P-82 going Bye Bye!! A very sad day at the CAF!

Shay · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:13 am

retroaviation wrote:

It was part of the ruling.

Nice......... :roll:

Any idea where it's going?

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:27 am

RyanShort1 wrote:

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.

From a USAF point of view, why should they care? I mean, seriously...why should they care if it's bad PR?

The USAF exists to project airpower. If some citizens are irritated about how they've handled an old agreement with someone, does that really impact the organization's ability to do it's job?

I'm not saying that they're making the correct decision -- in fact, I think it's a very poor one. But you've got to realize that "bad PR" over an issue like this doesn't even register in micro give-a-sh*t readings on their care-o-meter.

Mudge · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:28 am

Don't know the particulars of the agreement but if I was running the CAF, I'd have said, "General, you want it? Come take it apart and haul it away. CAF is not going to expend that much time and effort to appease your little tantrum."

Mudge the harsh :twisted:

retroaviation · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:32 am

Shay wrote:

Any idea where it's going?

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Dayton, for now.

Tim Savage · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 8:26 pm **Posts:** 622

Randy Haskin wrote:

RyanShort1 wrote:

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.

From a USAF point of view, why should they care? I mean, seriously...why should they care if it's bad PR?

The USAF exists to project airpower. If some citizens are irritated about how they've handled an old agreement with someone, does that really impact the organization's ability to do it's job?

I'm not saying that they're making the correct decision -- in fact, I think it's a very poor one. But you've got to realize that "bad PR" over an issue like this doesn't even register in micro give-a-sh*t readings on their care-o-meter.

Unless it p*sses off a Congressman or Senator that is getting ready to vote on extending funding for the F-22 or KC-X

(And I am not in anyway implying we should cut funding for these important defense programs over a museum issue, just to clarify)

Nathan · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:21 pm

Quote:

But, how many rare, priceless aircraft have been crashed and destroyed while in civilian hands?

Few.

Nathan · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:22 pm

computer glitch.

Mudge · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:31 pm

Nathan...you made your point. :wink:

Mudge the pointless

Jesse C. · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:32 pm

Django wrote:

Jesse C. wrote:

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?

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. :lol:

Dang! How did you know about Lynnda!?!? :lol:

Steve S · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:39 pm

Shay wrote:

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.

At least this way it will be done correctly and with minimal damage.

Dan Newcomb · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:15 pm

Over the years I’ve talked to dozens of military folks at places like Edwards AFB or NAS Lemoore and many have told me of childhood memories of air shows and how that helped to inspire them to join the military. Seeing a bird fly is a much more powerful experience then seeing it sitting, collecting dust, on the ground. The F-82 is a unique eye-catching aircraft. Oh what a great Heritage Flight that would have made! I think the USAF, and the country, would be better served if they let us fly her.

Ken · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:24 pm

For the record, I'd prefer to see the airplane stay with the CAF and fly.

But, in an attempt to be as fair as possible, how many other examples if incidents like this exist - where there is an ownership dispute and the DoD reclaimed an aircraft against someone's will?

To be clear, I consider the F-14 situation and abandoned Navy wrecks (such as Great Lakes) a different topic.

How many examples are there like the P-82?

Ken

kalamazookid · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:59 pm

If I were the USAF, I'd want it back too.

Suppose you (the USAF) lent your friend (the CAF) your rare 19?? sports car (the P-82). This friend proceeded to crash it, and then let it sit in his garage for a number of years because he didn't have the money to fix it. All of a sudden the opportunity comes along for a better car (the P-38 trade), a different one, so he decided he's going to trade the car that's technically still yours for the new one. Would you be a little pissed and want it back? I sure would.

That's how I see this situation. This isn't meant to flame the CAF or anything, just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Would I have liked to see the P-82 fly? Sure. But I can honestly say I see where the USAF is coming from. And it's not like there aren't two other potentially flyable P/F-82s. I'm sure the NMUSAF will find an appropriate place to display it and it will be well cared for.

B29B24crewchief · **Joined:** Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:44 pm **Posts:** 379

This is what took place today!

B29B24crewchief · **Joined:** Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:44 pm **Posts:** 379

Warbird Information Exchange

P-82 going Bye Bye!! A very sad day at the CAF!

Who is online