Legality of owning ex-military intercontinental aircraft.

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"

--

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

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"


Yeah,maybe they'll want some parts from it!
Bummer,refurb a BUFF,and Uncle Sam comes along and strips it for the new
parts you had made at great cost and effort. ;-)

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

"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.

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

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! =-----

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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