Quote:
As I mentioned in my editorial in WD, I see this as a bigger issue that could eventually pertain to the little guy as well. Some may say that is alarmist, and it could be, but it is my concern. One of the specific reasons that I rejoined the CAF as a Life Member last year was because I believed they were well positioned to be the leader of the warbird movement under its new leadership. In my opinion, part of that role is projecting its influence and financial/legal abilities to project ALL warbirds, not just the CAF fleet. It is appears they are abdicating that intended role. Certainly that is their right to do.
Tim said it well. We really can't expect a large issue such as this one to be decided in one organization. The CAF is about the CAF. While the organization has laudable goals, they don't speak for all warbird owners when it comes down to it. I can understand the decisions to drop their claims regarding the AM-1's and F-82- too expensive to pursue and the first judicial look wasn't good. I don't blame the organization for redirecting resources in a world with shrinking revenue's. But this issue of title, with all the issues that have come before, has to be revisited and must be resolved. This is an issue of property rights, responsible ownership, and the government's role as the arbiter of ownership. This discussion should be made at all levels of warbird organizations, and we need a consensus to move forward, because I believe that the government is bullying us on this issue- witness the F-82 and AM-1 issues.
Another thing about the Mauler's. I am glad they are returning to their birthplace. But I deeply believe they would have been better off with Eric Downing and crew. I don't think their future is as bright as the one they had at Midland, either. I am hoping they get good care, but judging by the amount of minimallly-cared-for aircraft in possession of the museum, I don't like their chances in a salt water-proximate environment.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
