Man gets to keep rare WWII airplane

Pioneer Press ^ | 5-11-05 | DAVID HAWLEY

[Rakkasan1]

It's taken six years and a special act of Congress, but an aircraft mechanic from Princeton, Minn., is the undisputed owner of a rare World War II Corsair fighter plane that he salvaged 15 years ago from a North Carolina swamp.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis in Minneapolis approved a settlement that ends a lawsuit filed a year ago by the U.S. Justice Department against Lex Cralley. The lawsuit was the climax of an escalating battle of wills that had been going on since 1999 between the 50-year-old Northwest Airlines mechanic and the U.S. Navy.

"I've been under a cloud so long, it almost seems like a dream that it's over," Cralley said Tuesday.

In celebration, Cralley said he plans to exhibit the still-skeletal and disjointed remains of the Corsair at the annual Experimental Aircraft Association show next August in Oshkosh, Wis.

"It remains a piece of naval aviation history to be shared," said Cralley, whose dream is to restore the plane to flying condition — something that will take many years and millions of dollars, according to aviation history experts. It's estimated that fewer than 25 Corsairs still are flying.

In 1990, Cralley salvaged the remains of the fighter plane that had been buried in the muck of a North Carolina swamp for 46 years after it crashed there during a training flight in 1944. Shortly after the crash, a Navy report noted the death of the pilot, Marine Lt. Robin C. Pennington, and described the plane as "demolished."

Cralley transported the pieces of the shattered plane to a workshop behind his home in rural Princeton, registered it as a "non-airworthy model" with the Federal Aviation Administration and began the painstaking work of restoration.

Nearly a decade later, however, the Navy came calling.

[jscd3]

Exactly my point

[Non-Sequitur]

Shortly after the crash, a Navy report noted the death of the pilot, Marine Lt. Robin C. Pennington, and described the plane as "demolished."

Maybe the fact that the pilot died in the crash had something to do with it?

[yarddog]

It is this simple, the Government hates the individual and loves the collective. That is basically a characteristic of government and is the reason why so many of the early Americans feared a strong central government.

[Little Ray]

Didn't think of that. Imagine if somebody wanted to salvage the Lexington or Yorktown. The German Prinz Eugen survived an atomic test to capsize on a reef and it might still be accessable.

[Skooz]

Well, almost.

American pilots who had transferred from the ETO had to learn how to fight basically from scratch because they were used to duking it out one-on-one against ME-109s and FW-190s. Dogfighting was the name of the game and American and Brit pilots did it well against the Germans.

To do so against Zeros was suicide. Japanese planes were far too maneuverable. To dogfight was to play into the strengths of the enemy. In Europe, it was almost the only way to kill an opposing fighter.

In terms of durability, there is no comparison. Zeros paid for their incredible maneuverability and speed by being fragile, compared to US planes.

And the tactics which gave the F4F a positive kill ratio did not make the F4F a better plane than the Zero. It just hid the chronic weaknesses of the F4F, which was obsolete at the beginning of the war.

[Skooz]

Oops. There is something wrong with that link. :0)

Here is the best fighter-bomber of the war (glad to help):

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47.htm

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

What a thrill it must be to fly one of those.

You can say that again. But from what I've heard, they area royal beeyatch to land...being a tail dragger with that huge front end sticking out makes it very hard to impossible to see the tarmac.

[Ecthelion]

P-38 could carry twice as much of a bombload . . . 8P

[Little Ray]

Sorry, there was really nothing wrong with Allied training at the time. Allied pilots were overconfident, flying inferior aircraft, and/or using the wrong tactics. First we developed the tactics to deal with the Zero - guys in Wildcats and P-40s developed these tactics but paid a heavy price in the process. When they got Hellcats and P-38s, it became a route.

Nor Zero was not overrated. The Zero was a superb aircraft within its limitations. It was faster, could out-climb, and outmaneuver any fighter in the world at the time it was introduced.
The trade for this was a relatively flimsy airframe, unprotected fuel tanks, and a lousy armament (the 20mm's were low velocity and slow firing - not very good in a dogfight...). It also had a poor rate of roll at higher speeds.
The issue really came down to the engine - the Zero did what it did on about 900 HP (and some say it was a copy of the P&W twin Wasp!). The Japanese could never produce in large quantities a really powerful and reliable engine. Without that, they never had a chance of producing a fighter to rival or beat allied fighters. The prototype Japanese A6M Reisen (Zero) went to the airfield in an ox cart - in the US we would call this a "clue."

[Charles Martel]

"...from what I've heard, they area royal beeyatch to land...being a tail dragger with that huge front end sticking out makes it very hard to impossible to see the tarmac."

Yes, particularly when that tarmac is attached to a rolling, pitching carrier deck! The Corsair was slow to be implemented as a carried-based aircraft because of that problem.

Also, had the war dragged on a bit longer, the F2G-2 "Super Corsair" would've gone beyond limited production. That variant was designed with fleet defense in mind - it was a fast-climbing answer to the Kamikaze threat. With ten additional cylinders of Pratt & Whitney power up front (and an even *longer* snoot) and a Mustang-like bubble canopy, the Super Corsair would've been an impressive warplane.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

3000 horsepower! Hooowah!

[reagandemo]

Sure am glad we have people like your Dad protecting us! I understand that that plane was a hand full to control and an unexperienced pilot could get behind the eight ball fast flying one. Great plane with a great history.

[Centurion2000]

If somebody lays claim to a US Navy ship sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the Navy will immediately assert their legitimate claim.

If they raise it and float it, why the hell should the Navy care ?

[tarawa]

The Japanese also didn't believe in armor for their aircraft, or self-sealing gas tanks. This made the plane a lot lighter, faster, and more manuverable that it would have been had it been designed and built by most other countries. The downside of this is that 6 .50 machine guns on a U.S. fighter had the effect of a buzzsaw on these guys.

[SJSAMPLE]

IIRC, the US Navy considers all of its wrecks as monuments, wherever they lie. I'm sure there are other reasons (gravesites, unexploded ordnance, et al).

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I wonder how Clive Cussler handles this problem.

[sasportas]

The P-47 was also a truly great fighter-bomber. As to which is best, the Air Force and Army would probably vote for the P-47, Navy and Marines, the F4U.

In the fighter capacity, the F4U was probably better being more maneuverable; in the bomber capacity, the P-47 could probably haul more ordnance. It was one more huge ordnance platform.

[tet68]

The Zero got most of it's ability from sacrificing
pilot protection, they also didn't use self sealing fuel
tanks till late.