Gotta Fight This

[Jay Beckman]

I don't care what your personal politics are but this can't be allowed to happen:

OH Congressman Introduces Legislation To Ground Warbirds

Please take the time to seek out your Representative and voice your opposition!

[Joe Copalman]

Threaten a boycott of the Wright-Patt Museum?  (i.e. NO warbirds flown in for special events like the Doolittle thing).

They've pulled this before with the CAF's F-82.  Totally unacceptable.

[Bubak]

Done!!  My voice is in!! 

[scottcolbath]

I've emailed my Congresscritter about this.

S.C.

[scottcolbath]

More info........

Send an email to Turner's office, not just your own Congressman.

Congressman Michael Turner.
Web site: http://turner.house.gov/
Telephone Dayton Office: (937) 225-2843
E-mail for the Congressman's staffer in charge of this issue: Don Bergin don.bergin@mail.house.gov

[scottcolbath]

I got a response from Turner's office, which really seems senseless:

Turner Statement on Military Heritage Aircraft


Washington D.C. – Congressman Mike Turner (OH-3) released the following statement on the flying of military heritage aircraft and the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act:

"Dayton is home to the National Museum of the Air Force, and has the largest collection of historical military aircraft in the world. I know the value and importance that the facility has in honoring sacrifices of our veterans and as a symbol that freedom isn't free. The Warbird community plays an important role in bringing WWII era aircraft to our nation's citizens. These propeller-driven craft are ambassadors of freedom's price and I do not support grounding any of them.

"My concern lies in the potential for military jet aircraft to be transferred to civilians for flight without the same rigorous training and maintenance schedules that pilots and aircraft underwent when they were in service. In fact, the Department of Defense was asked by Congress to conduct a study on post-1947 military aircraft and what concerns the department has with their being flown. In short, the Department both in the report and through their policies does not support these aircraft from being transferred to civilians for flight.

"I look forward to working with the Warbird community to see that they continue to stay in the air. Their contributions have inspired Americans young and old, and will do so for years to come."

S.C.

[Chris Kennedy]

Personally, I think this is all much ado about nothing. The DoD isn't handing out jets to anybody anyway, so nothing would be changed by this amendment.

The only planes that are currently flying that have been mentioned as having been transferred directly from the military are "Fifi" and the F-4 that the Collings Foundation has. "Fifi" was transferred over 40 years ago and the F-4 was only transferred due to a special act of Congress. Collings hasn't even been able to get spare engines from the DoD that were specifically authorized in the act. They have been buying all of their parts from private sources.

Here is a very good analysis from a P-51 owner on WIX.

I READ.... The DOD says FIFI is safe since the agreement is pretty well worded. (unlike the P-82 situation). As long as CAF doesn't do anything STUPID like try to trade her off, she should be OK....

Other WWII or Korean era birds are pretty much owned outright and can't be taken back.

There are Korean War jets on sticks out there that the GOVT still owns in front of the local VFW, and they are not going to fliers ever.

There is the Collings Foundation who managed to get their F-4 and some parts out, through a special act of Congress. I'd guess if that opportunity ever arose again, Congress could authorize Collings or a similar group a jet.... Seeing what they went through and the furor it caused, I don't see that happening. I don't know the status of spares from the govt for the Phantom (Rick??) but I'd say they're probably aren't going to be any coming (considering the problems they had getting the spare engine(s) they were authorized). But a Phantom should have spares available on the world market if you need them (and of course if you can import them legally (remember the Skyraider and filling out forms))....

But the Feds probably never intended (as the DOD states) to let any more combat aircraft into the civilian market and this pretty much codifies this. It may go a step further and keep transports from being sold as surplus (with the C-130 firebomber fiasco, that probably isn't going to happen either). Taking into consideration the lack of interest in seeing transports at airshows and the cost of operating big birds, that shouldn't hurt the warbird situation.

It will probably do more for restricting helicopters than anything else. No more real transfers of choppers to state and local govt, who may fly them until they break and then sell them. So the local govts aren't going to take the choppers now (they'll take anything thats free if they can sell it later for any amount of money)..... So no more O-58s, Hueys, or Cobras (which were pretty rare anyways).

In the end, how is this going to really affect the average T-6/P-51/B-25 owner? I just don't see it? I don't even see it affecting the MIG17/21 or other jet owners either.

Other than political thoughts what is the real practical impact of this law?

And from somebody with the Collings Foundation:

Our deed of gift gives us an aircraft. ONE each. An agreement was reached in 1998, and money exchanged hands for 4 spare excess J-79-15s. When it came time to pull one of the earmarked engines, new USAF personnel stated that the previous USAF individuals were not authorized to execute said contract. They kept the money. The replacement engine, ( that replaced the fodded engine) was privately sourced and funded.

To further set the record straight, we have NEVER received any USAF spares. All spares used to keep this aircraft flying have been sourced from privately held inventory. The USAF continues to say that we cannot support the aircraft without their help. We are actually keeping these aircraft flying in spite of their actions.

[Jay Beckman]

EAA is reporting that the amendment has been withdrawn...