Warbird Information Exchange

No, I don't believe the NMUSAF scraps airplanes every day. But I do believe that the NMUSAF disposes of (or allows other agencies to dispose of) certain historical aircraft under its stewardship that many of us would consider worthy of continued preservation.

I may be entirely off-base, but in the case of the Gateway F-84 it would appear that the authorities at Gateway made little (if any) attempt to locate an aviation, veterans, or historical organization in the area (and there are several) for safekeeping. As frustrating as Gateway's apparent attitude may have been, ultimate responsibility lies with the NMUSAF and its authority to offer scrapping of the airframe as an option for its disposal.

As long as the policy of scrapping historical aircraft remains an option for 2nd-party stewards of NMUSAF property, I encouraged vigilance on the part of WIXers--simply to not assume that aircraft placarded as under the ownership of the NMUSAF are immune to permanent disposal.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Dan I know, but what were Dayton's choices?

1) Spend the money to move an airframe of unknown condition back to Dayton to be placed in storage as the NMUSAF already has multiple examples of F-84's on display.

2)part it out and scrap it. Saves the museum money that they can spend on other items, like building a facility large enough to house more examples that are more rare, and historical.

3)Sell it to a private owner. And that maybe is what should have happened. But with aircraft like the jets, even if they sell them off, how many folks are going to be able to really operate it? How many F-84's and F-105's are really going to be bought by private owners and flown? I am thinking single digits. And there is no telling that THIS particular F-84 would be a candidate for that.

If the LSFM, NMNA, or NMSUAF scrap something, chances are that was their last option. That is why we are fighting to try and save the outdoor aircraft.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Howdy Doug! Flat on my belly here, trying to keep out of the crossfire. As Willie might say to Joe, "I'd get lower, but me buttons are in the way." I'm mostly hanging out at the Pioneer Flight Museum these days, where my "vast woodworking expertise" makes me much more useful than I ever was in a WWII warbirds hangar. It's a great fit, and besides, life became meaningless without my beloved F3F.....

Incidentally, I wonder how many members of the general audience truly understand what happens to airplane stuff when you soak it in salt water? It's truly amazing. Unreal, in fact. Wow, not good.

_________________
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas

PIC, Ford 6600 pulling Rhino batwing up and down the runway

mustangdriver-

Obviously we're getting a little far afield from the original topic, but I think the question you posed is a worthwhile question for us to discuss. I fall in that last category- I think that if there are aircraft like the F-84 in question that have lost the support/desire of their original sponsors, and if NMUSAF doesn't want to pay to transport it back, then yes, I think NMUSAF should offer it up for sale. I think the pool of folks interested might be larger than you think. In the case of our museum here in Tulsa, the board regularly is asked to consider getting aircraft on loan from NMUSAF. One of the questions that is always posed is why should we spend the 50-100k to move an aircraft that isn't ours, spend tons of resources to spruce it up and maintain it, with the concern that NMUSAF could always recall it or divert it elsewhere. I think if there was a reasonable program that allowed private concerns, especially museums, to buy the aircraft outright, there would be quite a few takers. A simple private auction might even have merit. Allowing the market to determine what such an aircraft is worth would take the hassle of negotiation out of the process. Why couldn't NMUSAF publish notice on their website, and give interested museums a couple of weeks to submit a sealed bid in writing. Highest bid gets clear title to the aircraft, no questions asked, with a deadline to remove the aircraft in question. If they can't get it done, next highest bidder gets the next shot. It would eliminate the oversight hassle from NMUSAF, wouldn't cost the museum hardly any resources, and would result in a small infusion of cash that could be diverted to the uses you described. Is such a thought at least reasonable?

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

Actually That is a really good idea, and working at Grissom I know what you mean. There is no bigger fear that we are going to lose an aircraft or two. There is more into that than I can go into on here, but I think you have a great idea.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

speaking only for myself I'm just trying to help in my own special way.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

HAHA Thanks Jack.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Jack is indeed speshull...

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Yes he is. A great dude to have around

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

In case of the F-84, I seem to remember there is asbestos in the airframe. There certainly is in the RF-84. A good reason to NOT sell it to private owners. It's a liability isue.

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

Mustang Driver, I can't disagree with you that the NMUSAF has to make tough decisions...
BUT in the first decade of the 21st Century, NO aircraft as rare as a straight-wing F-84 or B-47 should be scrapped by ANY reputable museum.
Period.
How many straight-wing 84s are out there? 15-20? We're not talking T-33 or even F-84Fs here.

Another recent decision they should account for is sole surviving F-89A...one of two gun-nose survivors...(again 25 or so F-89 survivors) that was taken off display at Lackland.
It was given to a local museum at Stinson Field in San Antonio without its unique nose.
Why? What good is a nose without an airplane? I didn't see the nose in a place of hnor at the NMUSAF...not even as a coat rack in the cafeteria.
And more to the point, how can the museum display the aircraft without a nose?
I'd say that plane is as good as scrapped.

It sounds like they need more "buffs" and fewer bureaucrats in the front office.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

John, before your blood pressure pegs, the former F-84 at Gateway Tech was a sweptwing. Please accept my apologies for the erring keystroke. It has been corrected on the original post.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

An unknown warbirder whom I like to quote once said,.."we do the best we can with what we've got for as long as we can." IMHO, ANY vintage aircraft that people like us save is a victory.
Stay vigilant WIXers.

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."