CAF F-82 update

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:58 am

Nope, it happened here at EFD.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:08 am

RickH wrote:

OK, let me put this as simply as I can for you.

They are the 800 lb gorilla in the room and they act like it ! It starts at the top and trickles down through the chain of command.

The original post was based upon my observations over several years of the actions of a few in power at the NMUSAF. They have a record, they have made few friends in the museum/warbird world.

The examples I cited are the tip of the iceberg, other individuals and organizations have experienced similar harassment and bullying. I have had a curator of a major museum tell me that they were afraid of the NMUSAF people because even though he only had a few things on loan that if they got on their bad side they could make his life a living h3ll !

Now this is not a defense by any means, but let me show you how there are two sides of a story. Go to the MBMA in Memphis and ask them what they think of the General. You will get a really twisted and evil descriptions. Why? Because he took the Belle out of Memphis. Now you, me and everyone here knows that he did what was best for that airplane. But there are people saying that the mean General took the plane away. meanwhile it was a good thing and one that had to happen to ensure that the Belle would survive. The General is trying to push that people that have NMUSAF aircraft on loan, better start taking good care of them. Alot of places that have not done so are not happy. All I mena by this is that he DOES get a bad rap sometimes doing what is best for the preservation of the aircraft. I am not saying that is the case everytime, or the case in the F-4, just that it does happen.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:00 am

Chris, the issue is not whether or not some of the things the Museum (whether the "General" himself or his staff) does are good, including the Belle, it's the way they go about it more than anything else. They do it like the Navy was doing - like the hand of God. If they don't like what you're doing, they just come in and by fiat of their name (not by any actual power or procedure given to them) destroy any and all work done by people who volunteered their time to try and save a piece of history. The Shrike was just one example of this kind of action. The F-82 is another. The F-105 is yet another.

Again - it's not what they do, it's how they do it. If it's for the better of the airplane, great, but don't do it and tell those whom have done the best they could they were inept, incompetent, bad stewards, or anything else in the process. Thank them for donating their time and money and do as much as you can to keep them involved in the continuing restoration/operation of the aircraft.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:12 am

Well, I agree with most of what you say. Now the examples you gave are not good examples. The Shrike-There is alot that went on there that is still not out, the F-82 is not that it wasn't being taken care of, but ownership is being challenged, and the 105 is it's own ball of wax. The last paragraph you stated is true, but the museum has not done that as far as I HAVE SEEN. Not syaing they didn't, just I haven't seen it. When the Belle was moved, the General stated, "The Belle is going to be restored and displayed where it should be in Dayton, but without the efforts and foresight of the people in the MBMA, she would not be here today." That is hardly a bad way to put that situation.
That last sentence is funny. Let me tell you a story about the time, I spent my last two weeks of summer vacation from my senior year in high school working on a private owner's B-17. I would show up at 8 am and work until 5 every day, unpaid. The aircraft was cleaned, repairs were carried out, and paint was touched up. I enjoyed it very much, and really took alot of pride in having a key to the door lock on the B-17. I was proud of that. At the end of it all, the owner came in, talked to not one of us that busted our butts only the president of our museum, and then walked back outside, and started the plane and left. So that last paragraph is true, but it is one that everyone should go by.

warbirdaid · **Joined:** Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:11 am **Posts:** 25

Plain and simple, the airplane belongs to the AF, if they do not want it to fly; then it should not fly. The AF is just trying to preserve their own history, I would think most people would be able to get on board with that.

Tim Savage · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 8:26 pm **Posts:** 630

warbirdaid wrote:

Plain and simple, the airplane belongs to the AF, if they do not want it to fly; then it should not fly. The AF is just trying to preserve their own history, I would think most people would be able to get on board with that.

Define 'preserve.'

Is letting another F-82 sit outside exposed to the elements preservation? Is letting over two dozen World War Two bombers sit outside preservation?

I could get on board with it if they were taking care of what they already have. As has been demonstrated on this message board over and over, they aren't.

bluehawk15 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:56 pm

Hmmmm, I wonder if this means the CAF can take back Rowdy's Raider, the original plane in the old Bomb Wing of the CAF? My dear Cuz, Ober, and I would be glad to go fetch it back from Lackland. I know there are parts on it that the Rose could use.

airnutz · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:42 pm

warbirdaid wrote:

Plain and simple, the airplane belongs to the AF

5 pages of dialogue suggests otherwise... :wink:

airnutz · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:46 pm

bluehawk15 wrote:

Hmmmm, I wonder if this means the CAF can take back Rowdy's Raider?

Uh oh!!!

There goes the "plain and simple" theory! :shock:

Good question, will the B-25 be released from prison? :wink:

Django · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:38 pm

BTBackseater wrote:

While I do not post here regularly I do look for information and went here to find out more about the P-82 and in the 4 pages there were maybe 1 page on the P-82. There were more discussion on legal matters and static vs flying and while they have there place for discussion can it done other than under this topic. I am not trying to argue either side but just would like to see the space used for the topic it self.

What do you want to know? Nothing has changed in the last few years on the aircraft. This thread is ABOUT the legal aspect. That's the only thing that has actually changed on the P-82 for a long time.

It's a shame to see the CAF "punt" at this point. I was hoping that an appeal would favor their side, in spite of the IMO poor choice to trade for the P-38 in the first place.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Tim Savage wrote:

warbirdaid wrote:

Plain and simple, the airplane belongs to the AF, if they do not want it to fly; then it should not fly. The AF is just trying to preserve their own history, I would think most people would be able to get on board with that.

Define 'preserve.'

Is letting another F-82 sit outside exposed to the elements preservation? Is letting over two dozen World War Two bombers sit outside preservation?

I could get on board with it if they were taking care of what they already have. As has been demonstrated on this message board over and over, they aren't.

If I loan you a lawnmower in good faith, then you don't take care of it. Is it only my fault that it is in poor condition? The NMUSAF loans out aircraft to groups, museums, and assocaitions that want the aircraft, then some don't upkeep it. And the NMUSAF gets the blame for it. This goes for planes on disply at bases, VFW's, museums, and everywhere. This isn't a case of them taking the plane because it is in bad shape, but because the ownership was challenged. The planes at Lackland while outdoors, also appear to be in pretty nice shape as far as gate guards go.

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:05 pm

warbirdaid wrote:

Plain and simple, the airplane belongs to the AF, if they do not want it to fly; then it should not fly. The AF is just trying to preserve their own history, I would think most people would be able to get on board with that.

Wow, do you know something we don't? Because it is not "Plain and Simple" that it belongs to the AF... In fact I would say otherwise. I see you have only one post here on WIX... why don't you introduce yourself and your affiliation with warbirds or the NMUSAF? I would be interested in what you know that obviously none of us do...

Tim Savage · **Joined:** Mon May 03, 2004 8:26 pm **Posts:** 630

mustangdriver wrote:

Tim Savage wrote:

warbirdaid wrote:

Plain and simple, the airplane belongs to the AF, if they do not want it to fly; then it should not fly. The AF is just trying to preserve their own history, I would think most people would be able to get on board with that.

Define 'preserve.'

Is letting another F-82 sit outside exposed to the elements preservation? Is letting over two dozen World War Two bombers sit outside preservation?

I could get on board with it if they were taking care of what they already have. As has been demonstrated on this message board over and over, they aren't.

If I loan you a lawnmower in good faith, then you don't take care of it. Is it only my fault that it is in poor condition? The NMUSAF loans out aircraft to groups, museums, and assocaitions that want the aircraft, then some don't upkeep it. And the NMUSAF gets the blame for it. This goes for planes on disply at bases, VFW's, museums, and everywhere. This isn't a case of them taking the plane because it is in bad shape, but because the ownership was challenged. The planes at Lackland while outdoors, also appear to be in pretty nice shape as far as gate guards go.

Chris- Your clearly a good guy and I always enjoy your posts, but even you have to admit you credibility is getting a bit tarnished as the constant NMUSAF apologist!

NMUSAF holds title to all these aircraft and has done so for years. They have had ample time to make sure they are properly preserved and protected....and you never answered the question I posed: Define "preserve."

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:42 pm

Give it a rest Chris, please ?

Quote:

The planes at Lackland while outdoors, also appear to be in pretty nice shape as far as gate guards go.

Chris unlike items on loan to outside interests, the aircraft at Lackland are under direct USAF control with the NMUSAF as custodian. They are located at the main USFA Training Command and are seen by thousands each year as they hold graduation ceremonies there for basic training. These particular aircraft are maintained ( at least as far as the paint ) by outside contractors, not by base volunteers trying to scrape together the labor and money for the paint. If someone had a little foresight the WWII aircraft could at least be put under cover ! Let's face it, the only true surviving RP-63 Pinball complete with armor plating has no business being outside in the weather in 2009 ! The people charged with protecting and promoting the history of the aircraft know full well the rarity of that aircraft. If they don't they should be removed and replaced by someone who does.

The same argument applies to the F-82, P-51H, P-47, I even really hate to see the T28A and T-6 outside at this point.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:48 pm

RickH wrote:

Give it a rest Chris, please ?

Quote:

The planes at Lackland while outdoors, also appear to be in pretty nice shape as far as gate guards go.

Chris unlike items on loan to outside interests, the aircraft at Lackland are under direct USAF control with the NMUSAF as custodian. They are located at the main USFA Training Command and are seen by thousands each year as they hold graduation ceremonies there for basic training. These particular aircraft are maintained ( at least as far as the paint ) by outside contractors, not by base volunteers trying to scrape together the labor and money for the paint. If someone had a little foresight the WWII aircraft could at least be put under cover ! Let's face it, the only true surviving RP-63 Pinball complete with armor plating has no business being outside in the weather in 2009 ! The people charged with protecting and promoting the history of the aircraft know full well the rarity of that aircraft. If they don't they should be removed and replaced by someone who does.

The same argument applies to the F-82, P-51H, P-47, I even really hate to see the T28A and T-6 outside at this point.

I just hope that the older, rarer aircraft there aren't being maintained by the same crew that was working on this one...

From what I could tell, they were sanding it down to the metal and repainting spots. And yes, that's at Lackland a little over a year ago.

Ryan

Warbird Information Exchange

CAF F-82 update

Who is online