bobatl Posted June 14, 2014 Share #1 Posted June 14, 2014 This North American T-6 was recently returned to the US Government by the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatl Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share #2 Posted June 14, 2014 This is what the Defense Logistics Agency did to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatl Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share #3 Posted June 14, 2014 It sounds like they're actually proud of destroying a WWII aircraft that had survived for seventy years. Next the DLA will be going to the Smithsonian to demilitarize George Washington's sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDK Posted June 14, 2014 Share #4 Posted June 14, 2014 That's crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin_Militaria Posted June 14, 2014 Share #5 Posted June 14, 2014 The scrap pieces are currently for sale. This one was stored outside for 40 years, not worth restoration. You can currently buy a flying T-6 for around $160K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38Driver Posted June 14, 2014 Share #6 Posted June 14, 2014 There is a practical reality to this vs our romanticized wish to preserve every piece left that might remotely be connected to WW2. You realize the number of surviving T6/SNJ//Harvard aircraft out there is pretty large? If you want a project, they are there. Consider all the actual combat birds that were scrapped after the war, were left to rot on some remote Pacific island or we're pushed over the side as part of lend lease agreements. Consider that not one of the surviving Pearl Harbor battleships were saved as museum ships. I'd much prefer having the West Virginia tied up in battleship row instead of the Missouri. How bout Saratoga or Enterprise not being saved? How many old airfields are out there rotting away in the US where all those aircrew were trained? Let's think smaller. How many combat vet tanks have been preserved? Not many. In the end it's not up to the government to save every last bit. Without a doubt there are plenty of preserved T6s including those in museums along with all the fliers. Do I wish we'd saved everything? Absolutely. It would have been amazing to crawl through all those combat vet 17s and 24s at Kingman and elsewhere and imagine what the crews had experienced. But it wasn't practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 14, 2014 Share #7 Posted June 14, 2014 I can't really agree with 38Driver...yes, when all that stuff was scrapped, there was an utter plethora of surplus. $1000 could buy someone a scrap P-51...the govt just wanted to dispose of all the war material sooner than later. What was left over was often used as scrap during the remaining decades. Take, for example, WW2 helmets...how many of played "Army" in WW2 pots, giving them away to friends or leaving them outside to rust away and finally get tossed by mom or dad. Nowadays, people pay stupid amounts of money for stuff that was considered "worthless" even up to a decade ago. How many stories have we read of people rescuing target tanks off ranges and investing huge sums of money into restoring them? Likewise, all the money invested in dragging up vintage aircraft from the bottom of the sea floor to restore them? In my opinion, this is just a case of some cubicle-bound govt employee who made a decision without any consideration to the historical value of the item. They could have easy sold this at a govt auction (even with it being located in Japan) and someone would have restored it, even if using it for a static display. Your taxpayer dollars at work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted June 14, 2014 Share #8 Posted June 14, 2014 60 years ago they probably would have disposed of it by dumping it in the ocean; 70 years ago by shooting it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hink441 Posted June 14, 2014 Share #9 Posted June 14, 2014 That is just a crying shame. There is no practical need for destroying that aircraft. Auction it off. I hope someone gets fired, but I seriously doubt that will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38Driver Posted June 14, 2014 Share #10 Posted June 14, 2014 I can't really agree with 38Driver...yes, when all that stuff was scrapped, there was an utter plethora of surplus. $1000 could buy someone a scrap P-51...the govt just wanted to dispose of all the war material sooner than later. What was left over was often used as scrap during the remaining decades. Take, for example, WW2 helmets...how many of played "Army" in WW2 pots, giving them away to friends or leaving them outside to rust away and finally get tossed by mom or dad. Nowadays, people pay stupid amounts of money for stuff that was considered "worthless" even up to a decade ago. How many stories have we read of people rescuing target tanks off ranges and investing huge sums of money into restoring them? Likewise, all the money invested in dragging up vintage aircraft from the bottom of the sea floor to restore them? In my opinion, this is just a case of some cubicle-bound govt employee who made a decision without any consideration to the historical value of the item. They could have easy sold this at a govt auction (even with it being located in Japan) and someone would have restored it, even if using it for a static display. Your taxpayer dollars at work... If it was a P-51 I'd agree,but there are T-6s rusting away all over the world including the US. No one is dragging T-6s from the depths or from crash sites. The other piece of this could be much the same as with the lend lease stuff that got dumped over the side instead of returning to the states. There may have been conditions on the original sale to Japan Any idea on costs to ship the T-6 home? Probably not a lot less then buying a project T-6 here. Listed here are over 1200 surviving T-6 variants http://www.warbirdregistry.org/texanregistry/texanregistry.html To use the helmet analogy. We are not talking about Normandy surviving D-loops. We are talking rear seam swivel loop postwar helmets. Big difference It's all about keeping it in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatl Posted June 16, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted June 16, 2014 I can't really agree with 38Driver...yes, when all that stuff was scrapped, there was an utter plethora of surplus. $1000 could buy someone a scrap P-51...the govt just wanted to dispose of all the war material sooner than later. What was left over was often used as scrap during the remaining decades. Take, for example, WW2 helmets...how many of played "Army" in WW2 pots, giving them away to friends or leaving them outside to rust away and finally get tossed by mom or dad. Nowadays, people pay stupid amounts of money for stuff that was considered "worthless" even up to a decade ago. How many stories have we read of people rescuing target tanks off ranges and investing huge sums of money into restoring them? Likewise, all the money invested in dragging up vintage aircraft from the bottom of the sea floor to restore them? In my opinion, this is just a case of some cubicle-bound govt employee who made a decision without any consideration to the historical value of the item. They could have easy sold this at a govt auction (even with it being located in Japan) and someone would have restored it, even if using it for a static display. Your taxpayer dollars at work... There are plenty of base museums that would like to have a display aircraft. Finding space on a homebound C-17 or C-5 is not a problem if time is not critical. If someone local couldn't handle removing the wings(JASDF might have been willing to help if told it was going to a museum), the AF has aircraft recovery teams that sometimes assist in moving museum aircraft as an exercise. After the generations who remember their parents or grandparents talking about WWII have passed on, it may not matter if any WWII aircraft are preserved beyond one example of each significant type but this T-6 could have been easily preserved and served a useful purpose on display for the next seventy years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Signor Posted June 19, 2014 Share #12 Posted June 19, 2014 It being a type that there are plenty of left all over as stated , it really isn't that terrible of a loss, a shame , yes, but it would only have really been a loss of epic if it had been a "one Off" , then I could really see the need for heads to roll............................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted June 19, 2014 Share #13 Posted June 19, 2014 That's a crying shame! Surely your government would be aware that there's a thriving market for vintage aircraft and that some private collector or other organization would have been prepared to pay a handsome figure for that Texan, thereby recouping some tax dollars via disposing of government assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandomatic Posted June 19, 2014 Share #14 Posted June 19, 2014 When they're blowing through trillions, scrapping that sucker probably makes perfect sense to somebody, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted June 19, 2014 Share #15 Posted June 19, 2014 That's a crying shame! Surely your government would be aware that there's a thriving market for vintage aircraft and that some private collector or other organization would have been prepared to pay a handsome figure for that Texan, thereby recouping some tax dollars via disposing of government assets? I'm not sure what a static T-6 is going for now, but at one time they weren't worth the cost of shipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hink441 Posted June 19, 2014 Share #16 Posted June 19, 2014 Auction it off and see what they go for. Unfortunately that did not happen in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38Driver Posted June 19, 2014 Share #17 Posted June 19, 2014 I'm not sure what a static T-6 is going for now, but at one time they weren't worth the cost of shipping. That's part of the point I was trying to make. 40 years outside doesn't bode well for the airframe and they just aren't in demand. If folks want to spend money to preserve airframes there are all kinds of display birds sitting outside in the states that could use the help including WW2 front line planes including Mustangs and B-17s. Think of all the Korean or Vietnam era birds sitting outside rotting. That list includes Mig killer F-4s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 19, 2014 Share #18 Posted June 19, 2014 I'm not sure what a static T-6 is going for now, but at one time they weren't worth the cost of shipping. Looks like about $150K if they're operational...haven't found a static one yet. But, this is a really cool website...I'm trying to find my keyboard under the drool... http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?catid=10004&Manu=NORTH+AMERICAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SergeantMajorGray Posted June 20, 2014 Share #19 Posted June 20, 2014 There is NO excuse for doing this. Just because it's not a desirable aircraft is definitely not a good excuse they are many small museums and collectors that would have taken it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SergeantMajorGray Posted June 20, 2014 Share #20 Posted June 20, 2014 Why couldn't they dismantle it? Seriously did a 5 year old come up with the scrapping plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skir Posted June 21, 2014 Share #21 Posted June 21, 2014 Those of You wanting heads to roll, thinking the Government is in the business of helping Vintage aircraft collectors, or assume that C17s ,130s,5s or whatever are flying around empty are sadly mistaken. There is a global War going on and the priority is not an shipping a old plane, which is not worth much more than scrap, half way around the world. Ask anyone at a FOB if they are getting all they need. You cant, cause Your not there. Nuff said, rant off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hink441 Posted June 21, 2014 Share #22 Posted June 21, 2014 Those of You wanting heads to roll, thinking the Government is in the business of helping Vintage aircraft collectors, or assume that C17s ,130s,5s or whatever are flying around empty are sadly mistaken. There is a global War going on and the priority is not an shipping a old plane, which is not worth much more than scrap, half way around the world. Ask anyone at a FOB if they are getting all they need. You cant, cause Your not there. Nuff said, rant off. I dont think the GWOT has anything to do with what we are talking about. It would not of cost the GOVT much to do a local auction. See what value the public places on the aircraft. Maybe a scrapper would have won the auction, maybe a collector with deep pockets would have won. We will never know because some GOVT bureaucrat made a bad decision. Don't fault me because I am not in a "FOB", I did my time and I don't much care for your "rant". Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 21, 2014 Share #23 Posted June 21, 2014 It may have changed since I was working with the DRMO last, but their policy was, if something was located anywhere at any base/disposal area in the world and another government entity wanted it, they would foot the bill for transport to the new location. This is why we'd order crates of surplus tools from places like Korea and Germany to end up in Norfolk. I was told there was "no limit" on what they'd ship...but we could just never rationalize acquiring armored vehicles for ship's use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B229 Posted June 21, 2014 Share #24 Posted June 21, 2014 I hope someone gets fired, but I seriously doubt that will happen. Get's fired? For what, doing their job? Like it or not, the DLA isn't in the business of preserving old, unflyable aircraft. Clearly someone made a descision that it was not worth the cost and effort to attempt to resell an old airframe and did what they do all the time: disposed of excess property. There may also be regulatory requirements regarding airframes like this. They may not have had a choice. So, please let's put away the pitchforks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 21, 2014 Share #25 Posted June 21, 2014 Get's fired? For what, doing their job? Like it or not, the DLA isn't in the business of preserving old, unflyable aircraft. Clearly someone made a descision that it was not worth the cost and effort to attempt to resell an old airframe and did what they do all the time: disposed of excess property. There may also be regulatory requirements regarding airframes like this. They may not have had a choice. So, please let's put away the pitchforks. You know, given that it was flown, maintained, and displayed overseas, I wonder if asbestos or lead paint was an issue...just thinking out loud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts