Legality of owning ex-military intercontinental aircraft.

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