Forum: F-16 Spotting & Photography

Thanks again to our wonderful politicians. My beloved Iowa ANG, 124th is losing its vipers. Also , thanks to which ever one of you at the Air Force Museum found out about the Collings Foundation almost getting legislation passed this pass year to get an F-105 airworthy, and promptly blocked it, and then went and cut the wing spar. Bravo! And yes, It is thet USAF that doesn't want it to happen. So again, Thanks.

Un-related, Check out these QF-106s I just filmed down at ELP

[Link pending approval]

F-16.net Sponsor

goiowa2010 wrote:

Thanks again to our wonderful politicians. My beloved Iowa ANG, 124th is losing its vipers. Also , thanks to which ever one of you at the Air Force Museum found out about the Collings Foundation almost getting legislation passed this pass year to get an F-105 airworthy, and promptly blocked it, and then went and cut the wing spar. Bravo! And yes, It is thet USAF that doesn't want it to happen. So again, Thanks.

There are too many a-holes in this world. Bang Head

Why doesn't the USAF want Collings Foundation to operate these jets? The AF Museum wanted this particular jet that badly?

I understand it takes an act of congress to authorize the transfer, but Collings is a trusted and worthy group for such a privilege as flying a F-105.

I ran across an article awhile back talking about the Collings Foundation's efforts to get a F-105 flying. From what I remember, they got a chance to sit down with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the time, Gen. Norton Schwartz, and tried to convince him to let them have an F-105. Schwartz said no. I don't remember all the reasons, but a lot of it seemed to center around liability (Schwartz was afraid the Air Force would be held liable if the Collings Foundation crashed a Thud during an airshow) and supportability (the concern about finding spare parts for the long out-of-service F-105).

Supposedly, the Air Force still has several F-105's at Lackland AFB TX that they use for Security Forces training or something similar. The Collings Foundation argued that all those F-105's just sitting there would be a great source of parts.

I sure wish the Air Force would let them do it. Would be so cool to see an F-105 fly.

Also, thanks for posting that YouTube link. I forwarded it to the folks at f106deltadart dot com, and they posted it on their site. I wish someone would buy those sixes and get them flying again. They've got a whole history of those "El Paso Sixes" on that site.

@blue350: Not saying you are wrong or mistaken..

There is a new CSAF now... and I thought that even if the QF-105 *might* still be in very limited service, its a different jet to an actual F-105s, if its even still in service. The other option would be for Collings to start lobbying congressman and congresswoman, as the NDAA is basically a must pass bill.

From a legal point of view, Gen. Schwartz might actually be incorrect, as I thought the US Government (On behalf of the USAF) has to agree to accept 'liability' under the Federal Torts Claim Act. If the F-105 (or any other jet) is actually sold off by the US Gov, then the FTCA liability stops. Most museum jets remain DoD property, but defense contractors do have jets that are not, and never were DoD property. No DD-250 is signed for contractor owned and operated jets. There has been cases where aircraft operated on behalf of a government agency under contract, have crashed, and its handled just like any other commercial aircraft crash, only a lot more quietly.

For similar reasons, and common sense, after an actual mishap involving actual DoD (DoAF, DoN) property, the JAG officer investigating, one of their legal functions is to accept FTCA claims resultant from the mishap. This step reduces the claim reimbursement time from years, to hours. Remember the somewhat recent VFA-106 mishap, no major injury or death, but the JAG expedited FTCA claims, as it was the right thing to do.

When flying jets with defense contractors, I remember one civilian property claim when someone wrecked a guys farm shed, after hitting it with a drop tank in an emergency. For the convenience of the US government, and reduce investigation time and costs, it was decided that the subcontractor operating the jet would pay for the damage, but the claimant had to agree not to file any claim against the US government, under FTCA or otherwise.

Poor excuses for not letting them have a Thud. I mean they have a Hun and I am sure parts for that are real easy to find. I would love to see a thud fly.

Well, the Lackland Thuds are gone, so those are off the table. Spares would have to be almost impossible to source. Also, does the benefit really outweigh the cost? They barely get any events booked for their F-4D as it is, seemingly. The cost of running such an aircraft would be exorbitant.As cool as it sounds, their money would be better spent pursuing other avenues.

HaveVoid wrote:

Well, the Lackland Thuds are gone, so those are off the table. Spares would have to be almost impossible to source. Also, does the benefit really outweigh the cost? They barely get any events booked for their F-4D as it is, seemingly. The cost of running such an aircraft would be exorbitant.As cool as it sounds, their money would be better spent pursuing other avenues.

I've never flown a F-4 actually... I also don't have the personal funds to pay for a ride. One figure puts it at over $10k/hr to fly. That is the O&M figure, and refurbishment costs were quite expensive from what I heard.

One thing that is probably screwing things up for Collings right now is that pretty much all military demo flights are grounded due to sequestrations. That means that the Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, F-22 demo team and others wont be available to be the star attraction. This limits the airshow openings, plus that Collings doesn't have the funds for unreimbursed demo flights very often.

It would be unlikely a defense contractor would be cleared for a full demo flight at an airshow at corporate expense under these conditions. Lockheed might be allowed to do a short demo with a F-35, but it would be limited.

US Defense contractors have parts contracts for QF-4s and even NATO MiG-29s, so anything is possible given enough funds. Even some F-16A components have to come from alternate sustainment suppliers.

Forum: F-16 Spotting & Photography

Iowa ANG, Collings Foundation F-105