CAF P-82 Talking Points

[mtpopejoy]

Taylor,
Fired off a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Commitee, Senator Carl Levin from Michigan. He gave me a nomination for appointment to the USMA in 1998, hope it helps.
Regards,
Mark

[mustangdriver]

Sorry for trying a rational look at things. I am sure telling the USAF to F*&# themselves will work out well for everyone. It is my opinion that by saying, "Sure you can have my P-82 for a P-38" is saying you no longer wish to have it. The one thing no one wants to address is what if, WHAT IF the USAF is right? Anyone ever think of that? I know for a fact that the ownership of the P-82 was discussed before Gen. Metcalfe. I just never got that into the conversations. I have had other CAF members say that the USAF still owned the P-82.

Getting politicians involved in warbirds is not a good idea. You may get what you want THIS time, but you may pay more than what you know. A good example of this was the Memphis Belle. When it was decided to take the Belle back to Dayton for restoration and display, some got the idea to get local politicians involved to fight the museum. Now let me ask you this, where is that B-17 better off? If you say Memphis you have either never seen the aircraft in person, or should have to wear metal foil on your head so we all know who you are. But regardless politicians tried getting involved. Meanwhile an no one had any plans on ever getting the Belle inside. So, do you really think the politicians had the interest of the warbird in heart? No way. What if they won. Who knows what woul happen to the Belle. I'm not saying this is the case with the P-82, just that I don't think that is the right way.

Besides, if the CAF really does own the P-82, I am sure it will have no problem winning. I for one wish that the CAF gets the P-82. THe NMUSAF has Betty Joe already in Dayton, and the Lackland bird( which needs to come in). I'm sure that some will view my just trying to look at all of this as taking the museum's side. I'm not.

Now in the words of Pete Conrad during the Apollo 1 hearing, "Let's stop this witch hunt, and let's go fly."

[aeroeng]

I was at the Air Force Museum when they announced that the Memphis Belle was going to be moved there.

[tora101]

For what it is worth and to just to set the historical record straight, was it not Frank Borman rather than Pete Conrad?

[JDK]

Hey, gents - we aren't in a bar.

Bearing in mind that anyone can read this forum (and certain people and organisations do) perhaps it might be an idea to conduct ourselves with good manners and decorum - that is if you don't want to prevent getting allies because some people were offensive, or getting WIX canned because of a libel case.

Name calling, while understandable, isn't a good idea.

Regards,

[RyanShort1]

Three points:

1. JDK is absolutely right...

2. mustangdriver - Going the congressional route absolutely can work. The situation with Pirate Lex on this board is a classic example of something turning out the right way because folks took appropriate action. Please contact me via PM on this and another thing. I really don't want to get into a public debate with you - it won't help either of us.

3. From a number of off board discussions, I personally believe that if you like warbirds, and even slightly appreciate the CAF, then you should go back to the beginning of this thread and TAKE THE TIME to cut and paste and WRITE or EMAIL your congressional representatives. and let them know that the situation concerns you.
They aren't going to just jump in and tell the USAFM to be quiet - they will do their own investigation and research and hopefully will come to an unbiased conclusion. Remember, the folks at the USAFM are fine folks, and ok in their own way, but they represent their own interests (understandably enough!) and do not answer directly to the public that they are supposed to serve. Congress DOES (or at least they are supposed to) and this is a legitimate way of addressing issues related to the government.

Ryan

[mustangdriver]

For what it is worth and to just to set the historical record straight, was it not Frank Borman rather than Pete Conrad?

You are correct. I had my quotes messed up.

[mtpopejoy]

All,
Just for the record I also sent a message in the General Inquiries box for the NMUSAF. Both letters, to Senator Levin and the NMUSAF were not CAF is right NMUSAF is wrong! They were merely notes to let both parties know of my desire to allow the aircraft to fly.
I am not a lawyer so I am not going to start spouting off information in letters that I dont fully understand. What I am is a warbird enthusiast, a registered voter, and an individual who supports warbirds financially.
Regards,
Mark

[FG1D Pilot]

I wish to apologize for my words, which I have edited. I have been involved in this for the past several years and listened to many on this site give opinions, which I couldn't respond to at the time. The CAF tried to discuss and work with the General. I feel that the CAF has been bullied by the NMUSAF. I have worked with the NMUSAF for more than 15 years, and enjoyed every one I dealt with. Good relations, until a few years ago. Everyone there seems to be on edge now. The atmosphere has changed. I have never had a bad experience with ANY other museum. We all want to work with each other, for the good of us all.

[hahnej]

I was a volunteer on the Memphis Belle. While I will not argue that long-term the Belle is better at Dayton, I was exposed to the fiasco that Metcalf manipulated. I met with the C-5 crew that was sent down to look over the Belle for shipment and saw the realization that it wasn't going to fit. I heard the term used 'OK, what will we have to cut" (about the wings)over the phone. That almost led to a war.

I don't think anyone will argue that Metcalf has done a lot for the USAFM. But the arogant, conceited, arsehole did not have to show his considerable a$$ in the manner he did business. But wait, he's a bigwig in the gubmint, so those rules didn't (and don't) apply.

[BTBackseater]

I have been following these posts and I am a member of the CAF. My question is this what would prevent the USAF or the museum to (if they were to win right or wrong) take back other planes donated to the CAF or other organazations after or before they spent countless man hours and dollars restoring them to flying condition. The way I see it is it is like getting a bill of sale or title to a vehicle and then the person you recieved the vehicle from changing there mind and saying oh that is still mine and I want it back.

[k5083]

BTBackseater, if you want the answer to that question, you are best off reviewing this thread, where the actual issues in this controversy were discussed, and your question was addressed:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... sc&start=0

The statements in this current thread do not accurately represent what either party has argued in court. That is understandable, because this thread is not really about the court case, it is about how political pressure can be brought on the USAF to throw away their case even though, at the moment, they are winning.

August

[marine air]

The way I understand it is the CAF is saying "It's ours and you aren't getting it back" and the USAF is saying "It is still theirs and they aren't willing to pay anything to get it back."
Reminds me of real estate in rural Tennessee. sometimes a property , after being almost without value for 150 years one day becomes sought after. The old lady living in the house doesn't have a deed because "Momma gave it to me." Then you find out she was one of six kids, five of which moved to the other side of the United States 50 years ago, and are still living. Oh, and "momma" bought the house with a handshake from her uncle, a freed slave that was from a big family that had a piece of land given to them after the war. (Civil War.)
Long story short the buyer has to remunerate all the loose ends,( heirs) to get them to sign a quit claim deed. It basically says they will for a price, abandon any claim to anything they might or might not have ever had in the now valuable piece of real estate.
I visited Lackland AFB last winter and it was pathetic to see our govt. still has a P-82, P-51H, P-47 and some other rarities sitting on outside display. Only one in a thousand airmen even know what those airplanes are that are on the parade field.
A simple solution would be for the CAF to say, Hey we will pay for a full size fibreglass replica, like the B-24 and P-38 at Lackland to be constructed and put on display at Lackland. The USAF now has a real P-82 to do as they wish. In exchange the USAF abandons all pursuit of their claims on the CAF P-82.
The USAF, by holding up the civilian restoration to flying status of this unique part of their heritage are losing out on it being a flying billboard and recruiting tool for future genterations.

[Dan K]

The way I understand it is the CAF is saying "It's ours and you aren't getting it back" and the USAF is saying "It is still theirs and they aren't willing to pay anything to get it back."
Reminds me of real estate in rural Tennessee. sometimes a property , after being almost without value for 150 years one day becomes sought after. The old lady living in the house doesn't have a deed because "Momma gave it to me." Then you find out she was one of six kids, five of which moved to the other side of the United States 50 years ago, and are still living. Oh, and "momma" bought the house with a handshake from her uncle, a freed slave that was from a big family that had a piece of land given to them after the war. (Civil War.)
Long story short the buyer has to remunerate all the loose ends,( heirs) to get them to sign a quit claim deed. It basically says they will for a price, abandon any claim to anything they might or might not have ever had in the now valuable piece of real estate.
I visited Lackland AFB last winter and it was pathetic to see our govt. still has a P-82, P-51H, P-47 and some other rarities sitting on outside display. Only one in a thousand airmen even know what those airplanes are that are on the parade field.
A simple solution would be for the CAF to say, Hey we will pay for a full size fibreglass replica, like the B-24 and P-38 at Lackland to be constructed and put on display at Lackland. The USAF now has a real P-82 to do as they wish. In exchange the USAF abandons all pursuit of their claims on the CAF P-82.
The USAF, by holding up the civilian restoration to flying status of this unique part of their heritage are losing out on it being a flying billboard and recruiting tool for future genterations.

I'm sorry, but this post is entirely too practical and completely riddled with common sense. It'll never work.

[Nathan]

Why dont we just give the dang F-82 to the Navy so they can sink her then we wont have to worry about it anymore.