Legality of owning ex-military intercontinental aircraft.

[Bill Silvey]

Hiya group.

I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36 (or,
heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could refurbish
the aircraft to operational capability?

I think at least the FAA if not the USAF and more than a few other parties
would kinda have a few reservations about someone owning an operational bird
like that.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[make]

Bill Silvey wrote:
> Hiya group.
>
> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36 (or,
> heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could refurbish
> the aircraft to operational capability?
>

What about an ICBM or SSBN+SLBMs?

[Bill Silvey]

"make" > wrote in message

> Bill Silvey wrote:
>> Hiya group.
>>
>> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what
>> the legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47
>> or B36 (or, heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the
>> owner could refurbish the aircraft to operational capability?
>>
>
> What about an ICBM or SSBN+SLBMs?

The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has intercontinental
striking capability.

(The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Dave Kearton]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
| "make" > wrote in message
|
| > Bill Silvey wrote:
| >> Hiya group.
| >>
| >> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what
| >> the legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47
| >> or B36 (or, heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the
| >> owner could refurbish the aircraft to operational capability?
| >>
| >
| > What about an ICBM or SSBN+SLBMs?
|
| The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has intercontinental
| striking capability.
|
| (The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.)
|


This could mean trouble if the peace talks with Osceola County break down
.....



Cheers

Dave Kearton

[David Bromage]

Bill Silvey wrote:
> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or
B36 (or,
> heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could
refurbish
> the aircraft to operational capability?

It would have to be demilled sufficiently so it would not be a military
threat, but otherwise it wouldn't be much different to owning any other
warbird. Just more expensive. :)

At the moment I think the biggest jet warbirds are the handful of
privately owned Canberras. There is an Avro Vulcan being restored at
London Southend.

Cheers
David

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
> Hiya group.
>
> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36
(or,
> heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could
refurbish
> the aircraft to operational capability?
>
> I think at least the FAA if not the USAF and more than a few other parties
> would kinda have a few reservations about someone owning an operational
bird
> like that.
>

There's a group attempting to do that with an Avro Vulcan.

Keith

[Nick Pedley]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Silvey wrote:
> > I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> > legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or
> B36 (or,
> > heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could
> refurbish
> > the aircraft to operational capability?
>
> It would have to be demilled sufficiently so it would not be a military
> threat, but otherwise it wouldn't be much different to owning any other
> warbird. Just more expensive. :)
>
> At the moment I think the biggest jet warbirds are the handful of
> privately owned Canberras. There is an Avro Vulcan being restored at
> London Southend.
>
Are you confusing the Southend Vulcan XL426 http://www.avrovulcan.com/ which
is being kept to high-speed taxi condition and the ex-RAF display Vulcan
XH558 www.tvoc.co.uk which they are trying to get flying again at
Bruntingthorpe?

Nick

[Cub Driver]

>I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
>legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36 (or,
>heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could refurbish
>the aircraft to operational capability?

It would depend on the status of the various disarmament treaties. The
lads at Fort Worth were restoring a B-36 some time ago (they may still
be at it) and had originally hoped to make it airworthy. The only way
they could have done this, under the treaties then existing, was if
the U.S. military had retired one of its nuclear delivery systems (not
a system: a platform: an airplane, missile, or sub).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BUFDRVR]

>It would have to be demilled sufficiently so it would not be a military
>threat, but otherwise it wouldn't be much different to owning any other
>warbird. Just more expensive. :)
>

With the exception of B-52s. Even B-52 display aircraft are accounted for in
START II and a limit set at a specific number. Additionally, *all* B-52 display
aircraft are owned by the Air Force Museum. You may pay for refurbishment, you
may pay to keep it looking good, but tommorow the Air Force Museum can come and
take it back.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[mah]

Bill Silvey wrote:
>
> The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has intercontinental
> striking capability.
>
> (The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.)
>
> --

Now, when the next Florida recount comes, which faction will they
support?

MAH

[Aerophotos]

What they gona do with more Buffs? hand them over to the USAF so they
can fly after 30yrs of no service?

as if..


sound like governmental policies gone mad...


if that the case i will withdraw all my tax money from the govt at short
notice to if needs be and refuse to support people who inflict self and
induced harm by drinking, smoking and drugs and let them die instead...
i rather see drunks, drug addicts which include all smokers and let
therm flounder in their own pile of death.

simple as... its a absurd policy then clinging onto aircraft which have
no direct impact for the USAF is like mad :)

whats next they want their ww2 era C-47 B-17 aircraft back to bomb north
korea? even include the 80yr aircrews ....just to add some flavour...

surely theyd enjoy it...one last trip before they go to the big airshow
in sky...





BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >It would have to be demilled sufficiently so it would not be a military
> >threat, but otherwise it wouldn't be much different to owning any other
> >warbird. Just more expensive. :)
> >
>
> With the exception of B-52s. Even B-52 display aircraft are accounted for in
> START II and a limit set at a specific number. Additionally, *all* B-52 display
> aircraft are owned by the Air Force Museum. You may pay for refurbishment, you
> may pay to keep it looking good, but tommorow the Air Force Museum can come and
> take it back.
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

--

[Jim Yanik]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>>It would have to be demilled sufficiently so it would not be a
>>military threat, but otherwise it wouldn't be much different to owning
>>any other warbird. Just more expensive. :)
>>
>
> With the exception of B-52s. Even B-52 display aircraft are accounted
> for in START II and a limit set at a specific number. Additionally,
> *all* B-52 display aircraft are owned by the Air Force Museum. You may
> pay for refurbishment, you may pay to keep it looking good, but
> tommorow the Air Force Museum can come and take it back.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> harelips everyone on Bear Creek"
>

Yeah,maybe they'll want some parts from it!
Bummer,refurb a BUFF,and Uncle Sam comes along and strips it for the new
parts you had made at great cost and effort. ;-)

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

[Bill Silvey]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message

> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "make" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Bill Silvey wrote:
>>>> Hiya group.
>>>>
>>>> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what
>>>> the legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47
>>>> or B36 (or, heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the
>>>> owner could refurbish the aircraft to operational capability?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about an ICBM or SSBN+SLBMs?
>>
>> The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has
>> intercontinental striking capability.
>>
>> (The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.)
>>
>
>
> This could mean trouble if the peace talks with Osceola County break
> down ....

Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[B2431]

>Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
>illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)
>

Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?

You left out hegemonist.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BOB URZ]

Cub Driver wrote:

> >I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> >legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36 (or,
> >heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could refurbish
> >the aircraft to operational capability?
>
> It would depend on the status of the various disarmament treaties. The
> lads at Fort Worth were restoring a B-36 some time ago (they may still
> be at it) and had originally hoped to make it airworthy. The only way
> they could have done this, under the treaties then existing, was if
> the U.S. military had retired one of its nuclear delivery systems (not
> a system: a platform: an airplane, missile, or sub).
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

So, does that mean a B29 flying counts against the treaty for
delivery systems since the B29 had a model that was nuclear
payload capable?

Does that also means if a airframe is destroyed in a accident
or war (B1, or B52), that there is now a slot for another
flying plane?


BOB



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill Silvey]

"B2431" > wrote in message

>> Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
>> illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)
>>
>
> Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?
>
> You left out hegemonist.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Let's try this again.

"Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
illegal junta of hegemonists who control the fascist Osceola clique!"

Better? :-)

(For what it's worth, I've thrown my weight behind the FPLNA/SCPLF - Free
People's Longwood National Army/Seminole County People's Liberation Front.
Death to Ovideo! We *will* liberate our revolutionary brothers and sisters
there!)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Bill Silvey]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om
> "Bill Silvey" > wrote:
>
>> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>>> "Bill Silvey" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has
>>>> intercontinental striking capability.
>>>>
>>>> (The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.)
>>>
>>> This could mean trouble if the peace talks with Osceola County break
>>> down ....
>>
>> Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
>> illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)
>
> Not to worry. The elite Disney anti-terror teams will take out those
> horrible weapons with very little effort. They don't like the
> competition.

The death squads controlled by the cryptofascist running clique of Disney
will never overcome the PLAoSC!

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Gordon]

Pershing? <laugh> We've got our own freakin' Titan II sitting beside the
road, protected by a three' fence at Gillespie Field. You don't see urban
communities encroaching on THAT airfield!

G

[John]

BOB URZ wrote:

> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > >I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> > >legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36 (or,
> > >heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could refurbish
> > >the aircraft to operational capability?
> >So, does that mean a B29 flying counts against the treaty for
> delivery systems since the B29 had a model that was nuclear
> payload capable?
>
>
> BOB

OPINION: I would assume that it only applies to the "Silver-Plate" B-29s

[B2431]

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message

>>> Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
>>> illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?
>>
>> You left out hegemonist.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>Let's try this again.
>
>"Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
>illegal junta of hegemonists who control the fascist Osceola clique!"
>
>Better? :-)
>
By George, I think he's got it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[av8r]

Hi

Are flunkys one step above or below a lackey???

Cheers...Chris

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Bill Silvey" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om
> > "Bill Silvey" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
> >>> "Bill Silvey" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has
> >>>> intercontinental striking capability.
> >>>>
> >>>> (The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.)
> >>>
> >>> This could mean trouble if the peace talks with Osceola County break
> >>> down ....
> >>
> >> Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
> >> illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)
> >
> > Not to worry. The elite Disney anti-terror teams will take out those
> > horrible weapons with very little effort. They don't like the
> > competition.
>
> The death squads controlled by the cryptofascist running clique of Disney
> will never overcome the PLAoSC!

That might be so, but Universal Studios has that whole warehouse full of
leftover Terminators to play with, and they hire them out for parties
and insurrections.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52 as the only privately
> >owned B-52 in the world. On the tour, they told me that it is not
> >part of the Air Force Museum program, and that it took some special
> >accreditidation for them to be able to obtain it.
>
> Hmm, I'd be curious to know how they got such special accreditation. One thing
> is the same though, that aircraft is available to be inspected under START II,
> privately owned or not.

Well, if the Russians wanted to look them up, all they'd have to do is
show up during business hours and pay the admission fee.

<http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/Museum.html>

I think it's $5.00 for admission, but I'm sure the Museum would let it
slide for an accredited inspection team.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Bill Silvey]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om
> In article >,
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
>>> The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52 as the only privately
>>> owned B-52 in the world. On the tour, they told me that it is not
>>> part of the Air Force Museum program, and that it took some special
>>> accreditidation for them to be able to obtain it.
>>
>> Hmm, I'd be curious to know how they got such special accreditation.
>> One thing is the same though, that aircraft is available to be
>> inspected under START II, privately owned or not.
>
> Well, if the Russians wanted to look them up, all they'd have to do is
> show up during business hours and pay the admission fee.
>
> <http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/Museum.html>
>
> I think it's $5.00 for admission, but I'm sure the Museum would let it
> slide for an accredited inspection team.

Are you nuts!? That'd bankrupt the Russian economy!

<g>

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[B2431]

>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>>Are flunkys one step above or below a lackey???
>>>
>>
>> Yes
>
>Hi
>
>Many thanks for the definitive answer.
>
>Cheers...Chris
>
>
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John Keeney]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
> >illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)
> >
>
> Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?

Radio Hanoi, god, that brings back memories.
Perhaps I should see if I can get on of the old SW sets going...

[John Keeney]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
>
> >> "B2431" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>> Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of
> >>>> the illegal Osceola Clique! ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?
> >>>
> >>> You left out hegemonist.
> >>>
> >>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >> Let's try this again.
> >>
> >> "Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of
> >> the illegal junta of hegemonists who control the fascist Osceola
> >> clique!"
> >>
> >> Better? :-)
> >>
> > By George, I think he's got it.
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> I said that all in one breath and collapsed a lung...

Not important, comrade. Just be sure you got the number blocks right.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, John A. Weeks III
> writes
>In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>It would have to be demilled sufficiently so it would not be a
>> >>military threat, but otherwise it wouldn't be much different to owning
>> >>any other warbird. Just more expensive. :)
>> >>
>> >
>> > With the exception of B-52s. Even B-52 display aircraft are accounted
>> > for in START II and a limit set at a specific number. Additionally,
>> > *all* B-52 display aircraft are owned by the Air Force Museum. You may
>> > pay for refurbishment, you may pay to keep it looking good, but
>> > tommorow the Air Force Museum can come and take it back.
>
>The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52 as the only privately
>owned B-52 in the world. On the tour, they told me that it is not
>part of the Air Force Museum program, and that it took some special
>accreditidation for them to be able to obtain it.
>
>-john-
>

Who owns 56-0689, the B-52D at the American Air Museum at Duxford?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[B2431]

>> Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?
>
>Radio Hanoi, god, that brings back memories.
>Perhaps I should see if I can get on of the old SW sets going...
>
>
We used to listen to Radio Hanoi for the music which was better than AFVNs. The
political stuff was a hoot.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Cub Driver]

>So, does that mean a B29 flying counts against the treaty for
>delivery systems since the B29 had a model that was nuclear
>payload capable?

Probably not, since the 29 wasn't designed as a nuclear delivery
system, while the 36 was. (Well, okay, so it wasn't; but it was a
nuclear delivery system from the day it went into service. As I
recall, its first operational test was to fly from Fort Worth to
Hawaii, drop a 10,000-lb block of something into the ocean, and fly
home again without refueling. Wasn't that on Dec 7, to make the point
even more obvious?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John Halliwell]

In article >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>Hmm, I'd be curious to know how they got such special accreditation. One thing
>is the same though, that aircraft is available to be inspected under START II,
>privately owned or not.

Is that the same for the one at Duxford?

--
John

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
> Hiya group.
>
> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36
(or,
> heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could
refurbish
> the aircraft to operational capability?
>
> I think at least the FAA if not the USAF and more than a few other parties
> would kinda have a few reservations about someone owning an operational
bird
> like that.

Any military aircraft manufactured after 1959 requires civil flight test
data from the Manufacturer, in order to get an experimental certificate.
The YF-22 would actually be easier to get for your own use that a B-52, as
the old B-52s are mostly beer cans today.

[Vee-One]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52
>
> There's a Yankee Air Force? Sheez. Does anyone wonder why the Yankees
> were allowed to keep their air force, while the Confederates had to
> give theirs up?
>

Of course there is. One of these days, Shea Stadium is going to get
it.............

Vee-One

[Chad Irby]

In article et>,
"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:

> Cub Driver wrote:
> > > The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52
> >
> > There's a Yankee Air Force? Sheez. Does anyone wonder why the Yankees
> > were allowed to keep their air force, while the Confederates had to
> > give theirs up?
>
> Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
> Yankees won the war.

....and many northerners seem to have trouble remembering that the only
"air force" in 1865 consisted of a few balloons...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Marc Reeve]

Cub Driver > wrote:
> >The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52
>
> There's a Yankee Air Force? Sheez. Does anyone wonder why the Yankees
> were allowed to keep their air force, while the Confederates had to
> give theirs up?
>
>
Yankees won. Duh.

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Dana Miller]

In article et>,
"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:

>Cub Driver wrote:
>> > The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52
>>
>> There's a Yankee Air Force? Sheez. Does anyone wonder why the Yankees
>> were allowed to keep their air force, while the Confederates had to
>> give theirs up?
>
>Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
>Yankees won the war.
>

Shhhhh! Don't remind them!

--
Dana Miller

[Cub Driver]

>> There's a Yankee Air Force? Sheez. Does anyone wonder why the Yankees
>> were allowed to keep their air force, while the Confederates had to
>> give theirs up?
>
>Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
>Yankees won the war.

So this was an early example of START?

What's the CAF called these days, Commemorative? What a shame.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Yankees won. Duh.

That was in 1865, however. It wasn't until the 21st century that the
Confederate Air Force bit the dust.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John Hairell]

On 24 Aug 2003 05:52:37 GMT, (Gordon) wrote:

>>
>>My ICBM is bigger than your ICBM?
>
>Minuteman Envy. :1

Next thing you guys will be talking about will be "penetration
aids"...;-)

John Hairell )

[Stephen D. Poe]

Bill Silvey wrote:
> Hiya group.
>
> I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36 (or,
> heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could refurbish
> the aircraft to operational capability?
>
> I think at least the FAA if not the USAF and more than a few other parties
> would kinda have a few reservations about someone owning an operational bird
> like that.

The B-36 restoration ran into problems with that.

To quote:
"At the conclusion of the ceremony, title to the plane was transferred
to the Air Force Museum and its custody was assigned to the city of Fort
Worth.
....
All six piston engines were started before the project was halted. One
engine was allowed to run for 15 minutes and operated flawlessly after
sitting idle for nearly 12 years.

Alarmed by the possibility of the plane becoming airworthy, the Air
Force decreed that work cease on the flyout effort. They explained that
the plane would be a threat to national security and would be a huge
safety hazard if allowed to operate under civilian control. Their
announced plan to repossess the bomber launched a long series of
negotiations with the City of Fort Worth who came under intense local
pressure to save the plane."
- http://www.b-36peacemakermuseum.org/History/part1.htm

[John S. Shinal]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>The Yankee Air Force advertises their B-52 as the only privately
>>owned B-52 in the world. On the tour, they told me that it is not
>>part of the Air Force Museum program, and that it took some special
>>accreditidation for them to be able to obtain it.
>>
>
>Hmm, I'd be curious to know how they got such special accreditation. One thing
>is the same though, that aircraft is available to be inspected under START II,
>privately owned or not.

I *suppose* you could demil the thing by filling the bomb bay
with concrete (or actually, styrofoam peanuts - much harder to
remove), in such a way as to prevent it from ever carrying ordnance.
Ditto the pylon mounts, welded over/shut. Perhaps also hocusing the
fuel system in some way to prevent long range or air refueling.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Steve]

In article >,
B2431 > wrote:
->
->> Pershing? <laugh> We've got our own freakin' Titan II sitting beside the
->> road, protected by a three' fence at Gillespie Field. You don't see urban
->> communities encroaching on THAT airfield!
->>
->Ha! A Titan? So what. Cheyenne's got Minutemen and a Peacekeeper guarding
->their space. Titans, what a crock, those things blow up if ya drop a wrench
->on'em. Get a real missile.
->
->:-)
-
-My ICBM is bigger than your ICBM?
-
-Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

It's all fun and games until someone gets vaporized.


Steve

[B2431]

>B2431 > wrote:
>->
>->> Pershing? <laugh> We've got our own freakin' Titan II sitting beside
>the
>->> road, protected by a three' fence at Gillespie Field. You don't see
>urban
>->> communities encroaching on THAT airfield!
>->>
>->Ha! A Titan? So what. Cheyenne's got Minutemen and a Peacekeeper guarding
>->their space. Titans, what a crock, those things blow up if ya drop a wrench
>
>->on'em. Get a real missile.
>->
>->:-)
>-
>-My ICBM is bigger than your ICBM?
>-
>-Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>It's all fun and games until someone gets vaporized.
>
>
>Steve
>
So Mommy was correct that one shouldn't run in the house with thermonuclear
devices?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>>Except the frickin BUFF of course. It'll still be flying.
>
>Until it _finally_ retires, and the crew ride home from the boneyard in
>a C-130 :)
>

Except it'll be a J model which is a C-130 in name and general appearence alone
;)


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Who owns 56-0689, the B-52D at the American Air Museum at Duxford?

The Air Force Museum.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>>Hmm, I'd be curious to know how they got such special accreditation. One
>thing
>>is the same though, that aircraft is available to be inspected under START
>II,
>>privately owned or not.
>
>Is that the same for the one at Duxford?

Yep, and the one in Guam and Australia too.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Bill Silvey]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message

>>> Hmm, I'd be curious to know how they got such special
>>> accreditation. One thing is the same though, that aircraft is
>>> available to be inspected under START II, privately owned or not.
>>
>> Is that the same for the one at Duxford?
>
> Yep, and the one in Guam and Australia too.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> harelips everyone on Bear Creek"

I'm not trying to be smarmy, but as far as the USAF is concerned, what about
(as yet unrecovered) B52 wreckage hither and yon across the globe (SE asia,
the one that went down near Diego Garcia during DS1 etc.)? I'm guessing
"still ours" is their mindset?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>>Who owns 56-0689, the B-52D at the American Air Museum at Duxford?
>
>The Air Force Museum.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Thanks. You do mean US, not Royal, I take it? :-)
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[John S. Shinal]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>It doesn't matter what you do, the Russians are still able to inspect it to
>verify it is in fact unable to fly and thus not counted as a capable nuclear
>delivery platform.

I wasn't aware of the nuance in the wording - it has to be
incapable of flight ? Or just incapable of delivering ordnance (and
therefore not a nuclear weapons system anymore) ?

i.e the world's first KB-52 is a no-go ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[PirateJohn]

>Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
>Yankees won the war.

Maybe. The Yankees got Newark. We got Miami Beach.

You decide ;)




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

Keeper of the Humour List at http://members.aol.com/PirateJohn/pirate1.html

"Mother, mother ocean... I have heard your call" - Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate
Looks At Forty.

[B2431]

>>Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
>>Yankees won the war.
>
>Maybe. The Yankees got Newark. We got Miami Beach.
>
>You decide ;)
>
Hey, there's nothing wrong with Newark a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't
cure.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[OXMORON1]

Pirate John wrote in reply to:
>>Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
>>Yankees won the war.
>
The following
>Maybe. The Yankees got Newark. We got Miami Beach.
>
Big deal, the beer trucks in both places have tailgunners.

Rick

[Red]

"mah" > wrote in message ...
> Bill Silvey wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to be smarmy, but as far as the USAF is concerned, what
about
> > (as yet unrecovered) B52 wreckage hither and yon across the globe (SE
asia,
> > the one that went down near Diego Garcia during DS1 etc.)? I'm guessing
> > "still ours" is their mindset?
> >
>
> If you follow the Navy's actions on aircraft recovered from water site,
> they consider the aircraft on the record for eternity. Could be the Ai
> Force would consider their crash sites in a similar way.
>
> MAH

The navy doesn't care where the crash site is. Water, land or ice, they
still own it, and always will.

Red

[Thomas Schoene]

"PirateJohn" > wrote in message

> > Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but
> > the Yankees won the war.
>
> Maybe. The Yankees got Newark. We got Miami Beach.
>
> You decide ;)

Check the population sometime. Lots of retired Yankees down there as an
occupation force. :-)

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[BUFDRVR]

>I wasn't aware of the nuance in the wording - it has to be
>incapable of flight ? Or just incapable of delivering ordnance (and
>therefore not a nuclear weapons system anymore) ?

Hmm, I'm not really sure of the wording either, but my guess is "incapable of
delivering nuclear weapons". The reason I say this is because the B-1B still
flys (obviously) and has been rendered unable of delivering nuclear weapons yet
it is still inspected under START II. I guess you could do this with a flyable
BUFF, but #1.) I think you'de find much more difficult than the Bone and #2.)
It'll still be inspectable just like the Bones are.

>i.e the world's first KB-52 is a no-go ?

Heresy!


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>I'm not trying to be smarmy, but as far as the USAF is concerned, what about
>(as yet unrecovered) B52 wreckage hither and yon across the globe (SE asia,
>the one that went down near Diego Garcia during DS1 etc.)?

Well, now we're takling two uniquely different circumstances. One is USAF
donated equipment (which is always owned and loaned out by the Air Force Museum
which is a directorate of AF/HO (Headquarters Air Force Historian). The ones
that went down during LB II (and one a month before) were owned by SAC at the
time of loss and the ones that went down in Laos and Thailand(I believe at
least four?? Ed?) I would imagine would still be considered US property. As far
as the ones that went down north of 20- Latitude, I think the Articles of War
say which ever of the combatants owns the territory, owns the wreckage.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Hey, I'm sure the B-52B crews would say the same about the current BUFFs
>:)
>

Excellent point, they probably would.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Ah. So no one could, say, dive off of that B1 wreck in the "shallows" near
>DG and recover something and keep it, then.
>
>But by the same token, the USAF couldn't go to the Russians and say "Give us
>back our F111-C cockpit."

That is my understanding of the law. More interesting question would be, if
that Bone had made it to Afghanistan and been lost there to enemy fire, but
after the fall of the Taliban, who owns it?

Technically it would have gone down in a friendly combatant country, to hostile
fire.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>> But by the same token, the USAF couldn't go to the Russians and say "Give
>us
>> back our F111-C cockpit."
>>
>
>?? IIRC, the Aussies lost a Canberra or two in Vietnam, but haven't lost a
>F111C anywhere where the Russkis could get it. And we let them retrieve the
>ones that crashed in NZ.

I believe he's refering to the one (or was it two??, or as high as three??)
USAF F-111C lost over NVN during the 1971-72 time frame.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Errol Cavit]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >> But by the same token, the USAF couldn't go to the Russians and say
"Give
> >us
> >> back our F111-C cockpit."
> >>
> >?? IIRC, the Aussies lost a Canberra or two in Vietnam, but haven't lost
a
> >F111C anywhere where the Russkis could get it. And we let them retrieve
> >the ones that crashed in NZ.
>
> I believe he's refering to the one (or was it two??, or as high as
three??)
> USAF F-111C lost over NVN during the 1971-72 time frame.
>
According to http://f-111.net/JoeBaugher.htm , those were F-111As. Is this
article incorrect?

"Six 428th TFS F-111As were allocated to the Combat Lancer program, and
departed Nellis AFB for Thailand on March 15, 1968. By the end of that
month, 55 night missions had been flown against targets in North Vietnam,
but two aircraft had been lost. Replacement aircraft had left Nellis, but
the loss of a third F-111A on April 22 halted F-111A combat operations.
However, the aircraft remained poised for combat, but they saw little action
before their return to the USA in November.
....
The F-111A returned to Southeast Asia in September of 1972. They entered
combat not long after yet another crash and yet another grounding. Two
F-111A squadrons (the 429th and 430th) left Nellis AFB for Thailand. They
participated in the Linebacker II aerial offensive against North Vietnam.
They flew bombing missions against targets in North Vietnam and Laos in the
midst of the monsoon season. They flew without electronic countermeasures
escort aircraft or KC-135 tankers. On November 8, 1972, they flew 20 strikes
over North Vietnam in weather that grounded other aircraft.
Four F-111As could deliver the bomb loads of 20 F-4s. Shortly after
returning to SEA, an F-111A experienced double engine rollback after
encountering heavy rain. There were continual problems with the
terrain-following radar and the attack radar. Malfunctions of the internal
navigation and weapons release system also cropped up on a regular basis.
Nevertheless, the 429th and 430th TFS flew some 4000 combat missions with
excellent success rates in hitting targets even when visibility was near
zero. Only six aircraft were lost in action.
....
On October 24, 1963, the government of Australia agreed to purchase 24
F-111As. The Australian version was to be designated F-111C. ...
The first F-111C was delivered on September 6, 1968. However, the problems
with the F-111A's wing carry-through box slipped delivery of the remaining
23 F-111Cs to late 1969. To make matters worse, the whole F-111 fleet had to
be grounded pending verification of their overall structural integrity. The
remaining F-111Cs awaiting delivery to Australia were stored at Fort Worth
until the structural integrity of the F-111 could be confirmed. In April of
1970, a joint agreement between General Dynamics and Australia deferred the
RAAF's acceptance of the F-111C pending the verification of their structural
integrity. The RAAF was to lease F-4E Phantoms as an interim aircraft while
new wing carry-through boxes were installed on all F-111Cs before being
delivered to the RAAF. This refurbishment program began on April 1, 1972.
In 1973 the F-111C was finally ready for delivery to the RAAF. "

--
Errol Cavit
to email, my middle initial is G
"Whatu ngarongaro he tangata, toitu he whenua."
"Man passes away, but the land endures for ever."
Maori Saying, recorded by Elsdon Best, anthropologist c.1900

[John Fitzpatrick]

Don't forget about the congressional bill that would have allowed
the government to seize all ex-military aircraft. It was beaten back the
last time in the hopes the sponsers would rewrite it, but I understand it is
going to be resubmitted again with the original language. Hope they don't
find out, I still have my old P38 can opener (anybody else still have
theirs?).

"The demilitarization language re-emerged in 2003 despite understandings
that it would not be part of future legislation after it was removed from
similar bills in 2001 and 2002. The language would have given the Department
of Defense authority to have military surplus items, including historic
warbird aircraft, destroyed as potential threats even after the government
had sold them to private individuals. There would be no expiration to that
authority, so even aircraft sold as surplus after World War II, for
instance, would be impacted and could potentially be destroyed."

"Stephen D. Poe" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Silvey wrote:
> > Hiya group.
> >
> > I can't recall if I've asked this before, but does anyone know what the
> > legal status of a privately purchased airframe like, say, a B47 or B36
(or,
> > heaven forbid, a B52 or Tu-95) would be presuming the owner could
refurbish
> > the aircraft to operational capability?
> >
> > I think at least the FAA if not the USAF and more than a few other
parties
> > would kinda have a few reservations about someone owning an operational
bird
> > like that.
>
> The B-36 restoration ran into problems with that.
>
> To quote:
> "At the conclusion of the ceremony, title to the plane was transferred
> to the Air Force Museum and its custody was assigned to the city of Fort
> Worth.
> ...
> All six piston engines were started before the project was halted. One
> engine was allowed to run for 15 minutes and operated flawlessly after
> sitting idle for nearly 12 years.
>
> Alarmed by the possibility of the plane becoming airworthy, the Air
> Force decreed that work cease on the flyout effort. They explained that
> the plane would be a threat to national security and would be a huge
> safety hazard if allowed to operate under civilian control. Their
> announced plan to repossess the bomber launched a long series of
> negotiations with the City of Fort Worth who came under intense local
> pressure to save the plane."
> - http://www.b-36peacemakermuseum.org/History/part1.htm
>

[Leadfoot]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >I'm not trying to be smarmy, but as far as the USAF is concerned, what
about
> >(as yet unrecovered) B52 wreckage hither and yon across the globe (SE
asia,
> >the one that went down near Diego Garcia during DS1 etc.)?
>
> Well, now we're takling two uniquely different circumstances. One is USAF
> donated equipment (which is always owned and loaned out by the Air Force
Museum
> which is a directorate of AF/HO (Headquarters Air Force Historian). The
ones
> that went down during LB II (and one a month before) were owned by SAC at
the
> time of loss and the ones that went down in Laos and Thailand(I believe at
> least four?? Ed?) I would imagine would still be considered US property.
As far
> as the ones that went down north of 20- Latitude, I think the Articles of
War
> say which ever of the combatants owns the territory, owns the wreckage.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"


I would think military aircraft losses in the ocean would be the same as
naval ship losses. You can go inside the Andrea Doria all you would like and
take anything but go inside HMS Hood, USS Yorktown or KM Bismark or god
forbid take something, and your looking at big trouble from the Gov't that
owns it.

Note: James Cameron did go inside Bismark with an ROV but he had the written
permission of the German Gov't

[[email protected]]

"John Fitzpatrick" > wrote:
I still have my old P38 can opener (anybody else still have
theirs?).

No, but I had a Walther P-38 for a couple of years once!...

--

-Gord.

[Pete]

"PirateJohn" > wrote in message
...
> >Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
> >Yankees won the war.
>
> Maybe. The Yankees got Newark. We got Miami Beach.
>
> You decide ;)

You seem to be giving a lot of it away to the Cubans, though.

Pete

[James Anatidae]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PirateJohn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Some southerners seem to have trouble grasping this fine point, but the
> > >Yankees won the war.
> >
> > Maybe. The Yankees got Newark. We got Miami Beach.
> >
> > You decide ;)
>
> You seem to be giving a lot of it away to the Cubans, though.
>
It's all part of the secret Spanish-American War Reparations Treaty. To
cover the cost of relandscaping San Juan Hill and other stuff like that.

--
Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/

[funkraum]

> (B2431) wrote:

>>> Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?
>>
>>Radio Hanoi, god, that brings back memories.
>>Perhaps I should see if I can get on of the old SW sets going...
>>
>>
>We used to listen to Radio Hanoi for the music which was better than AFVNs. The
>political stuff was a hoot.
>

You never miss it till it's gone ...

Anyone know where to obtain .MP3s or similar ? Radio Peking, Moscow,
Belgrade, Hanoi - anywhere.

Fraternal greetings from the peace-loving etc etc

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, funkraum
> writes
>> (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>> Trained with Radio Hanoi did you?
>>>
>>>Radio Hanoi, god, that brings back memories.
>>>Perhaps I should see if I can get on of the old SW sets going...
>>>
>>>
>>We used to listen to Radio Hanoi for the music which was better than
>>AFVNs. The
>>political stuff was a hoot.
>>
>
>You never miss it till it's gone ...
>
>Anyone know where to obtain .MP3s or similar ? Radio Peking, Moscow,
>Belgrade, Hanoi - anywhere.

A spammer on one of these groups used to advertise many wartime
recordings.

A google might help.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[David Lesher]

"Errol Cavit" > writes:

>Shortly after returning to SEA, an F-111A experienced double engine
>rollback after encountering heavy rain.

?double engine rollback?



--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[PosterBoy]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> "Errol Cavit" > writes:
>
> >Shortly after returning to SEA, an F-111A experienced double engine
> >rollback after encountering heavy rain.
>
> ?double engine rollback?

Accident investigators define engine rollback as: "an event in which
multiple engines experience a sudden, relatively small, and simultaneous
reduction in engine RPM--uncommanded by the crew and with no prior
indications of engine problems."

Simplest of the explanations in accidents is "air starvation," or
replacing fuel.

Cheers.

[Matthew G. Saroff]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>Yankees won. Duh.
>
>That was in 1865, however. It wasn't until the 21st century that the
>Confederate Air Force bit the dust.
>
Umm....I'm missing something....Did the CAF fold?
If so, why?
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcement officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana,
cocaine, CIA, plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, DEA, NSA, PGP, hacker,
assassinate, Osama, Al Queida, Palestinian, Daisy Cutter, 911, suicide
bomber, Taliban, George Bush is a Twinkie, Anthrax, Uranium, Thorium.

Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Tex Houston]

"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
> >
> >>Yankees won. Duh.
> >
> >That was in 1865, however. It wasn't until the 21st century that the
> >Confederate Air Force bit the dust.
> >
> Umm....I'm missing something....Did the CAF fold?
> If so, why?
> --
> Matthew Saroff

The Confederate Air Force was sacrificed on the sword of political
correctness. Damn the concept! Now called the "Commemorative Air Force"
the PC *******s have taken away much of the fun.

Tex Houston

[funkraum]

> "M. J. Powell" > wrote:

[...]
>>>We used to listen to Radio Hanoi for the music which was better than
>>>AFVNs. The
>>>political stuff was a hoot.
>>>
>>
>>You never miss it till it's gone ...
>>
>>Anyone know where to obtain .MP3s or similar ? Radio Peking, Moscow,
>>Belgrade, Hanoi - anywhere.
>
>A spammer on one of these groups used to advertise many wartime
>recordings.
>
>A google might help.
>

I had tried all usual sources. I might dig out the old reel-to-reel
and see what is left.