Legality of owning ex-military intercontinental aircraft.

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

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

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"

"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.

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" 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

"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.

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

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

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