Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Yes!!! Collings Foundation is making the move to get a hold of an F-105 to fly with their F-4D!!

The link is to the newsletter. There's information on the bottom about calling committee Chairman Skelton. I'm going to call him and you should too!!!!

http://collingsfoundation.org/enews/ene ... 5.2010.htm

F-16.net Sponsor

I tell you what, if this ends up going through and I someday get to see this bird at an airshow, I will be quite the happy camper. The F-105 is my favorite aircraft of all time and the chance to see it in flight would be mind-boggling.

What's the deal with the opposition anyway? Are they afraid there is some secret technology on the dated Thud that they don't want to fall out of the military's hands? Are they just being lazy? What?

While I do believe that the Collings Foundation should be allowed to acquire, restore, and fly an F-105 at their sole expense and liability; (To which I will be writing my congressional representatives) I'll address Kryptid's questions.

Kryptid wrote:

What's the deal with the opposition anyway? Are they afraid there is some secret technology on the dated Thud that they don't want to fall out of the military's hands? Are they just being lazy? What?

No technology issues with the Thud, no they're aren't lazy, this is what...

In a word "AFI 84-103" (U.S. AIR FORCE HERITAGE PROGRAM)

Ref: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/m ... 84-103.pdf

AFI 84-103 wrote:

12.1. Authority. The USAF Museum has been delegated the authority and responsibility by the Secretary of the Air Force to carry out the provisions of Title 10 USC 2572, Sections (a)(3) and (a)(4) regarding the loan of Air Force Historical Property to legally and professionally qualified public and private museums.

12.3.4. Loaned aerospace vehicles will not be flown or restored to flying condition under any circumstances. Failure to observe this condition will result in the immediate repossession of loaned material by the USAFM, at the requestor’s expense and possible criminal prosecution.

For an example of "possible criminal prosecution" read about a CAF F-82 that was 'lost' back to the USAF (although with this case I would have sided with the USAF): http://www.whiotv.com/news/22089953/detail.html

See also: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/us ... -000-.html
The USAF interprets TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART IV > CHAPTER 153 > § 2572 (d)(1) "The Secretary concerned shall ensure that an item authorized to be donated under this section is demilitarized in the interest of public safety, as determined necessary by the Secretary or the Secretary’s delegee." as "if this aircraft is flown it could be dangerous to the public"

Congress doesn't like 'over-ruling' the military services when it comes to policies like this. It sets precedence for others who may follow.

...but if being done by specific professional organizations, Congress should allow 'exceptions' in the interest of military honor, technical achievement and national history.

If the USAF won't 'give' the Thud to them, perhaps they should 'sell' them a Thud to relieve the USAF of the ownership responsibility. I feel $1 would be appropriate. (I'll pay it with a personal check if needed!) Hell I'll even pay a buck for the motor too, just to say I've owned one!)

Keep 'em flyin' (retired, or not) Thumb

TEG

A flying F-105. I would love to see that at an airshow.

That and a F-14B/D.

Well that blows. How'd they get a hold of the F-4 then?

Demilitarization makes sense. I won't argue with that.

However, I don't understand why the military would make such a rule that would prevent them from giving an old and now useless aircraft to the public. It's not like they would be losing money. Even if the F-105 in question originally costed a billion dollars, it might as well be worth nothing if it isn't in current flying condition and they don't plan on restoring it themselves (which they have no reason to do unless they want to use it as a target drone, which the article suggests they will not).

If you ask me, this is like throwing away old food that you no longer want even though someone else who could actually use the food is asking for it.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

If the USAF won't 'give' the Thud to them, perhaps they should 'sell' them a Thud to relieve the USAF of the ownership responsibility. I feel $1 would be appropriate. (I'll pay it with a personal check if needed!) Hell I'll even pay a buck for the motor too, just to say I've owned one!)

Keep 'em flyin' (retired, or not) Thumb

TEG

Put me down for a hundred, love the sound of the big boom right after brakes released!
fisk

fiskerwad wrote:

Put me down for a hundred, love the sound of the big boom right after brakes released!
fisk

Ah yes, the 'Thud'... Which is where I believe the name came from long before Vietnam.

TEG

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Flyable F-105 (Collings Foundation)