If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What they gona do with more Buffs? hand them over to the USAF so they
can fly after 30yrs of no service? as if.. sound like governmental policies gone mad... if that the case i will withdraw all my tax money from the govt at short notice to if needs be and refuse to support people who inflict self and induced harm by drinking, smoking and drugs and let them die instead... i rather see drunks, drug addicts which include all smokers and let therm flounder in their own pile of death. simple as... its a absurd policy then clinging onto aircraft which have no direct impact for the USAF is like mad whats next they want their ww2 era C-47 B-17 aircraft back to bomb north korea? even include the 80yr aircrews ....just to add some flavour... surely theyd enjoy it...one last trip before they go to the big airshow in sky... BUFDRVR wrote: It would have to be demilled sufficiently so it would not be a military threat, but otherwise it wouldn't be much different to owning any other warbird. Just more expensive. With the exception of B-52s. Even B-52 display aircraft are accounted for in START II and a limit set at a specific number. Additionally, *all* B-52 display aircraft are owned by the Air Force Museum. You may pay for refurbishment, you may pay to keep it looking good, but tommorow the Air Force Museum can come and take it back. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" -- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Kearton" wrote in message
"Bill Silvey" wrote in message om... "make" 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? What about an ICBM or SSBN+SLBMs? The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has intercontinental striking capability. (The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.) This could mean trouble if the peace talks with Osceola County break down .... Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the illegal Osceola Clique! ;-) -- 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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the
illegal Osceola Clique! ;-) Trained with Radio Hanoi did you? You left out hegemonist. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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! =----- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message
Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the illegal Osceola Clique! ;-) Trained with Radio Hanoi did you? You left out hegemonist. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired Let's try this again. "Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the illegal junta of hegemonists who control the fascist Osceola clique!" Better? :-) (For what it's worth, I've thrown my weight behind the FPLNA/SCPLF - Free People's Longwood National Army/Seminole County People's Liberation Front. Death to Ovideo! We *will* liberate our revolutionary brothers and sisters there!) -- 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om "Bill Silvey" wrote: "Dave Kearton" wrote: "Bill Silvey" wrote: The community of Narcoosee, just south of Orlando, has intercontinental striking capability. (The VFW has a Pershing-I sitting in it's parking lot.) This could mean trouble if the peace talks with Osceola County break down .... Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the illegal Osceola Clique! ;-) Not to worry. The elite Disney anti-terror teams will take out those horrible weapons with very little effort. They don't like the competition. The death squads controlled by the cryptofascist running clique of Disney will never overcome the PLAoSC! -- 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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pershing? laugh We've got our own freakin' Titan II sitting beside the
road, protected by a three' fence at Gillespie Field. You don't see urban communities encroaching on THAT airfield! G |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the illegal Osceola Clique! ;-) Trained with Radio Hanoi did you? You left out hegemonist. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired Let's try this again. "Ha! More agitprop sabre-rattling from the running dog lackeys of the illegal junta of hegemonists who control the fascist Osceola clique!" Better? :-) By George, I think he's got it. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
FA: 7 Vintage Polish Military Airplane Toy Model Kits - Ends Tomorrow | Disgo | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 21st 04 02:38 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |