Visiting the Davis Monthan Aircraft Boneyard..many pics

[Eric Mc]

Interesting to see the short fuselage DC-8 in US Navy markings.

[RDMcG]

Eric Mc said:

Interesting to see the short fuselage DC-8 in US Navy markings.

I was told that they were former airliners ..they also had an early 727 I think in United markings. not sure of the purpose.

[Eric Mc]

RDMcG said:

Eric Mc said:

Interesting to see the short fuselage DC-8 in US Navy markings.

I was told that they were former airliners ..they also had an early 727 I think in United markings. not sure of the purpose.

Yes - no DC-8s were built as military aircraft originally. A tiny number ended up in military service. I know that the French had a VIP one in the 70s. This one was used for various test projects as far as I know. NASA also have operated an ex airliner DC-8.

The 707 ,on the other hand, has had many military derivatives.

[blueedge]

Nice pics. The EF-111 you photographed on the display row was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford in the 1980s.

[HoHoHo]

Very interesting and good shots, thanks for posting.

Quick question - if they are going to break 99% of the aircraft, why bother protecting them from the elements?

[Mr_B]

Had a friend in the USAF that worked at Mildenhall untill a couple of years back. I believe the Special Ops Squadron MH-53 Pave Lows ended up there. I remeber he said they were going to the ' bone yard' , I guess thats the only place they would go , yes ?

[RDMcG]

Mr_B said:

Had a friend in the USAF that worked at Mildenhall untill a couple of years back. I believe the Special Ops Squadron MH-53 Pave Lows ended up there. I remeber he said they were going to the ' bone yard' , I guess thats the only place they would go , yes ?

yep...its apparently the only US military facility of its kind in the world.

[Mr_B]

Thnaks. Did they mention the total cost of everything that was there ? Must run many billions , no ?

[Ayahuasca]

Wow, surely they have enough to be able to give me just one? They'd never miss it! I will have an F-15 please

[Eric Mc]

HoHoHo said:

Very interesting and good shots, thanks for posting.

Quick question - if they are going to break 99% of the aircraft, why bother protecting them from the elements?

Because they will reclaim parts from them for up to a decade.

Some of the larger aircraft - such as the B-52s and the B-1s, may be required to be parked for a number of years so that they can be observed by Russian satellites as part of teh various SALT agreements.

[HoHoHo]

Eric Mc said:

Because they will reclaim parts from them for up to a decade.

Some of the larger aircraft - such as the B-52s and the B-1s, may be required to be parked for a number of years so that they can be observed by Russian satellites as part of teh various SALT agreements.

Makes sense, thanks Eric!

[knight]

Brings back memories Went there in the 90s and did the tour then went a few years later and flew over in a Cessna 172, what an awesome spectacle it is from the air

[mrloudly]

blueedge said:

Nice pics. The EF-111 you photographed on the display row was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford in the 1980s.

Wondering this when looking at pic's. Used to love seeing them and the A10's.

Was great at Upper Heyford under the approach :-) From memory they crashed one just short of the runway before they left. I believe the crew all got out OK in their "Pod"

[tight5]

anyone know what the white sealant is ?

[FourWheelDrift]

It's called Spraylat, made by the company of the same name.

[FourWheelDrift]

Those photos show what's changed since I bought my Desert Boneyard book

Published 1987, I bought it about the same time - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Desert-Boneyard-Philip-Chi...

[LotusOmega375D]

Makes an interesting comparison to the recent media hoo-hah about the scrapping of those Nimrods. It seems that we just can't wait to put the angle-grinders to use to claim a few quid back in scrap metal. It's a pathetic return really when you consider how much they cost.

[Hooli]

RDMcG said:

The sole stealth fighter in full stealth mode

Genuine for that

[carreauchompeur]

HoHoHo said:

Eric Mc said:

Because they will reclaim parts from them for up to a decade.

Some of the larger aircraft - such as the B-52s and the B-1s, may be required to be parked for a number of years so that they can be observed by Russian satellites as part of teh various SALT agreements.

Makes sense, thanks Eric!

+1. Very interesting angle- If nuclear bombers started disappearing it would raise similar alarm bells as to when Ahmedinnerjacket announces a new nuclear power station!

[RDMcG]

carreauchompeur said:

+1. Very interesting angle- If nuclear bombers started disappearing it would raise similar alarm bells as to when Ahmedinnerjacket announces a new nuclear power station!

I would assume that they have missiles and submarine based stuff these days that have superseded most of the need for Nuclear bombers. They mentioned that there are still about 30 B52s in active service. Not bad for a 50 year old plane. When they started to fly, a 50 year old plane was pre WW.1