Collings Foundation need help to keep jets flying

[Liberator]

Was sent this today about warbirds in US... re ejection seats issue...


Vietnam Memorial Flight - F-100 Super Sabre, F-4 Phantom & A-4 Skyhawk
We need your support!

By FAA regulations, and our own high level of safety standards, the ejection seats in the F-100 Super Sabre, F-4 Phantom and A-4 Skyhawk must be maintained within their service timed limits.

This means we need to install new CADs (cartridge actuated devices) for the canopy removal systems and new PADs (pressure actuated devices) for the airframe – These are also known as “ass kickers”.

These cartridges, initiators and devices for the ejection seats are VERY EXPENSIVE!

To keep these ejection seats current and operational in the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk and F-100 Super Sabre it will cost between $100,000 and $118,000! These parts are essential. No new CADs and PADs means: no flying F-100, F-4 or A-4.
We need your financial help to keep these legendary jets flying in honor of our Vietnam Veterans. We do not get any financial support from Super PACs, the Federal Government or Corporations. We depend on individual contributions to keep these jets in the air.

Please, we ask you to make a contribution to the Foundation. Help us Keep ‘Em Flying - for those who served and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and freedom.

[p51]

I'd be far more inclined to donate if I ever thought these airplanes would ever come to a place where I could see them flying. I'm in the Pacific Northwest and as far as I know, they're never brought them up here...

[mike furline]

No disrespect intended, perhaps they can downsize one of the fleets to pay for the ejection seats.

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_autos.htm

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/cf_aircraft.htm

[Pooner]

I'm sure CF staff or associates can and will chime in on this one, but here's my query:

I've personally viewed this issue as the "hook" that FAA and other governmental bodies have been looking for over the years to ground private ownership/operation of high performance jet aircraft. Example given, one can operate the a/c, but it has to have the appropriate safety device(s), which, for all intents and purposes, is not obtainable unless one goes to the extreme of having them manufactured once again or released directly from mil inventories, which will not happen. And, in the final analysis, the actual component cost itself is actually negligible when it is actually re-made, it's the engineering and legal expenses surrounding the production that doom the endeavor.

It's sort of a perfect Catch-22 situation from a federal perspective.

Yes, I know... these types of devices were typically removed from aircraft sold to surplus dealers in years past prior to our "shred everything" mentality we've adopted as a nation in the last decade.

My question is direct, and to the point... and surrounds this statement:

This means we need to install new CADs (cartridge actuated devices) for the canopy removal systems and new PADs (pressure actuated devices) for the airframe – These are also known as “ass kickers”.

These cartridges, initiators and devices for the ejection seats are VERY EXPENSIVE!

So, would owners and operators such as CF be forced to go back to the former manufacturer of these components to purchase new parts made to original spec, therefore incurring engineering cost and product liability issues that effectively kills potential operation? Or find a new vender to tool and build?

More to the point, could the installation of NOS or as-removed CADS and PADS from surplus or salvaged a/c be inspected, certified and installed and once could then document and satisfy this requirement? Or does one have to really re-invent the proverbial wheel and re-tool in order to satisfy this requirement? What's the real gist of the ruling? And yes, this is all about safety. I get that. No anti-government rants here about "Big Brother" telling us what to do, and all that. I'm NOT steering conversation that way.

My query is based on curiosity, as I have no dog in the hunt. But in my many decades of dealing with surplus military equipment, I no longer and surprised as to what inventories of stocks of so-called "contolled" components like CAD and PAD are actually out there. I've seen plenty of these cartridges in my day and not a one of them I've ever inspected has an expiration date on it like a milk carton. Unless I've been looking at the wrong CADS and PADS over the years, and that could be....

Does "new" really mean "brand new and manufactured to spec" or "new old stock, inspected and certified?" I'm sure the guys in the know have asked...

[RickH]

No disrespect intended, perhaps they can downsize one of the fleets to pay for the ejection seats.

There are museums all over the world that do fundraisers for special projects, do you take this attitude with the others when they ask for additional funding from their supporters ?

Hey guys, the carts are on the way. Getting them is not as easy as buying from Wal Mart. Certainly not as straight forward, we are dealing with explosive devices, albeit most are basically blank shotgun shells. Bottom line, eventually they are available, at least the ones we need, others may not be as fortunate.

As everyone knows, CF is a 501C3. The blurb about the seat costs was put into the monthly newsletter to let interested parties know that if they should CHOOSE to make a donation to help, earmark the donation to help offset the cost of the E seat cartridges.

The article wasn't meant to mean that we needed immediate fund raising in order for the aircraft to get back into the air. I have seen some aircraft be grounded for years, just to raise the funding to overhaul an engine. This isn't that type of situation.

Pooner, there are installed life and shelf life expirations on every CAD-PAD component. The components are built and marked with lot codes, the lot codes are the secret. The manufacturer can look up the lot code and tell when the cart was manufactured. That gives us the remaining allowable time on that item. Some carts may have the same installed and shelf life. Sometimes there is a dramatic difference. We have one cart that has a 7.5 year installed and a 13 year shelf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you have an approved order that is an item that you want to double up on so that you have 13 years before you worry about it. On the other hand a main rocket might have a 16 year shelf and installed life, No benefit to ordering double on that one. The clock starts ticking when the manufacture assigns the date code.

We asked the local FSDO to let us use the shelf life guidelines. They have sent it up the food chain to see if we can get a variance since our aircraft are usually in the hangar rather than living out on the line, day after day.

[Pooner]

Thank you for the clarification on the manufacturer code lots, Rick. I suspected if anyone knew the direct answer to this query, you would. I never thought about imbedded codes when I've looked at this stuff. Sure makes sense.

I'd hoped this didn't mean specific re-tool and engineering costs on some of these items, and it looks like you folks are more than just one step ahead of the issue.

I wish you continued success with your endeavors and keeping some of CF's beautiful machines flying. You folks have had enough challenges already with so much of this and take it all in stride and keep going. Awesome work.