NMUSAF asks Chanute Museum for voluntary release of aircraft

[PJ]

I agree, Bill Greenwood, and the town took quite a hit when the Air Force pulled out. I'm sure there are some types of grants out there that could help Rantoul refurb the museum buildings and some of the other parts of the base to draw more tourists. In turn, those folks need places to eat and lodging. All of that means more money for Rantoul. They do seem to have other activities out on the ramp. The day we were there was a semi truck show and I believe Django mentioned hot rods.


PJ
PV-2 Harpoon "Hot Stuff"
www.amhf.org

[Pogmusic]

As to what they could build..... If it is an active field, I doubt much. However, when the USAF closed Turner AFB in Albany, Georgia, the city allowed Budweiser (I think) to come in and build a plant. Just so it couldn't be reused as an airfield, they built the plant right on the runways.

[Bill Greenwood]

That sounds like something that the military would do, for spite. To take an airfield with runways, built with many taxpayer dollars, and destroy it so civilians could not use it as an airport.

That is exactly what they did at Hamilton AF base just north of San Francisco where land was really tight and a gen av airport was really needed. They shut out gen av and as far as I know it just sits there vacant.
The Navy did the same thing at the former base in the north part of Chicago,( Glendale?) which again had a need for more space for gen av. Same in Denver.

The norm is that the military is not a friend to aviation except if they are doing it themselves on taxpayer dollars. For the rest of us we are off the back of the bus.

[Django]

Yeah, there are a couple different car shows there throughout the year. There is a huge antique farming show there too. I desperately tried to get our car show to move there, but in the end our huge numbers of people and cars trying to get in within a 2 hour timespan is what killed Rantoul in our club vote. Realistically, an AFB is designed to be hard to get to! The town was courting us heavily, including the Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce. In the end, another group got together with them captializing on some of our ideas for the site for our show, and had their first hot rod show there last September. I wasn't able to go last year, but I really want to try to make the show this year.

Here are all the photos from my first fact finding mission to scout the site. There are pics of the base, the town, and the museum.


http://www.hotrodhucksters.com/chad/rantoul/

[Pat Carry]

Someone should take back a certain P-38 in NJ back then, shouldn't they...

T J

Exactly! There are plenty of planes across the nation that need to be protected. The NMUSAF needs to look no farther than the collection at the USAF Armament Museum in Florida. I remember it was mentioned here in the past that the planes there are in poor shape, particulary the B-17. If the UASF took some of the planes from the Chanute Museum just where would they go? To another museum where they would continue to rot away in an outside enviorment? Does the UASF still own the P-51 on outside display in Wisconsin? If so why dont they take that one back? Geez!

[mustangdriver]

Alot of people say that I stick up for the NMUSAF too much, but the truth is I try to stick up for the truth, and the whole story, not just one side.

The Chanute museum issued a letter to the NMUSAF that stated it was considering closing up shop, and that they needed to look at moving the planes. Then the museum was donated some money to keep things going. The NMUSAF was never told the second part and came out to see what was going on. Once there the condition of the planes was discussed, and the Chanute Museum asked, look at it again, ASKED the NMUSAF to take some of the planes back. The problem was this museum is struggling right now, and the cost to move just 2 planes would close the doors on the museum. The Chanute board voted to release 15 airframes. Chanute is responsible for moving all 15 back to Dayton under the agreement. However, the NMUSAF in an effort to keep the museum afloat said if they request the airplanes instead of Chanute giving them up, it puts Dayton on the hook for the bill of moving them. This is what they did. Dayton is trying to find indoor homes for the aircraft, and get them under roof. The XB-47 will stay put under a 1 year agreement. The Chanute museum is fighting to stay alive, and the NMUSAF is trying to give them some help.

The NJ P-38 is no where near the same level of condition as these aircraft.

[Bill Greenwood]

I think you stand up for the NMUSAF too much and I think others would agree. I and we like you, but think that Col or Gen or whatever his decoration is for his desk time award, is a bum.
It is not that he was able to win the the dispute legally with the CAF, but that he needed to start the fight.

So, if you tell us something good about the AF museuem trying to get airplanes from another site, then of course I have my doubts, very big ones.

If you know for sure, first hand, that yours is the true version, maybe so, but I suspect your are well meaning, but giving us the party line that Gen, desk rider gave you.

[Django]

The NMUSAF has a new director...

[mustangdriver]

Actually I am giving you the truth. No versions. as per the Chanute Air Museum.

[Zachary]

Bill, Chris actually took the time to call the curator at Chanute and get the straight scoop. You can do the same if you want:

Contact Us Today

Chanute Air Museum
1011 Pacesetter Drive
Rantoul, Illinois 61866-3672

Phone 217-893-1613 or 1-877-RANTOUL

Fax 217- 892-5774

E-mail Addresses

•Curator - Mark Hanson
curator@aeromuseum.org
•Governing Board President - Nancy Kobel
•Education - Jim Eldridge
educator@aeromuseum.org
•Operations Manager - Robyn York volunteers@aeromuseum.org
•Gift Shop Manager
giftshop@aeromuseum.org

[JohnB]

That sounds like something that the military would do, for spite. To take an airfield with runways, built with many taxpayer dollars, and destroy it so civilians could not use it as an airport.

That is exactly what they did at Hamilton AF base just north of San Francisco where land was really tight and a gen av airport was really needed. They shut out gen av and as far as I know it just sits there vacant.
The Navy did the same thing at the former base in the north part of Chicago,( Glendale?) which again had a need for more space for gen av. Same in Denver.

The norm is that the military is not a friend to aviation except if they are doing it themselves on taxpayer dollars. For the rest of us we are off the back of the bus.

You're wrong.
The military leaves a base and gives it to local authorities....THEY decide what to do with it. When aviation is banned from it, it usually has to do in environmental restrictions and NIMBYs...I've never heard of the military saying a base can't be re-used for aviation..unless there is a safety/encroachment issue.
Even then in a case like Williams-Gateway, the USAF pulled out because of encroachment, the locals stayed and got a first-rate airport for free.
Look at the dozens/hundreds of old bases that are used for GA and reliever fields.
But what do I know, I only worked the issue for 20s years...probably not good enough compaired to "old stories" and your oft-voiced anti-military sentiments?

Last edited by JohnB on Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[mustangdriver]

We are going to have the Chanute Air Museum on the Warbird Rescue show in two weeks. We are trying to give them some support. They need volunteers bad!!

[rwdfresno]

Bill, I'm afraid you are quite misinformed in this case. As much as it would fit the template that the big bad military is responsible for retaliating against the civilian population, in fact in most cases I would venture a guess that you may even be aligned in many ways with those who are causing these bases to disappear and be devoid of aviation.

Being that I'm not close to this Chanute situation I can't directly comment however, the military can not be blamed or accused of retaliation on the local civilian populations in most of these situations.

I have been involved closely with a couple of these base closing "debates" so to speak. Most often what happens is that the military turns the property over to local governments who will then create some sort of a re-use committee who will determine what happens with the property. The committee is then lobbied by a number of interest groups including environmental action agencies, municipal airport advocates, real estate interests etc. The committee then determines what the best post military use will be for the property. Unfortunately in many cases it ends up being non-aviation interests that win out because aviation doesn't have a lot of public interest or a strong lobbing group.

In the case of Hamilton AFB it's property was mostly turned over to the City of Novato, Marin County. Due to pressure from the environmental lobby a portion of the land was reserved for the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project. This was a joint venture between the Federal Government (U.S. Army corps of Engineers) and the State of California. This had nothing to do with spiting the local citizens and everything to do with the pressures of the environmental lobby. I think more often than not you can place the "blame" of these airfields getting plowed under firmly on the environmentalists and the local governments.

Ryan

That sounds like something that the military would do, for spite. To take an airfield with runways, built with many taxpayer dollars, and destroy it so civilians could not use it as an airport.

That is exactly what they did at Hamilton AF base just north of San Francisco where land was really tight and a gen av airport was really needed. They shut out gen av and as far as I know it just sits there vacant.
The Navy did the same thing at the former base in the north part of Chicago,( Glendale?) which again had a need for more space for gen av. Same in Denver.

The norm is that the military is not a friend to aviation except if they are doing it themselves on taxpayer dollars. For the rest of us we are off the back of the bus.

[whistlingdeath77]

i hope they get the help they need

[Bill Greenwood]

John B.
Good to hear from you that I'm wrong. A time or two other guys who make their living off the taxpayers have said the same thing. I could even be wrong, after all I am just a guy, not a Gen or any military big shot who is without sin.
I had a little trouble with the language in your post, but then I never spent 20 years in the military and don't know all the secret code. What was you specialty there, was it spelling? If so will you explain to me what "comarred" means? I didn't learn it at U of Texas. and my civilian dictionary does not have it either. Maybe it is military talk for comarried which is sort of in the don't ask, don't tell frame.
And good to know all about that encroachment. I do wonder a bit,me being such a natural commie, how the military flew all sorts and sizes of planes, even armed with bombs and rockets and full of lots of volatile fuel for all decades, but as soon as some gen av wants to use a base then it is encroachment.
My opinion and questions really aren't even worth your time to respond to. I am nobody, never shot anyone, never dropped any bombs,much less that hit anyone. And I am not a real military man at all, I have for years had a weakness when reading or seeing on the news about the military firing on civilians or dropping bombs on women and children. Makes me feel sick to my stomach when really I ought to be admiring the hardware involved and the profit margins of the folks that built them.
I realize that although we have never met as far as I know that you have a pretty low opinion of me, and the feeling is certainly mutual. But I do have one question if you will indulge me.
Does your love of the military include all military or just ours? As the Bob Dylan song says, we have God on our side,and you don't count the dead when God's on your side.
Would your admiration for military extend to others who might have Allah or Hirohito or some other on their side? Some of them are pretty good at bombing, and killing also, and they share your anger at any one who speaks out against their side.