They were built in the thousands and it was a very important cold war type, but (as far as i know, anyway!!) none are still flying- why is this??

Well at one time their was two airworthy Swept Wing 84Gs in the United States but both now are sitting.

As for why well various reason,

1. Most of the F-84 were scrap out right after the service was over

2. 40% of them were lent to NATO Countrys under the Military Assisatnce Act and part of the act state when done either return to the States or scrap.

3. Not very sexxy Warbird compare to the other types from the same time period (F-86).

4. The early engines are very hard to find parts for if you look at the T-33/F-86 that are flying all of these are re-engined types.

Now there are quite a few in museum most of them are swept wings but there are a few straight wings out their plus sitting at NAS China Lake Cold Range are another 10 4 Straight Wings and 6 Swept Wings.

Oh and Chris the USAF didn’t use F-84 for Drones your thinking of F-86

Richard,

Thanks for clearing some stuff up. As for question 3 on my post. Here in the States if you wish to receive something from the USAF you have to have X amount of Payed Staff folks, I believe the number is now 4 with one being the Director and another Head of Maintance. Does the RCAF or any of the Canadian Branch’s of the Military have the same type of laws.

The only reason I ask this is that you had made a comment about how many payed staff folks there are thats all.

Now if the City owns the aircraft and the museum is only a care taker then I really don’t see where you( Museum Staff) can make any comments on what the City wants to do with the items, I see this everyday with local governments. Don’t forget while we all might fight over how and why the Mossie was put up for sale its really comes down to his the City Leaders will decide what they will do with City Owned Items.

Tell you what – we’ll trade the Mossie for the Avro flying saucer that the US won’t give back, (of which you have both)! 🙂

No Problem but hows you keep the Mossie and we will send you the Flying Saucers and you can send us the B-24(s):D

Now Richard,

As for Yeagans Mossie this is the point because you had a RCAF Mossie that both Historical Canada and CAPA just let leave, as I’ve been pointing out all along you can’ have a Law on the Books and pick and choice when you wish to apply it it has to be all the time or never.

You do see my point on this now don’t you.

As for spending time discussing items sure but I’m a Yank and live on the East Coast and have spent many a day up North enjoying those Cultural Hotspots :diablo: and Decent Cold Beer:eek:

The point I’m trying to show folks is for good or bad on how this process has been going on the duty to all museum no matter what type they are is to preserve and to teach the next generation about each or our Country(s) Past if this means that something in the collection has to be sold off or trade to expand and help the museum then so be it. And that is the real problem in this case is that some folks don’t see past the whole idea of the Mossie leaving and what actual good would come out of this deal.

As for Historical Canada laws well as mark suggest I think I will start another thread on this subject.

Does anyone happen to know where they are made?- or do restoration companie’s just mold them when required?- never seen an ad for a company that makes them!

Hi Oxcart,

Well it depends on what type your asking about. I know back when the B-17 CoOp started one of the first things they did was take one of the better Top Turrets and ball Turret’s and make molds for a mass production.

I know that the 51 guys there are two folks who/were making D model Glass and the extended for the TP versions.

I know when we still owned our old B-25 I contacted Aero Trader for all the Glass we need I’m not sure if they have a huge stock of NOS or if they are producing their own.

This seems to have turned rather nasty, with some of us making this a personal issue (or so it seems) what happens with this particular mossie, is down to what the canadian law stipulates, and what the museum decide to do. I dont deny that i would love to see it here and possibly restored to airworthy condition. My opinion however makes no difference. with regards to some of the comments about the restoration of the hurricane, For example the likelyhood of the airframe being raped of all the airworthy parts, and having essentially rubbish being put in its place, (I dont know about you guys but to me, it’s theft) I really dont think that any accomplished aircraft restoration team would do this, and really paints all of them with a very bad brush. in all honesty its fair to say that some of the comments that have been made seem to be slanderous, then again thats me. perhaps this thread should be locked? I dont know but lets not all jump to conclusions and hope that whatever happens is best in the long run for the aircraft itself, eh?

Nashi0

Nashio ,

Yes for me it is a personal thing sometime ago I was ask if it would be possable to recover a certain Lincoln providing that it went to a Canadian Museum I said sure but if I get to do this then I want to be able to recover X amount of aircraft that I know of and was told one thing by the folks at Historical Canada and then they went and change their minds about allowing me and my group to recover X amount of aircraft actually it was three aircraft.

Meanwhile said Lincoln is still sitting up North in the shallow’s of the lake it is in. As I have been trying to point out you can’t pick and choice how and when your going to apply Historical Laws its all or nothing. To us the US Navy point they claim complete ownership World Wide end of subject try to recover one and end up in court they make no exception ask anyone who has dealt with these “People” how the go after you.

[QUOTE=David Burke;1209387]Scorpion – The nose section of the B-24 ‘ Fighting Sam’ is on display at the Virginia Air and Space Museum . The Doug Arnold B-24 was at Blackbushe before leaving for the U.S . Therefore the collective ‘we’ had her for a while and with the benefit of hindsight maybe Duxford should have bought her .

Hmm then I wonder if Duxford got the second nose section also. As for Collins aircraft yea Duxford should have got her but she was a RAF Bird so it would fall into that side of the collection.

However the U.S gained a machine with the potential courtesy of Tom Reilly to fly again and we ended up with a static. The U.S had the distinct advantage of having the B-24 on home soil – I am amazed that a museum with the trade stock of the Smithsonian didn’t do a deal – did they really want her? What I find interesting in all this is that the U.S has gained B-24’s from around the world – was the loss of one so painful?

Yes the Smithsonian doesn’t have a B-24 in its collection I don’t recall the whole deal but the USAF was going to trade the 24 to the Smithsonian David was going to build the Fiberglass for Lackland and part of the deal was David was going to give up one of his nose for the C-47 and something coming from the Smithsonian. Now why the deal fell apart I’m not sure but I do know that the 24 Assocation was pushing it very hard and that when it end up going to Duford the main leadership of the 24 Assocation came out publicly against the move. I even think there was some talk to try to block the move.

As for the rest of the 24 in the States well the Lackland,Barksdale,Castle, USAFM, Alaska Avaition Heritage Museum are all ex USAF/USN aircraft the only one that came from India are the Collins,Kermits and PIMA, the CAF came out of Mexico but it was originally from the States also. Yes the lose was painful because it was the last B-24 in USAF service and should have gone to the Smithsonain