ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — An American fighter that’s one of the few remaining still-airworthy planes to survive the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is being donated to an organization that flies World War II aircraft at living-history events across the United States.
Robert Collings, executive director of the Stow, Mass.-based Collings Foundation, said that the purchase of the Curtiss P-40B Warhawk from an aviation museum in England was completed this week. The plane will be disassembled and shipped to the United States, where it eventually will fly over Buffalo and other cities, with plans to participate in the 75th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack in 2016, he said.
‘‘The history that comes with it is pretty special,’’ Collings said Friday, the day before the 72nd anniversary of the surprise attack in Hawaii that launched the U.S. into the Second World War. ‘‘It was obvious that we needed to get this airplane back to America.’’
Collings said a sponsor who wishes to remain anonymous bought the plane for several million dollars from The Fighter Collection in Duxford, England. He said the person who bought the warplane will donate it to the Collings Foundation, bringing its collection of World War II aircraft to a dozen, including a B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberator, both bombers.
The Warhawk heading back to the U.S. came off the assembly line at the Curtiss Aircraft Co. plant in Buffalo in early 1941. Later that year, it was undergoing repairs in a hangar at Wheeler Field on Oahu when waves of Japanese warplanes attacked Pearl Harbor on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941. While more than 300 other U.S. planes were destroyed or damaged during the attack, the P-40B escaped unscathed.
But seven weeks after the attack, the plane crashed into a mountain on Oahu, killing the pilot. His body was recovered, but the wreckage was left at the remote crash site. In the 1980s, a California warplane restoration group recovered the wreck and began working on it, rebuilding it with parts salvaged from two similar aircraft. The plane was flying again by 2004, soon after being acquired by The Fighter Collection.
Collings said only a handful of P-40Bs exist, including one owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. Curtiss produced nearly 14,000 P-40s at its Buffalo plant from 1939-44. The plane was a workhorse for American and Allied air forces early in the war, and it was flown by the famed Flying Tigers, the American squadron that fought for China against Japan before America entered the war.
The only other Pearl Harbor survivor still flying is a Grumman J2F-4 Duck, a privately owned, float-equipped biplane based in Kenosha, Wis., according to vintage warplane experts. The few other surviving aircraft, such as the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s Sikorsky JRS-1 amphibious search plane, are no longer airworthy.
‘‘It’s pretty important in terms of the rarity of that particular airplane,’’ Jeremy Kinney, a Smithsonian aviation curator, said of the foundation’s P-40B and its Pearl Harbor connection. ‘‘We don’t even have one.’’
Found it here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/12/06/rare-pearl-harbor-warplane-returning/qhgv60p7HIOSfRIRDDrVVM/story.html
By: WarbirdsRUs - 10th December 2013 at 13:29
It is a shame the P-40B is leaving the country but lest be honest with it history, it was always going to head back to the US at some point!
Indeed it is my favourite aircraft of the TFC fleet, but with as much as I don’t want to loose it, I can’t wait to see what ever comes next .. a Fiat CR.42 maybe!:cool:
If TFC are reducing in sixe, it makes you even moer grateful for what we have seen!
Thanks to everyone at TFC, not forgetting the boss!!!
By: rossistb - 10th December 2013 at 12:26
Hahahaha this guy….
By: Bob - 10th December 2013 at 10:46
Gosh, you can tell the airshow season has finished…….:highly_amused:
By: charliehunt - 10th December 2013 at 10:06
Those are important points to make for the uninitiated, Trump. And to have drawn the distinction between the two entirely separate operations. As a part publicly funded organisation the IWM is accountable to the taxpayer, but as a private company TFC is accountable only to its shareholders.
By: trumper - 10th December 2013 at 09:52
I think there s abit of confusion here .
T F C are a private company who are based at Duxford.I assume they lease out the hangar from the IWM and allow access to the public which must be a win /win for both parties.
The I W M is the Museum at the airfield who probably have little to do with the goings on at the TFC as such .
The policies of the private company is up to them BUT the policies of the I W M have some sort of public accountability ,well you would think so.
Mike J may need to clarify what he means for those who are not regulars at Duxford and assume that TFC and IWM are the same.
No-one seems to say too much about the sales from the others just at the Motorway side of the airfield .
By: Bruggen 130 - 10th December 2013 at 09:38
That’s succinctly and accurately put.
And Bruggen #54 – I meant basis, in the sense that it is TFC organised and their fleet forms the basis on which the show is mounted.
I see now, thanks.
By: charliehunt - 10th December 2013 at 09:15
That’s succinctly and accurately put.
And Bruggen #54 – I meant basis, in the sense that it is TFC organised and their fleet forms the basis on which the show is mounted.
By: jeepman - 10th December 2013 at 08:42
They buy them, they mend them, they fly them, they sell them, we look at them
is there actually anything more to say than that?
By: David Burke - 10th December 2013 at 00:20
Vampirefan -rather than ‘smoke and mirrors’ -maybe its time to cut to the facts ! The sale of the P-40 is public knowledge – nobody has
stated other aircraft that might be going. The TFC have traded aircraft since the 1980’s and none of it has been particularily secret. There doesn’t appear to have been any ‘inside’ knowledge on the thread therefore everything that has eluded to change at the collection is pure speculation. Nobody on the thread has ‘secret plans’ or any other information that isn’t blindingly obvious.
As to companies themselves -within their establishment they have an operating statement which details in the broadest sense what activities they wish to carry out. Again none of that is secretive . What I do find ironic is that I cannot recall anywhere in this thread where I have discussed what aircraft might or might not leave TFC -nor apart from in the broadest sense have I eluded to how TFC carry out their business but you intimate that
I am exercising double standards.
Point out the post number .
By: Bruce - 9th December 2013 at 23:08
Bruce. The timing of sales has something to do with it. What will you do when you retire? Its unlikely that you will buy more assets, however you might sell some to release funds or even enter into an equity release deal as many retired people do.
As for whether there is merit in holding a discussion on a discussion forum? Howabout we all report on facts only and post pictures of what we can all see so that this becomes an online magasine with no need for moderation. You can retire and…
Tim,
Why does the timing have something to do with it? As I recall, Stephen has retired from display flying, not from flying full stop. As I said before, buying and selling aircraft is one of the functions of the company. I don’t believe it has anything to do with me!
I have no issue with speculation; I just countenance against it based on a single sale.
Bruce
By: Vampirefan - 9th December 2013 at 23:07
Companies
David,
I am perfectly well aware of the statutory financial reporting obligations of companies within the UK. The reason that these details are made available is quite well established within business law, and is done so in order to assist other legitimate businesses in assessing the viability of mutual business transactions and investments. Conversely, the business plans and objectives of a company are not public domain information for quite obvious reasons. What I find ironic is that you consider it fine to discuss on a public internet forum what is still another person’s private business, when you would no doubt, and quite rightly so (and no-one should ever argue otherwise), be the first person to call for action if your private business was discussed and questioned in public in such a manner. I simply find myself somewhat amused by the double standard of this position.
By: Bruce - 9th December 2013 at 23:03
……unless, apparently, any comments are made which disagree with the prevailing happy-clappy view that everything is wonderful at Duxford, and all we need are more pictures of fluffy kittens, rainbows and ‘Frankie’. It is, of course, a marvelous idea that the present IWM management is making the hangars much less untidy and cluttered by ugly aeroplanes by turfing out all those nasty Luftwaffe airframes, instead of taking the previous regime’s approach of providing a steady increase in available covered space. Such contrary opinions, of course, fall foul of the established party line and will naturally be immediately censored.
Mike, I’m not sure where this is going.
This thread concerns the sale by a private entity of one airframe. Nothing to do with the national collection at Duxford at all.
There was a thread which was deleted by the original poster as a result of some criticism that he felt put him in a difficult position, which we as moderators were able to negotiate to return.
Now, if you want to start a discussion on the thinning out of the national collection, I don’t have an issue with it, and have certainly not censored any such discussion in the past.
Bruce
By: David Burke - 9th December 2013 at 21:23
Vampirefan – a Limited company is an entity -it is not a person. Therefore you can view the company accounts – see who the directors are and view sundry other information at your will. The company is only ‘private’ to a degree – enter into the world of business and legally you have an obligation to make certain information public. It is therefore of no relevance the details of my finances as I have no legal obligation to make them public.
By: merlin70 - 9th December 2013 at 20:28
Does no-one have a view?
Journalists and the media as a whole speculate about businesses all the time. Many businesses and individuals make money out of doing just that. I spend a lot of time with people and businesses transitioning from one state to another. It is part of a natural progression.
So am I to assume that no debate or discussion ever goes on here and that no one has the slightest interest in the collecting policies of museums or individual collections. Do threads never develop beyond the scope of the title. When aircraft change hands no one considers the reasoning or rationale.
I quite enjoy continuity planning, writing business plans, doing forecasts, reviewing comment and speculation by market leading businesses and individuals. If I’m to believe the comments of individuals on here one sale doesn’t mean anything. Well I have to agree, and having reviewed this thread I cannot see where anyone stated anything about one sale setting a trend or bringing about an end as a direct result. A hypothesis was made that at the point in time when TFC choose to reduce in scale their operations what shape and size might the collection be. I speculated that this time might me nigh.
Huge amounts of speculation and discussion take place regarding the attendees of a certain July airshow. Perhaps when someone asks will it be at L… the retort should be, “mind your own business, its got nothing to do with you”.
Some peoples interest is in the squadrons that a/c served with, others like to learn about airman and adventures, others like to see how different a/c are manufactured and what materials are used. We all have different influences for wanting to know things and what drives our learning and interests. Some people here know loads and can say nothing due to who or what they work with others know nothing and like to say lots. Whatever people motives or knowledge base, my particular interests are diverse and include how businesses function, what drives certain activity, how people and organizations respond to unplanned or unforeseen events. I also have an interest in the engineering within an aircraft, how it functions, what mods were required to improve the performance or resolve a problem. In context, what influences the purchase/sale of an airframe, what resources are available locally, what knowledge is held to faithfully replicate materials and operational practices and much, much more.
This Forum is a great place to observe peoples behaviours, the way in which people group together, respond to perceived threats and challenge things that don’t fit their model of the world.
I am pretty sure the staff of TFC have discussed their future many times. The Senior Leadership Team will have several options and timescales in mind and we have no right to know what is going on now or in the future. In truth there is no need for a Forum of this nature to exist, but it does and it will continue.
If people here have no stomach for such a discussion due to irrelevance to their interest or it being beyond their knowledge that’s fine but to join in a discussion and then state what’s it got to do with us is rather odd.
You park a car on your drive, wear a new suit to work, or sell one of your prized items from a collection, people are going to comment. Whether you hear it or not, they will comment. When you run a business, people are going to talk about you and speculate and nowhere more so than the UK.
By: Pen Pusher - 9th December 2013 at 19:59
……unless, apparently, any comments are made which disagree with the prevailing happy-clappy view that everything is wonderful at Duxford, and all we need are more pictures of fluffy kittens, rainbows and ‘Frankie’. It is, of course, a marvelous idea that the present IWM management is making the hangars much less untidy and cluttered by ugly aeroplanes by turfing out all those nasty Luftwaffe airframes, instead of taking the previous regime’s approach of providing a steady increase in available covered space. Such contrary opinions, of course, fall foul of the established party line and will naturally be immediately censored.
Once again Mike you have hjacked a post and gone off topic, this a thread about the TFC P-40 and not the way the museum is run, to vent your views about Duxford.
How about you make an appointment with Richard Ashton and tell him to his face how he is not running his museum to your standards?.
Brian
By: Vampirefan - 9th December 2013 at 19:27
One thing I do find somewhat amusing amongst all of this is the apparent confusion between “interest in” and “involvement in”. While we all, by virtue of being members of this forum may have a passing interest in what the future holds for the aeroplanes which make up this wonderful collection, I would state with a fair degree of certainty that it has sweet Fanny-Addams to do with any of us, except those of this forum who are actually involved in the day to day running of TFC.
I find David Burke’s comment above, post number 39, rather amusing. I’m sure some people on this forum have a passing interest in mortgages or financial planning. Would it be appropriate to discuss the ins-and outs of David’s mortgage or family finances on an internet forum? No, of course not. So why do people feel they have a natural right to be told the plans of a private company of which they are neither an employee or shareholder?
Just my thoughts, and I’m more than happy to get torn to pieces by the lions for holding these opinions. I for one, whatever happens, am simply grateful for what they have brought to the UK and shared with us by way of airshows. The business behind the aeroplanes is nothing to do with me and I can accept that without issue.
By: Beaufighter VI - 9th December 2013 at 19:18
Is this the only place that enthusiasts can exercise their imagination? TFC becoming extinct with one sale? I vaguely remember the self same people were debating TFC recruiting new engineers in a previous post. From where I sit there is more work than we can shake a stick at, three active restorations, four waiting in the wings and that does not include the Beau. Shiny stuff coming to Legends, what else do you want?
By: Mike J - 9th December 2013 at 18:55
No problem with discussing it…..
……unless, apparently, any comments are made which disagree with the prevailing happy-clappy view that everything is wonderful at Duxford, and all we need are more pictures of fluffy kittens, rainbows and ‘Frankie’. It is, of course, a marvelous idea that the present IWM management is making the hangars much less untidy and cluttered by ugly aeroplanes by turfing out all those nasty Luftwaffe airframes, instead of taking the previous regime’s approach of providing a steady increase in available covered space. Such contrary opinions, of course, fall foul of the established party line and will naturally be immediately censored.
By: merlin70 - 9th December 2013 at 18:34
No problem with discussing it – I am just not sure there is anything to discuss.
Bruce
Bruce. The timing of sales has something to do with it. What will you do when you retire? Its unlikely that you will buy more assets, however you might sell some to release funds or even enter into an equity release deal as many retired people do.
As for whether there is merit in holding a discussion on a discussion forum? Howabout we all report on facts only and post pictures of what we can all see so that this becomes an online magasine with no need for moderation. You can retire and…
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2013 at 17:41
I don’t recall reading or hearing anything about Stephen Grey handing over the reigns of running The Fighter Collection to Nick Grey or anyone else, I am not affiliated with the organisation at all but I thought Stephen had retired from display flying and nothing else. It is very healthy for the warbird scene that aircraft come and go and also that TFC generate income to keep aircraft in the air, restore and purchase new projects and keep people employed.
Sign In
December 6, 2013 at 10:03 pm