Legality of owning ex-military intercontinental aircraft.

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"

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"

--

(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" 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

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

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! =-----

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

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

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.

"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.