Navy sues to get return of F3A-1 wreck

From: Lyle
Date: 3/29/2004 04:07 Pacific Standard Time

On 28 Mar 2004 21:33:14 GMT, ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:

From: Orval Fairbairn
Date: 3/27/2004 20:46 Pacific Standard Time

In article ,
362436 (Ron) wrote:

The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some planes WW2
aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.

Seems rather silly to me.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)


As the saying goes, "The Navy is 200 years of tradition unhampered by
progress."

I think its just that the USG never gives up "anything" unless it states so
in
very specific language. This isn't the first time it's taken such action,
as
noted above.

could it be to prevent anybody from possibly disturbing a possible
ship wreck/plane crash that also doubles as a coffin/cementary? Him
removing the fighter would probably be the equivilent to somebody
raising the Monitor or Arizona. Just a thought.

While that indeed can be a reason, in this case, as w/ many other aircraft
wreckage sites, that doesn't appear to apply. From another article on the
subject:

"In fact, the plane that crashed in North Carolina on Dec. 19, 1944,
was on a training flight from the Cherry Point Marine Corps Training
Station. The pilot died and Navy personnel stripped the downed
aircraft of its weapons and other equipment before leaving it,
according to people familiar with the history of the plane."

In addition if one thinks about what has been USG policy in general; it's to
return discovered remains for a proper burial. For a states-side crash that
wouldn't seem to be an issue.

As has been stated by others, it's the actual wreck itself that the gov't
claims to own -- still.

MW