NMUSAF asks Chanute Museum for voluntary release of aircraft

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, your attack on dog lovers is really wrong!
What, you didn't write anything about dog lovers?

Tell you what, show me where I wrote anything about the military retaliating against civilians and I'll show you the quote about the dog lovers.
Does the word "retaliating or retaliation" even appear in what I wrote?
Shame on you for siding with Michael Vick, a known dog abuser.
What do you mean, that you didn't write that? Hey, if you and others don't have to be accurate in writing against me,then is it incumbent on me? Does it only go one way?

While you are at it, can you please offer any evidence that you have that I ever proposed for the closing of any airport or putting any former base off limits for civilian use. I may be a little senile, but don't recall doing that.

And Ryan,do you think maybe, just wee little possible maybe, that if the military has been in a location for years, Hamilton or wherever, and the town and local people have profited off that base for many hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars for decades, that maybe just maybe if the brass of that base were to advocate just a bit for general aviation using the base when the military goes elsewhere that it might maybe carry some weight? Do you know of any military that ever did such lobbying for gen aviation?

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Jarink1]

Back on track, the Chanute museum is a destination only if you like warbirds. Chanute is somewhat remote and not in a real high-traffic area. Champaign-Urbana is only about 10 miles away, but unless you look closely for the freeway exit signs Rantoul may as well be on the moon. There's some pretty neat displays there in some of the old classrooms. They also have the Minuteman training silos, which is not something just any museum can say! They also have a small collection of trainers, which is something else I haven't seen anywhere else.

I went there a couple years ago for the unveiling of the P-51H restoration. It's by far in the best condition of any aircraft there. The outside planes are obviously in poor repair, but some of the ones in the hangar (especially the F-15) are pretty rough themselves. It bears keeping in mind that pretty much all of the planes at Chanute were originally there for use in training airmen on maintenance and were not treated very well as such. Many were also gate guards before Chanute closed and the air museum was created. I remember seeing lots of them on display around the Chanute grounds back in the '70s, so they've been outside for decades.

Barracks re-creation

Trainer room

Tuskeegee Airmen Room

Minuteman silo lid

Main hangar

[JohnB]

Bill

I said you were wrong about the military deciding what happens to old airbases.
Accept the fact...everyone is wrong sometime.
As I said, I worked the issue. I have first hand knowledge of the process. Sorry if you don't like that.
Sorry you don't respect the job I...and a lot of great guys (some of which gave their lives doing it)...did for our country.

So instead of going off an another rant, accept you don't know something.
I'll gladly admit that you know how to fly a Spitfire and I don't. Oh, and I did a typo...sorry again...I'm sure no Texas grad ever did that.

I'm sorry you don't seem to like the military...would it help you if I said I never dropped a bomb or shot anyone?
Sorry, too that you didn't like tech school. I wasn't thrilled with mine either, but I was a pro and stuck it out.
As irony goes, I ended up teaching at it 15 years later.
You seem to think that you were above doing the shoe shining and other "Military " stuff.
No, you're right, I'm sure the NVA and VC guys didn't have to shine their shoes (I'll have to ask my old wing commander, he was beaten by them for years in the "Hanoi Hilton", he may remember)...but all the guys who won the Medal of Honor...and the Victoria Cross (from the same outfit that originally owned your Spitfire) sure did.
Yes, the military has some "Mickey Mouse' stuff. Sometimes it does something wrong, it makes mistakes.

But its not right for you to use incorrect assumptions to slam the military (about closing bases...you never did prove your statement that the military closed bases rather than let them go to civil use..IF it ever happened, it didn't hapen often. As I said, it's usually an environmental issue...take that up with the EPA, the Sierra Club, county/state land use planners, the FAA, etc.) then make sarcastic/smug comments about me, a guy who you admit you've never met, by trying to paint with the broad brush of bumper sticker quality anti-war mottos.
You did everything but say you have a photo with me and Sarah Palin.
Real mature.

It's great that you have the neatest toy of anyone here.
Anyone would love a Spitfire. I'd love a Spitfire.
But please realize that that doesn't give you the right to attack people who correct your incorrect postings.

BTW: You do realize that the Spitfire (not necessarily yours) had guns and dropped bombs on civilians...and Supermarine made a profit by building them?
If I were you, I'm not sure I could live with such a "death machine" under my care. Perhaps you should send it to me...since the Spitfire and I (and the men who designed, built and flew it) obviously have so much in common.

[rwdfresno]

Bill,

I'm pretty puzzled by your response. I simply responded to your statement of "That sounds like something that the military would do, for spite" and your other statements regarding Hamilton Field. I'm providing some insight, based on actual facts regarding what has transpired at Hamilton AFB and what the process is regarding the disposition of property in BRAC. Regardless of what I say or how much factual information I or anyone else provides I can't make you believe it, but I think providing the factual information is a better approach than providing conjecture and hypotheticals. While I refuse to drag this into a political discussion I will simply state that many of these bases are not being re-used for aviation because of interest groups that are aligned with a particular political ideology that you may actually identify with. That was my point. Of course you can refutiate that and that is fine, but the facts stand up for themselves.

Thanks, Ryan

Last edited by rwdfresno on Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

John B.
Long before I had a Spitfire, I had those same wimpy feelings.
When I saw the award winning photos and story in Life and Newsweek and Time and all those other liberal propaganda mags, about our brave soldiers at My Lai who were doing a little population control among the future Commies; I got pretty disgusted and sick at my stomach, and that feeling has never gone away. Had I been a real dedicated military man, I could have focused in on the neat weapons our guys carried and their fine marksmanship. I think they got about all their targets. They weren't quite as good at Kent State, they missed a few, but none those targets were infants and they were more mobile and harder to hit.

I feel that one of the horrible parts of that war, was the suffering of some of our young men in the POW camps, some for years. By the way, how did you friend become a POW? Did the VC/NVA form a swat type strike force and come over to the U S and kidnap him? Are was he one of the hundreds of thousands of young men who blindly followed LBJ, Nixon and other military leaders into that war, year after year, and invaded another country in support of a corrupt regime? And they didn't even have oil.And after decades of history and prespective, who was right about that war, your military side who were willing to do anything any leader said or the side that I was on that said the war was wrong back then, and says so now.

My owning or flying a Spitfire has no bearing on a discussion like this, anymore than what kind of car you drive.

[Bill Greenwood]

John B. you are correct that I don't know you, but I didn't start the attack, you made the first strike.

The POW issue from Vietnam is a pretty big one. What if we took a BALANCED LOOK at all the facts of it?
On your side, or the pro war, pro US military side, the treatment of many American POWs by the NVA was a war crime and inexcusable, the people should have been punished. Would you have felt better if these men were only waterboarded? Would that be ok?

On the other side, first of all and most of all, how did these men become POWs. Were they innocently sailing by Nam in their yacht when the VC/NVA pirates came out and kidnapped them? Not quite, most of them were invading and bombing North Vietnam, a country that had never attacked the US. The Tonkin Gulf story was a lie, just like the WMD story 45 years later. We had no more moral or legal right to invade Vietnam than Russia, an ally of Cuba, had to invade the U S. These U S bombings killed about 1 million Vietnamese and a CIA study back then said that many of these victims were children under 5 years old. Remember the shot on the cover of Newsweek of the little girl running down the road with her clothes and some of her skin burned off by napalm. Really makes a guy want to pull out his best pair of shined shoes and stand up and salute Old Glory when you see something like that.
And who did our young men blindly follow for more than two decades? Certainly it must have been some wise, brave, and honest leaders and probably war heroes in their own time to have us sacrifice so much. Good thing we didn't pay any attention to fools like Daniel Ellsburg, what does an egghead like that know? Or Sen. McGovern, he was so old he probably forgot the joys of war.

And I will tell you that I am pretty sure that I would never be able to spend 20 years in the military, that I don't think I could ever measure up. I don't think I could learn to drop napalm on a child then come home and hug my own children. I'm pretty much a wimp that way, would have never made the grade in the military.

And I don't think I could ever measure up to be a real military guy, even if I could fly. I just think I am a little to wimpy to ever get used to dropping napalm on a child, even an Asian child, and the go home and hug my kids.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, I still don't see the answer to either of the two questions that I asked you?

And if you read the post by Pogmusic, "built right on the runways, just so it couldn't be used as an airport"

I was not the first to say this, I wrote in response to what he wrote.

[Pogmusic]

Bill,
The Budweiser Company built the buildings on the runway, as authorized by the city -- NOT the Air Force. The Air Force turned the fully functional Turner AFB over to the City of Albany and the city made the decision to do so.

[rwdfresno]

Bill,

I'd rather not further derail this subject. I believe all your statements have been adressed. If you have an outstanind bone to pick feel free to use the the PM function to contact me.

Ryan

[RareBear]

The city of Albany, GA, is not exactly a hotbed of civil aviation activity, and even less so back when Turner AFB was turned over to the city. Today there are less than 90 aircraft movements a day. The city didn't need another airport. They had a perfectly good one less than eight miles away. They didn't want to be saddled with the upkeep of what was to them a monsterous airfield, with a 12,000 ft runway and huge ramp. The city needed industry, and an industrial park was their top priority. Anheuser-Busch was their primary industry, and their plant did indeed utilize a lot of the central portion of the runway. The park has continued to develop, and has been a good move for Albany.

Walt

[Pogmusic]

Walt,
Not arguing the pros or cons of Turner. The question was asked what could be built on a surplus air base. I simply gave Turner as an example of what a City could build if not used for an airport.

[RareBear]

Understand, Pogmusic.

I was trying to explain from the city's perspective why it wasn't made into a GA airport.

Some corrections to my previous post - it was the Navy that turned it over to the city in 1976. The Air Force had turned the base over to the Navy in 1967, and it was the Miller Brewing Co, not Anheuser-Busch.

Walt

[wwrw2007]

Well it's good to see the NMUSAF is helping this museum survive. Hopefully they can find a good home for the planes that the museum can no longer support.

[JohnB]

I hope the rare aircraft are preserved....either at Chanute or somewhere else.

To re-ask my earlier question...if they go away, I wonder where some of the larger/rarer ones would find homes?

Last edited by JohnB on Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Pat Carry]

Alot of people say that I stick up for the NMUSAF too much, but the truth is I try to stick up for the truth, and the whole story, not just one side.

The Chanute museum issued a letter to the NMUSAF that stated it was considering closing up shop, and that they needed to look at moving the planes. Then the museum was donated some money to keep things going. The NMUSAF was never told the second part and came out to see what was going on. Once there the condition of the planes was discussed, and the Chanute Museum asked, look at it again, ASKED the NMUSAF to take some of the planes back. The problem was this museum is struggling right now, and the cost to move just 2 planes would close the doors on the museum. The Chanute board voted to release 15 airframes. Chanute is responsible for moving all 15 back to Dayton under the agreement. However, the NMUSAF in an effort to keep the museum afloat said if they request the airplanes instead of Chanute giving them up, it puts Dayton on the hook for the bill of moving them. This is what they did. Dayton is trying to find indoor homes for the aircraft, and get them under roof. The XB-47 will stay put under a 1 year agreement. The Chanute museum is fighting to stay alive, and the NMUSAF is trying to give them some help.

The NJ P-38 is no where near the same level of condition as these aircraft.

Thanks Chris. There always seems to be 2 sides to a story.