Warbird Information Exchange

The CAF is pressing on with the lawsuit to establish ownership, based upon the release of claims received after the initial conditional donation. We wouldn't be spending all this money if it didn't seem there was a better chance of winning than losing. My only question is, now that the plane is going to the NMUSAF, what's to keep them from cutting the spars while they have it, and then when they lose the lawsuit on appeal, giving it back to us with a "sorry about that"?

_________________
Mike

The NMUSAF has supposedly agreed to leave the airplane alone (no spar cutting, etc.) until the appeals process is over. But only time will tell.

Gary

.

I hold the CAF in very high esteem for all the good work they have done for many years, in many ways the pioneers of the warbird movement, however I do hope they consider the path they are going down very carefully.



I suspect near 100% of those who litigate have the same view before the court case, and at least 50% of them find that chance of winning wasnt as great as it first seemed.

I have always been concerned that the legal advice to proceed with litigation often comes from a person who stands to get paid regardless of the outcome.

I also think the CAF's letter of offer, while being honest and open, may have represented an unacceptable arrangement for the USAF to accept.



It reads to me that the CAF confirm they dont agree with the court decision of USAF ownership, and would continue to dispute the USAF's decision not to permit the aircraft to fly (through persuasion), faced with those "terms and conditions", the offer or proposal didnt offer the USAF much other than avoiding an Appeal Case, and that would only present problems and costs to the USAF if they were to loose.

I am therefore not surprised the USAF chose not to accept the proposal and risk the agreement formed from that futher undermining the USAF's ownership and control - better to recover the aircraft and close the books on this existing agreement.

Also better in terms of not setting precidents across all the other conditional donation/loans they have in place, and better to let the courts decide.

I am sure the USAF legal advice gives them the same view that We wouldn't be spending all this money if it didn't seem there was a better chance of winning than losing, and they have deep pockets and a Trial Judge who has already agreed with them.

It is sad that both parties are now going to consume further resources, time, effort fighting in court rather than investing that into their heritage projects, it is also sad that this will drive further long term wedges between the two organisations.

Hopefully the CAF can recognise the USAF ownership and respect their decision not to permit it to fly, and explore a trade etc to bring it out of USAF ownership? or secure a new loan and long term static display under USAF terms and conditions.

Hopefully the USAF will recognise the very important role the CAF plays in preserving and displaying examples of the USAF's wartime aircraft, and build a closer relationship than currently exists.

Hopefully if the relationship could be mended a new static display loan could be put in place?

Hopefully the forumites here can also come to recognise the "General" is simply doing his job as he sees it, protecting the interests of the USAF, and the assets owned by the US public?, its a pity to see personal attacks starting to come into the debate.

a sad development overall

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

I'm going to take a slightly different view on this, so pardon me.

Yes, it is a shame that the aircraft is being taken away. But, how many rare, priceless aircraft have been crashed and destroyed while in civilian hands? I saw 'Caroline' fly once - an historic and rare aircraft. I'd love to see that beautiful B-26 again, but can't, because it was destroyed in a senseless crash.

It's one thing to fly around in a warbird for sport, if it isn't a one-of-a-kind. A P-51, for instance, is a wonderful, beautiful machine. However, if one is lost, there are others around to keep its line going. It's another thing to risk a rare piece of history. I'd rather see the P-82 in a museum than read about it digging a hole in West Texas.

Don't get me wrong - I love to see warbirds fly, and love to get the occasional ride. I just hate to see aircraft that are irreplacable being risked. How would the warbird community feel if the P-82 crashed and was destroyed on its first flight?

Y'know, maybe if all the currently active Mustang, Sabre and Thunderbolt pilots and crews refused to take part in USAF Heritage Flights at airshows this year, that might get peoples' attention. If the USAF feels they are the sole representative of their own heritage, then let them figure out how to perform a heritage flight without the private sector.

Maybe they'll strap a P-82 fuselage to a pickup truck and slowly drive it down the flightline so everyone can see it...

Cougar, I understand where you're coming from, but this P-82 isn't the "last of the line"... the USAFM already has one P-82B in the museum, "Betty Jo", and has another one rotting away on a concrete pad at Lackland AFB. If we were talking about the XB-70, or another similarly "one-off" aircraft, I'd completely be with you, but there are other P-82s, and this was the best hope of seeing a unique and significant aircraft take to the skies again.

I wish Gerry Beck was still with us... he'd find a way to build one from scratch.

The warbird community would feel awful. But maybe not quite as awful as when those dozens of irreplaceable static aircraft were destroyed in the French museum fire. As history proves (and this board has debated ad nauseum), static museum display does not guarantee aircraft longevity.

The USAFM already owns one Merlin-engined P-82 and one Allison-engined P-82. People can travel to Ohio or Texas to see one, but how many will make the effort? A flyable example brings the history to an exponentially greater number of Americans.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

I think that is the problem. He's doing his job as HE sees it, which seems right now to not be for the long term best interests of either party. It's not like the CAF intends to crash it, and it's also not like the NMUSAF is going to have it restored overnight. Personally, I think it should be turned into as bad PR for them as possible. It isn't like the CAF guys are the only ones saying he's not fun to deal with. I don't like personal attacks either, but there does seem to be a common thread.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

After a similar battle over their B-17 (which they won), POF has now (I believe) returned all their conditional donation/loan aircraft. The strings aren't worth the hassle for them. That is one of the precedents being set. I'm not sure that the public or the aircraft are best served by this consequence. Will any aircraft be scrapped if the USAF Museum lacks storage space if a bunch get returned? There may not be many organizations willing to transport, restore and maintain a cold-war era jet to the USAF Museum standards for instance. Remember the F-84 recently scrapped in Dayton- hardly a recipe for preservation.

So will the P-82 now be returned to the line at Lackland where it came from?

Quite honestly, the only time I ever saw that P-82, it was holding down dirt at Gillespie Airfield in Santee, CA and kids where jumping all over it.

Would I like to see a P-82 in the air, you bet your heiny I would! But I feel like that chance has come and gone for this one. I am sure there would have and should have been a greater effort to get the bird back in the air at that time but from what I understand, and please do correct me if I am wrong, they attempted to trade the plane away for something else.

So, was this bird initially treated as a stepchild because it was not a WWII bird and now that it is being taken away it has come up to Golden Child status?

Believe me, I am not all that thrilled with the latest developments, but then again, I am not totally surprised.

Just my opinion

Jesse

NMUSAF F-82 check, saw it
CAF F-82 check, seen it a couple times, but never flying.

USAF Kelly AFB San Antonio would have been a check, I guess some could count it as a check as I saw it from the road. They will not allow civilians on base to tour the airpark. So, I guess I skip putting a check mark on that one. So close, but yet so far.

The CAF F-82 was more interesting sitting in a hot Midland hanger missing parts and needing work than Betty Jo was all cleaned up under lights and behind a barrier (not that there was anything wrong with that it was just antiseptic).

Kinda like that hot girlfriend that you just can't handle anymore, and give her the boot... only to find out that all your friends think you're an idiot to do so, but the chain of events involved in her getting and receiving the boot make it impossible for her to ever come back.

Does the general public know or care enough about a P-82 to be "outraged" about this case... probably not.

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

So if by the ruling the F-82 had to go back to the NMUSAF,.......Then why is the CAF helping by diassembling it for them???

If they wanted it back, the least you could do is let them pay a company to take it apart and ship.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

It was part of the ruling.

Mark:

I fail to see anyplace where anyone in this threat has personally attacked the General. If you are concluding that I was personally attacking the General you are incorrect. The two times I have met him he has been cordial and friendly. However, some of us are aware of other threats that have been made to the CAF and other organizations based on his policy, which appears to be different than previous administratins of the NMUSAF. It goes farther than the F-82, and it is greater than the CAF. The CAF needs to fight this on behalf of everyone involved, not just themselves.

As for you point about the USAF not contesting this without a reasonable though of winning: Point taken. However, remember, they aren't spending there own money. They are spending tax money and common sense rarely prevails when comes to those type of expenditures. They do have, deep, deep, pockets and certainly could just conclude that they could litigate this until the CAF just runs out of money. Whether they are right or wrong. That happens all the time.