Tighar’s Mission Statement, as posted here:
https://tighar.org/about.htmTIGHAR (pronounced “tiger”) is the acronym for The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, a non-profit foundation dedicated to promoting responsible aviation archaeology and historic preservation. TIGHAR’s activities include:
1.) Compiling and verifying reports of rare and historic aircraft surviving in remote areas.
2.) Conducting investigations and recovery expeditions in co-operation with museums and collections worldwide
3.) Serving as a voice for integrity, responsibility, and professionalism in the field of aviation historic preservation
TIGHAR maintains no collection of its own, nor does it engage in the restoration or buying and selling of artifacts. The foundation devotes its resources to the saving of endangered historic aircraft wherever they may be found, and to the education of the international public in the need to preserve the relics of the history of flight.
I’ll leave it up to you and your Board of Directors to ultimately decide either way, but in my personal opinion the contributors in this forum failed miserably in living up to the above mission. Unfortunately and as a result, misinformation about Lockheed 10-E c/n 1042 has been perpetrated by those that maintain this website, to the detriment of the general aviation public.
1.) Forum entry: In response to Greg Daspit’s post entry “a chance to look at a genuine 10E components in person is good news" Ric Gillespie (Executive Director/Administrator) replied “Yes and no, Grace McGuire has been rebuilding this beast since she bought it in the 1970’s after it had nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire.” Mr. Gillespie’s statement “it had nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire” is grossly, and I mean grossly incorrect. Mr. Gillespie made this statement as absolute fact, not even as a supposition, and that is truly unfortunate. None of the other “experts” that frequent this forum seem to step up to even challenge Mr. Gillespie’s misstatement.
2.) Mr. Gillespie also stated that he has “been catching grief from an emailer (who won't give his name) who claims that I have misrepresented the history of Lockheed 10E c/n 1042 - the only surviving Electra that was built as a 10E. I've always understood that the airplane was purchased from the defunct Wings and Wheels Museum in Florida by Grace McGuire after it was damaged in a hangar fire. My accuser says that's not right but doesn't seem to be able to provide documentation.” First of all, Mr. Gillespie never asked the name of the “emailer”. Also, in this statement, Mr. Gillespie stated that he “always understood” that the 10-E was damaged in a hangar fire. What exactly does “always understood” mean, when Mr. Gillespie has already stated that the “hangar fire” story as absolute fact? And by the way, is it common practice to ask for documentation to disprove a (mis)statement, when there was no documentation provided for that (mis)statement in the first place?
3.) Mr. Gillespie also posted that he found Grace McGuire “difficult to work with.” Could it be that she rebuffed his efforts because he was of the incorrect mindset that the 10-E “had nearly burned up in a Florida hangar fire”? If I had been on the other side of a conversation of that nature, I would have probably tried to run someone like that out of town.
4.) I am not disputing Mr. Andrew M McKenna’s statement that his 10-E information was “gleaned from the FAA registration records”, but I do dispute the implication of some of it’s information. His post includes the line “10/1/77 - N355B Sold to Vikings of Denmark, Inc., Denmark SC”. I know for a fact that Bobby Frierson (owner of “Vikings of Denmark”, a skydiving operation based out of Barnwell SC) already had possession of the 10-E as of April 16, 1977, because my friends and I made several skydives out of the 10-E on both the 16th and 17th, over Rocky Point, NC, during Wilmington’s (NC) Azalea Festival weekend.
5.) Mr. McKenna states that “The last airworthiness record the FAA has was a major repair and alteration form 337 dated 4/14/1969 for an engine overhaul, so it would appear that nothing that has been done to the aircraft since has been reported to the FAA. The last application for an airworthiness certificate in the FAA records was submitted by Provincetown- Boston on 7/3/56. Makes you wonder a bit about the records the FAA has, but my guess is that it is not in airworthy condition, and hasn't been for a while.” Although I am not disputing what the FAA has in its current records, I find it hard to believe that it had not been deemed airworthy since 4/14/1969 (or was it 7/3/56?). Mr. McKenna also states “makes you wonder a bit about the records the FAA has, but my guess is that it is not in airworthy condition, and hasn't been for a while.” Mr. Gillespie agreed. I can’t personally verify what date the 10-E was last used for skydiving, but my last skydive out of the 10-E was on February 17, 1979.
6.) Although I did not witness this personally, I have been told on more than one occasion that Bobby Frierson personally flew the Lockheed 10-E from Barnwell down to the Orlando area (a very difficult task indeed, if it had been "severely damaged in a hangar fire"). I received this information from someone who I trust, and would have had first-hand knowledge of the information. Also, even though I never saw the 10-E while it was down in the Orlando area and under the ownership of Dolph Overton, a good friend of mine (former skydiver and FAA air traffic controller) told me that he personally saw the 10-E when it was briefly on display on the interior of the museum. According to him, the aircraft was completely intact.
To summarize, I believe that the history of Lockheed 10-E c/n 1042 has been significantly misrepresented on this forum, and by at least one individual that is listed on the TIGHAR Board of Directors; that is a sad fact indeed. Also, it is of my personal opinion that Ms. Grace McGuire basically has gotten a raw deal in some of the posts in this forum, and that is also truly unfortunate. Does anyone feel that she deserves at least some sort of apology? Because of the blatant misinformation that appeared in this forum as it related to the Lockheed 10-E, could you really blame anyone if they questioned other “facts” as they appear in this forum and on this website? Personally, I think not.
(edited to only remove double signature)