Warbird Information Exchange

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... highlight=


It's in that thread someplace. They look far better in the pictures than they are in real life, but only because most of them are on the parade ground where they are seen by high level folks on a regular basis.

_________________
Brad

Call Oklahoma City and order a CD. The data is all public record.

I am not saying that the NMUSAF is perfect, but darn you guys are just really tough on the national museums. Most of this has to do with the fact that they are static museums. Well any one educated enough to venture out side of the "Hey they are fun to play with" realm realize that they are artifacts. Is it great to see them fly? Sure I love it just as much as anyone else. But for the most part people are only allowed to have limited access to the flying ones. That is unless you have $400.00 to fly in it. There is nothing wrong with that, but the average person that is just trying to learn about planes and history can not do it with the flying examples alone. You need to have static museums as well. I have worked at two non flying museums, and two flying museums. I get sick of people thinking that the flying aircraft at museums is their toy. I have had it happen time and time again.
If you don't own something, then you can't sell the damned thing. That is all that the NMUSAF is saying. You say that if the Museum wasn't involved that the plane would be flying. I say if the CAF had better rules in place, the thing wouldn't be wrecked.
We all drink the Koolaide of our favorite places, but no one is perfect. Rick I could tell you things that went on while rebuilding "a certain bomber that you wouldn't believe.
I am on the offensive only because I mentioned that I want to see what is best for the airplane. Whether it be a static bird, or flying one.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

And I am sorry, but I fail to see from those pics, where these airplanes are in such bad shape. SUre you have to get into the wings and such to see what is going on, but they seem to be well maintained.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Mustangdriver wrote:



My complaint about the AF Musuem is based not on flying versus static but how they have behaved with certain types in the past. For the most part, this is not an either or situation. For example, some types are obvious static only canidates, and without the musuem, none might be preserved, the B-58 comes to mind as an example, as much as I would like to, I probably won't be able to fly one on the airshow circuit.

HOWEVER, the behavior of the Musuem with regard to some other types is virtually reprehensible. For example, I would very much like to own and fly an AT-9 Jeep, but there are none, other than the one in Dayton. Why? Because the Musuem aquired all 3 of the potentially flyable airframes, made one static restoration from them, and SCRAPPED all the rest of the parts that could have been used to make a flying example. There is no excuse for these actions. It's not the only example of that type of behavior, just the one that pi$$es me off the most. Please, help me understand how that helps the preservation efforts for these rare types. No all good or bad, but certainly some of both.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Yikes! What a touchy subject indeed.

Having been to the NMUSAF more times than I can count, I will admit that I am totally enamored with their collection of static aircraft and always look forward to the next time that I can visit. I do often think looking at the aircraft makes me wonder what it would be like to see and hear said aircraft fly (B-36, B-58...etc). They are all restored to near mint condition and seem to be well taken care of.

I would like to agree with what the one post here said about the aircraft on display at Lackland. Having already put up a mild re-creation of the B-24 ( ) I have to wonder why the Air Force does allow an ultra-rare aircraft like the P (F?) -82 sit outside and rot. I have been to the parade grounds and have seen all of the aircraft on display. They are no where near as pristine as the ones at the NMUSAF and the general public will have a heck of a time getting on the base to see the collection.

I fail to see the logic in we the taxpayers paying for a legal argument for the government to control the CAF twin mustang. The cowboy diplomacy that has prevailed throughout our government for what seems forever now has trickled down into an argument over the scraps. Because our gubmint is having trouble pushing around other countries, they are gonna turn in on themselves and take out their frustrations on we the people now? What a pathetic state of affairs.

My hope is to see the CAF win the legal argument, sell the damned thing already and use the money to get FIFI back in the air! Who knows what will be next iffin the gubmint wins...will they try to take FIFI back because she has sat for so long?

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.

Hi,

Wow with all of the emotions and passion these subjects fire up you would think that there would be no problem with lots of voluteer help and funds to take care of every air frame sitting outside. The truth of the matter is too many of the posters making all of the noise do nothing but sit in front of a key board and boast on how the world of aviation should be ran accoarding to them. If it weren't for all of the static A/C that were set a side by someone with the foresight of future preservation the scrap man would have cashed in on them years ago. Can anyone post a list of park toys, gas station bill boards, memorials, trade school air frames, gate guards, ect. that have been restored and are now flying? There are a lot of A/C that are displayed out there that will never fly again, should they all be scrapped if they will never grace the skys again or is it O.K. to see them as silent reminders of days gone bye? Rather than display them at an Air Force base in a very dry desert environment maybe they should all be rounded up and dumped in Lake Michigan so that in 300 years from now school kids can enjoy them from the windows of the futuristic submarine school buses that the Naval History center believes will be a reality? Obsolete A/C are scrapped every day in Tuscon do you see a big uproar over that? Is anyone beating their doors down to haul them off to safety and have them displayed for future generations? With out lots of cash, even more hard work and groups willing to take on the up keep of these fragile artifacts you will see less and less put in parks or on public display they will just be cut up, gone forever.

As far as the ownership issue goes that will be decited in a federal court of law by a judge that hopefully have a little insight on aviation. How would you feel if your father had owned the P-82 when you were a young boy and decited to loan it to the C.A.F. or any other museum then you were faced with the situation of them selling or trading it away and telling you to go pound sand? A loan is a loan, if it was indeed gifted to the C.A.F. the proper paper work should exist if not it should be returned to the rightful owner. I love to see A/C in there natural enviornment, I've spent a big part of my life working on rare birds from the 20's, 30's, WW2, early jets, ect. most of them are flyers, but you have to realise that many many of the preserved A/C we enjoy today will never ever fly again not only from a mechanical point of view but also from a political view point. You can not as a private owner get your hands on any type that is classified as a tactical A/C not even parts. We should all be greatful that so many A/C have survived in parks, museums, ect. that we take for granted with out someone elses sacrafices they would be beer cans. The N.M.U.S.A.F. has the largest collection of military A/C in the world and should be honored as such and have an overwhelming duty of preservation on their hands. Its always easy to criticize others efforts from your moms basement but until I see some real movers and shakers they will remain opionated dreamers that lack any type of motivation other than bitching.

Thanks Mike

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT

Hi Mike-

I will have to respectfully disagree. Most of the folks that have posted on this topic are very personally involved in owning or restoring airplanes. They are doing their part to preserve history. I also bet that anyone of them will raise their hand if the NMUSAF wants to hand title to an airplane to them in exchange for properly restoring it I know my hand would be up.

I am grateful that the static airplanes were preserved, and continue to be so. However, lets face it, you know as well as I do that times have changed. If we continue to let the WWII generation of airplanes sit outside there won't be anything left to work with in the near future. As I mentioned before, my biggest gripe with the NMUSAF over this issue is that they haven't brought the P-82 they have inside, but want to have another one.

I know that you are doing business with the NMUSAF, but can you really advocate letting a P-51 sit outside at Volk Field in the harsh winter? How about the B-17 sitting beside the highway in Tulare? The NMUSAF generally does a great job..no question. But no organization is perfect and they should pass these aircraft to folks who will properly restore them instead of letting them deteriorate.

Case in point, one of the posters in this very thread was looking for an F-84 a few months ago. The one in Kenosha was mentioned. Of course he couldn't obtain it because it was controlled by the government. Six months later it is scrapped because reportedly no museum who met the criteria would take it. Is that perservation or just arrogance?

Three things about this thread bother me, and even though I have read it twice I have not seen the answers. Maybe someone can pont them out to me.

Old Shep says they have a title....well, at least with most vehicles I have dealt with, he who has a title, owns it. So if the CAF has title, why is it going to court?

Now the CAF is going to court to fight tooth and nail to keep this plane...yet it has been pointed out that they tried to get rid of it...seems like a contradiction. The only thing I can guess, is that if the deal fell through and they didn't get a P-38, and are now in danger of losing the P-82, that they are looking at the possibility of coming up with nothing.

And I have seen this brought up before, why doesn't the CAF list it as one of their aircraft. When I was building a model P-82 and doing research, I looked on the CAF website and it is as if there is no such plane except for a brief listing on one of the rosters. But when you go to try and find something further, there is nothing there.

I would really like to see it fly. I don't want it as a static display, or tucked away in storage for several more years like it has been. By the way, I did try and find a way to donate some funds to this specific plane, but I was told on the phone that that was not doable and my e-mails were never answered. I can honestly say I tried to do something, minor as it may have been.

The point of this is that the NMUSAF isn't trying to take it off of the CAF as some would like you to believe, just to be bullies. Someone is trying to sell something that they believe they own. I think anyone on here would fight if the same thing would have happened to them. In a earlier response I compared it to your neighbor borrowing your lawnmwer, and someone asked me if my neighbor did a ton of work on my lawn mower and took care of it for a while, would I still consider it mine. You bet I would.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Hi Tim,

I do agree that they would be much better off indoors but apparently the group or township that have it on loan from the Air Force don't. Millions of civic dollars are wasted yearly on events and free bee programs that benifit a few when it would be a drop in the bucket to provide a better environment for many of these A/C that are outside. I think the chance of the Air Force giving these A/C away to a good home is questionable at best just the liability issues are staggering. It is unfortunate that some of these birds will eventually fall into the scrappers hands and like the F-84 we all know what that means. Tim maybe an article is due on whats involved in getting an A/C on loan for display, the guidelines for doing so as far as preservation responsabilitys, and what can happen if the group fails at keeping it in displayable condition? We've all seen planes that have been the victims of vandals if nothing is done they disappear. I would have loved to saved that F-84 but it was gone before most of us even knew about it.What if the Air Force made public a list/ web site of A/C that are available for loan or are in danger of being removed and worse yet being scrapped ? I'm sure many of us could find a home for these lost souls if given the time, but so often it's the city fathers that demand there removal for safetys sake and the scrap man strikes again.What is really needed is for local groups to organize an effort to preserve what's in your own neighbor hood. If you are worried about an A/C in your area contact your city counsel and put presure on them to preserve our heritage and get them inside. We could all lend a helping hand to make sure they survive for our grand children to enjoy.

Thanks Mike

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT

There is no such thing as a title to an aircraft. Cars may have a title, boats may have a title, but as far as an airplane, there ain't no such animal.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

I don't know what it's supposed to have, but THIS P-82 definitely has Merlin engines on it...not the Allisons.

Gary

Are you sure about that? It seems there are lots of companies that specialize in Aircraft Title Searches.

There is no actual piece of paper for aircraft title.

But, in order to get an FAA Certificate of Aircraft Registration, you must submit:
1. Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1,
2. Original Aircraft Bill of Sale, AC Form 8050-2, or other evidence of ownership authorized by FAR 47.33, 47.35 or 47.7
3. The fee as required by FAR 47.17

The Certificate of Aircraft Registration is the documentation which shows ownership of an aircraft.

Now if records (bill of sale etc.) are falsified in order to gain a FAA Certificate of Registration, then that is another matter to deal with.