Anyone need an A-7 or A-4?

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:03 pm

John, what FAA office do you work in ?

There's a rumor out there that the sky is falling, too !

JohnB · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:29 pm

John Dupre wrote:

I can't believe I am saying this but I think the government has a point. In some ways aircraft design has stagnated since the mid 60's. So any aircraft of that vintage are nearly as capable as any newer designs in terms of performance or can be made so. Many of those types are also pretty demanding in terms of performance; your average really rich guy pilot probably doesn't have the skills to fly one safely and the FAA (A Quinn Martin Production) really doesn't have them manpower to oversee letters of authorization for the handful of potential owners with the bucks to make one flyable. Aside from making noise they don't have a lot of value in civilian hands. So the potential for a flyable vintage 60s jet to make off for places unknown, or to crash into a crowd of civilians is very real to the powers that be and the demand for other views is too small to counter act it.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you...But nearly everything you say (pilot skills &demands/limited use/crash into civillians) can also be said about piston warbirds.

What is it the govt. is afraid of?
Old jets finding their way into some other air force (like the F-14 parts story)...or aviation safety? Two entirely different issues.
They might have a point with the first...although there aren't manhy users of A-4s and A-7s...and those that are are friendly (i.e. not Iran).
If they're worried about safety, then that's a bit of a red herring. Any aircraft can crash....

If we get paranoid, we could call this a "slippery slope" whereby one day all warbirds wil be banned. Look at
the UK, many jet warbird types are banned...Lightning, Buccaneer, etc.

And I agree about T-34Cs..no more dangerous than a turbine Bonanza/Malibu/TBM700-850.
T-37s....well, their ancient engines pose a bit of a problem with fuel burn and especially, noise.

mike furline · **Joined:** Wed May 05, 2004 3:45 pm **Posts:** 2635

JohnB wrote:

What is it the govt. is afraid of?

In simple terms, (You) the civilians who are suppose to be in charge of keeping them (the govt.) in check.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:32 pm

It kind of gets amusing if you substitute 'garbage truck' for 'warbird'.

Perhaps, somewhere, there's a parallel universe where Garbo-buffs demand the government release obsolete high-performance garbage trucks to private owners to commemorate the valiant work of the garbage operators of yore. After all, it was their taxes that paid for those trucks, and they weren't made to sit in museums or be crushed themselves - no; they were built to roam the streets (not picking up wheely bins or actually doing the job, of course) but making the Garbo-buff's happy, despite the government's evil attempts to stop these buffs basic inalienable rights of garbage truck collection, and demonstration...

Military aircraft were were a tool operated by government mandated forces to do a job. Once the tool is obsolete, it's replaced and then should be disposed of safely. There's no good reason we 'have' to preserve any of them, beyond the selection in the government's attics of the Smithsonian and NMUSAF etc. It's nice that we do; it's no way essential or a basic, inalienable right.

Regards,

pilot06 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:50 pm

Well at least the F-111's will be spared the shredder for a little while. Reclamation only.

As for the F-7's and A-4's, I would have to believe one of the tactical flight training contracting with the DoD would be interested in the A-4's. I would love to get my hands on a TA.

PC

Ztex wrote:

Or how about an F-111

Ran across these interesting "aircraft" for sale by Uncle Sam....
I know we can't keep them all...but....What a shame.

govliquidation.com are currently listing a number of aircraft for disposal.
Event 8763 contains the following AMARG inmates.

Lot 2 (4 x F-111) comprising:

66-0048 [AAFV0314] EF-111A 27thFW
66-0050 [AAFV0311] EF-111A 27thFW
67-0035 [AAFV0323] EF-111A 27thFW
68-0260 [AXFV0161] F-111G 27thFW

http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?auctionId=5875888

Event 8762 lot 8930 is over 50 airframes at NAS Fallon, illustrated with
some low-res photos of former AMARG inmates.

http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?auctionId=5871931

JohnB · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:57 am

pilot06 wrote:

I would have to believe one of the tactical flight training contracting with the DoD would be interested in the A-4's. I would love to get my hands on a TA.

That's a fair use for them...and aren't the ex NZAF A-4s doing that?
Still, a A-4 or A-7 is no more a threat to anyone (especially pilots) than a Mustang is. Slightly newer technology (especially the A-4) is the only difference.
Really, is the A-4 any more complex than a Spitfire or B-17? Very simple airframe and systems and arguably, a safer/longer lasting engine than anything that flies in Reno.

JohnB · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:58 am

mike furline wrote:

JohnB wrote:

What is it the govt. is afraid of?

In simple terms, (You) the civilians who are suppose to be in charge of keeping them (the govt.) in check.

Be careful with talk like that, last time I said something similar I got booed by one of our more government trusting forumites. :lol:

Warbird Information Exchange

Anyone need an A-7 or A-4?

Who is online