CAF F-82 update

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:17 pm

I am a member of the CAF, NMUSAF, NMNA, EAA, and Planes of Fame. That is just for those who think I am not a fan of flying the warbirds as well as static. I think it is a great thing to try and get invlolved with warbirds and aviation on whatever level you can.

John Cotter · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:09 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

RickH wrote:

MD, try twenty. But not for lack of trying. At least she had the potential to fly if the stars all lined up. This way she's guaranteed not to fly.

I'll ask the question one more time, if the General is so concerned about F-82s why in the heck doesn't he do something positive with the one that he already has ? Does he just get a kick out of throwing his weight around ? I'd be willing to bet that threats were made against other aircraft in the fleet and rather than risk many for one, Steve Brown and the General Staff decided to not risk it and rolled over.

In other words, what will it take to make you go away ?

People seem to think that the General just enjoys throwing his weight around. The truth is that believe what you like, he is for the preservation of these aircraft. The things he has done in Dayton alone are mind blowing. The level of restoration has gone through the roof, and even went back and redid some of the older restorations. The fact here is not one that we all like. The NMUSAF isn't trying to take the plane because the CAF was going to fly it at all. But because they were going to sell it. And the NMUSAF states that they have title to it. Any one of you here would do the same thing if you thought you owned something that someone else was trying to sell. It is just funny how some are so heck bent on not likeing the NMUSAF, the government, and the General, that they have no problem attmepting to bend the facts to make them out to be evil.

My understanding was: they were going to sell it to finance the purchase of another rare machine (P38 maybe).

This general is in charge of a Dead museum. Nothing flys or ever will. So what if the restoration is great, it will not fly, no one will see it fly, it is a waste money to restore an aircraft to that level and let it sit.

The CAF is a Living museum. They fly their machines. They get them out in front of the public. They SHARE them with people and vets all around the country.

My opinion of the general is he has a very BIG ego and just enjoys pushing people around.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:55 pm

John Cotter wrote:

mustangdriver wrote:

RickH wrote:

MD, try twenty. But not for lack of trying. At least she had the potential to fly if the stars all lined up. This way she's guaranteed not to fly.

I'll ask the question one more time, if the General is so concerned about F-82s why in the heck doesn't he do something positive with the one that he already has ? Does he just get a kick out of throwing his weight around ? I'd be willing to bet that threats were made against other aircraft in the fleet and rather than risk many for one, Steve Brown and the General Staff decided to not risk it and rolled over.

In other words, what will it take to make you go away ?

People seem to think that the General just enjoys throwing his weight around. The truth is that believe what you like, he is for the preservation of these aircraft. The things he has done in Dayton alone are mind blowing. The level of restoration has gone through the roof, and even went back and redid some of the older restorations. The fact here is not one that we all like. The NMUSAF isn't trying to take the plane because the CAF was going to fly it at all. But because they were going to sell it. And the NMUSAF states that they have title to it. Any one of you here would do the same thing if you thought you owned something that someone else was trying to sell. It is just funny how some are so heck bent on not likeing the NMUSAF, the government, and the General, that they have no problem attmepting to bend the facts to make them out to be evil.

My understanding was: they were going to sell it to finance the purchase of another rare machine (P38 maybe).

This general is in charge of a Dead museum. Nothing flys or ever will. So what if the restoration is great, it will not fly, no one will see it fly, it is a waste money to restore an aircraft to that level and let it sit.

The CAF is a Living museum. They fly their machines. They get them out in front of the public. They SHARE them with people and vets all around the country.

My opinion of the general is he has a very BIG ego and just enjoys pushing people around.

I'm glad the many people that visit the museum making it one of the most visited museums in the us don't feel that way.

John Cotter · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:09 pm

I don't mean that the museum is dead in the sense of no one visiting. I mean it is dead in the way that those great airplanes will never see the sky again.

Don't get me wrong, I think that that museum is great. It just has a general running it that can't see outside the 4 walls of that building.

The P82 is not his to take back and I am disappointed if the CAF decides to keep it parked.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:20 pm

Once again let me say that I don't understand the feeling toward static aircraft. They are just as important as the flying ones. As for the CAF P-82 deal, I think that the NMUSAF really does own it. It has nothing to do with the General. I had heard that the museum owned it years ago from members of the CAF!! WOuld I like to see that P-82 fly? Sure I would. But what is right is right.

Chuck Gardner · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:10 pm

MD,
You always seem to be on the outside looking in here. You opinions are not very popular and you just dont get it. This sight was created for Exchanging Warbird Information, not warbird opinions. All of the posts here could be greatly improved by sharing information and keeping your personal opinions to yourself. Since this sight was transitioned from the Luftwaffe sight to general warbirds sight, it has been primarily about flying airplanes. That is also where peoples obsessions and passions are. Static airplanes are fine and there is a reason to have museums. Your defense of that is very tired. The driving force of the posters of this sight are towards the restoration of flying aircraft and experiencing them.

cozmo · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:26 pm

Maybe MD is voicing opinions other people would rather not debate. Some folks just don't want to argue over it.

The time will come when all old aircraft will be grounded. A museum is a nice place to keep them.

Static aircraft are better than no aircraft.

I like to see them outside and in the air as much as the next enthusiast. And if wishes were fishes...

I don't think his opinions are as unpopular as you make them out to be. And I, for one, look forward to what he has to say.

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:28 pm

Chuck Gardner wrote:

The driving force of the posters of this sight are towards the restoration of flying aircraft and experiencing them.

With all due respect Chuck, I quite like not having to choose. I have, and do, support both flying vintage aircraft and static. Neither offers everything we need for fun and history.

If we were to restrict topics to just flying warbirds, we'd lose a huge amount of interesting info, and yes, opinions.

Going back to ww2john's very good point that it's worth joining or building organisations to support warbirds - co-operation is possible and needed - funnily enough both poles of the debate have much to gain from the other end, and it's a lot more interesting in the middle.

On the specific topic, it's a mess I'm sure no-one wanted to get into. If you read the story, you can see how things developed, and it didn't need anyone to be 'evil' or bloodyminded to get to this situation.

If I understand correctly, the CAF have made a public offer that the NMUSAF is under no obligation to consider. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Neither the CAF or the NMUSAF are faultless - it would be easy to write up a chapter of failures and lousy behaviour for both (and any other warbird organisation you choose) but it doesn't help anyone doing so. Both organisations have achieved much, and do have a great future ahead of them - this whole mess wastes valuable resources for both and doesn't help anyone.

It's easy to throw mud - it's a lot harder to come up with solutions.

Just my 2d.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:31 pm

O.K well I will just start posting my museum stuff in the off topic section then. :roll:

I am not sure how my opinion is different than anyone else's except that it is different. My opinions are not popular by you, and some others. But others enjoy what I have to say, and I have made alot of friends here. I foolishly thought that the sight was about the preservation of aircraft for future generations and honoring those who served to protect our freedom period. Whether it was flying or static. I only get defensive when people refer to a static aircraft as dead, a replica, plastic, not real, or fake. That is dumb, and some don't understand why both are importatn, then that is scary. I love to heear and see them fly as well. From day one all I have asked for is a BALANCe and respect for the differnt methods of museums. My defense of that is only tired because it is challenged every day with comments like I stated. So if you are tired of hearing me defend static, it is because static was insulted. Sorry to have bothered you with views other then it must fly or it is dead.

george · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:20 pm **Posts:** 435

The CAF has been a tremendous ambassador of good-will for the AF for decades, allowing tens of thousands, from coast to coast, to see and hear the history of the AF in WWII.

They believe honestly and in good faith that the P-82 was donated to them and that it was theirs. Without funds to restore it, they found a trade that would allow them another fighter to honor the AF in flight. They now have sponsorship to complete the P-82 to flight.

Why doesn't the AF, with two P-82s already in their possession, show good-will and donate, or re-donate, the plane to the CAF? Think how many aircraft have been donated to the AF museum over the years. And has anyone who donated a plane to them asked for it back?

John Cotter · **Posted:** Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:08 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

O.K well I will just start posting my museum stuff in the off topic section then. :roll:

I am not sure how my opinion is different than anyone else's except that it is different. My opinions are not popular by you, and some others. But others enjoy what I have to say, and I have made alot of friends here. I foolishly thought that the sight was about the preservation of aircraft for future generations and honoring those who served to protect our freedom period. Whether it was flying or static. I only get defensive when people refer to a static aircraft as dead, a replica, plastic, not real, or fake. That is dumb, and some don't understand why both are importatn, then that is scary. I love to heear and see them fly as well. From day one all I have asked for is a BALANCe and respect for the differnt methods of museums. My defense of that is only tired because it is challenged every day with comments like I stated. So if you are tired of hearing me defend static, it is because static was insulted. Sorry to have bothered you with views other then it must fly or it is dead.

MD,

My frustration is with the AF and the general in question. I can't understand why he thinks he must take this airplane back. It belongs to the CAF (from everything I have read). The AF has 2 F-82's already and neither fly. The CAF has found the sponsor to make the F-82 fly and no longer is desiring to sell it.

I personally enjoy your posts and even though we may disagree over this matter, that doesn't diminish my desire to read what you post.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:09 am

Thanks John, I feel the same. If some one is cool and calm and talks to me about things, I am more than willing to listen, and maybe even change my position. You have done so. I have nothing against the CAF and nothing against the NMUSAF or the General. I am just observing the whole thing. I

Mark_Pilkington · **Posted:** Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:23 am

Chuck Gardner wrote:

MD,
You always seem to be on the outside looking in here. You opinions are not very popular and you just dont get it. This sight was created for Exchanging Warbird Information, not warbird opinions. All of the posts here could be greatly improved by sharing information and keeping your personal opinions to yourself. Since this sight was transitioned from the Luftwaffe sight to general warbirds sight, it has been primarily about flying airplanes. That is also where peoples obsessions and passions are. Static airplanes are fine and there is a reason to have museums. Your defense of that is very tired. The driving force of the posters of this sight are towards the restoration of flying aircraft and experiencing them.

Chuck, although not addressed to me, I find the tone of your post rather offensive?

However if it is true that only those supporting Flying warbirds are welcome here, along with their opinions, and its not also for supporters of historical military aircraft in static museums, then I will cease my visits and participation as soon as Scott confirms that?

MD, i think your opinions are fine, I enjoy both the flying warbirds and static museum examples, both have a role to play.

I think those who deride static aircraft in museums and argue all aircraft should fly - misunderstand the role museums fulfill and that plastic mockups could not fulfill. - what then of Memphis Belle, Enola Gay or the Swoose?

I also agree with you MD, (and the US court ruling), that the F-82 clearly belongs to the NMUSAF, it seems that is also now clear to the CAF.

It is unfortunate, but clear that the CAF defaulted on its loan conditions when they sought to dispose of it, and equally it is unfortunate that the USAF cannot form a close relationship with the CAF given they are effectively running a USAF Heritage Flight of grand proportions, and permit the CAF to fly the F-82 on the NMUSAF's behalf?

A flying F-82 would only add to that heritage flight, especially given the NMUSAF have two other static examples.

Hopefully once this adversarial situation between the CAF and USAF has dissapated, a better and stronger relationship might be forged? and airworthy operation of the NMUSAF F-82 by the CAF be contemplated under a revised loan agreement?

The CAF is often maligned for its mistakes, but I have always admired it for its achievements, which far outway its failures.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:16 am

Mark thank you for the kind post. I think what you want to see would be a great thing. Maybe it will happen.

mlenoch · **Posted:** Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:51 am

Mark Pilkington wrote:

"........with the CAF given they are effectively running a USAF Heritage Flight of grand proportions,.......:

Not sure what you meant by this?
Thx,
VL

Warbird Information Exchange

CAF F-82 update

Who is online