paperwork. Now someone owns ten on the lake bottom. Then they ate offered for sale where they sit or brought up on land.
One question is could these aircraft be restored to airworthy or are they too far gone. They won’t bring very much if they’re unrestorable.


Yes and no on the policy, they can't sell "obsolete antiquities unless they follow GSA rules, they can still trade an airframe for another airframe. But there are still legal ways to get around the dumbass law don't forget outside of the TBD court case the Navy has lost every court case they have taken folks to court over recovered airframes. Three things to know.

1) If an airframe is on private property and has been there for 50 years or longer the ownhas the rights tot he airframe and can do whatever he/she feels like doing about the airframe.

2) If the aircraft data card has the following words Strike or Struck the Navy can no longer claim ownership the reason why Mike Rawson won he case is because the Navy had struck all the aircraft in Lake Washington from the inventory.

3) Get a member of Congress involved with an aircraft that you're trying to recover. This is what Lex did with the Brewster.

As far as Lake Michigan I have in the past have requested a few times for the list of the location but have refused to give them to me. So this is what I plan do filing an FOIA with the DoD, SecDef, SecNav, NHHC plus I plan on reach out to the Jim Inhofe chairman of the Senate Arms Service Committee and Angus King who is a family friend and serves on the same committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lake Michigan
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:15 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 pm
Posts: 2146
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Good info Rob. I wonder if there’s a list where they have a priority number. In other words, the early combat veterans, then the ones easiest to bring up, then those that are in the best condition to be a restoration candidate,
For me, my interest lie in potential airworthiness and combat history. After that, ease of retrieval. I’d hate to spend a fortune for a zebra mussel , severely damaged FM-2 that never left the states and find out later that an F4F or Dauntless was left behind that some heroes flew in combat.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ErrolC, Google Adsense [Bot] and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group