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

Jerry O'Neill · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:50 am

Shame on the NMUSAF!

Who's gonna lay out an reasonable size amount of cash for a deal like this?

Why don't they just loan it to another museum and let that museum pay for transport?

It would probably cost more to dismantle and transport than anyone would actually pay for an aircraft they can ever get rid of.

Plenty of places would love to have it and, unfortunately, one of them isn't the NMUSAF!

I'm afriad they are setting a dangerous precident for future, similar behavior.
Jerry

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:27 am

I am not a fan of this move. THere are several people that visit the museum and actually complain that we have too many aircraft from the axis in the collection. I usually try to explain it as we are telling the story of not only the U.S. but those we fought with and beside in these conflicts. I see no reason for them to get rid of the JU-52, but if they do they need to be very careful. If they sell this JU and someone flies it and it crashes, I can see every attorney trying to get money from everyone they can. Whether it has to do with the case or not. Anyone remember the man stealing the Piper Cub? man sneaks on to an airport steals a cub, as he heads toward the runway passes the line guy who knows the plane and owner and sees that this aircraft is being boosted. The line guy parks the fuel truck on the runway to black the guy, and in the process the criminal crashes the Cub into the fuel truck and is killed. The outcome. The family of the criminal sue Piper for making an aircraft with poor visibility. And Win.!!!!

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:17 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

There are several people that visit the museum and actually complain that we have too many aircraft from the axis in the collection.

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:57 pm

JDK wrote:

k5083 wrote:

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

So you are my 'friend'!

Yeah, except I've got a sufficiently Teutonic name that I don't need no stinkin' dataplate!

August

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:04 pm

RickH wrote:

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.

Sounds like someone is in on the CF koolaide. :roll:

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

k5083 wrote:

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?

The FAA accepts virtually any slip of paper with a signature from the previous owner as a bill of sale. I'm guessing that this is why they explicitly stated that there would be no bill of sale provided.

You have to actually build 51% as in fabricate. Reassembling an aircraft from parts of different aircraft does not constitute construction. You could assemble it from parts under experimental-exhibition I think.

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:25 pm

Sorry if it's a dumb question, but are there any museums or collectors holding static but flyable aircraft that this plane could be traded for? The way this offer shapes up it looks like it could still be used as trading material.

Steve Nelson · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:38 pm

No data plate, huh? It was there when I last photographed the plane three years ago..did they pry it off?

SN

Shay · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:00 pm

The evidence would seem to inferr that the Data plate is to be or has been removed from the airframe by the NMUSAF and is not included in the sale of the aircraft?

Is that legal?

And since there is no bill of sale does that in of itself leave the aircraft to be reclaimed as NMUSAF property?

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

krlang · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:44 pm

Dude,
How wide is that thing? Will it make a good camping trailer?

While you guys are debating the ability to preserve it, I will be adding my date and time to my bid envelope. If there is another junk one out there I will let that person trade with me so I can make the coolest camper out of the rotten one.

My bid will be $50, try and beat me!

RickH · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:03 pm

I imagine that they mean that they will not be offering a bill of sale on the FAA form.

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

They are probably selling it because it is so freaking ugly.

.

Dan K · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:47 pm

PinecastleAAF wrote:

They are probably selling it because it is so freaking ugly.

.

Now you've done it.

You just had to trash talk "Tante Ju".

Looks like Hans & Co. are comin' down to have a little word with you. I'll see y'all later.

N3Njeff · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:49 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

I am not a fan of this move. THere are several people that visit the museum and actually complain that we have too many aircraft from the axis in the collection. I usually try to explain it as we are telling the story of not only the U.S. but those we fought with and beside in these conflicts. I see no reason for them to get rid of the JU-52, but if they do they need to be very careful. If they sell this JU and someone flies it and it crashes, I can see every attorney trying to get money from everyone they can. Whether it has to do with the case or not. Anyone remember the man stealing the Piper Cub? man sneaks on to an airport steals a cub, as he heads toward the runway passes the line guy who knows the plane and owner and sees that this aircraft is being boosted. The line guy parks the fuel truck on the runway to black the guy, and in the process the criminal crashes the Cub into the fuel truck and is killed. The outcome. The family of the criminal sue Piper for making an aircraft with poor visibility. And Win.!!!!

I think your Piper cub story is wrong. Was a super cub with a homemade camera mount in the front seat. Pilot was taking off and the airport owner who was owed money by the pilot put a moving truck on the runway to block him from taking off without paying and he hit the truck.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:57 pm

That may be as I heard it from several different hangar conversations, but you get my point. That crash ahd nothing to do with Piper.

Warbird Information Exchange

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

Who is online