You can buy this...but there's a catch

RickH · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:29 pm

James, this is no loan.

Quote:

NMUSAF Solicitation 08-001, Due: 12 November 2008 at 1600 hours”

This is solicitation for bid to buy !

The reason they can do this is because they are the 800 lb Gorilla, they do it, because they can .

It wouldn't surprise me to hear in the future that they put this out for bid but had no takers so they scrapped it ! You can manipulate anything you want to achieve the result you want.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:09 pm

RickH wrote:

The reason they can do this is because they are the 800 lb Gorilla, they do it, because they can .

It wouldn't surprise me to hear in the future that they put this out for bid but had no takers so they scrapped it ! You can manipulate anything you want to achieve the result you want.

Certainly reads that way, Rick. I've never heard of someone offering to sell something 'legally' without a receipt (if I understand this correctly).

Shocker.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

Did they ever sell the HA-1112? To whom?

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:43 pm

I am against selling it at all. The JU-52 is a very important aircraft in WWII history. I think it is a dumb move.

Brad · **Joined:** Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:30 pm **Posts:** 1131

bdk wrote:

Did they ever sell the HA-1112? To whom?

Jerry Yagen got it. "Practically stole it" is what he said to me at Sun n Fun a few years back.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:45 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

I am against selling it at all. The JU-52 is a very important aircraft in WWII history. I think it is a dumb move.

Sure. This one appears to be not 'German' enough though.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:46 pm

Yeah, I don't get it. As far as I know, we don't have another one anywhere. So why get rid of it? And why do so in this manner? I am not a fan of this move at all.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:06 am

to much reading between the lines of the contract........ i'd just assume wasting a buck on the ohio lottery!!!! :toimonster:

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:25 am

Quote:

This one appears to be not 'German' enough though

As opposed to their Spanish-built He-111, which they intend to re-engine with Jumos?

I realize the Ju-52 has been sitting outside for quite awhile, but last time I saw it the plane appeared to be in reasonable shape. I'm a bit baffled as to why they want to get rid of it.

SN

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:29 am

Steve Nelson wrote:

Quote:

This one appears to be not 'German' enough though

As opposed to their Spanish-built He-111, which they intend to re-engine with Jumos?

I realize the Ju-52 has been sitting outside for quite awhile, but last time I saw it the plane appeared to be in reasonable shape. I'm a bit baffled as to why they want to get rid of it.

Exactly. It would be nice to know. As Mustangdriver's already said, the Ju52/3m is an important type in history, any way you cut it. Perhaps the NMUSAF regards the relations of the US air forces with the type to be peripheral to their narrative? Still seems odd though.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Steve Nelson wrote:

I realize the Ju-52 has been sitting outside for quite awhile, but last time I saw it the plane appeared to be in reasonable shape. I'm a bit baffled as to why they want to get rid of it.

SN

To make room for Flak Bait, of course!

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:42 am

I would say "hooray" to that, but since the Ju has always been sitting outdoors, I wouldn't want Flak Bait taking her place..that'd be going from the frying pain into the fire!

SN

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Steve Nelson wrote:

I would say "hooray" to that, but since the Ju has always been sitting outdoors, I wouldn't want Flak Bait taking her place..that'd be going from the frying pain into the fire!

SN

I agree, but an open, empty space allows them to move airplanes around. It wouldn't necessarily mean that Flak Bait would go outside, but some other non-rare type would, thereby opening a space indoors for her!

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 am

So just to figure out what exactly the restraints on your ownership would be and whether there is a workaround.

With no bill of sale, I assume bdk is correct, there is no chain of custody and therefore no aircraft any more as far as the FAA is concerned. There could still be a legal sale, with a different kind of receipt, and no question that you own the object as far as property law is concerned. It just isn't an airplane now to the FAA.

A. Could I take it apart and put the pieces back together sufficiently to satisfy the 51% rule and register as a homebuilt August Au-52 in the experimental category?

B. That, or the option of getting the dataplate from another airplane, both would seem to be viable, though inconvenient, workarounds.

I assume that the NMUSAF is doing all of this for liability limitation purposes. They don't want to be tagged if it breaks and kills someone because of alleged deterioration during the period of their "care" for it. The listing says it doesn't come with the dataplate, not that they don't have it -- I presume they took it off and are keeping it just for this purpose. But either plan A or B above makes it not the airplane that they had, and would make them a lot harder to sue. So it doesn't look hopeless from the standpoint of having it fly again.

August

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:35 am

k5083 wrote:

... and register as a homebuilt August Au-52 in the experimental category?

So you are my 'friend'!

Warbird Information Exchange

You can buy this...but there's a catch

Who is online