"FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

[split-s]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

And, in the best of all possible worlds, I'd throw in with you.

(In the next life, I want to scratch-build an XB-35.)

$

[dvddude]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

Interesting to consider: Even were it possible to get a B-36 flying, the government probably would disallow it, the Peacemaker being capable of intercontinental delivery of ordnance. I know that's been an issue hovering over resto efforts in the past.

"Fifi" is probably the largest warbird the US would ever certify for civilian use.

$

I don't think that is true at all. If the FAA will certify Mig-29's and Su-27's - which are currently on the U.S. register, they will certainly allow an obsolete B-36. The fact that it is capable of delivering ordnance really means nothing. Nuclear bombs these days are so small they can fit in a briefcase. Anybody who really, really wanted to, could convert nearly any large aircraft to be capable of "intercontinental delivery of ordnance".

The only thing stopping a B-36 from flying in civilian hands is purely money, nothing else. It would cost a staggering amount to get one in the air, probably in excess of 10's of millions.

So which restoration effort of the past has been stopped because of it's ability to deliver intercontinental ordnance?

[split-s]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

Actually, the "suitcase nuke" is a myth. The smallest tactical TN weapon is a squad-level device.

And I don't recall my source re: the ramifications of civilian operation of a B-36 and your disputation doesn't interest me sufficient to retrace the legwork; just that I was sufficiently persuaded by the source.

The comparison I was drawing was one of relative size. And the B-36 is, after all, a mite bigger than any MiG or Sukhoi.

$

[dvddude]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

Actually, the "suitcase nuke" is a myth. The smallest tactical TN weapon is a squad-level device.

The smallest, unclassified U.S. nuclear bomb was made back in the 60's. Here is a picture of it:

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/davyc.aspx

Okay, so maybe suitcase was a little stretch, but at 51 pounds, it will definitely fit in a small box. Regardless, that doesn't change my argument any.

And I don't recall my source re: the ramifications of civilian operation of a B-36 and your disputation doesn't interest me sufficient to retrace the legwork; just that I was sufficiently persuaded by the source.

How convenient. If you are going to make an assertion, you have to back it up. You can't even state what kind of aircraft was involved that the FAA wouldn't certify because of it's bombing capability?

The comparison I was drawing was one of relative size. And the B-36 is, after all, a mite bigger than any MiG or Sukhoi.

Size doesn't matter and has nothing to do with the topic. If that were the case, 747's, DC-4,6,7,8's and Constellation's, 707's, etc. would all not be allowed to fly by the FAA. Any one of those aircraft could do the same thing that a B-36 could do given enough money for the modifications.

Besides that, a Mig-29 or Su-27 is a much more capable platform to carry nuclear weapons than a B-36 will ever be. Your argument doesn't hold merit.

BTW, the B-36 that is currently at Pima came very close to flying again back in the early 70's. All 6 of the recip engines were started and run. The thing that killed it was not the FAA, but the Air Force who refused to give title to the organization. Time just ran out on them.

[Skyracer]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

The only thing stopping a B-36 from flying in civilian hands is purely money, nothing else. It would cost a staggering amount to get one in the air, probably in excess of 10's of millions.

To reinforce the $$$; $8400 of the "10's of millions" would go just for sparkplugs (2 per cylinder X 28 cylinders = 56 sprkplugs per engine X 6 engines = 336 sparkplugs X $25 apiece = $8400. Would take an hour or so to change them too.

[split-s]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

DVDdud:

"'Fifi' is probably the largest warbird the US would ever certify for civilian use."

Obviously, size was the topic, not delivery of nuclear weapons, because I defined the topic of my own post. See how that works?

I don't have to back up Jack, bunky. You don't think there are any diplomacy/security issues regarding private ownership of intercontinental-range military aircraft capable of mounting tons of conventional explosives? Ask the State Department about that.

$

[dvddude]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

DVDdud:

"'Fifi' is probably the largest warbird the US would ever certify for civilian use."

Obviously, size was the topic, not delivery of nuclear weapons, because I defined the topic of my own post. See how that works?

I don't have to back up Jack, bunky. You don't think there are any diplomacy/security issues regarding private ownership of intercontinental-range military aircraft capable of mounting tons of conventional explosives? Ask the State Department about that.

$

First off, what's with the condescending attitude? There's no reason for that here. I haven't called you names or attacked you personally, like you are doing to me. Usually people resort to that tactic when they are frustrated and they know they are losing the argument. I guess I struck a nerve with you. If you can't argue your point backed up with evidence instead of a nasty attitude, then I won't debate you.


Your original post:

Interesting to consider: Even were it possible to get a B-36 flying, the government probably would disallow it, the Peacemaker being capable of intercontinental delivery of ordnance. I know that's been an issue hovering over resto efforts in the past.

"Fifi" is probably the largest warbird the US would ever certify for civilian use.

$

Obviously, size was the topic, not delivery of nuclear weapons, because I defined the topic of my own post. See how that works?

Size was NOT the issue according to your statement. You said the fact that the B-36 was "capable of intercontinental delivery of ordnance" was THE issue and that it had hampered restoration efforts of the past. "Intercontinental" means range, not size. A cruise missile has great range but can be launched from a small airplane. "Intercontinental" does not necessarily equate to size. A fighter can fly around the world with air-refueling, despite it's size. An ICBM is "intercontinental" but is small. The civilian built "Space X" that launched out of Cape Canaveral last month is "intercontinental" but is small and has the blessing of both NASA and the FAA. See where I'm going? Your first introduction of the concept of size is this sentence: "Fifi" is probably the largest warbird the US would ever certify for civilian use. No where do you mention that the SIZE was the issue, just the "intercontinental delivery" means was. Other aircraft and weapons platforms can accomplish "intercontinental delivery" despite their small size. Size and "intercontinental delivery" are mutually exclusive.

See how that works?

I don't have to back up Jack, bunky. You don't think there are any diplomacy/security issues regarding private ownership of intercontinental-range military aircraft capable of mounting tons of conventional explosives? Ask the State Department about that.

Again, nice attitude! I didn't say there weren't any issues, I'm just saying that the FAA would allow a B-36 to be certified, provided their security concerns were addressed. Those might be taking the bomb racks out, making it unpressurized, taking some fuel tanks out or whatever. The FAA is more than willing to let civilians own current, high performance, intercontinental nuclear weapons delivery capable airframes, PROVIDED some security issues are addressed. That is born out through past actions of the FAA.

Again, everything you have offered is OPINION, nothing else. That is fine, and I don't have a problem with it. But you also offered up as FACT: " I know that's been an issue hovering over resto efforts in the past." You said that and have offered ZERO evidence supporting that declaration, despite me asking several times. If you refuse to give me just 1 single example of this, then I have to assume you made that up since you can't back it up.

[Lockheed Bob]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

Gentlemen gentlemen please. The real thread is about "Fifi" flying again & that alone should suffice. That would be nice if it could make Reno this year.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

Ahem... thanks Lockheed....

(going back to my SOAPS.... )

[split-s]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

[content redacted by author]

God bless Fifi.

[mgbf4u]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

It's just a memory now. The "Peacemaker" sat outside of Carswell AFB and then, General Dynamics near White Settlement, Texas. Along with a B58 Hustler and others.

[Race5]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

FIFI is finally back in the air. She took off about an hour ago with a fighter escort. Looked and sounded GREAT. I'll try to get some pics when she comes back.

[flyingsailor]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

FIFI is finally back in the air. She took off about an hour ago with a fighter escort. Looked and sounded GREAT. I'll try to get some pics when she comes back.

"FIFI" flew today for 39 minutes. I have heard from both Ops and MX and with the exception of one very minor squak both are VERY HAPPY men. MX is pulling screens etc., if they don't find anything unusual plan is to fly later today and for the next several days to fly off FAA required time and get crews current.

A very good day for warbirds!

Chris
CAF B-29/B-24 Sqd. PIO

[ebutner]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

I've got goose bumps... This is awesome! You think Gary is smilling from heaven?

[flyingsailor]

Re: "FIFI" to fly once again on Tuesday

I've got goose bumps... This is awesome! You think Gary is smilling from heaven?

I don't think, I KNOW he his. Gary has never been far from our minds. This stands as a testament to the work of Gary and all the others.

Chris
CAF B-29/B-24 Sqd PIO