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 Apr 29, 2026 8:34 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  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:33 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:10 pm
Posts: 4173
Location: Pearland, Texas
CAPFlyer, you are WRONG ! There is only ONE civilian F-4 flying in the world. The other USAF F-4s are USAF assets with the drone program. They are first and foremost drones, they WILL be expended eventually, fancy paint not withstanding.

There is no individual AF or Navy policy when it comes to flying jets. It is DoD policy that the services follow. Yes, it is true that when it comes to WWII aircraft that they two museums approach them in different ways. The Navy maintains that the AF Museum has no authority to use the hands off policy that they do. Therefore the NHC maintains that they hold ownership in perpetuity regardless of location.

Jets are a different matter, both services approach them the same way.

CIVILIANS and CIVILIAN ORGANIZATIONS have no busines owning and operating high performance jets. They are a continued liability and a threat to the US Govt.

Even when faced with Congressional action they will fight the release of any tactical turbine aircraft till the bitter end, in some cases they will continue to fight it long after the turnover.

Once again, I'll state that the policy is assinine and it is perpetuated by govt. bureaucrats who are afraid of their own employers, ie: the citizens of this country. If it was left up to the people in the DoD and DLA demil offices they would trash the Constitution in order to sieze these types of assets from their rightful legal owners and scrap them. This doesn't just affect aircraft, it also affects military vehicles, weapons, etc...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:34 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:32 am
Posts: 4343
Location: Battle Creek, MI
I thought the last B-47 to fly was the one at Pueblo, CO..I remember seeing an N-number painted on it back in the mid '80s.

SN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:03 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am
Posts: 3333
Steve Nelson wrote:
I thought the last B-47 to fly was the one at Pueblo, CO..I remember seeing an N-number painted on it back in the mid '80s.

http://www.elite.net/castle-air/boeingb47.html

And here's what it looked like when I visited 2 weeks ago.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:56 pm
Posts: 32
Location: NE Texas
Didn't the Navy have a couple of modified B-47's that flew as some sort of "electroninc threat simulators" or something to that effect into the 90's? I remember reading something about their retirement...

Nope, my mistake, Google says Navy EB-47E were retired in 1977...

I don't know where I came up with 90's...

_________________
Yesterday is experience, tomorrow is hope, today is getting from one to the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:43 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 1059
Location: Whittier CA USA, 25 miles east of Los Angeles
Steve Nelson wrote:
I thought the last B-47 to fly was the one at Pueblo, CO..I remember seeing an N-number painted on it back in the mid '80s.

SN


No I've been there, and that airplane's last flight was definitely before the Castle AFB airplane.

John


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:15 pm
Posts: 337
Location: Hudson, WI
CAPFlyer wrote:
Yes, but there are F-4s (USAF only), T-33s, T-38s, P-80s, F-86s, ect. flying.


There are no P-80s flying that I know of. But there are several T-33s.

I also believe Cavanaugh has an airworthy F9F, but I'm not sure how much it flies.

I would love to see an F-84 Thunderjet fly someday. I wonder if any are under consideration for airworthy restorations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:16 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:10 pm
Posts: 4173
Location: Pearland, Texas
MJANVEC, as long as the AF Museum or the NMNA hold title, they will never fly.

I assure you that if any airframes out there are considered to be in a gray area as it relates to qwnership, any hint of flying one will have the investigative authorities all over the individuals contemplating operation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:43 pm
Posts: 1454
Location: Colorado
We sold a very restorable F9F-2 with a good engine to Kermit several years ago, I wouldn't be surprised to see it fly one of these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:18 am
Posts: 671
Location: Berkshire, UK
CAPFlyer wrote:
The USAF has been much more ameniable to allowing its former aircraft fly in the civilian world


Yeah right....... :roll:

That theory didn't work out too well with the recent sorry saga of that last AMARC F-105 did it.......... :cry:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:41 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:10 am
Posts: 9721
Location: Pittsburgher misplaced in Oshkosh
I heard that there was a guy trying to rebuild a B-47 somewhere? It could be just one of those rumors I guess. I also heard that the guys that used to have the B-36 in Ft. Worth wanted to fly it one last time to KOSH, and that Gulf oil said that they would donate all of the fuel and oil. Of course it never took place, but I wonder if that is true or not.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:44 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:43 pm
Posts: 1454
Location: Colorado
That B-36 in Ft. Worth (now at Pima) was far from flyable in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:50 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:26 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: PA
$$$$$

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com


Last edited by Nathan on Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:08 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:10 am
Posts: 9721
Location: Pittsburgher misplaced in Oshkosh
rwdfresno wrote:
That B-36 in Ft. Worth (now at Pima) was far from flyable in my opinion.


That is one of the reasons that the NMUSAF moved it I believe, though there were other reasons.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: To make it fly B-58
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:58 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am
Posts: 1202
One need remember why these planes were owned by the GOVT in the first place. Its not simple money and hands to turn wrenches that kept them flying, but there were a LOT of people behind the sidelines, ENGINEERS, etc that you would rarely see connected with warbirds.

Maybe the closest you find to this is Jack Rouche with his Merlin rebuilds and new pistons, fingers, etc. He finds the problem and engineers a solution.

At best the B-58 was a hard plane to keep flying once you got into it. The crews (maint and flight) would have to be about full time. Since they lost so many of them in crashes (26 crashed of 116 built) when they were fully supported by the USAF and manufacturer, imagine how long one would last in civilian hands?

Someone (I forget who) said that the only thing that was good that came out of B-58 Program was that the Russians tried to copy it (and spent a fortune on theirs).

Personally I think the B-58 was about the coolest thing ever to fly up to the F-22. Think that the B-58 crews went to their planes in 57 Chevy Nomad Wagons. Neat.

Civilian B-58 not possible.

Mark H


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:42 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
Why did this thread get 4' wide allofasudden?

Mudge the scroller :?

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 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