1953 article on "aging planes" - with a couple surprises

[Chris Brame]

Chicago Tribune, July 17, 1953. What's surprising here is the aircraft they no longer would be buying parts for at that late date:

I really doubt there were any P-38s, P-63s or - of all things - B-18s in the USAF inventory at that point. Also, weren't the early B-36s being updated with jet engines then?

[Steve Nelson]

The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN

[PropsRule]

The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN

Fascinating indeed. It shows just how quickly technology was advancing in that time period.

This is the first time I have read references to the Lockheed Lightning and Bell King Cobra with the post-1948 'F' designator for fighters. I'm not so sure there were any Lightnings, King Cobras or Bolos in the USAF at that time, either, although I've never found reference to any exact date when they were retired. This article implies it was some time after 1953!

[ALOHADAVE]

Anybody know the retirement date for the B-24?
When was the last operational B-24 retired?
Did any go to reserve squadrons?

[hang the expense]

The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN

Fascinating indeed. It shows just how quickly technology was advancing in that time period.

This is the first time I have read references to the Lockheed Lightning and Bell King Cobra with the post-1948 'F' designator for fighters. I'm not so sure there were any Lightnings, King Cobras or Bolos in the USAF at that time, either, although I've never found reference to any exact date when they were retired. This article implies it was some time after 1953!

The latest that I heard of p-38s in operation squardron strength was 49th fighter group in korea 1950.They were scrapped right there on the field when the first F-80s showed up.Aurora models made a p-38 with post war markings that had the position for the decals engraved in the model.I thought that was weird even as a 8 year old lo those many years ago.

[JohnB]

Anybody know the retirement date for the B-24?
When was the last operational B-24 retired?
Did any go to reserve squadrons?

The last B-24 was the EZB-24M in 1953.
I believe that airframe is the one that ended up at Lackland and is now at the American Air Museum at Duxford restored to its original "J" configuration.

[Snake45]

I had to look up "B-37." And then felt a little stupid when I did.

[Xrayist]

The one that puzzled me was the B-32 Dominator. I know one was set aside for the Air Force Museum, but I thought it was scrapped somewhere about that time, but not sure. Even if that one was still around, weren't all the others gone by that time?

[gemmer]

The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN

Fascinating indeed. It shows just how quickly technology was advancing in that time period.

This is the first time I have read references to the Lockheed Lightning and Bell King Cobra with the post-1948 'F' designator for fighters. I'm not so sure there were any Lightnings, King Cobras or Bolos in the USAF at that time, either, although I've never found reference to any exact date when they were retired. This article implies it was some time after 1953!

The latest that I heard of p-38s in operation squardron strength was 49th fighter group in korea


1950.They were scrapped right there on the field when the first F-80s showed up.Aurora models made a p-38 with post war markings that had the position for the decals engraved in the model.I thought that was weird even as a 8 year old lo those many years ago.

The 49th transitioned to P-51Ds in 1946 and started transition to F-80Cs in 1948.

Duane

[Chris Brame]

The one that puzzled me was the B-32 Dominator. I know one was set aside for the Air Force Museum, but I thought it was scrapped somewhere about that time, but not sure. Even if that one was still around, weren't all the others gone by that time?

I believe that one was scrapped in 1949, but the last survivor was the third XB-32 prototype, 41-18336, seen on the fire dump at McClellan AFB circa 1951-52:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=53756&p=534585&hilit=mcclellan#p534585

[daviemax]

This article is interesting not only for what it says, but what it doesn't say. For example, aircraft such as the B-17 and B-25 aren't mentioned - and as we know they continued in service for several more years. It looks to me like the PIO involved deliberately added aircraft that were already out of service (e.g., B-32) to create a stronger impression that the AF was being economical.

[43-2195]

Errr....Just to play the devils advocate here for a moment. Are we suggesting that media reports in the 1950's were significantly more accurate in reporting aviation matters than they are in the 21st century?

[Snake45]

Errr....Just to play the devils advocate here for a moment. Are we suggesting that media reports in the 1950's were significantly more accurate in reporting aviation matters than they are in the 21st century?

Might or might not have been more accurate, but I don't think they had the same obvious agenda in those days that they do today.

[JohnB]

Errr....Just to play the devils advocate here for a moment. Are we suggesting that media reports in the 1950's were significantly more accurate in reporting aviation matters than they are in the 21st century?

Might or might not have been more accurate, but I don't think they had the same obvious agenda in those days that they do today.

I agree with the earlier post that said the AF may have had a hand in this...adding "straw man" aircraft to look like it's being economical. Really, I can't see even the most dense of bureaucracies (which the USAF is not) buying spare parts for an extinct type like the B-32.

Another possibility is the spare parts for the B-32 were generic parts (engine parts, props, , electronics, etc.) that would have been used on some other, in service type....and the Congress or media looked at a part number and were told "they were used on the B-32"..which they could have been, but also something else.

The Chicago Tribune was, IIRC, a very conservative paper...or at least its owner McCormick was conservative, so I don't think its a case of CBS/New York Times slanting news to make the service look bad.

[Richard W.]

I think the notice may only represent the "official" supply channels formally closing the book on those aircraft, and that parts for them hadn't been acquired for years anyway.

I'll bet the Dept. of the AF posted something to that effect in the Congressional Register and the newspaper guy used it to make a story.