World War 1 Aeroplanes, Inc., and Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum

[cfgray]

World War 1 Aeroplanes, Inc., has obtained the 1994 Rhinebeck Aerdrome Museum Appraisal and List of Assets, and has posted the document on the web pages noted below.

This was apparently the only "inventory" used at RAM for some years, although it does not qualify as an inventory - specific item designators, such as serial numbers, are not included.

So, while it can be seen that as of 1994 there were four "Gnome 160" rotary engines listed it is not possible to say if the MISSING GNOME Type N - B11559 was one of them, because the serial numbers of those engines and all other assets were not documented.

It is not even possible to determine whether the "Gnome 160" engines were earlier 14-cyl. Gnome Lambda Lambda ("Double Lambda") 160 h.p. engines, or 9-cyl. Gnome Type N engines, as was the one which is now missing.

In the case of "The Missing Gnome" - "The Rambling Rotary" - we know the three serial numbers only because a thinking and responsible individual at RAM took note of them, not because the Board of Trustees had an inventory list to refer to.

There is no evidence that this Board of Trustees ever, during its tenure, caused a proper inventory to be conducted at RAM. This serious and grievous lapse in Trustee fiduciary responsibility, if true, would have allowed "stolen" items to be taken from RAM without the possibility of recovery, since those items could not be distinguished from any other similar items.

If additional lists of assets or actual inventories become available they will be posted on other web sites, and the web addresses to access them will posted on this thread.

http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist01.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist02.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist03.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist04.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist05.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist06.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist07.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist08.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist09.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist10.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist11.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist12.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist13.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist14.jpg
http://www.flyingmachines.org/RAMapprlist15.jpg

[cfgray]

In a hopeful and promising gesture this morning, Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum Board of Trustees President Terry McClinch initiated a conference telephone call with me as Board Chair of World War 1 Aeroplanes, Inc.

Also participating in the conference call were Board of Trustees Member William Segalla and ORAA President and RAM Board Member James E. Kick, who joined the conversation after it began.

The conversation was very candid and several important matters of substance were discussed in some detail.

A second conference call will occur, hopefully this week, during which additional matters of substance will be discussed.

I applaud Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum Pres. McClinch for his initiative and candor and look forward to additional substantive, frank and ernest discussions.

After this initial round of discussions has concluded, it is anticipated that Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum, Inc., Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Airshows, Inc., and World War 1 Aeroplanes, Inc. will issue a joint public statement.

If and when that statement is issued it will be posted here and on the "Rhinebeck Museum trouble" thread.

Best,

Carroll Gray
Board Chair,
World War 1 Aeroplanes, Inc., publishers of WW1 AERO and SKYWAYS

[tazbat]

I never thought I would see the day the trustees would willingly contact their opposition. I hope this communicating proves fruitful and to our liking.

I don't know what sort of concessions the trustees might request, if that is where this leads, but this is a start and I am interested in seeing where this goes.

Salute!

[cfgray]

Thus far there have been two distinct attempts to mislead those attempting to locate the Missing GNOME (B11559), and two instances of refusal to assist in the investigation which is being conducted by the New York State Troopers.

The first attempt was the spreading of a consciously false rumor which purposefully mis-identified the guilty party (also, there were likely at least two people involved, not one as the rumor had it). The person spreading that rumor will be returning to Rhinebeck Aerodrome in a trusted senior position. The wisdom of that choice is certainly open to question.

The second happened very recently, the details of which cannot, for good reason, be stated here at this time.

It will be enough to say that never, to my knowledge, has an inline watercooled engine been considered a normal powerplant for a Camel.

The timing of these attempts at mis-direction is very interesting - they have popped up at significant points in the search.

The refusals to cooperate are all the more troubling because the refusals involved clearing the two people who refused to cooperate. In short, two people refused (as is their legal right) to assist in clearing themselves in the official investigation.

The window of opportunity for removing the GNOME from Rhinebeck Aerodrome has been reduced to a 61-day period, between 21 November 2005 and 21 January 2006.

On another matter, I have been waiting to hear if the RAM Board of Trustees agree with the content of the notes I compiled of our conversation on 11 March. If I do not hear from them by Wednesday 29 March, I will post them simply as my notes, rather than as a mutually agreed-upon set of notes.

There is more to be said and, in the fullness of time, more will be said.

cfgray

[tazbat]

Originally Posted by cfgray

It will be enough to say that never, to my knowledge, has an inline watercooled engine been considered a normal powerplant for a Camel.

Carroll, do you mean to say that part of the deception was an attempt to mislead the investigating authorities by describing the Gnome as an inline water cooled engine?

Wow! I wonder who was responsible for that little nasty? Would that constitute a criminal offense? Yeah, like maybe obstruction of an investigation. Will there be any arrests for this? Of course, the person who said it might not have much WW1 aviation knowledge. Theoretically, it could be any of the Museum trustees. Besides, just because you can take-off and land a small plane, it doesn't make you an aviator or an expert in history. Take the example of the pilot who crashed the Camel. I wonder if the person(s) understands the concept of rotary?


Salute!

[cfgray]

Hello, tazbat,

Originally Posted by tazbat

Carroll, do you mean to say that part of the deception was an attempt to mislead the investigating authorities by describing the Gnome as an inline water cooled engine?

Let me try to clarify my statement a bit more without revealing too much of the story at this time.

I did not mean to say that the Missing GNOME (B11559) was described by someone to the authorities as an inline water-cooled engine.

I meant to say that I believe the persons who very recently had the Missing GNOME in their possession (after it disappeared from RAM) described another engine, an inline water-cooled engine, in response to an inquiry about the Missing GNOME. I also believe that they offered the description of the inline water-cooled engine with the intention of misleading.

I believe the Missing GNOME as well as the inline water-cooled engine were in their possession, after the Missing GNOME disappeared, but are not now.

Let me pose a question to our knowledgable aerodrome forumites - what WW1-Era inline water-cooled 160 hp engine (having no connection to a famous aviator or famous aeroplane) would today reasonably cost $125,000?

My own answer to that question would be "None." Anyone else care to address this point?

I hope this helps to clarify my statement.

Best,
cfgray

[tazbat]

But the other mark is deception. A word synonymous with the current trustees at ORA.
Carroll, I appreciate your setting me straight.
I hope that the trustees get back to you, because I am curious as to what other deceptions they will throw out to us. Yet, I won't hold my breath waiting. My gut feeling is you will have to publish your conversation as notes.

The Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome may be a private organization, but the trustees don't own it, they only are entrusted to take care of it. Isn't that a laugh (sarcastic at that).

Salute!

[NexStar7]

Who does OWN the aerodrome?

[tazbat]

I don't know much about not-for-profit organizations, so anyone is welcomed to elaborate or correct my statements. My understanding is ORA is similar to a corporation in that no one owns it specifically. It is controlled by those that the charter allows. In the case of ORA, that would be the trustees. Many organizations allow the membership to also have a certain amount of say in how things are done.

ORA, basically, owns itself. The trustees don't own it, that much is for certain. They have the responsibility to do what is in its best interest. Unfortunately, they have a dismal record in that department.

Salute!

[cfgray]

Hi, tazbat and All,

Yes, the Board of Trustees of RAM does not "own" the assets of RAM, it is the administrative body with a legal "fiduciary" responsibility to oversee, safeguard and protect those assets, hence the use of the word "Trustee" - as in "held in trust."

----------------

I'd like to try to further clarify my comments about the 160 hp inline water-cooled engine and the Missing GNOME. Maybe an analogy will help.

Think of a magician who borrows your wristwatch and places it obviously in their right hand, folding over their fingers to hide it in their fist. In their left hand they place a balled-up $20 bill, and make a fist. They tap their fists together and then open both fists. The balled up $20 bill drops from the right hand and the left hand is empty. You ask 'Hey, where's my wristwatch?' The magician answers - 'There was no wristwatch and here's your $20 bill.'

You know beyond doubt that your wristwatch was in the magician's right hand, but where's the evidence? All you are left with is an odd explanation and a $20 bill - and no wristwatch - and as we know, a $20 bill is not a wristwatch.

I wish I could reveal the details of this in clear language, but that isn't possible just yet. Apologies to all who have written seeking more detailed information. Give the analogy some thought and perhaps it will help answer some of your questions.

Best,
cfgray