Why isn't there a US Military Historic flight?

[Hiergehts]

Hello Everyone,

This is a question that I've wondered about for awhile.

The UK, Canada, Sweden as well as several other countries have official state "Historic Flights" that operate vintage military types that each country used. I assume primarily the purpose is for the benefit of the general public at airshows and flying displays as well as to keep the contribution of those aviators who died alive. I've wondered why the US has never had something like that - not that we need it - but since military aviation is so important and intermingled with our recent history it kinda seems odd that we haven't (to me at least..).

Personally, I look at from the point of view that if Canada can do so (with a much smaller population as well as GNP), then why didn't the US?

Any opinions/thoughts appreciated.

Cheers,
AB

[Rob Mears]

I agree. I was looking along the rows of A-10's out at Barksdale Air Force Base last week and thinking about how I'll never see another one of them fly in another 15 or 20 years....ever. If only to keep the sense of heritage alive, the USAF should maintain in operational condition one of each type that it has flown. Even if they only flew one type per year, it would be a great way to celebrate their history, and they would be the only one's flying a lot of these types.

Here's a picture I took of one of the remaining surplus F-4 Phantom's on its way to Florida where it, rather than the normal 1/2 scale drones, will be outfitted as such and shot down by some F-16 pilot. I guess it works out from a budgetary standpoint, but who knows what kind of history this plane may have racked up in Vietnam and the Gulf War?

[Elwyn]

Considering when it entered service you could call any B-52 operations a Historic Flight.

[helinut]

Iam from Canada and have heard of this ,but have neaver seen or heard of it ever making its way to the east coast, I think it is privatly owned aircraft mixed with a few from the airforce, I think canada just missed a prefect time to creat one, with the T-33,s being retired they could have had a few put aside with spares, also the tutors.They could of even used a few Trackers that were retired in the last 12 years.

[Wolverine]

I wrote the USAF Museum and asked them. Their reply was (and I quote) "...the National Museum of the United States Air Force is not a flying museum."

Since I had already explained what a historic flight was, I felt no need to tell him what one was again (versus a flying museum).

Bottom line, they just don't care.

[tom d. friedman]

would be nice, but the u.s. military budget is stretched to the point of snapping like a rubberband now!!! & sec. of defense rummy just dropped the axe on a quantity of bases across the country slated to close to save $$$$. think about it though.... we as warbird fans would love to have a government sponsored historical flight group, but the general public (namely the over burdened taxpayer) would balk if they went through with it. then there's social security, nat. budget, on & on. part of the reason it works in some other countries is they don't have military budgets like we do, because they aren't as hated world wide as we are sad to say. regards, tom

[Hiergehts]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

While I agree that the typical US taxpayer would balk at money being spent on that in these very politically charged times, I do not think the Brits have protested against it in any large numbers, but correct me if I'm wrong. From my own visit to the UK it could also be as they seem much more interested in celebrating and preserving their history than your 'average' person here seems (my own observation/opinion based on talking to/staying with several UK WW2 veterans).

I do not see this ever coming to fruition in the US, especially in regards to newer types like the F4, A-10, F-15, etc. as they're SO expensive to keep airworthy vs. older, simpler a/c but I have read that Curtiss LeMay had the idea of collecting an example of every combat airplane from WW2 for a large collection in the late 40's/early 50's. That could have been the beginnings of something awsome...too bad for peoples shortsightness and budgetary restrictions. Like Tom, I agree one of the main reasons it won't happen comes down to how much money we spend on our military vs. other countries.

I am from Canada and have heard of this ,but have neaver seen or heard of it ever making its way to the east coast, I think it is privatly owned aircraft mixed with a few from the airforce, I think canada just missed a prefect time to creat one, with the T-33,s being retired they could have had a few put aside with spares, also the tutors.They could of even used a few Trackers that were retired in the last 12 years.

That may be be the case but due to the cost/complexity, I assume your flyable Lancaster C-GVRA was restored thru and is paid for mainly by Canadian taxpayer money. Also, to me it appears the CWHM is focused mainly on preserving aircraft of the WW2 era. I don't know where your located but the CWHM is based in Mount Hope, Ont., near Toronto, which is definately in the eastern part of the country.

Cheers,
AB

PS : Just for grins, could you imagine a B-36 as part of a Historic Flight, complimented by a group flyby with an F-84, F-86, F-89, F-100, F-101 and F104! Talk about an awesome sight..!!

[helinut]

Heir, Iam on the east coast, like I said 1000 miles east of that eastern part of the country, down here we call that the central part...lol. Or the center of the univrese.

[HarvardIV]

Hi Hiergehts;

Here in the U.S., Due to our Capitalist thinking we kick and scream when the gov't tries to create new spending.

In Europe you have little choice, as the gov'ts do whatever they want based on how their bureaucrats think what the best thing is for the people.

[Glyn]

I have read that Curtiss LeMay had the idea of collecting an example of every combat airplane from WW2 for a large collection in the late 40's/early 50's. That could have been the beginnings of something awsome...too bad for peoples shortsightness and budgetary restrictions.

I believe many of the artifacts put aside for this museum are still with us - after a brief stay in Chicago many of the planes made it to Silver Hill and others went to Dayton. Regardless, the AF Museum is as close to complete as it could be, there are very few types that actively served in the USAF that aren't in the museum. Off the top of my head the only conspicuous absence is a B-32 Dominator. As any type has left service over the last 20 years an example makes it's way to Dayton. Quite simply said the USAF museum is in my opinion the finest collection of museum aircraft anywhere. While it's not the same as seeing them in the air seeing them preserved is better than nothing.

As far as the USAF and a historic flight goes, I think it comes down to finances as others have said. The BBMF has been so successful in the UK simply for the fact that the majority of the population there has a healthy respect for aviation history - virtually everyone knows what a Spitfire is. Ask your average punk kid in the States what a P-51 or a B-17 is and he'll have no clue what you're talking about.

While the US military is not compelled to maintain a fleet of warbirds in flying condition they do have a "historic flight" where F-15 and F-16 display pilots regularly fly formation displays with P-51s and the like at airshows every season. This has been good pub for the Air Force and has made for some cool photos here on the WIX board.

[tom d. friedman]

actually 5 star general hap arnold, head of usaaf of ww 2 was 1st forward thinking guy who wanted to save 1 of every type of aircraft both allied & enemy, after the war, but that was hardly accomplished sad to say. reasons???? i'm open to speculation!! did lemay want a flying group of preserved u.s. aircraft?? regards, tom

[Brett]

I think the official US government line on historic military aircraft preservation is that aircraft are better kept under several hundred feet of seawater where they are safe rather than have them restored to flight where people might be able to see them.

Cheers,

Brett

[JBoyle]

A few reasons:


1. They haven't had to...the CAF, and various museums & owners have kept the WWII stuff flying for them.

2. They don't care....I hate to say it but a lot of AF pilots and big shots really aren't interested. Many, if not most, would never touch a plane if they weren't getting well paid for it. Witness the legions or retired pilots who never fly after it's on their own dime. To too many of them "it's just a job."

3. No Chief of Staff (or subordinate down the line) want's to stick his neck out to make a suggestion like that. Bad career move. I think if someone brought up the Thunderbirds today, they 'd get shot down. Successful career officers are adverse to risk...even if it's a risk worth taking.
(as an exteme example...I was at a base where the commander shut the aero club...afraid an accident would make him look bad. He didn't want to risk some guy in a "Piper Cub" hurting himself on his base.

4. Cost

BTW: A former directer of the NMUSAF had a flying T-6 at Wright-Pattrerson to give rides to VIPs...but eventually someone talked and it's now grounded. I know you've never heard of it, but I saw it in front of the W-P Base Ops many times in the early 90s.

[p51]

I wrote the USAF Museum and asked them. Their reply was (and I quote) "...the National Museum of the United States Air Force is not a flying museum."
Since I had already explained what a historic flight was, I felt no need to tell him what one was again (versus a flying museum).
Bottom line, they just don't care.

Well, in all fairness, I can understand their position. Here's the mission of the museum in it's entirety:

The National Museum of the US Air Force (NMUSAF) portrays the history and traditions of the United States Air Force through specialized displays and exhibition of historical items at the USAFM. The museum manages the worldwide USAF Museum System (USAFMS) for museums and historical property, maintaining accountability for all USAF historical property. It is the focal point for all museum matters within the USAF, to include foreign and domestic, military and civilian museums. The museum identifies, searches for, acquires, preserves, refurbishes, displays or stores, and manages items of historical or technological significance to the USAF. The museum provides professional guidance and assistance to participants in the USAFMS, specifically the base level museums and displays/exhibits. The museum manages the loan program for USAF historical property made available to non-USAF museums under the provisions of Public Law 10 USC 2572. The museum manages the historical property exchange program

The USAF museum's mission is to preserve the aircraft and related artifacts for futurue generations. I don't think the USAF museum SHOULD fly anything in their collection. Can you imagine how we'd feel if one of their very rare or historic planes augered in? I personally would not want to risk "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby," to an airshow performance. Nor would I want to see them risking one of the few P-61s in existence just so a few people could see them in the air a few times as opposed to generations seeing them in a building later on. No, to me, most of their aircraft are far too valuable for that.
I'm pretty sure that the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is run by the RAF and not by any museum. I know that active-duty RAF pilots fly those planes while under official orders to do so. I could easily imagine a British museum saying no to flying their aircraft just like the USAFM has.
Now, that being said, the USAF has obviously worked with warbird owners for their "Heritage Flight" program:
http://www2.acc.af.mil/airdemo/heritage.htm
But that's clearly not the same thing. I too find it sad that future generations will look at an A-10s in a museum and wonder how that thing ever got into the air. But keep in mind, other nations are also balking at keeping early jets in the air. I really doubt even the tradition-minded RAF will have a Canberra or Jaguar in the air in the future for their heritage flights. No, keeping a jet in the air is expensive, way too much so for governments strapped for cash for simple defense spending. And to be honest with ourselves, who but people like us would even care that an F-100 shows up for a show? To even many of the public who attend an airshows, a jet is a jet, and it's easier to get a current training flight to divert to a show for a few passes than to keep an ancient jet in the air. While I hope that civilians are still able to keep warbirds of ALL eras in the sky, I just can't see any governments spending tax dollars on keeping jet warbirds aloft.

[HarvardIV]

p51:

I agree with you, I think personal ownership adds a degree of safety.