Found unidentified F-4

[Connery]

I was on my way to Austin this past weekend and ran across the F-4 pictured below. I appologize for the poor quality of the pics, but all I had was the camera on my cell phone. I found this bird at Navarro College in Corsicana, TX. It was mounted as shown with no identifying signs that could be found. Also, I could not find any serial number or data plate anywhere on the aircraft that I could see. It appears to be mechanically complete with the exception of the engines. The condition of the aircraft is fair, but probably won't stay that way much longer. As you can see, one of the wheels from the nose gear is missing and the pilots canopy is slightly open, allowing the weather and critters in. Also, all of the flight control surfaces are not secured and move with a strong wind. I was able to reach up and easily deflect the horizontal stab up and down very easily.

Does anyone have any information regarding this aircraft?

[Shay]

From the always helpful Mr. Joe Baugher's website:

65-0747 (c/n 1810) to AMARC as FP0191 Jan 5, 1989. Now displayed on pylon at Navarro College, Corsicana, TX. Painted in spurious Thunderbird markings.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[Connery]

What did we ever do without the internet

With the majority of the F-4's in the boneyard or being destroyed as target drones, I wonder if this particular aircraft would be a good candidate for restoration to flight status?

[RickH]

Connery, the short answer is NO !

Any tactical, turbine aircraft may not be allocated for flight purposes. All aircraft considered excess to the neeeds of the USAF are controlled and allocated for display purposes by the NMUSAF. They hold title forever and the agreements they have with donees prohibits ANY type of operational capability.

Naval aircraft are similarly controlled by the NMNA.

[MX304]

Connery, the short answer is NO !

Any tactical, turbine aircraft may not be allocated for flight purposes. All aircraft considered excess to the neeeds of the USAF are controlled and allocated for display purposes by the NMUSAF. They hold title forever and the agreements they have with donees prohibits ANY type of operational capability.

Naval aircraft are similarly controlled by the NMNA.

How was the Collings Foundation able to get theirs flying?

[TimAPNY]

I think Congress allowed it under a waiver.

Ryan?

Edit:
I stand corrected.

Last edited by TimAPNY on Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[RickH]

No waiver.

Legislation was written specifically allocating 1 airframe to be transferrred to the Foundation at no cost to the taxpayer for flight purposes. It was part of the Defense Authorization bill. It went through the whole legislation to public law procedure. The resolution was signed into law by the President.

Then all it took was negotiations with the AF and lots of money to do the necessary inspections and complying with pertinent TCTOs that had been put out since the plane was put in storage.

[Shay]

But there is nothing stating that you can't purchase and import a F-4, F-100, etc. etc. from a foriegn airforce and restore for flight purpouses? Correct? For example all the Migs you see flying occasionally here and there.

I understand that there would be alot of red tape but sounds like there might less of it going this route.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[Scott Rose]

I think that depends on how they were acquired. If the Foreign government acquired them through an assistance program then odds are there is some rule preventing there public registration. However, if it was a foreign built airframe then you could probably get it registered, I think thats how some of the F-104s are flying. Should be interesting when the European F-16's get retired.

[Richard W.]

Connery-

darn nice pics for a cellphone. Thanks for sharing them.

[Connery]

Connery, the short answer is NO !

Any tactical, turbine aircraft may not be allocated for flight purposes. All aircraft considered excess to the neeeds of the USAF are controlled and allocated for display purposes by the NMUSAF. They hold title forever and the agreements they have with donees prohibits ANY type of operational capability.

Naval aircraft are similarly controlled by the NMNA.

Weren't Saber's and Fury's considered tactical aircraft at one point? If so, how are their privately owned Saber's and Fury's flying? I'm not disputing what you have said, I'm just curious

[systemofadown1162]

So you can restore pistons but not turbines?

I appologize for the poor quality of the pics, but all I had was the camera on my cell phone.

What kind of phone you got?

[RickH]

Connery, most of the Sabres are foreign built under license. The Fury were most likely hulks that were sold for scrap and weren't. There were a few loopholes on the earlier airframes. For the most part those are long closed.

T-33s and F-104s are the same way, look at the registry and you will find that most are Canadian built aircraft, not Lockheed. The ones that are flying were brought in before new restrictions on importing were put in place.

If an aircraft is a Military Assistance Program aircraft their are restrictions on its ultimate fate. Recently the DoD tried to track down and confiscate some CF-5s that were brought into this country by claiming the DoD restrictions applied because they paid for Northrops engineering and design on the F-5/T-38 program.

Chuck Thornton's initial T-38 was classed as a destroyed aircraft. The center section was repaired and the rest was pieced together from parts that were acquired from all over.

Sadly, most of the restrictions deal with American built aircraft, not foreign aircraft types. We can preserve and operate another country's aviation heritage but not our own.

[Connery]

Rick,

Thanks for the additional clarification

[wendovertom]

OK,
Pie in the sky thinking. In 1970 or so, the US sold five F-14As to the Shah of Iran. It is my understanding that this was a sale of hardware and not a MAP transfer (I could be wrong though). So, lets say that someone with money coming out the wazoo is able to set up a european business, buy these Tomcats, repair them and return them to flying condition. Could they then sell them and bring them into the US legally? It seems a bit like "laundering" but could it be done??

It seems crazy that private citizens can buy a MIG-29 but owning an American built F-100/F-86 type aircraft is illegal

Tom P.