Warbird Information Exchange

Hi guys,
I am hoping some of the more dedicated late era warbird owners or organisation members can help clarify something for me regarding the demil codes and laws that late era warbirds (eg. fast jets) are governed by.

Of particular interest to me in this case so you can explain is the might vark, the F-111...

I am an Australian resident and Citizen. I have been issued previously with limited time export permits for F-111 parts and components for a cockpit module I exported down under under private collection status. However, the big goal has always been to acquire a full and as complete as possible F-111 airframe for a privately managed and owned static restoration and preservation project. Turns out this is easier said than done though. (no surprise to most of you I would imagine!)

What I have been told and as I understand it - aircraft such as the F-111 come under an "F" code or something... which apparently means that they are under a compulsory destruction to scrap order, should they ever become surplus to government allocations.
So, long story short, if they aren't scrapped immediately upon decommission from active service, they must be controlled, managed and essentially remain completely under the umbrella of the US Government (or in Australia, still remaining as a Defence controlled asset) inventory or museum/preservation scheme.

Under the scheme's (in both Aus and USA) a system whereby non government museums and organisations can take care of and display the aircraft - but under strict conditions and limits - and they forever remain government property in all ways. If they ever become surplus to the needs of these museums, or find themselves without a suitable home or lack of interest, the only option at that stage is full destruction to scrap.

Sound right so far???

So... apparently these rules apply to everyone, even US citizens... whilst some parts have a demil code that allows them to be transferred or sold on to qualified individuals or organisations (quite easy if you happen to be a us resident citizen in most cases) - parts like the main airframe etc come under this strict disposal means destruction code...

(again, correct me if I'm wrong...)

My question then is - how does someone like the Collins Foundation go about acquiring private ownership of something like their Phantom? I would assume that it is under a similar code to the F-14 and F-111 given Iran's operations of the F-4 and that it is and old but still very capable machine with no less potential to ruin someones day than later model fast jets...

Am I misunderstanding the structure of the Collins Foundation as a truely private organisation or have they got US Gov involvement in their setup arrangement that loop holes this?

So if there is an answer to the above that free's this next bit up, please let me know

If Collins (and other private organisations) have managed to successfully apply for exemption or have found a loophole... then how would (if it even could) this apply to the example of the F-111?

I've basically followed the yellow brick road all the way up to a number of people who I assume would be some of the most qualified people in positions to help make something this ambitious happen, but despite their personal enthusiasm and genuine desire to help where possible, they have basically had to just give me the bad news that "its just not possible"...

If any of you more experienced guys can shed any light on this for me would be much appreciated!

Cheers!

p.s sorry for the poor and difficult to follow formatting of the above, was typing faster than my head was thinking hahha!

I don't have an answer, but rather a piggyback question on this topic. (I hope you don't mind MaYHeM).

Does anyone have a good listing of all of the aircraft types that are included in this law? I don't know anything about the "F" code mentioned above, but obviously there is a list out there somewhere of "black-balled" former US military aircraft that the Federal Government wants to keep out of civilian hands, and I have been unable to find it in my feeble attempts at a web search. Does anyone have a good reference source that identifies which aircraft are "taboo"?

Many thanks!

Steve

You seem to have been well informed as to how the system works. Combat aircraft cannot be sold to private individuals under the current U.S. laws and regulations. The only way they can be acquired for static display is through the loan programs operated by the military and they most certainly remain the property of the Government. The Collings Foundation literally needed an Act of Congress in order to get around the rules and the military is wise to that trick now and will fight to prevent it in the future.

I understand (not ~ as they say ~ my field, though) another exception was any aircraft otherwise on the list that the US lost title to, such as the A-37 Super Tweets exported from Vietnam to Australia, in the 1980s/1990s - one of which ended up back in the USA, airworthy in private hands. However I think that situation depended on less stringent controls that existed when it was re-imported.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Modern AMERICAN combat aircraft can't be sold to private citizens because they're dangerous, they could be used as weapons of terror, etc. However, it's perfectly OK for private citizens to own, license, and fly safe, docile, harmless aircraft like MiG 29s. . .

_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Port Charlotte, Florida

Wait James, that was no trick. The Foundation was advised by USAF lawyers to pursue legislation as they had no mechanism to transfer a flyable aircraft to a non federal entity.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

So this is always a question of mine. IF, and I do not, had the cash, why could I not set up a corporation in say, Switzerland/Norway/Germany, buy one or two of the Israeli F-4s that are (were?) for sale and fly it as a civilian air show act? (VX-4 bicentennial colors come to mind). After proving the corporation could afford to properly manage it why could it not come home to the U.S.? Granted, this is a pipe dream as it would take a pile of cash. . . wait. . . where is that lotto ticket??!!

Tom P.

One, two, three, four, five, six answers, and no one does a google search for the real information?

This is govliquidation's answer about demil codes. The details are painfully, exponentially, gruesomely more complicated, but this should give you a basic idea:

https://www.govliquidation.com/help/details.html#q_35.2

You basically had it right in your understanding- you do better research than 90% of the people here. The real complication with these codes is that there are executive orders made through three letter agencies of the US Government which modify these on an irregular basis. The codes were created to protect US trade and military secrets and have generally worked. Problem is, when you introduce politics into the mix (as in, we'll trade you two C-130's for a Martin Mars, wink, wink) or need to justify the existence of your agency and wade into tricky problems like the possible escape of Grumman F9F parts into dastardly hands, you come up with a veritable mess that makes it hard for surplus dealers to deal with. It is, to put it simply, another example of the US Gooberment hopelessly complicating something that should be simple.

My solution- you want an airframe for a foreign museum? Fine, you can have it, as long as it is demilled properly under supervision of a proper authority and the US has perpetual inspection rights to ensure it stays demilled. End of story. No BATFE or ICE complications, no State Department hold-ups, and plenty of examples for the world to appreciate American ingenuity.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Many thanks to the people who have answered and contributed to the thread so far!

My question has basically been answered... and "An Act of Congress" is something I'm afraid I just don't think I'm going to have enough time left in the day to push I'm afraid hahaha!

I'll continue looking at how else this might be achieved - it might well end up being a fruitless endeavor and a lot of barking up the wrong tree, but everything has to start somewhere and who knows...

If you wanted to, you could start collecting parts from seperate aircraft and assemble it into one.

Thats how the Starfighters got all of there aircraft

_________________
My racing will fund my warbirding. Hopefully...

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/ChristopherDeshongRacing
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisDRacing

Sure... if you know where I could get my hands on

THIS BIT



and THESE BITS



and... a whole lot of other non-existent structural parts that I thought were now sitting on our cook tops frying eggs in their new life as pots and pans, then hook me up mate

Because right now I am looking at a plethora of CAD drawings some genius at General Dynamics dreamed up about 50+ years ago as the only other option hahahaha

Because that wasn't the question, the poster wanted WIX member input, primarily from owners and operators (whose information is usually 'well researched' but not always broadcast on WIX but shared via WIX.) I usually check my answers, and say when I don't, like here, that it's from memory. When I do research, I find people deliberately misspelling 'government' are telling me more than they want me to know about them, too, as a rule. But, as usual, thanks for your input, it's useful.

Which is pretty much were we are at in Australia with the F-111. There are several preserved in national collections (two at the RAAF Museum, a C and a G, but not at the Australian War Memorial, however) and as mentioned here recently another set were recently released to several Australian museums and collections after hard lobbying particularly by the Queensland Air Museum accompanied by reasonable, but stringent requirements for care and control. As a result there's more than a dozen currently in or entering preservation across Australia. That's good and bad; there's no reason to argue for more to be preserved, but the precedent is there...

You wouldn't get one, anyway, as you have no US constituency.

However, as above, others have shown that working through the Australian government, it is possible to get permission, including US government agreement, to have a complete F-111 on show at a non-state level museum.

If you haven't already done so, I'd talk to the Queensland Air Museum guys about how the process was for them; at worst you'll confirm your roadblocks, at best, they'll probably be able to set you on the (most likely) only viable path if there is one.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I wasn't ever under the impression I would... hence my sarcastic comment about not having the time...



I know. I have an ex USAF F-111E cockpit sitting in my shed, which I exported/imported after getting that approval.



I was writing letters to DMO and Ministers of Defence back in 2005 about aquisition of an airframe, long before the F-111 RFO program finally eventuated I of course registered in as part of it as an organisation (which was required) and only withdrew my interest when it came time to make final calls on who was serious and actually had an empty four walled room of a suitable sie and security standard for the aircraft that would never be owned by you or an organisation that wasn't the Australian Government. By that stage, the whole deal was getting less and less attractive as the reality of the RAAF/Aus Gov. requirements and restrictions on the aircraft sank in. In my opinion (and undoubtably many other would be applicat organisations), the whole spirit of what makes this warbird and preservation by hobby and passion scene was lost in a sea of bureaucracy and overly restrictive conditions that essentially meant all you were really ending up with was a huge paperweight that you were responsible for housing, insuring and securing - all without the joy of being able to do some of the simplest of things - like move the aircraft to a different position without prior written approval, that would then be undertaken by the government at guess who's expense... or have open cockpit days for family's to enjoy without again, written permission and approval on a strict schedule of how many times a year such a thing could be allowed etc...

I could go on forever with the pages and pages of enthusiasm killing rules and restrictions that were in place for these RFO aircraft, but I'm sure you'll all stop reading if I rant too much hahaha

Basically, whilst I appreciate the fact that a significant number of our F-111 fleet was preserved and will ultimately be preserved very well because of these same reasons, I also think there is something to be said for the other side of aircraft preservation - which is the passion, skill, spirit and community drive of private warbird enthusiasts that has arguably been the only support and reason why so many amazing historical aircraft are here for people to see on the ground, or even flying still today.

To enable that to continue and occur, there needs to be scope for the unhindered plans and dreams that give warbird enthusiasts and hobbyists a purpose, namely continually striving to better restore, preserve and display aircraft.

A plane that can't be moved, tampered with or restored further and further with the attention to detail and perfection it deserves is just a beautiful frustration.

I know many will disagree with that, but lets agree to disagree

Many good points, and I agree with many of your frustrations.

Of course, another reasonable view questions expecting the state to let you (or I) buy (or get gifted) an obsolete weapon of war merely because it's a neat hobby, at all (or without numerous restrictions) just places the hobbyist's view ahead of all others - not likely to be a widely supported order of things.

There's a difference between nice, important and essential. The F-111 was operated by the Australian state as a major asset to defend the country. Once they ceased to be cost effective, they no longer have that role, and the state is responsible for disposing of them safely. Those of us with a belief in the import of history would see that an example or examples are preserved in appropriate collections.

More would be 'nice' - it's neither important, nor essential, IMHO.

To go on (though I'm not suggesting this is what you're saying, just relating to some of the general thought-free beliefs sometimes expressed on WIX) - The idea that the state is obliged to sell or give obsolete national assets to individuals or groups on retirement is fallacious; just as fallacious as 'they were meant to fly' (no they were weapons for a job) or that 'we paid for them, we should be able to have one now' (no, they are a what could be regarded as the military version of a fully depreciated ex-asset - to be disposed of safely) or, implicit in those, that the state should build in specifications, legislation and resources for post national private use of weapons.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Yanks in Chino has what appears to be a structurally complete example of an F-111. You might inquire there to see if they would reveal their source.