Warbird Information Exchange

Dave, don't get me wrong, my greatest hope is that the CAF wins the legal appeal process as I posted a few pages back and retains ownership. If that ultimately doesn't occur, then I'd rather the Air and Space Museum restore and display rather than the Air Force.

A very sad day to see the Twin go. If the Squadron would have been allowed to continue their restoration without having the aircraft traded away (with no notification to the Squadron), the aircraft probably would have been flying by now.

(Begin General Patton Music)
All I can say is fight them to the bitter end, and they can be beat. If you believe they are wrong in your heart, then they are. That means you can win.

I'm dead serious about this too: Find a good lawyer who loves airplanes, and who is sympathetic to your cause. First, get all your stuff together, and put the facts together in a logical manner. None of this scatter-brained he said she said stuff.

If you can, you probably will win, and your lawyer can collect from the Air Force Museum. Then those Jack-arses will think twice before messing with civilians again! Do it for your museum, and DO IT FOR YOUR COUNTRY!

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

RIght! Of course unless the NMUSAF really does own the airplane. Then what. What if the museum really does own it?? I just want to know what everyone with these gubmit and NMUSAF bashing views would say if it comes otu that the museum does own it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Mustangdriver,

If the CAF loses the appeals, and ownership is established to be with the museum, then so be it. Done deal, we can all go see it where ever they decided to SCREW IT TO THE GROUND, NEVER TO FLY AGAIN. End of story. After all, it's only a matter of time until no one can afford to maintain and fly them anyway. We should all give up now, and sign them all over to static display museums.

Well the first sentence is true. Other than that, whoever really owns it really owns it. What does the CAF have to lose. If they think they can win then HELLS BELLS, Fight like hell. Raise some heck and kick some USAF butt.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

How did the CAF acquire this in the first place?

Was it a handshake, or did they purchase it?

_________________
S.

The USAFM doesnt own it... the US public do.... they provided the tax payer funds for the plane to be built in 1947 or so.

So the PUBLIC own it.

Not the USAFM or CAF but the public....

Its only a frigging aircraft not the end of the world.

CAF need to see they have lost it and just move on.. focus on their more heavier issues like their fleet....

The P-82 was aquired in the late 1960's from the Air Force. It was a gate guard (along with the E model that is still there). It was given to the CAF on a provisional loan. The CAF could maintain and fly it, but at any point and time, if the CAF wanted to get rid of it, the aircraft would have to go back to the Air Force. The CAF restored it and flew it at several airshows. In Oct 1987, the P-82 suffered a landing accident in which the pilot stalled the aircraft while landing. It was still a good 20-30 feet in the air when it quite flying. Damage included was everything on the bottom, one gear collapsed, the other gear was sheared off, props and engines.
After that, the aircraft sat untouched until 1992 when a group formed the P-82 Squadron. Progress was slow at first, partly due to HQ. The outer wing panels were completely gone through, wiring replaced, etc and landing gear were found and purchased. The Squadron was a bit handcuffed at first as too what they could do since HQ told them that it was a display hanger and any work had to be cleaned up by the end of the day, etc. Makes it hard to have an ongoing project. The P-82 Squadron was also told it could not move the aircraft since it was an attraction piece. Finally, HQ allowed a move to California and the Squadron was really geared up to make some progress. Then, without notification to the Squadron or the General Membership, the CAF traded the P-82 and the wreckage of the P-38 "Scatterbrain Kid" away for a flying P-38 (tht had problems too). This is when all the ownership stink began.

YOu can't say, well I want to see it fly again,so I think that the CAF should own it, or it should be on static, so I think the NMUSAF should own it. You can't base your feeling of who owns it on if you want to see it fly or not. I would like the see the P-82 stay with the CAF and be flown, but I think that the NMUSAF does own it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Thats right, there was a Ryan Fireball and the Zero was a in rough shape and displayed as found if I remember correctly. Also, the P-40 was also in pretty rough shape if memory serves me right.

Does anyone have pics of any of these birds? Sorry if I am getting off topci but the F-82 has been beaten to death.

I don't think this would still be ongoing if the question of ownership were that cut and dry. Obviously there are some gray areas here. Even when the courts rule one way or the other it won't mean that the winner was the clear cut owner all along and the other party was being dishonest.

_________________
Chad Veich
CWVeich Models
www.cwvmodels.com
Scale Model Design & Construction

Sasnak, I don't understand your argument. The USAF isn't just saying today that the person who supposedly signed over the P-82 wasn't authorized do do so; it is pointing to evidence from that time that he wasn't authorized. If it didn't have that evidence, it wouldn't have much of an argument. So it can't just undo any deal by retroactively declaring someone unauthorized.

Also, the document in question wasn't, on its face, a donation document. Part of the reason why it matters whether the person was authorized is not just to determine whether what he did was valid, but to determine what he was actually doing (i.e. what the document means).

It has been said before, but many of us think that too much is being made out of the supposed precedential value of this case. It really is pretty specific to the unique facts.

August

...says the unpopular teacher. I respectfully disagree, but time will tell. I hope it proves me to be an over reacting fool

Would I be correct in assuming that you don't currently have an artifact that would be at risk as a result of this precedent?

Chunks

Wow! I did not know we had so many Lawyers around here!

Maybe we should change it to Ambulance Information Exchange!