Warbird Information Exchange

Yep and scrapped at Harlingen during the move in 91 was the C-54 that was on static display, with only the cockpit section remaining. I wrote a news story about it at the time and remember the outrage in the following issues letters sections of Flypast and Pacific Flyer.

JH

An idea about the PBY...

Would/could the new museum in Hawaii, who already have the ex-CAF Pratt-powered A6M-2 (and a Wildcat), be interested in the Brownsville PBY, I wonder? As I understand it that collection is solely static, so surely they wouldn't be worried about issues that impede a rebuild to fly...and a PBY must just as surely fit their collection mandate...? Just a thought.

Re the Dragon, how much is common (or at least close) between a B-23 and the postwar C-117 "Super Gooney", I wonder? One or two of the latter are still floating around this area. Am thinking in terms of B-23 fuselage and tail/C-117 wings and engines (vaguely a la the Halifax re-creation at Elvington in the UK that uses Hastings transport wings)...Of course a static-only rebuild, like the PBY if she were at the Hawaiian museum, wouldn't need such considerations.

Must say this thread is most interesting...and has remained far more levelheaded and thoughtful than some other WIX (or FP) threads back in the day on similar subjects. Cool...

S.

Robbie,

I guess I kind of pointed my response at you but in fact it was meant at a general statement to all…all who care about the welfare of these airplanes. The long term outlook for “wayward Warbirds” can change dramatically with just a few people willing to pick up the ball and run with it. I say it again (Not pointed directly at you!), I hear a lot of squawking about the future of a lot of vintage planes (Not just CAF airplanes) from people on this board. Well, pelicans run around all day eating, $hitting, squawking, squabbling with each other and do not accomplish one d@mn thing for all the noise and mess. People can either be pelicans or stand up and actually do something about what they feel passionate about. Lip service does not buy a thing. If an individual finds a problem, or has a problem with the way certain events are unfolding and has enough balls to howl about it, then they better have a solution in mind to propose and be ready to act on it! Bitching does not fix problems, it creates chaos. Careful thought and pointed actions solve problems. I know of a couple people on this board who do just that and are making a real difference.

John

I guess I’m ranting again but at least it’s friendly and kind of humorous!

I wonder if the Hawaii museum knows about it? They do have a PBY in their concept drawing for one of the exhibits...

I think they already have one.

how historically irresponsible!!!! the commemorative air force should be kicked in the ass for allowing that to get the torch!!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Tom, please calm down and READ the posts that have been put on this thread. The airplane has not, nor will go to the "torch."

Gary

Well, since my friend ABrooks used my name in the saga of the B-23...

First a comment as a CAF General Staff guy (brickbats and rude remarks expected), John Beyl, Doug Jeanes, Gary, all understand what the limitations are with the CAF and airplanes like the PBY and the B-23 and others that are moldering away. They have expressed the predominant view: anything is possible with money and motivated people. So, where are you? That PBY was junk in 1991: what was useable was taken for other birds so they could fly. If there was such an outcry for "saving" it THEN, along with a plan and some proof of financial wherewithall, the CAF would have listened and acted. We (current GS) still will. The line forms on the left....

As for the B-23. It was essentially in a non-flyable state in 1991. The newly formed High Sky Wing decided that it was a project that they were interested in. Bother Jeanes encouraged the effort to at least bring the airplane to Midland. (remove it from salty air, etc) When the crew arrived at the airport they did not find an airplane that could be easily (or even with difficulty) made flyable. They dissassembled the airplane, (which had been heavily damaged by an airport employee there with a fork lift, the engines were frozen, there were big pieces like the gear doors and fairing pieces missing, the list is long and not pretty...) brought it to Midland, spent buckets of cash and sweat equity on it for the next five years, and then ran out of money and enthusiasm. It would have cost THEN half a million dollars to fix what was wrong with the airplane. I'm sure the cost for that has escalated. It is "up for assignment" still, so anyone who wants to present a plan and show the financial support necessary to fix it is welcome to come to the GS. Again, the line forms on the left....I for one have advocated that the airplane become a part of the American Airpower Heritage Museum (another part of the CAF) but that would mean moving it from the "Flying Museum" collection to the non-flying AAHM. Maybe one day that will happen...

MarineAir mentioned some things that the CAF could do, relative to improving the fleet. Sound ideas, but the way the CAF works now, it won't happen. Here is why.

The CAF is essentially a franchise operation....think McDonald's with airplanes and not burgers. All the financial resources, the "entreprenuerial spirit" to take on projects, maintain and operate the airplanes, etc, all happens at the unit level. You can't go to McDonald's HQ building and buy a hamburger, nor can you go to CAF HQ and get an airplane, or find all of them being operated by some small group of power-hungry bureaucrats. I like to tell my fellow GS members that the name "Confederate" was most appropriate, not because of our so-called southern heritage, but because of the governmental structure of the organization. Our President is like Jefferson Davis....has to rely on the good will of more than seventy units and detachments and the six thousand plus members to get anything done. And trust me, all six thousand plus know exactly what is wrong with the organization and can fix it in a trice if only "They" would follow just a few suggestions.

Rather than dump on the CAF on this board, I think it is better to focus on the warbird movement, which was essentially started by the CAF, and discuss the positives, like Gary's outstanding work on the B-24 and B-29, etc, while we nudge the CAF along for another fifty years. We're always on the lookout for folks to help out with this imperfect organization.

Old Shep

Good work shep. I wrote a similar, although less politically correct, answer. I then sat on it for a day or so and decided to leave it. I'm amazed at the comments on how the CAF should be run, by members and nonmembers. Our board meetings are open to any members to attend anytime. How many have you seen there? I have attended meetings off and on since the Harlingen days, because I was interested in how to be a part of the group. You and I, along with the other members of the General Staff, spend thousands of dollars and hours for the betterment of the organization. Most who criticize, from what I see, do just that and offer no real solution or help.

_________________

Blue Skies,
Doug

www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com

A big reason is that not everyone lives close enough to CAF HQ to do anything about it.

Everyone is just worried about the future of this PBY hulk. The issues that came up do need to be addressed. Otherwise we may loose an opertunity to see this PBY around.

Cheers,
Nathan

I don't think anyone is disparaging the amazing effort and huge impact on aviation heritage, and preservation that the CAF has had. The organization has a fascinating and impressive history, and continues to do a seemingly impossible job to preserve our shared national, and international heritage. The CAF keeps the public aware of the sacrifices and struggles of the men and women who helped defend our nations in times of great peril, and this is a very important mission. It is vital for people to be aware of their heritage, and the price of their own freedom.

What I think many of us were saddened by was the apparently casual reference by one of the CAF officials "washing their hands" of the PBY (see one of the earlier posts). It seemed such a callous reaction.

The fuselage, while it clearly has been stripped, and in distress, still looks whole. It still looks like a PBY. There must be an organization somewhere that would be happy to take the fuselage on, in part or whole, as the makings of a static display. The PBY fuselage with the skin cut away at Pennsacola is a good example of what can be done with such an exhibit... it is a fascinating display.

Surely before such a recognizeable, and significant artifact is scrapped every effort should be made to see that it might be able to find a good home. Why are we only just hearing about the problems with the airframe 15 years after the decision was made to not do anything pro-active with her?

I read all of the vintage aviation magazines, and have done so for decades. I have not read anything about the current problem (imminent or eventual scrapping) with the PBY at any time. Maybe I missed something. I write for most of the magazines too, so if there is something I could do on that end, please let me know.

I just don't think it's right that the airframe could simply just end up scrapped. Believe me, I've worked on projects that were as bad, or in worse in condition. They weren't nearly as big of course, but what small frame that two or three people can handle, 10 or 20 can manage with the right attitude and place to do it.

As an example, a friend of mine and I took the carcass of a UH-1A, perhaps the earliest surviving example, and turned it into a beautiful static exhibit. It had so many holes bashed in it, and so much corrosion in some of the skins that I never thought it had a chance, but after three years of work it looks absolutely magnificent. We've been working on his SBD as well... and that is in far worse condition.

Why doesn't the catalina deserve similar treatment? It is an incredibly historic and significant type. It would make an excellent static, hands-on exhibit at Midland for example.

Nobody is knocking the CAF. I have the highest respect for their endeavors, and count a number of members as good friends. Perhaps we expect too much of you guys... maybe that's it. Anyway, if there is a way that I can help to save this bird, or that we on the WIX could help, can you please let us know?

All the best,
Richard

Great points Richard!

The CAF practicaly started the warbird movement and have saved hundreds(?) of warbirds and other aircraft from certain doom. They have overcome many challenges. What I can't understand is from all their success, why are they having issues with the PBY? Surely they can find a buyer or donate the aircraft to another air museum. If someone really wanted to do it they could make it flyable again. But in reality it would be a great static display for any museum. Or in my back yard, but that will never happen.

Cheers, and thanks for all your hard work at the CAF!!

-Nathan

thanks retroaviation my confidence is restored. i wasn't dissing the c.a., but it seemed totally south of their charter from a glance.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

The PBY was beyond economical restoration in 1991. Nothing has happened to change that, and unless every other PBY on the planet disappears it will always remain that way. Not to say that it cannot be a source of parts or some kind of educational display. I didn't see any proof that the general staff or hired staff blessed any scrapping of the remains. I have been around and seen them do some not smart things, but I cannot beleive they would go to that extreme. Now for the B-23 I seem to sense a change in the wind about what can be done with it. Everyone in the orginization would love to see it fly, but and this is a hard to swallow but if it is beyond economical or safety wise abilities I would implore this general staff to do something about it. It has been sitting out in the tumble weeds long enough, and if I read Ole Shep right then maybe him and Doug, and a few others can change the rules for assignment to include restoration to static and advertise as such. The CAF B-23 was the last one I saw fly and no one else is flying one and there has to be a good reason

Here is a picture I took of the PBY at Airsho84 in Harlingen. A few hours before this was taken, the PBY-6A there too. Not long after I took this picture, we walked by a woman that was crying and sitting by herself. My dad asked he if she was ok and she told us that the other PBY had just crashed.




This is me in the B-23 at Harlingen in 1984. I paid $2.00 to go through it. I remember a lady selling T-shirts asked me if I knew what it was before I went inside. I told her then asked what part of the show it would fly in when the restoration was finished. She said "when the bombers go up". I said I knew that, but I was wondering if it was going to fly in a particular battle reenactment. She said "when the bombers go up". I said well B-23s didn't really have much of a combat record so I was wondering where they would fit it in. She finally got mad and said " I don't know! If you're so smart, why don't you tell me???" I didn't mean to make her mad, but it's kind of funny twenty-two years later. Of course that was before I really did much volunteering so I didn't know what a pain in the butt some real smart aleck kid could be!

The other pictures are when it was being worked on by the High Sky Wing at Midland in the early to mid 90s.

_________________
Brad