T37's for sale?
Brian Gapco
Some months ago, it was indicated that the Tweet Fleet would be
supplanted by a new series of trainers, and that these
vetran aircraft might go for sale. I am on the DOD's Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service's mailing list for surplus
aircraft, but nothing has been mentioned of them so far.
Can anyone shed any light on the current status of the T37's?
TIA,
Brian
Randall Haskin
The JPATS replacement for the T-37 isn't supposed to come on-line until
after 2000 so don't look for any Tweets to be hitting the auction block
anytime in the near future.....
R Haskin
Brian Elliott
Brian Gapco <10066...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Some months ago, it was indicated that the Tweet Fleet would be
>supplanted by a new series of trainers, and that these
>vetran aircraft might go for sale. I am on the DOD's Defense
>Reutilization and Marketing Service's mailing list for surplus
>aircraft, but nothing has been mentioned of them so far.
>Can anyone shed any light on the current status of the T37's?
Certainly there are a lot in storage at DM but most appear to be in long
term storage with a small number in the Drop area being used for spares
to keep the existing fleet flying.
They probably wont start selling them off (if at all) until the type is
actually withdrawn.
brian
Michael Williamson
Brian Elliott wrote:
>
> >Can anyone shed any light on the current status of the T37's?
>
> actually withdrawn.
>
> brian
I wouldn't hold my breath even then... You wouldn't believe the number of T-33s
sitting out here in the Arizona sun. The Air Force doesn't seem all that
interested in selling out old aircraft, and I don't even think they are used
to supply spare parts for anything (e.g. the Canadians only operate
Canadair-built models now, and almost certainly supply their own parts).
It would be something of a problem purchasing a T-37 for civil use, since
there is no civil counterpart. This means that the FAA has not blessed the
aircraft, since it is not built to civilian safety requirements. For instance
the aircraft was designed specifically so that it would be easy to put into
a spin. I think that any T-37 purchased and used for civil purposes would
have to be registered under an experimental type. On the other hand, this
is no different than, say, the P-51s running around, and the T-37 is in fact
a much safer aircraft to fly than just about any fighter, FAA notwithstanding.
Mike
Jim Herring
There is a source of A-37's. Lots's of new in the box spare parts.
Shipping costs may be a bit high.
It's Viet Nam. They got all the stuff from South Viet Nam's air force.
Hueys, A-37's, Spads, etc. Most flyable or repairable (missing
instruments). But they have new in the box spare parts.
Frank DeAngelo
I remember seeing a civil design for the T-37 in the 1954 or 1955
"Jane's All the Aircraft of The World". It was just an artist's
drawing, and I'm not sure if any were built. Perhaps Walt can shed some
light on this.
Frank
Walt Shiel
Michael Williamson wrote:
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath even then... You wouldn't believe the number of T-33s
> sitting out here in the Arizona sun. The Air Force doesn't seem all that
> interested in selling out old aircraft, and I don't even think they are used
> to supply spare parts for anything (e.g. the Canadians only operate
> Canadair-built models now, and almost certainly supply their own parts).
>
There is NO commonality between the Cessna T-37 and the Canadair Tutor -- other
than in basic configuration. The Tutor is NOT a Canadair-built Tweet.
> It would be something of a problem purchasing a T-37 for civil use, since
> there is no civil counterpart. This means that the FAA has not blessed the
> aircraft, since it is not built to civilian safety requirements. For instance
> the aircraft was designed specifically so that it would be easy to put into
> a spin. I think that any T-37 purchased and used for civil purposes would
> have to be registered under an experimental type. On the other hand, this
> is no different than, say, the P-51s running around, and the T-37 is in fact
> a much safer aircraft to fly than just about any fighter, FAA notwithstanding.
>
There have been civil owned and operated T-37s and there are some T-37Cs acquired
from Central/South American countries that are in some stage of restoration for
civil use. Getting them licensed to fly in the US is no more difficult than, say,
a T-33 or an F-86 or a Fouga Magister or whatever. Cessna did, in fact, assign a
model number to the T-37 (as they did for all their military aircraft) -- the Model
318.
The T-37 was designed to spin (as are most dedicated aerobatic aircraft) but was
also specifically designed to recover in a predictable manner -- thus the "spin
strakes" along each side of the nose.
There is also at least one flying A-37 in the US, owned by the Lone Star Flight
Museum at Galveston, TX. There are several of them flying in Australia/New
Zealand, since those countries have fewer import restrictions from the most readily
available stock of them -- Vietnam.
Walt
--
==>For All E-Mail Replies, Use "wsh...@airmail.net"
=============================================================
Walt Shiel - Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and
Personal History of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
[For More Info, E-Mail: wsh...@airmail.net]
=============================================================
Darrell A. Larose
Michael Williamson wrote:
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath even then... You wouldn't believe the number of T-33s
> sitting out here in the Arizona sun. The Air Force doesn't seem all that
> interested in selling out old aircraft, and I don't even think they are used
> to supply spare parts for anything (e.g. the Canadians only operate
> Canadair-built models now, and almost certainly supply their own parts).
>
Not even close, The CT-114 Tutor is a completely different aircraft. All
you have to do is see a CT-114 parked next to a T-37 and you'll see vast
differences. The Tutor is a completely Canadian designed and built a/c
the only other buyer was Malasia which bought a mud mover variant called
the Tubalon (Shooter Tutor) for COIN tasking. Some of the Malasian variants
can be seen on the airshow circuit. Canada hasn't sold any of our CT-114
at all, so if it's a Tutor in civies, it's from Malasia...
Check 6
--
Darrell Larose
ad...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ad607
dar...@cesani.newforce.ca http://www.newforce.ca/~darrell/
Michael Williamson
Darrell A. Larose wrote:
>
>
> ... The CT-114 Tutor is a completely different aircraft. All
> you have to do is see a CT-114 parked next to a T-37 and you'll see vast
> differences. The Tutor is a completely Canadian designed and built a/c
>
Sorry for the confusion all. I didn't mean to imply that the CT-114 was at
all related to the T-37; the reference I made was to the T-33 in service
with Canada, not to the Tutor. This aircraft is in service with a few
squadrons dedicated to EW training. I referenced this because I have had
personal experience with 434 Sq. flying these aircraft in the U.S. during
an exercise. My Squadron supplied these gentlemen with EW pods, and they
were nice enough to haul me around on a flight during the exercise.
Mike
Jim Noetzel
On 3 Jun 1996 23:21:59 GMT, Brian Gapco <10066...@CompuServe.COM>
wrote:
>Some months ago, it was indicated that the Tweet Fleet would be
>supplanted by a new series of trainers, and that these
>vetran aircraft might go for sale. I am on the DOD's Defense
>Reutilization and Marketing Service's mailing list for surplus
>aircraft, but nothing has been mentioned of them so far.
>
>Can anyone shed any light on the current status of the T37's?
>
>TIA,
>
>Brian
I was flew a T-37 into some Texas field a few years back and a guy in
a T-6 taxied up, got out and started asking us a bunch of questions
about the tweet. Seems that he had just bought a few A-37 from some
south american country and had full intenetions of getting them up to
flying status. The guy obviously had some serious cash - his watch
alone was worth my yearly income.
Jim
Martin/Jennifer Keenan
In article <31B735...@lfwc.lockheed.com>,
Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
>Michael Williamson wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't hold my breath even then... You wouldn't believe the
number of T-33s
>> sitting out here in the Arizona sun. The Air Force doesn't seem
all that
>> interested in selling out old aircraft, and I don't even think they
are used
>> to supply spare parts for anything (e.g. the Canadians only
operate
>> Canadair-built models now, and almost certainly supply their own
parts).
>>
>
Tutor -- other
>than in basic configuration. The Tutor is NOT a Canadair-built
Tweet.
This was probably in reference to Canadair-built T-33s, rather than
CT-114s.
Martin
Iskandar Taib
In article <31B784...@azstarnet.com>,
There was a Canadian T-33 at Grissom last weekend, for the airshow. In
grey, with low-visibily markings.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Iskandar Taib
In article <4p7doc$g...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Darrell A. Larose <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Not even close, The CT-114 Tutor is a completely different aircraft. All
>you have to do is see a CT-114 parked next to a T-37 and you'll see vast
>differences. The Tutor is a completely Canadian designed and built a/c
>the only other buyer was Malasia which bought a mud mover variant called
>the Tubalon (Shooter Tutor) for COIN tasking. Some of the Malasian variants
>can be seen on the airshow circuit. Canada hasn't sold any of our CT-114
>at all, so if it's a Tutor in civies, it's from Malasia...
"Tebuan". Malay for "Wasp".
JLSokolsky
You probably will not ever see the T-37s offered for sale from Davis
Mothan AFB. These aircraft are still considered "combat aircraft" (they
can be converted to A-37s), and thus the Department of Defense is
prohibited by U.S. law from offering them for sale to non-DoD agencies.
In addition, the FAA is prohibited from conducting inspections on
these aircraft as they are considered "combat aircraft'. Yeah, I know,
seems pretty stupid, but it is U.S. Law (note: not merely DoD regulation
but a Civil Law under which the DoD must ascribe). I rather doubt the
gentleman who obtained the A-37 from another country will ever get it
registered in the U.S. There is no inspection system for the T-37. There
is no civil type rating (and you require a type rating to operate a
turbine).
In short, a tough prospect. If folks are really adament about owning
one, they will have to push a bill through Congress to change the law. By
that time, you could have reconstructed the Wright Flyer from matchsticks
before seeing a Tweet in your garage.
Sorry, but if you need more info, drop me a line.
Squeaks
John "Squeaks" Sokolsky
Brian Elliott
jlsok...@aol.com (JLSokolsky) wrote:
Mmmmm. My copy of the Warbirds Directory lists a whole series of
T/A-37s registered in the USA with N serials mainly from Peru and a
couple with american serials. The SVnAF have mainly gone to Australia.
I remember seeing a T-37 being rebuilt for a civilian customer at
Thunderbird Aviation at Deer Valley, AZ a couple of years ago.
I agree however that is very unlikely that any will be sold off from DM.
brgds
Brian
Walt Shiel
JLSokolsky wrote:
>
> You probably will not ever see the T-37s offered for sale from Davis
> Mothan AFB. These aircraft are still considered "combat aircraft" (they
> can be converted to A-37s), and thus the Department of Defense is
> prohibited by U.S. law from offering them for sale to non-DoD agencies.
There is a time limit on this restriction. Witness the many combat aircraft that
have been sold out of the boneyard. The biggest restriction is that they won't
release them as long as they are serving on active duty...although even that is
not 100% true. O-2s have been sold in significant quantities from the boneyard
even though the Army still operates two of them.
Converting a T-37 to an A-37 is not quite as simple as you might think. You
could create something similar to the YAT-37D with a lot of work, perhaps, but
you'd really just have a super-T-37C. The differences between that and the
deployed version of the A-37A or B are more than cosmetic...there are significant
internal differences.
> In addition, the FAA is prohibited from conducting inspections on
> these aircraft as they are considered "combat aircraft'. Yeah, I know,
> seems pretty stupid, but it is U.S. Law (note: not merely DoD regulation
> but a Civil Law under which the DoD must ascribe). I rather doubt the
> gentleman who obtained the A-37 from another country will ever get it
> registered in the U.S. There is no inspection system for the T-37. There
> is no civil type rating (and you require a type rating to operate a
> turbine).
>
This is a ludicrous statement since there are many many ex-military combat
aircraft operating today, quite legally, in the US. Do you ever attend airshows?
Did you hear about the TF-104 that flew at Sun 'n' Fun? The Lone Star Flight
Museum at Galveston owns and has flown (again, legally) their very nice A-37A.
It's still flyable but not currently flying...for a variety of reasons, none of
which have anything to do with what you've stated. There is another civilian
A-37B, not yet flying, that was transferred directly from the USAF inventory to a
private museum collection.
At least one T-37C did operate out of the SE US a couple of years ago (it was
acquired from a Central American country) until the owner/pilot crashed it and
died. There are others owned privately at present but I don't think any of them
are flying, but there are lots of other ex-military jets in private hands. What
you need is a Letter of Authorization from the FAA (a task usually delegated to
someone who has demonstrated competence and recent experience with the specific
aircraft).
> In short, a tough prospect. If folks are really adament about owning
> one, they will have to push a bill through Congress to change the law. By
> that time, you could have reconstructed the Wright Flyer from matchsticks
> before seeing a Tweet in your garage.
>
Although there are some bureaucratic hurdles, it will most definitely NOT require
an act of Congress. To get one out of the boneyard will require mostly patience
-- ie, wait until the USAF replaces the fleet with the JPATS.
Walt
--
=============================================================
Walt Shiel - Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and
Personal History of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
=============================================================
Brian Elliott
Walt Shiel <wsh...@airmail.net> wrote:
>There is a time limit on this restriction. Witness the many combat aircraft that
>have been sold out of the boneyard. The biggest restriction is that they won't
>release them as long as they are serving on active duty...although even that is
>not 100% true. O-2s have been sold in significant quantities from the boneyard
>even though the Army still operates two of them.
I think O-2s are the exception to the rule regarding 'combat aircraft'.
In all other cases, fighters and bomber aircraft are NOT sold from DM
unless a) to friendly government air arms or b) unless they have be
de-militarised which means cutting the tail, nose and wings off. THis
is why the massed B-52 ranks were chopped up PRIOR to being carted
across Kolb Road to the scrappy.
Other jet trainers which were held by DM in some numbers include the
Rockwell Buckeye T-2B, and those left in droves to places like the NMIMT
at Socorro to be used in explosive trials etc, and the T-33 which still
litter DM in some numbers.
It is certainly not the case that combat aircraft are sold off after
they have left the active inventory.
>Converting a T-37 to an A-37 is not quite as simple as you might think. You
>could create something similar to the YAT-37D with a lot of work, perhaps, but
>you'd really just have a super-T-37C. The differences between that and the
>deployed version of the A-37A or B are more than cosmetic...there are significant
>internal differences.
>This is a ludicrous statement since there are many many ex-military combat
>aircraft operating today, quite legally, in the US. Do you ever attend airshows?
> Did you hear about the TF-104 that flew at Sun 'n' Fun? The Lone Star Flight
>Museum at Galveston owns and has flown (again, legally) their very nice A-37A.
>It's still flyable but not currently flying...for a variety of reasons, none of
>which have anything to do with what you've stated. There is another civilian
>A-37B, not yet flying, that was transferred directly from the USAF inventory to a
>private museum collection.
Yes, you are right about F-104s etc but these came from sources such as
Belgium, Norway, Japan & Denmark.
>At least one T-37C did operate out of the SE US a couple of years ago (it was
>acquired from a Central American country) until the owner/pilot crashed it and
>died. There are others owned privately at present but I don't think any of them
>are flying, but there are lots of other ex-military jets in private hands. What
>you need is a Letter of Authorization from the FAA (a task usually delegated to
>someone who has demonstrated competence and recent experience with the specific
>aircraft).
Most of the jet warbirds which did not come from overseas sources
directly seem to have been rebuilt from the proverbial bag of bolts and
bits of fuselages found in scrpayards etc. A bit like Darryl
Greenmayers Red Baron Starfighter.
>Although there are some bureaucratic hurdles, it will most definitely NOT require
>an act of Congress. To get one out of the boneyard will require mostly patience
>-- ie, wait until the USAF replaces the fleet with the JPATS.
However, somehow, I can't really envisage massed T-37s being allowed out
into private hands. I think if you want to fly jets then you still have
to look to places like Poland, Russia and China for MiG & their
derivatives....
brian
Thumper!
JLSokolsky wrote:
> In addition, the FAA is prohibited from conducting inspections on
> these aircraft as they are considered "combat aircraft'. Yeah, I know,
> seems pretty stupid, but it is U.S. Law (note: not merely DoD regulation
> but a Civil Law under which the DoD must ascribe). I rather doubt the
> gentleman who obtained the A-37 from another country will ever get it
> registered in the U.S.
Well, someone DID manage to get a whole T-38 (as I recall, through some kind
of paperwork error) and DID have it registered... for years, it was right
here at Van Nuys Airport in Los Angeles, CA. And currently, there's 2
B-66's (or the Naval version, I don't know enough to tell the difference)
here at Van Nuys.
And what about the various MiGs flying around?
Steve
--
Thumper! Leporidae Extrordinhare
thu...@vfr.interceptor.com http://www.interceptor.com/~thumper
"Life is to achieve the impossible"
JLSokolsky
I had the feeling I was opening a can of worms with this item, but there
does appear to be a lot of interest.
As to the O-2: It was a derivation of the civilian Cessna 337, and as
such could be (and was) released to the civilian world through the GSA.
As to the lone T-38: You are quite right about the paperwork foul-up.
The folks at DoD are still trying to figure that out, and as a result of
that aircraft and a few C-130s that slipped out of DoD's hands, they are
very particular about who gets control of the aircraft.
As to the time limit: Can't talk to the B-66s, but it doesn't matter how
old the aircraft are, or if they are still being actively flown, you won't
be able to get a combat aircraft. Case in point-- the F-4s are nearing
complete retirement from the sky. There are a few countries still flying
them, to include a small training detachment within the US. However, when
they are all retired, they are going to either be converted to drones for
aerial targets or destroyed. The act of destroying the aircraft is called
"demilitarization" (what a word...kinda reminds you of
antidisestablishmentarianism, but invented by the military). This process
is defined as rendering the aircraft incapable of any future military
purpose. After the "demil'ing", they can be sold off to private citizens
for scrap and parts. But here's the clincher (you'll love this!), the
act of demil'ing the aircraft has AMARC sever the wings in several places,
the main spars and in short, anything designed to carry the weight of the
aircraft. (There are even diagrams in the regs for the exact points for
severing.) The only way that airframe will fly again is after it is
melted down and recycled.
DoD publishes a list of which aircraft can be sold off once the
military is through with them (called excess). I looked at the list and
found no T-37s or T-38s. Now, when we sell those aircraft to foreign
countries they sign a contract stating they will destroy the aircraft or
return it to the United States once they have no further use for it.
There's a lot of paper in the world, and most countries have done a great
job adhering to it, but if one or two countries let a few jets fall
through the cracks, well, there's not a lot we can do. They will just
have a harder time obtaining aircraft through the U.S. in the future.
I've read all the adds from the CIS, USSR, (picture your acronym
here) marketing "used MIGs" for sale. Hey, any cash-strapped country will
probably look at innovative means raise capital from excess equipment.
However, should some irresponsible zany get his hands on a
high-performance MIG fighter and wipe out a bunch of folks (bad landing,
GLOC, improper maintenance...) the U.S. government will not be
responsible.
Sorry I don't have all the answers. The only thing I do know is you
won't get a Tweet from AMARC. Let me know if there is anything else I can
help with.
Squeaks
John "Squeaks" Sokolsky
Brian Elliott
jlsok...@aol.com (JLSokolsky) wrote:
>snip snip>>
>As to the lone T-38: You are quite right about the paperwork foul-up.
>The folks at DoD are still trying to figure that out, and as a result of
>that aircraft and a few C-130s that slipped out of DoD's hands, they are
>very particular about who gets control of the aircraft.
Was the T-38 not found in an appleyard somewhere? Given the ability of
aircraft restoration companies to rebuild warbirds form the only
surviving piece of the original airframe - the makers plate - there
would seem to be scope for people throwing very large sums of money at
fuselages in scarpyards etc,.
>As to the time limit: Can't talk to the B-66s, but it doesn't matter how
>old the aircraft are, or if they are still being actively flown, you won't
>be able to get a combat aircraft.
The A-3s at Van Nuys are bailed back from the US military to Hughes (?)
on govt trials as are the various civil registered F-4s at Mojave and
also much of the Thunderbird Aviation fleet at Deer Valley (A3, F-8,
TA-7).
At least one of the civil F-4s completed it trials and went to DM still
carrying its civil registration.
> snip >>
> Sorry I don't have all the answers. The only thing I do know is you
>won't get a Tweet from AMARC. Let me know if there is anything else I can
>help with.
Yes, I think you are right there.
>Squeaks
>John "Squeaks" Sokolsky
brian
Brian Elliott
"Thumper!" <thu...@vfr.interceptor.com> wrote:
>Well, someone DID manage to get a whole T-38 (as I recall, through some kind
>of paperwork error) and DID have it registered... for years, it was right
>here at Van Nuys Airport in Los Angeles, CA. And currently, there's 2
>B-66's (or the Naval version, I don't know enough to tell the difference)
>here at Van Nuys.
>And what about the various MiGs flying around?
I think the particular point is the source (country) for the aircraft in
question rather than can you fly ex military combat aircraft in the US .
I remember a thread not so long about why there are no jet warbirds
registered in Canada and one of the theories was that the Canadian
military had been worried about the mass sale of Vampires back in the
50s to civilians, some of which had ended up in air forces way south of
the border. In a similar manner, the US military will not dispose of
any fighter or bomber aircraft in a manner that could mean it could be
used against the USA at some future point.
Therefore surplus combat aircraft only go to friendly countries or else
they get chopped up at DM.
Some years ago in Britain, a large number of surplus time expired French
operated F-100/Mystere 4/T-33 arrived. These had been funded by the USA
as part of the Mutual Aid package back in the 50's. Now that the
aircraft were surplus to requirements, the USA wanted them back, and
they came to Britain to the base at Sculthorpe where they were stripped
of everything and sold or donated to museums.
If, however, you have a large wallet and the right connections (hello
Red Star Aviation) then you can purchase a suitable aircraft from a
foreign country and import into the states (you may have some problems
with the ATF or customs but that's another matter altogether). But I
don't think you will have much luck in importing aircraft from South
Vietnam as I would imagine that the matter of actual ownership may cause
some problems.......
brian
Paul A. Simpson
fx...@cityscape.co.uk (Brian Elliott) wrote:
>Walt Shiel <wsh...@airmail.net> wrote:
>I think O-2s are the exception to the rule regarding 'combat aircraft'.
>In all other cases, fighters and bomber aircraft are NOT sold from DM
>unless a) to friendly government air arms or b) unless they have be
>de-militarised which means cutting the tail, nose and wings off. THis
>is why the massed B-52 ranks were chopped up PRIOR to being carted
>across Kolb Road to the scrappy.
The REAL reason the B-52s are cut up is part of one of several arms
reduction treaties we have signed. The aircraft are cut up, left in
position so they can be seen by one of several satellites which fly
over on a regular basis to ensure compliance. The aircraft cuts are
often viewed by visiting dignitaries. I have a good friend who is the
one that drops the blade on the airplane. There was a real good
article in a somewhat recent issue of Air and Space magazine.
Thumper!
JLSokolsky wrote:
> As to the lone T-38: You are quite right about the paperwork foul-up.
> The folks at DoD are still trying to figure that out, and as a result of
> that aircraft and a few C-130s that slipped out of DoD's hands, they are
> very particular about who gets control of the aircraft.
The sale of the airplane without it being cut up *was* a DoD mistake, but
still, the plane (and the older MiG's, and the B-66's, etc) are all legally
registered... So while DoD doesn't sell T-37's, I am sure if you got one
from another county you could register it here without trouble.
Oh yeah... was about P-51's and Bearcats and Corsairs?
not to mention T-6's and T-28's.
Heck, the was an L-39 2 seater here just a few days ago (at Van Nuys
Airport)
Walt Shiel
Hey! Watch who you're alleging quotes to. You put my name on a quote
from somebody else. I never wrote anything about Buffs! Really....
Use care when snipping and cutting and pasting, please. <g>
Walt
--
Walt Shiel
Thumper! wrote:
>
> The sale of the airplane without it being cut up *was* a DoD mistake, but
> still, the plane (and the older MiG's, and the B-66's, etc) are all legally
> registered... So while DoD doesn't sell T-37's, I am sure if you got one
> from another county you could register it here without trouble.
Thumper!
Brian Elliott wrote:
> >As to the lone T-38: You are quite right about the paperwork foul-up.
> >The folks at DoD are still trying to figure that out, and as a result of
> >that aircraft and a few C-130s that slipped out of DoD's hands, they are
> >very particular about who gets control of the aircraft.
>
> aircraft restoration companies to rebuild warbirds form the only
> surviving piece of the original airframe - the makers plate - there
> would seem to be scope for people throwing very large sums of money at
> fuselages in scarpyards etc,.
The story I was told was that the airframe was being sold as scrap and was
supposed to have been chopped up (much like some Army Jeeps were sold a while
back, as I recall), but somehow, it *didn't* get chopped up. I don't know if
the plane is still flying, but it's no longer based at Van Nuys, I don't
think... I haven't seen it in about 3 years.
As far as the A-3's, they were over on the Hughes/Volpar side for a while, but
those hangars are being demo'ed, and they are on the west side of the airport.
They have a kind of 5 pointed blue star within a white ring with wording, if
that helps anyone :)
Personally, I miss the Herkybirds that I grew up with the sound of.
Steve
--
Thumper! Leporidae Extraordinhare
funkraum
>jlsok...@aol.com (JLSokolsky) wrote:
[...]
> I've read all the adds from the CIS, USSR, (picture your acronym
>here) marketing "used MIGs" for sale. Hey, any cash-strapped country will
>probably look at innovative means raise capital from excess equipment.
>However, should some irresponsible zany get his hands on a
>high-performance MIG fighter and wipe out a bunch of folks (bad landing,
>GLOC, improper maintenance...) the U.S. government will not be
>responsible.
Does anyone have the low-down on the actual motivation behind the
non-release of the F and F/A prefix aircraft ?
Is it fears over safety, hoplophobia, or fear that the aircraft might
be used by terrorists in some capacity ?
Surely, the safety issues may be addressed by appropriate legislation
? The whole area is already tightly governed so regulation of F or F/A
aircraft shouldn't be a problem.
Anything has to be better than this grusome and ghoulish
'demilitarisation'. The description of the process alone makes the
room spin. Uggghh.
There can`t have been a greater wanton destruction of fine objects
since the smashing of classical statuary during the christianisation
of the Roman empire.
Mary Shafer
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:57:01 GMT, d...@fen168.demon.co.uk (funkraum) said:
f> Does anyone have the low-down on the actual motivation behind the
f> non-release of the F and F/A prefix aircraft ?
f> Is it fears over safety, hoplophobia, or fear that the aircraft
f> might be used by terrorists in some capacity ?
It's not just the US, by the way. Every country that I've heard of
disables the weapons capabilities of the aircraft they surplus. (I
don't know much about the fUSSR--they're not always surplussing,
exactly, anyway). I think that private Air Forces are probably
considered to be somewhat destabilizing. How would you like to have
your capitol city bombed by an insurgent force using aircraft they'd
bought from one of your allies? Would we like to see the IRA and the
Provos with A-37 COIN aircraft? Or the US see the "right-to-life" and
"freemen" with CF-5s with napalm? Or anybody with a grudge with a few
loaded-out F-4s?
There's also a certain issue of giving something away for virtually
nothing that the taxpayer spent so much money on, but that seems to be
a very hazy subtext so I'm going to ignore it. However, consider
pricing such aircraft. Suppose an F-5 cost $5,000,000 when new.
Should you sell it at the scrap price? Or the imputed price that you
might use if you included it in a package of military aid to a
developing country? Or the assumed replacement cost? If you make it
scrap, it's pretty easy to sell it for the scrap price.
Another issue, particular important at the end of wars, is a general
aversion to weapons of destruction. We destroyed the German aircraft
in part because we were, in effect, punishing the aircraft for the
damage they did to us and we destroyed our aircraft because we were
dismayed at what we'd done with them. We really weren't proud about
Dresden and the Ruhr Valley and the fire-bombed cities of Japan--we
did it because we had to and once the need was gone, we didn't want to
have that capability readily available to anyone, even ourselves.
As to the safety issue, the problem is that these are high-performance
aircraft, designed to be flown by highly-trained, highly-skilled
pilots who do it all the time. I hate to sound elitist, but not
everyone can fly these planes.
By the time most people can scrape together the money to afford such a
plane, they're somewhat older (the USAF won't let people over some
age, 45 maybe, fly without an IP and other forces have similar
limitations) with slower reflexes. In addition, whatever profession
such owners have to support the aircraft tends to take enough of their
time that they have only limited time available to fly, which doesn't
exactly contribute to keeping finely-honed skills sharp. Dryden's
test pilots are _required_ to fly at least 200 hr per year in
high-performance aircraft and also have to meet other currency
requirements, for example. It's very easy to get behind the airplane
and have things go bad real quick.
At least one of our many military pilots here discussed how far behind
the airplane he was sometimes when he first started flying and this
was in an environment where his entire job was to fly and he had been
handpicked for his physical and mental abilities.
The final straw, as it were, was the private F-86 that went into a
Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor off the end of the runway up in Sacramento.
Yes, there shouldn't have been an ice cream parlor at the end of the
runway, but when the pilot was way behind the airplane and he just
couldn't hack it. Not enough flight time, not enough current skills,
slow reflexes, too much performance, and that was all she wrote.
f> Surely, the safety issues may be addressed by appropriate
f> legislation ? The whole area is already tightly governed so
f> regulation of F or F/A aircraft shouldn't be a problem.
Since the FAA right now can't keep MDs from smearing their Bonanzas
all over the mountains of California on three-day weekends (that was a
generalization, I know, but there's just enough truth in it to keep it
going), I doubt if they can keep wannabee fighter jocks from
spectacular crashes, either.
There's a big difference between being able to own such a plane and
being able to fly it. Unfortunately, most folks who can afford a
high-performance aircraft (from Bonanzas on up) won't spend all that
money so someone else can log the flight time, but they won't or can't
spend the time and effort so that they can safely do it themselves.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Terra Corp.
Mary Shafer (sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 22:57:01 GMT, d...@fen168.demon.co.uk (funkraum) said:
: f> Does anyone have the low-down on the actual motivation behind the
: f> non-release of the F and F/A prefix aircraft ?
: f> Is it fears over safety, hoplophobia, or fear that the aircraft
: f> might be used by terrorists in some capacity ?
: It's not just the US, by the way. Every country that I've heard of
: disables the weapons capabilities of the aircraft they surplus. (I
: don't know much about the fUSSR--they're not always surplussing,
<SNIP>
Yes, and that can be a problem in trying to fly an 'demilitarized'
fighter. It was no big deal to render the .50 cals on a P-51 inop, quite
another to demil an F-16 and still have a flyable plane. With
standardized LRUs, most of that plane is going to parts. Pull out the
APG-65, the INS, GPS, IFF, Have Quick, FCC, crypto boxes, et al and you
couldn't get it off the ground if you wanted to.
Even if you could get it back within W&B limits, you'd probably have to
rewrite the OFP from scratch to make it fly without all those expensive
LRUs on the buss.
: Since the FAA right now can't keep MDs from smearing their Bonanzas
: all over the mountains of California on three-day weekends (that was a
: generalization, I know, but there's just enough truth in it to keep it
: going), I doubt if they can keep wannabee fighter jocks from
: spectacular crashes, either.
Since you brought it up, here's the flame bait:
Q: What's the difference between a doctor and a pilot?
A: The pilot doesn't think he's a doctor. 8^)
: There's a big difference between being able to own such a plane and
: being able to fly it. Unfortunately, most folks who can afford a
: high-performance aircraft (from Bonanzas on up) won't spend all that
: money so someone else can log the flight time, but they won't or can't
: spend the time and effort so that they can safely do it themselves.
Amen.
Gerry
--
Gerry Caron "Opinions are mine, not my employer's."
gca...@rt66.com PH: 800-328-1995 or 505-884-2321
Terra Corp. ABQ FAX: 505-884-2384
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
[ posted and mailed ]
quoting sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) :
| ...<snip>.....
| Another issue, particular important at the end of wars, is a general
| aversion to weapons of destruction. We destroyed the German aircraft
| in part because we were, in effect, punishing the aircraft for the
| damage they did to us and we destroyed our aircraft because we were
| dismayed at what we'd done with them. We really weren't proud about
| Dresden and the Ruhr Valley and the fire-bombed cities of Japan--we
| did it because we had to and once the need was gone, we didn't want to
| have that capability readily available to anyone, even ourselves.
|....<snip>.....
I wasn't really particularly interested in the thread's principle
topic as indicated in the SUBJECT-line, but given that Mary has
a plus-sign in my KILL-file :-) the above came to my attention.
and I am fairly sceptical about that. I think you made that up
single-handedly, Mary, in the spirit of the moment - or can you
actually say that you can give references to document "those
sentiments" ?!? Certainly after Iraq, there were no such sentiments,
I don't remember any after Vietnam or Korea.... but I don't know
about WW2 from personal experience, but my "older buddies" don't
agree with what you wrote either. (now, I am not taking issue with
the 'general aversion" and "we weren't proud" sentiment, everything
else, however, sounds a bit questionable to me.... )
who were/are you talking about here? a subgroup (aviators?), or
is it a more personal sentiment?
not a big deal, but I could help go "...wait a second..."
--
Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available
"Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot."
I welcome emailed courtesy copies of non-abusive follow-up articles
Kristan Roberge
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>
>
> There's also a certain issue of giving something away for virtually
> nothing that the taxpayer spent so much money on, but that seems to be
> a very hazy subtext so I'm going to ignore it. However, consider
> pricing such aircraft. Suppose an F-5 cost $5,000,000 when new.
> Should you sell it at the scrap price? Or the imputed price that you
> might use if you included it in a package of military aid to a
> developing country? Or the assumed replacement cost? If you make it
> scrap, it's pretty easy to sell it for the scrap price.
Canada recently sold 13 of its refit/updated CF-5s for $64 million CDN,
not bad for 20 plus year old fighters that just underwent a electronics
update 6 months before the fleet was retired.
> As to the safety issue, the problem is that these are high-performance
> aircraft, designed to be flown by highly-trained, highly-skilled
> pilots who do it all the time. I hate to sound elitist, but not
> everyone can fly these planes.
The Bede aircraft corp. showed up at Oshkosh a couple years ago during
the annual EAA fly-in with their new kitplane that offers Mach 1 plus
performance (uses the civil version of the turbojet from the F-5A,
2950 Ibs thrust). Basically it looks like a scaled down version of
a F/A-18, with similar air-intakes, twin tails, two seats, and enough
fuel capacity for a max, range of about 1800 miles. With partial fuel,
and a single-pilot, a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio is possible, making it
an excellent aircraft for aerobatic displays at airshows that would
give an F-18 in full-afterburner a hardtime. They advertised it by
saying any competent, IFR-qualified private pilot could fly it...
so what happens, the company's test pilot goes and crashes the only
prototype last year...
But at about $700,000 US dollars its a bargain.
I personnally would like to see if the afterburned-equipped engine
from an F-5E would fit the plane (its called a BD-10 btw)... Nothing
like a 1.6:1 thrust-to-weight ratio...
Dave Sutton
> >jlsok...@aol.com (JLSokolsky) wrote:
> [...]
> >However, should some irresponsible zany get his hands on a
> >high-performance MIG fighter and wipe out a bunch of folks (bad landing,
> >GLOC, improper maintenance...) the U.S. government will not be
> >responsible.
Actually, MiG's have been operated in the USA since about 1980
(we were the leaders in this) and they enjoy a PERFECT safety
record with ZERO accidents or serious incidents.....
The FAA stuff we need to go through to certify and operate these here
has to be seen to be believed, you think Valuejet has tight oversight??
Just 'cause you can't handle them yourself doesn't mean
that others can't do the job safely. if you can't stand the
heat, don't go into the kitchen.. :-)
**********************************************************************
* David Sutton, Red Star Aviation pil...@planet.net *
* Personal: HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/ *
* Red Star: HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html *
* Russian Aviation Page HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html *
**********************************************************************
Paul J. Adam
In article <4qf0mm$1...@mack.rt66.com>, "Terra Corp."
<gca...@mack.rt66.com> writes
>Yes, and that can be a problem in trying to fly an 'demilitarized'
>fighter. It was no big deal to render the .50 cals on a P-51 inop, quite
>another to demil an F-16 and still have a flyable plane. With
>standardized LRUs, most of that plane is going to parts. Pull out the
>APG-65, the INS, GPS, IFF, Have Quick, FCC, crypto boxes, et al and you
>couldn't get it off the ground if you wanted to.
>Even if you could get it back within W&B limits, you'd probably have to
>rewrite the OFP from scratch to make it fly without all those expensive
>LRUs on the buss.
Surely just empty racks/cans with the appropriate amount of lead sheet
solidly bolted to them, would do? A lot of the nav and comm systems
could be replaced by civilain equivalents.
Not cheap, of course, but then if you're buying a F-16 for personal use,
you hardly care about money...
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Terra Corp.
Paul J. Adam (pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Surely just empty racks/cans with the appropriate amount of lead sheet
: solidly bolted to them, would do? A lot of the nav and comm systems
: could be replaced by civilain equivalents.
: Not cheap, of course, but then if you're buying a F-16 for personal use,
: you hardly care about money...
Yeah, you could for some of the systems, but the electric jet needs
software and the IMU to keep in in the air (parts of the FBW system.)
Problem is both contain classified/restricted parts, and they can go back
to the spares pool (along with other non-trivial components like engines.)
It's probably next to impossible to find alternates or someone to build
them for you.
Some other a/c might be more ameniable to conversion, such as the A-10.
Basic mech systems, just ballast out the GAU-8 (lots of lead!) Others,
such as the F-4 could be done, but the expense and the logistics
associated with it would be horrendous. Who are you going to find to
repack that drag chute every time you land? Where are you going to get
spare parts? When the AF decided to retire the Phantoms, their operating
costs were 3-4 times higher than an F-16 (which ain't exactly peanuts.)
Now figure out what it would cost you without that AF maintenance
organization (cost per plane in a 24 a/c squadron is less than if you
have only one.)
And as Mary pointed out, anybody with that kind of money doesn't have the
time to stay current in that kind of aircraft.
Terrorism aside, just think of the political fallout if someone were to
crash their ex-military fighter into a house. (Most of the warbird jets
in private hands have been brought in from out-of-country, even if they
were originally built here. Lets the 'officials' disavow any knowledge of
how they got them.)
Face it. The government isn't likely to sell off those old jets to the
public.
Paul J. Adam
In article <4qmg2r$7...@mack.rt66.com>, "Terra Corp."
<gca...@mack.rt66.com> writes
>Paul J. Adam (pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Surely just empty racks/cans with the appropriate amount of lead sheet
>: solidly bolted to them, would do? A lot of the nav and comm systems
>: could be replaced by civilain equivalents.
>
>: Not cheap, of course, but then if you're buying a F-16 for personal use,
>: you hardly care about money...
>
>Yeah, you could for some of the systems, but the electric jet needs
>software and the IMU to keep in in the air (parts of the FBW system.)
>Problem is both contain classified/restricted parts, and they can go back
>to the spares pool (along with other non-trivial components like engines.)
>It's probably next to impossible to find alternates or someone to build
>them for you.
Yeah. As Mary said, if you can afford it you don't have time to do
anything except pay someone to polish it so you can admire it from your
limo, so who cares whether it's a real plane or a fibreglass mockup?
(The RAF have fibreglass replica Jaguars and Buccaneers for public
display - saw them in Guildhall Square in Pompey in '92 - that are spot
on until you're a dozen yards away. Cockpits look very, very real -
might even *be* real on the Bucc, the Jag had suspicious blank spots).
It's just the feel when you touch them, and the lack of gap between the
pylons and stores, and things like that. From any distance you'd swear
they were real.
>Some other a/c might be more ameniable to conversion, such as the A-10.
>Basic mech systems, just ballast out the GAU-8 (lots of lead!)
I think a/c like a BAe Hawk - *maybe* a F-5/T-38 - are the best you'll
get as a private individual. More performance and fun than one man was
meant to handle anyway. Anything better, you need a full-time job to
stay current on, and you run into huge costs and/or classification
issues.
Okay, I still say I was right - if you can afford a F-16 you can afford
all the mods to "demilitarise" it - but Mary and you are right too, if
you have that sort of money you don't have the time to be a safe pilot.
Never mind. One day I may have enough cash that I can fly a Cessna or a
Robin - hell, a Shadow microlight would do - myself. :(
>Now figure out what it would cost you without that AF maintenance
>organization (cost per plane in a 24 a/c squadron is less than if you
>have only one.)
Tell me about it. Costing maintenance just for torpedoes for export
customers with a dozen or two weapons, compared to the cost (per weapon)
for the UK with over 2000... Nightmare.
>Terrorism aside, just think of the political fallout if someone were to
>crash their ex-military fighter into a house. (Most of the warbird jets
>in private hands have been brought in from out-of-country, even if they
>were originally built here. Lets the 'officials' disavow any knowledge of
>how they got them.)
Also, Dave Sutton IIRC considers his MiG-21 (he gets to fly a MiG-21!
May he burn in hell until I fly it too! :) He's gonna be burning a long
time at this rate...) the top end of "private warbird" (please correct
if I'm wrong, Mr Sutton). I'd guess his opinion is as near "expert" as
we're going to get.
Chris Goldfinger
Dave Sutton wrote:
: Actually, MiG's have been operated in the USA since about 1980
: (we were the leaders in this) and they enjoy a PERFECT safety
: record with ZERO accidents or serious incidents.....
: The FAA stuff we need to go through to certify and operate these here
: has to be seen to be believed, you think Valuejet has tight oversight??
: Just 'cause you can't handle them yourself doesn't mean
: that others can't do the job safely. if you can't stand the
: heat, don't go into the kitchen.. :-)
: **********************************************************************
: * David Sutton, Red Star Aviation pil...@planet.net *
: * Personal: HTTP://www.planet.net/ppilots/ *
: * Red Star: HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation.html *
: * Russian Aviation Page HTTP://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html *
: **********************************************************************
Dave, there was one little incident that I know of, Bill Reeseman's
Mig that caught fire while in the pattern at Aurora, OR.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on you side, and see nothing wrong with properly
handled aircraft, be they jets or ultralights. My best flight ever
was over Mojave in a Hawker Gnat...
--
Chris Goldfinger
go...@oce.orst.edu
voice: (541) 737-5214 (New area code)
fax: (541) 737-2064
bigmouth
There are currently in the hangar at the National Warplane Museum in
Geneseo, NY (south of Rochester) two A-37's, US markings and some
Vietnamese grafitti scratched in them. Both were seized by Customs at
the Peace BridgeinBuffalo some years ago, crated and still armed(!) but
labled as something else. Museum obtained them with the help of local
congressman. One has been reassembled for static display. Unsure what
the fate of the other will be but there is some talk of trying to sell
it. No current plans to fly either one, though...too costly.
I am, by the way, a member of the Board of Trustees of said Museum.
Dave Sutton
> bigmouth <bl...@il.eznet.net> writes:
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >
> > Also, Dave Sutton IIRC considers his MiG-21 (he gets to fly a MiG-21!
> > May he burn in hell until I fly it too! :) He's gonna be burning a long
> > time at this rate...) the top end of "private warbird" (please correct
> > if I'm wrong, Mr Sutton). I'd guess his opinion is as near "expert" as
> > we're going to get.
Thanks for the compliment. It IS feeling a bit warm here
today :-)
Actually, we are offered MiG-29UB's for a mere US$13 million,
so these would be the ultimate "private warbird". But this
is JUST a bit pricey for even the most dedicated enthusiast.
Never mind the spares required to operate one of these.
Besides, I cannot think of having more fun in anything else
than the MiG-17F (which is LOTS more fun than the MiG-21)
Although there is a certain attraction to the Mach-2 beast,
Agility, not Speed is where the fun is. We don't get to
run at Mach Plus very often, and the MiG-21 is not super-
agile down slow. (Still enjoyed a 17:1 kill ratio over North
Viet Nam in 1967-68 though...)
>
> There are currently in the hangar at the National Warplane Museum in
> Geneseo, NY (south of Rochester) two A-37's, US markings and some
> Vietnamese grafitti scratched in them. Both were seized by Customs at
> the Peace BridgeinBuffalo some years ago, crated and still armed(!) but
> labled as something else. Museum obtained them with the help of local
> congressman. One has been reassembled for static display. Unsure what
> the fate of the other will be but there is some talk of trying to sell
> it. No current plans to fly either one, though...too costly.
> I am, by the way, a member of the Board of Trustees of said Museum.
These will probably never fly. They are (I believe) still owned by the USAF, on loan to
the museum, just like any of the military loaned static display aircraft
that are seen all over the USA. They were left in Viet Nam and were
being smuggled into the USA. Problem is that the USAF never abandoned
claim to war material left in Viet Nam. The Museum can TRADE them for
other aircraft to other museums but not sell them. I'm surprised that a
member of the Board of Trustee's doesn't know this. If they had a open
ownership title then customs would A: not have impounded them, and
B: if they did they would have offered them at Customs Auction.
There is one A-37 currently flying in the USA which is, also, for sale for a
very high price. These will become more common as small countries
(Honduras, El Salvador) for example) surplus them, but don't hold
your breath, these bananna republics hold their stuff forever. Honduras
still flew Dassault Oregauns (sp, sorry) until a few months ago!!
Why bother with either the T-37 or A-37?? There are lots better jets already
out there in good numbers, even the Fouga can fly rings around either
(but not out-climb an A-37), and Fouga's are available for about $65,000
every day of the week. The Tweet is a pathetic aerobatic airplane, and
that's the fun of a jet, isn't it???
With that, I'm off to go fly the Fouga. The local flying club raffled a ride
in it as a fund raiser, and today is ride time. The flames flicker ever closer.....
Cheers!
Ed Rasimus
Dave Sutton <pil...@planet.net> wrote:
>We don't get to
>run at Mach Plus very often, and the MiG-21 is not super-
>agile down slow. (Still enjoyed a 17:1 kill ratio over North
>Viet Nam in 1967-68 though...)
>
Huh? I've gotta ask about that statistic. In the early days of the
war, the NVNAF AOB was predominantly MiG-17, with only a few early
model 21s on board. I will certainly agree that MiG-21s logged a few
kills during the period, but I question the ratio. I doubt that there
were 17 MiG-21 kills TOTAL during the period, and I know that more
than one -21 was blundered into by a marginally competent American.
>Why bother with either the T-37 or A-37?? There are lots better jets already
>out there in good numbers, even the Fouga can fly rings around either
>(but not out-climb an A-37), and Fouga's are available for about $65,000
>every day of the week. The Tweet is a pathetic aerobatic airplane, and
>that's the fun of a jet, isn't it???
When I was in UPT, one third of the class was Luftwaffe, enroute to
F-104s across town at Luke. Most of them had been prepped before
coming to the US with a short orientation course in Fouga Magisters.
They uniformly agreed that the Fouga was the easier bird to fly
because of its simplicity and lesser performance.
If we are talking about competitive aerobatics, with the emphasis on
"outside" maneuvers, the T-37 is a non-contender. If OTOH, we are
considering "G" capability, honest performance, and airspeed envelope,
the Tweet is at least respectable.
The airplane spins quite reliably, both erect and inverted. It snaps
in without hesitation (don't believe the flight manual prohibition),
and is capable of fairly precise eight-point rolls, double immelmans,
rolling boxes and most of the other basic repertoire.
It's also a great little rat-racer and a pretty exciting formation
platform. Of course it does have the problem of being a bit long in
the tooth, and of course it wasn't made outside of the nasty ol'
capitalist US of A.
Brian Elliott
>snip>
>But, as I said, not in the same league as the Fouga.
>(as you admit yourself). Fly inverted formation for 60 seconds
>with me in the Tweet :-) Never saw a national aerobatic
>display team use the T-37, OTOH France, Germany, Finland,
>Brazil, Austria, Israel, Belgium, etc, etc ALL used the Fouga
>on their teams, the most famous being the Patroiulle De France.
>Brazil bought 4 for the sole use of their team, having never
>used the Fouga as a trainer.
>snip>
A minor point, Dave, but the Portugese AF display team used T-37s for a
number of years. There name escapes me for the moment but I'm sure
somebody will jump in with it.
brgds
Brian
Brian Elliott
>It's not just the US, by the way. Every country that I've heard of
>disables the weapons capabilities of the aircraft they surplus.
>snip>>
I'm sure you are right but here in Britain the MoD has these periodic
sales of aircraft and recently an ex-MOD Buccaneer was sold to an owner
in South Africa. I wonder what demilitirisation (that spelling doesn't
look right) went on there.
If you have sufficient GBP then you can buy what you want from the MOD
surplus stuff (the exception being the F-4 where disposal of even parts
of the aircraft has been very strictly controlled) in a complete state
as evidenced by the disposal of a number of Canberras, Hunters, Jet
Provosts and even a Victor. In the US that would simply not happen.
brgds
Brian
Walt Shiel
>
> A minor point, Dave, but the Portugese AF display team used T-37s for a
> number of years. There name escapes me for the moment but I'm sure
> somebody will jump in with it.
>
The team was the Asas de Portugal (Wings of Portugal) and they flew 8 T-37C
aircraft with the tip tanks removed and a smoke system installed. There is a
photo of the 8 aircraft on the ramp in my book.
Walt
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author: "Cessna Warbirds: A Detailed and Personal
W. ROLLINS
: Actually, MiG's have been operated in the USA since about 1980
: (we were the leaders in this) and they enjoy a PERFECT safety
: record with ZERO accidents or serious incidents.....
I'm sure the date you refer to is for civilian Migs. The military has
operated them in the US a lot longer than that but I can't speak for the
safety record cause I just don't know. Don't recall ever reading about
any accidents but wouldn't expect it to make the news anyway.
BiNM
Alexei Gretchikhine
I know at least two crashed in US which involved MiG aircraft. One was
civilian owned and operated MiG-17 (or 15). The aircraft was painted red.
Dave must know about this better than I do.
The second crash involved MiG-23 cortesy of USAF. A high ranking USAF
officer was killed flying Flogger in dissimilar combat training.
_____________________ _________________________________________
Alexei GRETCHIKHINE agr...@opie.bgsu.edu
Avekcen~ LPEhNXNH http://ernie.bgsu.edu/~agretch
Russian Aviation Page http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAP.html
sed quando submoventa erit ignorantia
_____________________ _________________________________________
funkraum
>| ...<snip>.....
>| Another issue, particular important at the end of wars, is a general
>| aversion to weapons of destruction. We destroyed the German aircraft
>| in part because we were, in effect, punishing the aircraft for the
>| damage they did to us and we destroyed our aircraft because we were
>| dismayed at what we'd done with them. We really weren't proud about
>| Dresden and the Ruhr Valley and the fire-bombed cities of Japan--we
>| did it because we had to and once the need was gone, we didn't want to
>| have that capability readily available to anyone, even ourselves.
>|....<snip>.....
[...]
> and I am fairly sceptical about that. I think you made that up
> single-handedly, Mary, in the spirit of the moment - or can you
>
Not that it's a big deal, but being absolutly flat out of raw
materials after the war and possessing among other things, many times
more aircraft than were required for the foreseable future, there was
nothing to do other than convert them back to raw material.
There wasn`t even enough wood to build the frame for FM Montgomery's
house. The timbers were sent by grateful commonwealth countries.
Joe Vincent
I heard that the Gen Bond who was killed in the late '80s was in the Flogger. I
heard he got the nose "buried" and had RPM lockup at high Mach. Couldn't get out.
Many people thought he was in a stealth fighter. Seems to me USAF used to restrict
generals from flying alone. Hmmmm.
--
Joe Vincent YGBSM!
(jvin...@netten.net)
Dave Sutton
> Alexei Gretchikhine wrote:
> > I know at least two crashed in US which involved MiG aircraft. One was
> > civilian owned and operated MiG-17 (or 15). The aircraft was painted red.
> > Dave must know about this better than I do.
> > The second crash involved MiG-23 cortesy of USAF. A high ranking USAF
> > officer was killed flying Flogger in dissimilar combat training.
Only three Mig "incidents" (not accidents) that I am aware of.
Jim Wickersham ran a Chinese MiG-15 off a runway on landing.
Minor damage (collapsed nose gear and sheetmetal)
Doug Shultz grazed the ground in Florida with his Chinese MiG-17
while flying a display at an airshow, grinding off the tailskid,
doing minor sheetmetal damage and (possibly) bending the burner can.
He flew it to our shop in Burlington VT and we changed the burner
and did the sheetmetal. This was a "Dumb Shit" thing, Doug has
about 100 missions over Viet Nam in F-4's and is half owner of the
TF-51 "Crazy Horse", so isn't an amatuer.
Bill Reesman had a fire in the aft fuselage of a Chinese MiG-17
in the traffic pattern at Aurora OR. A fuel line connecting the aft
fuselage fuel tanks cracked and sprayed fuel. he safely landed
with a repairable airplane, that was until the fire department came
and destroyed it while extinguishing the fire. Bill is another Viet Nam F-4
driver, and got himself another MiG-17 (Polish LiM-5) as soon as he could.
This was the Red Mig, Bill still flies the 'MiG Magic Airshow'.
So far, then, nothing that could be called an "accident".
hell, these are statistically safer than a Cessna 172.
Zero injuries, zero fatalities, zero ejections....
As far as the USAF MiG-23, I know nothing ;-)
but I will say that the MiG-23 is in a different
league than either the MiG-17/17 or the MiG-21.
Just a killer airplane, and none are flown by civilians
anywhere in the world. (although one was on US
civil register, it "dissapeared" from the registry).
Rod Clark
In article <4r70a3$5...@jupiter.planet.net> Dave Sutton <pil...@planet.net> writes:
Not the US I know, but there was a fatal Polish built MiG 15 crash
in Australia a few years back, from memory I think a fire in the
rear fuselage burnt through the controls.
There are several other privately owned Jets operating quite happily
here though (including a MiG 21).
Rod Clark
Croydon, VIC
Australia
rcl...@aardvark.apana.org.au
Member: AOPA, AAAA, Australian Warbirds
Brian Elliott
Alexei Gretchikhine <agr...@OPIE.BGSU.EDU> wrote:
>On 27 Jun 1996, W. ROLLINS wrote:
>> Dave Sutton (pil...@planet.net) wrote:
>> : Actually, MiG's have been operated in the USA since about 1980
>> : (we were the leaders in this) and they enjoy a PERFECT safety
>> : record with ZERO accidents or serious incidents.....
>>
>> I'm sure the date you refer to is for civilian Migs. The military has
>> operated them in the US a lot longer than that but I can't speak for the
>> safety record cause I just don't know. Don't recall ever reading about
>> any accidents but wouldn't expect it to make the news anyway.
>I know at least two crashed in US which involved MiG aircraft. One was
>civilian owned and operated MiG-17 (or 15). The aircraft was painted red.
>Dave must know about this better than I do.
>The second crash involved MiG-23 cortesy of USAF. A high ranking USAF
>officer was killed flying Flogger in dissimilar combat training.
BTW, the USAF received five MiG-23ML from the former East German AF
delivered in March 1991.....
brgds
brian
Joe Vincent
Dave Sutton wrote:
Snip
> As far as the USAF MiG-23, I know nothing ;-)
> but I will say that the MiG-23 is in a different
> league than either the MiG-17/17 or the MiG-21.
> Just a killer airplane, and none are flown by civilians
> anywhere in the world. (although one was on US
> civil register, it "dissapeared" from the registry).
>
One book I read on the Flogger stated so many Floggers were crashing
that it was a joke among East Germans. If you wanted a Flogger, get some
land and wait, pretty soon a Flogger would crash into it!
Joe Vincent
Joe Vincent
Joe Vincent
Joe Vincent
Joe Vincent
Joe Vincent
Mail program went amok - sorry for all the posts...
Joe Vincent YGBSM!
(jvin...@netten.net)
Allan Hill
Dave Sutton wrote:
>
> So far, then, nothing that could be called an "accident".
> hell, these are statistically safer than a Cessna 172.
> Zero injuries, zero fatalities, zero ejections....
Traditionally, aircraft accident rates are quoted in terms
of mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. I admittedly do not
know the mishap rates of either the MiGs nor the Cessnas,
but I would venture to guess that there aren't enough
American flight hours on MiGs to be statistically
significant. If a MiG crashes tomorrow resulting in
one fatality, its mishap rate would probably exceed that
of the Cessna, just going from zero to one fatality.
I would, however, conjecture that the pilot expertise
of those flying MiGs is far greater than the average
Cessna pilot, thus resulting in a *safer* airplane.
Alexei Gretchikhine
On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Joe Vincent wrote:
> One book I read on the Flogger stated so many Floggers were crashing
> that it was a joke among East Germans. If you wanted a Flogger, get some
> land and wait, pretty soon a Flogger would crash into it!
Hmmm... I never heard this one. I am aware of fatalities F-104 brough to
Luftwaffe though. I would not dare the ability of German pilots to handle
high performance jets, but don't you think it is suspisious?
I wonder if there are any numbers available...
Brian Elliott
Joe Vincent <jvin...@netten.net> wrote:
>Dave Sutton wrote:
>Snip
>> As far as the USAF MiG-23, I know nothing ;-)
>> but I will say that the MiG-23 is in a different
>> league than either the MiG-17/17 or the MiG-21.
>> Just a killer airplane, and none are flown by civilians
>> anywhere in the world. (although one was on US
>> civil register, it "dissapeared" from the registry).
>>
>Snip
>One book I read on the Flogger stated so many Floggers were crashing
>that it was a joke among East Germans. If you wanted a Flogger, get some
>land and wait, pretty soon a Flogger would crash into it!
I think you will find that it was actually the WGAF F-104 Starfighter
they were talking about.
brian
Steffen Grimmler
Alexei Gretchikhine wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Joe Vincent wrote:
> > that it was a joke among East Germans. If you wanted a Flogger, get some
> > land and wait, pretty soon a Flogger would crash into it!
>
> Luftwaffe though. I would not dare the ability of German pilots to handle
> high performance jets, but don't you think it is suspisious?
> I wonder if there are any numbers available...
The East German Air Force lost only a few of them. I don't have my
references at work, so I will post the numbers later. But one has to
keep in mind, that the Soviet Air Force used them in larger numbers in
E.G, too. May be, our equipment was not the hottest stuff, but always
very well maintained and in good condition.(The Croats (or Bosniacs?),
who somehow received a few of our MiG-21bis, will confirm that.)
Regards
Steffen Grimmler
Dave Sutton
I would hope that the P-51 and T-28 pilots
out there are all pretty experienced too,
but they crash with pretty sickening regularity.
The point is that as far as warbirds go, the
record of the civilian owned jets is far better
than the average, and is 'certainly' far better
that the piston engined warbirds.
Andy Dingley
The moving finger of Dave Sutton <pil...@planet.net> having written:
>The point is that as far as warbirds go, the
>record of the civilian owned jets is far better
>than the average, and is 'certainly' far better
>that the piston engined warbirds.
Care to hazard a guess why ? Do the jets suffer fewer mechanical
failures, fewer pilot errors, or do they just fly under different
conditions (If I'm only flying 25 hours a year, I'm only going to do
it on a nice day)
Dave Sutton
Mainly, the jet engines are just far more reliable than
the complex piston engines in the WW-II type warbirds.
The airplane systems are about the same, and actually the
jets are easier to fly (for the most part). Maybe the pilot
skill level is a bit higher too, but I'm not certain about this.
When jets were "true" exotics this was true, but they are
becoming more common and more varied pilots are flying them.
funkraum
>wrol...@nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS) wrote:
[...]
>I'm sure the date you refer to is for civilian Migs. The military has
>operated them in the US a lot longer than that but I can't speak for the
Didn't the Egyptians send the USAF a couple of high-mileage MiG-21s,
perhaps before 1989, if I recall correctly ?
Larry Doering
In article <83678462...@fen168.demon.co.uk>,
funkraum <d...@fen168.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>wrol...@nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS) wrote:
>[...]
>>I'm sure the date you refer to is for civilian Migs. The military has
>>operated them in the US a lot longer than that but I can't speak for the
>
>perhaps before 1989, if I recall correctly ?
Dunno (and it's probably still classified.) I do know, though, that the
Egyptians sent us at least one SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missile
before 1989.
The Smithsonian's Paul E. Garber Facility had an ex-Egyptian SA-2 on display
at their annual open house in April, 1989. It had markings in Russian,
English, and a few in Arabic. (The Arabic markings, as near as I could
tell, were limited to basic things like "Lift Here". The Russian and
English markings were duplicates.)
Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if Egypt sent the USAF a couple of
MiGs at about the same time.
For other MiGs, there was Viktor Belenko, who defected with his MiG-25 to
Japan in 1975, and Alexander Zhuyev, who did the same thing to Turkey in
1989 with a MiG-29 - both those aircraft were returned to the Soviets,
though. I also seem to recall two or three incidents where Cuban air
force pilots flew MiGs to Florida in the late Eighties/early Nineties.
ljd
Ed Rasimus
doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) wrote:
>In article <83678462...@fen168.demon.co.uk>,
>funkraum <d...@fen168.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Didn't the Egyptians send the USAF a couple of high-mileage MiG-21s,
>>perhaps before 1989, if I recall correctly ?
>
>Dunno (and it's probably still classified.) I do know, though, that the
>Egyptians sent us at least one SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missile
>before 1989.
The Israeli gave us a collection of late-model SAM equipment for
intelligence exploitation after the Yom Kippur war when they overran
the installations along the Suez canal.
The Eqyptians provided us with significant numbers of MiG 21 and 23
aircraft as an outgrowth of the Camp David accords (Sadat/Begin). In
return they received a couple of squadrons of F-4Es and advisors.
Rumor has it that the MiGs disappeared into the Nevada desert....
Brian Elliott
doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) wrote:
>In article <83678462...@fen168.demon.co.uk>,
>funkraum <d...@fen168.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>wrol...@nmsu.edu (W. ROLLINS) wrote:
>>[...]
>>>I'm sure the date you refer to is for civilian Migs. The military has
>>>operated them in the US a lot longer than that but I can't speak for the
>>
>>Didn't the Egyptians send the USAF a couple of high-mileage MiG-21s,
>>perhaps before 1989, if I recall correctly ?
>Dunno (and it's probably still classified.) I do know, though, that the
>Egyptians sent us at least one SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missile
>before 1989.
>The Smithsonian's Paul E. Garber Facility had an ex-Egyptian SA-2 on display
>at their annual open house in April, 1989. It had markings in Russian,
>English, and a few in Arabic. (The Arabic markings, as near as I could
>tell, were limited to basic things like "Lift Here". The Russian and
>English markings were duplicates.)
>Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if Egypt sent the USAF a couple of
>MiGs at about the same time.
>For other MiGs, there was Viktor Belenko, who defected with his MiG-25 to
>Japan in 1975, and Alexander Zhuyev, who did the same thing to Turkey in
>1989 with a MiG-29 - both those aircraft were returned to the Soviets,
>though. I also seem to recall two or three incidents where Cuban air
>force pilots flew MiGs to Florida in the late Eighties/early Nineties.
A large number of aircraft including Mil-24/MiG-23 & Su-22 were donated
to the USAF by Germany following unification and, when I find the right
piece of paper, I will post the actual German serials.
Check Alexei's RAP site for details of other ex-Soviet aircraft in
service with the US Army. No details yet of the Su-27s that were moved
by An-124 through Prestwick last year though..........
In addition, here in Britain a number of MiG-21/Su-7 fuselages of
Egyptian origin came to light at a Farnborough air show some years back.
If we got them, then I am sure that you lot got some as well.
However, if you want a MiG-23 or MiG-21 these days, you just go and buy
them on the commercial market. Isn't that right Dave?
brgds
Brian
Dave Sutton
> fx...@cityscape.co.uk (Brian Elliott) writes:
> However, if you want a MiG-23 or MiG-21 these days, you just go and buy
> them on the commercial market. Isn't that right Dave?
Yup. Actually, US intelligence has had a pretty
good supply of MiG-15, 17, 19, and 21 for years.
No magic about it. Egypt, Israel, China, Hungary,
all supplied hardware. The US has flown all of these
(and MiG-23's too) at one time or another.
MiG-21's are so cheap right now that it's pitifull.
We bought 24 MiG-21MF's freshly overhauled
with all GSE and spares. Send money, we could use some!
BTW, I'll be gone airplane hunting until the 24th,
so if anybody want to be nice, email me when MiG
stuff shows up on the newsgroup. I will check email
daily, but surfing the newsgroups gets a bit costly......
Larry Doering
In article <31e50b55...@news.rmii.com>,
Ed Rasimus <thu...@rmii.com> wrote:
:doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) wrote:
:
:>In article <83678462...@fen168.demon.co.uk>,
:>funkraum <d...@fen168.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>>Didn't the Egyptians send the USAF a couple of high-mileage MiG-21s,
:>>perhaps before 1989, if I recall correctly ?
:>
:>Dunno (and it's probably still classified.) I do know, though, that the
:>Egyptians sent us at least one SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missile
:>before 1989.
:
:intelligence exploitation after the Yom Kippur war when they overran
:the installations along the Suez canal.
I'm sure that's true, but a museum guide told me that the particular
SA-2 in the Smithsonian's collection was given to the US by the Egyptian
government, not captured by the Israelis.
ljd
Ed Rasimus
doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) wrote:
The stuff I was referring to was a working SA-3, SA-6 and ZSU-23-4.
All had been captured intact by the Israeli overrun of the Canal.
The SA-2 by that time held little threat and little interest for us.
Our tactics and suppression equipment had been developed in response
to daily encounters with the system. What we were quite apprehensive
about was the more mobile smaller missiles with better radar and
better speed.
Brian Elliott
fx...@cityscape.co.uk (Brian Elliott) wrote:
>snip>>
>A large number of aircraft including Mil-24/MiG-23 & Su-22 were donated
>to the USAF by Germany following unification and, when I find the right
>piece of paper, I will post the actual German serials.
>snip>>
As promised, USAF received the following (at least) from the German AF
MiG-23ML
338 20+15 0390324630
339 20+16 0390324635
551 20+28 0390324019
567 20+32 0390324033
606 20+36 0390324051
delivered March 27 1991
Su-22M4
380 25+25 30914
724 25+33 31203
delivered March 27 1991
Mil-24D
494 96+30 11066
Mil-24P
512 96+51 340341
delivered April 12 1991
Source: 'Die andere deutsche Luftwaffe" by W Kopenhagan.
In addition, the USN received
Mil-14PL
640 95+07 B 4008
643 95+08 B 4009
Brgds
Brian