Sun May 31, 2009 1:12 pm
What would the P-38 bring at auction if it was offered to the public?
Sun May 31, 2009 1:34 pm
Sixcarbs wrote:What would the P-38 bring at auction if it was offered to the public?
That's hard to say, since it would bring whatever someone was willing to pay, just like any extremely rare aircraft would. But, if we were to go with precedence, the last non-flyable P-38 wreck sold for about 1 Million USD, and it was in a lot worse shape. I don't know the condition of this P-38, but I would hazard a guess of between 1 Million and 2 Million USD would probably be fair market value.
Sun May 31, 2009 2:09 pm
Hmmmm....even at a million dollars, that seems to me that it would be enough to get the finest fiberglas P-38 you can get, along with a nice little memorial to honor whichever pilot you want. Nah....it makes too much sense.
Gary
Gary
Sun May 31, 2009 2:44 pm
Here's a great replacement.
Sun May 31, 2009 8:13 pm
Hellcat,
Serious question - are we looking at a fiberglass replica, or a non-flying gate-guard or...?
Thanks
Serious question - are we looking at a fiberglass replica, or a non-flying gate-guard or...?
Thanks
Sun May 31, 2009 8:22 pm
ww2John wrote:Hellcat,
Serious question - are we looking at a fiberglass replica, or a non-flying gate-guard or...?
Thanks
A replica!!! ... not sure if it's fiberglass ... Looks like it though ...
Sun May 31, 2009 8:51 pm
Chris,
As usual, you are so quick to defend that dark cave full of dead airplanes called the Air Force Museum that you don't bother with the facts.
The plane wasn't sold to the Air Force Museum. It was traded in a multi-way deal for other airplanes by a person who had multiple P-38s at the time. It's nose gear collapsed on roll out in Tennesee, best I recall, and damaged the props and gear door. It was flying again in about two weeks. Far from a wreck as others have pointed out. I've seen worse damage from somebody moving the gear handle on a T-6 while it was sitting in a hanger.
Oh yea, that P-38 was heading to that exact pole, regardless of the landing gear problems. That had no bearing on it being put on static display.
I know you addressed these questions to Matt but I'll answer them anyhow. I know what the restoration program and upkeep is for the airplane. I've witnessed it. In 1997, a C-141 crew from NJ was killed in a collision coming to Ascenscion Island. Clinton was coming to the base for the memorial service. The P-38 was pulled down off it's perch, the gear lowered and it was towed to a hanger. The surface corrosion on the unpainted bare metal was pretty bad. The corrosion control guys at McGuire used orbital sanders to remove it. On several panels, much of the metal was sanded so well, that they had to be replaced! In the end, due to the shiny appearance that they were after, panels that couldn't be shined up were replaced with stainless steel as Richard mentioned earlier. Much of the structure in the nose had rotted away due to leaking water. Much of the wiring and tubing throughout the airframe was cut out so that they could get to corroded areas. The rocker covers on the engines were badly corroded due to leaking water. The floor of the cockpit had severe corrosion due to leaking water. Behind the instrument panel was corrosion due to accumlated snow and the leaking water that came with the spring. I'm not sure that this was first time the plane came down off its perch or not and I'm thinking that it has come down at least once since then. I remember a write up in the base paper talking about "other than all the corrosion, the plane was in pretty good shape "and something about one of the Airmen that was working on it "having thought that they could pull it off the stick and go fly it but finding out it wasn't as nice as he thought it would be".
Of course I don't have a real number to quote you but if you were to ask everybody that drove through the gate of the base on Monday morning about it, I'd be willing to bet a large quantity of cash that less than 1/4 of them could even tell you it was a P-38, much less anything about the person whose marking it's painted in. With the very few exceptions of those, like you and I, who like warbirds or somebody that had to answer a question about it during an "Airman of the Quarter" board, I'd wager that the airplane and why it's displayed there mean absolutely nothing to anybody on that base.
Yes those KC-10s and the C-17s are rotting away. They are metal. It happens. The difference is that they are on a maintenence schedule that is designed to combat the inevitable. The P-38 on the other hand is taken care of when it begins to look like it needs it. Just like every single other static display on every single military base. It's not on a schedule and never has been. It isn't tended to by dedicated people that do that very thing on a daily basis like the KC-10s and C-17s. It's done by whatever squadron is sponsoring it at the time and usually by somebody that needs a bullet for his or her annual evaluation and would rather be somewhere else.
As for the F-4 on a pole being able to drop the landing gear after all those years? Well that doesn't prove anything. In 1992 I spent a few days watching a B-57 being taken apart at Chanute AFB in Illinois so it could be moved to that other dark cave full of dead airplanes called the Air Zoo in Michigan. That airplane had recieved little no care other than layers of paint over each other and the occasional patch where somebody tore a hole in it with a lawn mower. When the wings were removed, a nitrogen bottle was hooked up and the gear retracted right away. That had nothing to do with the loving care that had been lavished on the old girl for the twenty or so years she was on display. It was luck that it worked and saved a lot of physical labor by the people that were shipping it.
No matter what you think about how great of shape the P-38 is in, no matter how well it appears to be maintained and no matter how pretty it looks sitting up there, shining like a diamond in a goat's butt, a few facts are undisputable.
That P-38 flew in there under it's own power. It was a perfectly flyable airplane that the Air Force put on a pole, outdoors in New Jersy. Other than the handful of times it's been off of that pole, it has NEVER been indoors since the Air Force has owned it. It could be replaced with a fiberglass replica and 99.9% of the people that will ever see won't know the difference. I'd say that even less would even care.
That P-38,the P-63, P-51, P-47, P-82 at Lackland and nearly every other WWII airplane on outdoor static display that are owned and so well taken care of by your beloved "National Museum of dead airplanes" all have one thing in common. The are all pigs in clean white shirts. Underneath the clean, pretty exterior, they are pigs.
None of this is in anyway to be taken as a criticism of the volunteers that have no choice but to restore and tend to static airplanes. They do what they can and in most cases do amazing things. My problem is with the owners. Both the Air Zoo and the Air Force museum are great places to visit and have outstanding collections of dead airplanes. I'm one of those people that don't think any airplane shouldn't be flown. Up to and including the Wright Flyer and every other dead airplane.
As usual, you are so quick to defend that dark cave full of dead airplanes called the Air Force Museum that you don't bother with the facts.
The plane wasn't sold to the Air Force Museum. It was traded in a multi-way deal for other airplanes by a person who had multiple P-38s at the time. It's nose gear collapsed on roll out in Tennesee, best I recall, and damaged the props and gear door. It was flying again in about two weeks. Far from a wreck as others have pointed out. I've seen worse damage from somebody moving the gear handle on a T-6 while it was sitting in a hanger.
Oh yea, that P-38 was heading to that exact pole, regardless of the landing gear problems. That had no bearing on it being put on static display.
mustangdriver wrote:
Once again,
1) Have YOU seen it?
2) Are you familiar with their upkeep program?
3)Have you talked to the men and women at that base about what that aircraft means to them.
By the way all of those KC-10's are outside. Are they rotting too?
Jack, I know what you mean, minor damage, just trying to prove a point.
Matt, I don't mean to start a battle over this, as most of what you say is true on just about every aircraft I have ever seen mounted on a pole. But there are exceptions. There was a Mig killer F-4 mounted on a pole at Wright Patt for years. Whne it came time to replace it with an F-15, the F-4 needed to be taken down. THe USAF had so well upkept the aircraft that they hooked up a power cart to it, and extended the landing gear on it's own power. Then with a crane took it down. This F-4 is now at the Museum of Aviation in Georgia. This P-38 is very well kept. Would I like to see it inside? Sure. One day it will happen. For now I am glad that it is being taken care of at such a great level.
I know you addressed these questions to Matt but I'll answer them anyhow. I know what the restoration program and upkeep is for the airplane. I've witnessed it. In 1997, a C-141 crew from NJ was killed in a collision coming to Ascenscion Island. Clinton was coming to the base for the memorial service. The P-38 was pulled down off it's perch, the gear lowered and it was towed to a hanger. The surface corrosion on the unpainted bare metal was pretty bad. The corrosion control guys at McGuire used orbital sanders to remove it. On several panels, much of the metal was sanded so well, that they had to be replaced! In the end, due to the shiny appearance that they were after, panels that couldn't be shined up were replaced with stainless steel as Richard mentioned earlier. Much of the structure in the nose had rotted away due to leaking water. Much of the wiring and tubing throughout the airframe was cut out so that they could get to corroded areas. The rocker covers on the engines were badly corroded due to leaking water. The floor of the cockpit had severe corrosion due to leaking water. Behind the instrument panel was corrosion due to accumlated snow and the leaking water that came with the spring. I'm not sure that this was first time the plane came down off its perch or not and I'm thinking that it has come down at least once since then. I remember a write up in the base paper talking about "other than all the corrosion, the plane was in pretty good shape "and something about one of the Airmen that was working on it "having thought that they could pull it off the stick and go fly it but finding out it wasn't as nice as he thought it would be".
Of course I don't have a real number to quote you but if you were to ask everybody that drove through the gate of the base on Monday morning about it, I'd be willing to bet a large quantity of cash that less than 1/4 of them could even tell you it was a P-38, much less anything about the person whose marking it's painted in. With the very few exceptions of those, like you and I, who like warbirds or somebody that had to answer a question about it during an "Airman of the Quarter" board, I'd wager that the airplane and why it's displayed there mean absolutely nothing to anybody on that base.
Yes those KC-10s and the C-17s are rotting away. They are metal. It happens. The difference is that they are on a maintenence schedule that is designed to combat the inevitable. The P-38 on the other hand is taken care of when it begins to look like it needs it. Just like every single other static display on every single military base. It's not on a schedule and never has been. It isn't tended to by dedicated people that do that very thing on a daily basis like the KC-10s and C-17s. It's done by whatever squadron is sponsoring it at the time and usually by somebody that needs a bullet for his or her annual evaluation and would rather be somewhere else.
As for the F-4 on a pole being able to drop the landing gear after all those years? Well that doesn't prove anything. In 1992 I spent a few days watching a B-57 being taken apart at Chanute AFB in Illinois so it could be moved to that other dark cave full of dead airplanes called the Air Zoo in Michigan. That airplane had recieved little no care other than layers of paint over each other and the occasional patch where somebody tore a hole in it with a lawn mower. When the wings were removed, a nitrogen bottle was hooked up and the gear retracted right away. That had nothing to do with the loving care that had been lavished on the old girl for the twenty or so years she was on display. It was luck that it worked and saved a lot of physical labor by the people that were shipping it.
No matter what you think about how great of shape the P-38 is in, no matter how well it appears to be maintained and no matter how pretty it looks sitting up there, shining like a diamond in a goat's butt, a few facts are undisputable.
That P-38 flew in there under it's own power. It was a perfectly flyable airplane that the Air Force put on a pole, outdoors in New Jersy. Other than the handful of times it's been off of that pole, it has NEVER been indoors since the Air Force has owned it. It could be replaced with a fiberglass replica and 99.9% of the people that will ever see won't know the difference. I'd say that even less would even care.
That P-38,the P-63, P-51, P-47, P-82 at Lackland and nearly every other WWII airplane on outdoor static display that are owned and so well taken care of by your beloved "National Museum of dead airplanes" all have one thing in common. The are all pigs in clean white shirts. Underneath the clean, pretty exterior, they are pigs.
None of this is in anyway to be taken as a criticism of the volunteers that have no choice but to restore and tend to static airplanes. They do what they can and in most cases do amazing things. My problem is with the owners. Both the Air Zoo and the Air Force museum are great places to visit and have outstanding collections of dead airplanes. I'm one of those people that don't think any airplane shouldn't be flown. Up to and including the Wright Flyer and every other dead airplane.
Sun May 31, 2009 9:14 pm
Look you folks can "bash" the NMUSAF all you want ... most of it is somewhat justifiable. But we all have just so much that we can complain about ... if not for the USAF trying to preserve the aircarft they have in all areas of the states, we would have "nothing" .... b*tch and complain all you want and p*ss and moan all you want about warbirds on sticks in sh*ttly weather areas. They're there, still there ... "rotting" but still with us. We WIXers can only hope for a better life for many of these outdoor exhibits. Maybe one day soon we will see the aircraft we love come in from the rain ...
Sun May 31, 2009 11:22 pm
Brad wrote:Chris,
As usual, you are so quick to defend that dark cave full of dead airplanes called the Air Force Museum that you don't bother with the facts.
The plane wasn't sold to the Air Force Museum. It was traded in a multi-way deal for other airplanes by a person who had multiple P-38s at the time. It's nose gear collapsed on roll out in Tennesee, best I recall, and damaged the props and gear door. It was flying again in about two weeks. Far from a wreck as others have pointed out. I've seen worse damage from somebody moving the gear handle on a T-6 while it was sitting in a hanger.
Oh yea, that P-38 was heading to that exact pole, regardless of the landing gear problems. That had no bearing on it being put on static display.mustangdriver wrote:
Once again,
1) Have YOU seen it?
2) Are you familiar with their upkeep program?
3)Have you talked to the men and women at that base about what that aircraft means to them.
By the way all of those KC-10's are outside. Are they rotting too?
Jack, I know what you mean, minor damage, just trying to prove a point.
Matt, I don't mean to start a battle over this, as most of what you say is true on just about every aircraft I have ever seen mounted on a pole. But there are exceptions. There was a Mig killer F-4 mounted on a pole at Wright Patt for years. Whne it came time to replace it with an F-15, the F-4 needed to be taken down. THe USAF had so well upkept the aircraft that they hooked up a power cart to it, and extended the landing gear on it's own power. Then with a crane took it down. This F-4 is now at the Museum of Aviation in Georgia. This P-38 is very well kept. Would I like to see it inside? Sure. One day it will happen. For now I am glad that it is being taken care of at such a great level.
I know you addressed these questions to Matt but I'll answer them anyhow. I know what the restoration program and upkeep is for the airplane. I've witnessed it. In 1997, a C-141 crew from NJ was killed in a collision coming to Ascenscion Island. Clinton was coming to the base for the memorial service. The P-38 was pulled down off it's perch, the gear lowered and it was towed to a hanger. The surface corrosion on the unpainted bare metal was pretty bad. The corrosion control guys at McGuire used orbital sanders to remove it. On several panels, much of the metal was sanded so well, that they had to be replaced! In the end, due to the shiny appearance that they were after, panels that couldn't be shined up were replaced with stainless steel as Richard mentioned earlier. Much of the structure in the nose had rotted away due to leaking water. Much of the wiring and tubing throughout the airframe was cut out so that they could get to corroded areas. The rocker covers on the engines were badly corroded due to leaking water. The floor of the cockpit had severe corrosion due to leaking water. Behind the instrument panel was corrosion due to accumlated snow and the leaking water that came with the spring. I'm not sure that this was first time the plane came down off its perch or not and I'm thinking that it has come down at least once since then. I remember a write up in the base paper talking about "other than all the corrosion, the plane was in pretty good shape "and something about one of the Airmen that was working on it "having thought that they could pull it off the stick and go fly it but finding out it wasn't as nice as he thought it would be".
Of course I don't have a real number to quote you but if you were to ask everybody that drove through the gate of the base on Monday morning about it, I'd be willing to bet a large quantity of cash that less than 1/4 of them could even tell you it was a P-38, much less anything about the person whose marking it's painted in. With the very few exceptions of those, like you and I, who like warbirds or somebody that had to answer a question about it during an "Airman of the Quarter" board, I'd wager that the airplane and why it's displayed there mean absolutely nothing to anybody on that base.
Yes those KC-10s and the C-17s are rotting away. They are metal. It happens. The difference is that they are on a maintenence schedule that is designed to combat the inevitable. The P-38 on the other hand is taken care of when it begins to look like it needs it. Just like every single other static display on every single military base. It's not on a schedule and never has been. It isn't tended to by dedicated people that do that very thing on a daily basis like the KC-10s and C-17s. It's done by whatever squadron is sponsoring it at the time and usually by somebody that needs a bullet for his or her annual evaluation and would rather be somewhere else.
As for the F-4 on a pole being able to drop the landing gear after all those years? Well that doesn't prove anything. In 1992 I spent a few days watching a B-57 being taken apart at Chanute AFB in Illinois so it could be moved to that other dark cave full of dead airplanes called the Air Zoo in Michigan. That airplane had recieved little no care other than layers of paint over each other and the occasional patch where somebody tore a hole in it with a lawn mower. When the wings were removed, a nitrogen bottle was hooked up and the gear retracted right away. That had nothing to do with the loving care that had been lavished on the old girl for the twenty or so years she was on display. It was luck that it worked and saved a lot of physical labor by the people that were shipping it.
No matter what you think about how great of shape the P-38 is in, no matter how well it appears to be maintained and no matter how pretty it looks sitting up there, shining like a diamond in a goat's butt, a few facts are undisputable.
That P-38 flew in there under it's own power. It was a perfectly flyable airplane that the Air Force put on a pole, outdoors in New Jersy. Other than the handful of times it's been off of that pole, it has NEVER been indoors since the Air Force has owned it. It could be replaced with a fiberglass replica and 99.9% of the people that will ever see won't know the difference. I'd say that even less would even care.
That P-38,the P-63, P-51, P-47, P-82 at Lackland and nearly every other WWII airplane on outdoor static display that are owned and so well taken care of by your beloved "National Museum of dead airplanes" all have one thing in common. The are all pigs in clean white shirts. Underneath the clean, pretty exterior, they are pigs.
None of this is in anyway to be taken as a criticism of the volunteers that have no choice but to restore and tend to static airplanes. They do what they can and in most cases do amazing things. My problem is with the owners. Both the Air Zoo and the Air Force museum are great places to visit and have outstanding collections of dead airplanes. I'm one of those people that don't think any airplane shouldn't be flown. Up to and including the Wright Flyer and every other dead airplane.
Great attitude. If I can't play with it, then I don't want to be bothered with it. That is pretty much the stand you seem to take. Just remember that alot of people bust their butts taking care of what you call "dead airplanes", by choice. I am one of those people that think that we should fly some and make some static. Crazy isn't that. An aircraft on static display isn't a dead aircraft. Sorry. Fly the Wright Flyer? Really? Because others have had such great luck with that, sure take the real one out and fly that one too. Then tell your kids years from now, I wish I could have showed it to you. Dead airplanes to me are wrecked and totalled aircraft, not static display aircraft. The P-38 that rolled in upside down in Europe is a dead airplane, not one on display on a pole. As far as the people at the base not knowing what it is, you couldn't be more wrong. Every tail, every engine cover has the P-38 on it along with the base name. Actually talking to the people at the base when we were there for parts for another project, told us that every year the aircraft is gone over for corrosion. Once again I am NOT saying that this P-38 should not come inside, but I am saying that it is more cared for than most gate gaurd aircraft, and that it is important to the poeple at this base. More than you are giving them credit for. AS for dead airplanes, man you are way off.
Sun May 31, 2009 11:32 pm
Matt Gunsch wrote:sticking a flyable airplane on a pole outside to rot is serving a great purpose ? Look at the Stratford Corsair if you want to know what the P-38 will look like in the future. As far as flying it, the RAF does a good job with thier BBMF, the air force should copy them.
retroaviation wrote:Hmmmm....even at a million dollars, that seems to me that it would be enough to get the finest fiberglas P-38 you can get, along with a nice little memorial to honor whichever pilot you want. Nah....it makes too much sense.
Gary
Couldn't have said it better myself gentleman.
Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:35 am
mustangdriver wrote:Great attitude. If I can't play with it, then I don't want to be bothered with it. That is pretty much the stand you seem to take. Just remember that alot of people bust their butts taking care of what you call "dead airplanes", by choice. I am one of those people that think that we should fly some and make some static. Crazy isn't that. An aircraft on static display isn't a dead aircraft. Sorry. Fly the Wright Flyer? Really? Because others have had such great luck with that, sure take the real one out and fly that one too. Then tell your kids years from now, I wish I could have showed it to you. Dead airplanes to me are wrecked and totalled aircraft, not static display aircraft. The P-38 that rolled in upside down in Europe is a dead airplane, not one on display on a pole. As far as the people at the base not knowing what it is, you couldn't be more wrong. Every tail, every engine cover has the P-38 on it along with the base name. Actually talking to the people at the base when we were there for parts for another project, told us that every year the aircraft is gone over for corrosion. Once again I am NOT saying that this P-38 should not come inside, but I am saying that it is more cared for than most gate gaurd aircraft, and that it is important to the poeple at this base. More than you are giving them credit for. AS for dead airplanes, man you are way off.
Wrong (again) Chris. Nowhere did I say if I couldn't play with it then I didn't want to mess with it. Did you even read the last paragraph I wrote? Pull your head out of the up and locked position and read it again. Check with the Olympic Flight Museum and see what I did with their static display airplanes. Would I rather work on a flying airplane than a dead one? Yes I would. And just for the record, my daughter has no desire to look at a dead airplane when she has the option to see, here and smell a real one.
And no Chris, I'm not wrong about most people at McGuire AFB not knowing about the P-38 and who the base is named for. Don't forget I'm an active duty C-17 guy that has crewed many of those C-17s before. Prior to coming to my current assignment, I flew with those crews on a fairly regular basis. I assure you that I have spent far more time at that base than you have and know far more of the people. My brother was there on KC-10s for five years and he can tell you the same thing. I saw the P-38 in the hanger being "worked on" you didn't. I know the P-38 isn't "gone over for corrosion" every year. It may be washed every year but it's not subject to a thorough inspection. Even if it was, I already told you how they took care of the corrosion the last time. It couldn't stand that kind of abuse every year.
It doesn't matter what is painted on the tail flash or on the engine covers of the planes there. The vast majority of people on that base don't even know it's a P-38 on the tail flash. The vast majority of them have no idea who Tommy McGuire was.
That flyable airplane has been ruined (I didn't say destroyed) by the Air Force way of preserving it. It could be restored to flying condition but it never will be. That airplane does nothing sitting on that pole that couldn't be accomplished by a plastic one. As it is now, it's pretty to look at but it's a turd under the polish. If you've spent as much time around warbirds, flying on them and working on them as you claim, you should come down off your cross of defending the Air Force museum and at least admit that. At least admit it from a mechanical standpoint if nothing else.
I'm not way off about dead airplanes. If a plane is on static display it is dead. It doesn't work. It doesn't move. It makes no sound. It has no fluid of any sort flowing through it. It doesn't fly. It sets there. It doesn't have the ability to do anything but set there. It's a 1:1 scale model, no different than a dead bird in the natural history museum. It's as dead as it can be. Is that better than being nonexistant? Yes. Is it cool to look at? Yes. But it's still dead.
The P-38 that crashed in England will probably fly again someday. She just needs the current owner to breath life back into her by the application of lots of money and the skill of somebody like Nelson Ezell or John Lane. By the way, it didn't roll in upside down. If you're gonna try and make a point, at least get the example right. Your argument will hold more water that way.
The P-38 on a pole in New Jersy is dead and stuffed like an eagle mounted on a fake tree branch. The only chance it will ever have of flying again is if a tornado comes through the front gate of McGuire and blows it away.
Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:49 am
Brad wrote:mustangdriver wrote:Great attitude. If I can't play with it, then I don't want to be bothered with it. That is pretty much the stand you seem to take. Just remember that alot of people bust their butts taking care of what you call "dead airplanes", by choice. I am one of those people that think that we should fly some and make some static. Crazy isn't that. An aircraft on static display isn't a dead aircraft. Sorry. Fly the Wright Flyer? Really? Because others have had such great luck with that, sure take the real one out and fly that one too. Then tell your kids years from now, I wish I could have showed it to you. Dead airplanes to me are wrecked and totalled aircraft, not static display aircraft. The P-38 that rolled in upside down in Europe is a dead airplane, not one on display on a pole. As far as the people at the base not knowing what it is, you couldn't be more wrong. Every tail, every engine cover has the P-38 on it along with the base name. Actually talking to the people at the base when we were there for parts for another project, told us that every year the aircraft is gone over for corrosion. Once again I am NOT saying that this P-38 should not come inside, but I am saying that it is more cared for than most gate gaurd aircraft, and that it is important to the poeple at this base. More than you are giving them credit for. AS for dead airplanes, man you are way off.
Wrong (again) Chris. Nowhere did I say if I couldn't play with it then I didn't want to mess with it. Did you even read the last paragraph I wrote? Pull your head out of the up and locked position and read it again. Check with the Olympic Flight Museum and see what I did with their static display airplanes. Would I rather work on a flying airplane than a dead one? Yes I would. And just for the record, my daughter has no desire to look at a dead airplane when she has the option to see, here and smell a real one.
And no Chris, I'm not wrong about most people at McGuire AFB not knowing about the P-38 and who the base is named for. Don't forget I'm an active duty C-17 guy that has crewed many of those C-17s before. Prior to coming to my current assignment, I flew with those crews on a fairly regular basis. I assure you that I have spent far more time at that base than you have and know far more of the people. My brother was there on KC-10s for five years and he can tell you the same thing. I saw the P-38 in the hanger being "worked on" you didn't. I know the P-38 isn't "gone over for corrosion" every year. It may be washed every year but it's not subject to a thorough inspection. Even if it was, I already told you how they took care of the corrosion the last time. It couldn't stand that kind of abuse every year.
It doesn't matter what is painted on the tail flash or on the engine covers of the planes there. The vast majority of people on that base don't even know it's a P-38 on the tail flash. The vast majority of them have no idea who Tommy McGuire was.
That flyable airplane has been ruined (I didn't say destroyed) by the Air Force way of preserving it. It could be restored to flying condition but it never will be. That airplane does nothing sitting on that pole that couldn't be accomplished by a plastic one. As it is now, it's pretty to look at but it's a turd under the polish. If you've spent as much time around warbirds, flying on them and working on them as you claim, you should come down off your cross of defending the Air Force museum and at least admit that. At least admit it from a mechanical standpoint if nothing else.
I'm not way off about dead airplanes. If a plane is on static display it is dead. It doesn't work. It doesn't move. It makes no sound. It has no fluid of any sort flowing through it. It doesn't fly. It sets there. It doesn't have the ability to do anything but set there. It's a 1:1 scale model, no different than a dead bird in the natural history museum. It's as dead as it can be. Is that better than being nonexistant? Yes. Is it cool to look at? Yes. But it's still dead.
The P-38 that crashed in England will probably fly again someday. She just needs the current owner to breath life back into her by the application of lots of money and the skill of somebody like Nelson Ezell or John Lane. By the way, it didn't roll in upside down. If you're gonna try and make a point, at least get the example right. Your argument will hold more water that way.
The P-38 on a pole in New Jersy is dead and stuffed like an eagle mounted on a fake tree branch. The only chance it will ever have of flying again is if a tornado comes through the front gate of McGuire and blows it away.
Static aricraft are not dead aircraft. You said you wanted me to provide better examples. Here, these are dead aircraft.
Brad I mean no disrespect to you or to Matt with my comments. Do I defend the NMUSAF alot, yes. But that is because they are bashed here at every turn. Even when things are rumors, or half of a story, peole just assume thigns are a certain way, and let the bashing begin. WOuld this P-38 be better off on static indoors at the base, yes. But for what the NMUSAF wants to do with the airplane, it would not serve them to have it fly. Now the USAF is making the information available as to why there is a P-38 on the tail of every aircraft, and why that name is on there. If people don't try to find out, then whose fault is it? I would hate the thought of the USAF not trying to atleast make the iformation out there about it's heroes. Would a plastic P-38 work? Depends on what they want to say with that P-38. I saw the P-38 and it looked really nice. It was clean and upkept. NO I didn't get inside of it. I take your word on the restoration, you saw it, I didn't. Static aircraft are just as important as the flying ones. They are equal.
Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:20 am
If you want to turn this into a p155ing contest over flying planes and not flying them, I can show you just as many one of a kind planes that were lost in hangar/museum fires as have been lost in flying accidents.
San Diego air Museum, Fire, CWH loss of the Hurricane, Spitfire, TBM, and other airframes in thier fire, Yankee Air Museum, Fire, French airmuseum's loss of the P-38 and numerous other airframes,Fire, Kermit's air museum and Hurricane Andrew, New England air museum and the tornado.... and on and on
the point is, the AF took a servicable, FLYING plane, and stuck it on a pole where it is rotting away, as confirmed by Brads description. The AF museum does not have the best history in taking care of the planes in thier care or oversite. I challange you to look at the F-82 that was removed from the CAF, Look at it in a few years of AF care and see what sort of shape it is in.
If the AFmuseum is as concerned about it's collection as you think they are, How come they leave a valuable item outside in the weather ? and not just the NJ P-38, but the P-51H, F-82 at Lackland, and other locations as well. You don't see the Smithsonian keeping thier planes outside.
San Diego air Museum, Fire, CWH loss of the Hurricane, Spitfire, TBM, and other airframes in thier fire, Yankee Air Museum, Fire, French airmuseum's loss of the P-38 and numerous other airframes,Fire, Kermit's air museum and Hurricane Andrew, New England air museum and the tornado.... and on and on
the point is, the AF took a servicable, FLYING plane, and stuck it on a pole where it is rotting away, as confirmed by Brads description. The AF museum does not have the best history in taking care of the planes in thier care or oversite. I challange you to look at the F-82 that was removed from the CAF, Look at it in a few years of AF care and see what sort of shape it is in.
If the AFmuseum is as concerned about it's collection as you think they are, How come they leave a valuable item outside in the weather ? and not just the NJ P-38, but the P-51H, F-82 at Lackland, and other locations as well. You don't see the Smithsonian keeping thier planes outside.
Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:34 am
mustangdriver wrote:No wrong. That Corsair is a good example of sticking an aircraft on a pole, and not touching it. Do you know the restoration program and upkeep for the airplane? Have you ever seen it? The plane is kept in very nice condition. By the way it ended up there after it was wrecked. Once again, go there, see it, talk to the people at the base, then tell me that it doesn't belong there.
What about hail, wind damage.
It should inspire, but couldn't they put it in a "glass house" for all to see AND be more protected?
My $0.02
Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:59 am
Some of us just like airplanes...
Life's too short you guys.
Life's too short you guys.