P-82 going Bye Bye!! A very sad day at the CAF!

[B-29 Super Fort]

I hope the CAF is successful on it's appeal of ownership.

[Pat Carry]

After picking up the P-82 in Midland, the USAF should swing by Lackland AFB and pick up the one there as well before it falls apart! It seems they dont give a rats a** about that one.

[Pogo]

If there's anytihng we plain ol' not-real-bright rank 'n' file citizen types can do to help in this situation, I hope it will be spelled out clearly. I not only hate to see the CAF lose this bird, but I'd just as soon the USAF turn their attention to other, more pertinent, matters...

[mustangdriver]

If I were the USAF, I'd want it back too.

Suppose you (the USAF) lent your friend (the CAF) your rare 19?? sports car (the P-82). This friend proceeded to crash it, and then let it sit in his garage for a number of years because he didn't have the money to fix it. All of a sudden the opportunity comes along for a better car (the P-38 trade), a different one, so he decided he's going to trade the car that's technically still yours for the new one. Would you be a little pissed and want it back? I sure would.

That's how I see this situation. This isn't meant to flame the CAF or anything, just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Would I have liked to see the P-82 fly? Sure. But I can honestly say I see where the USAF is coming from. And it's not like there aren't two other potentially flyable P/F-82s. I'm sure the NMUSAF will find an appropriate place to display it and it will be well cared for.

Hey, pal what are you doing by bringing common sense into this picture. I would have loved to see her fly, but I really do understand where the NMUSAF is coming from. The funny thing is that if these were two private owners, no one would have ever said a thing, but because it is NMUSAF, it is a huge deal. The museum is not taking it because they are doing what the Navy did with the F-14. THey are taking it because they and the court as of right now, believe it is theirs. Anyone here would do the exact same thing with it if it was theirs. ONCE AGAIN, Am I a fan of the decision? NO. But they have a point.

[mustangdriver]

After picking up the P-82 in Midland, the USAF should swing by Lackland AFB and pick up the one there as well before it falls apart! It seems they dont give a rats a** about that one.

Although it is outside, the Lackland P-82 has always looked presentable in the pictures I saw. I agree that it needs to come indoors, as they all do, but I think that it is not in that bad of shape either.

[A2C]

If I'm reading this thing right, it's the CAF's fault. They caved when they should have stood up and fought. It's not gov't over reaching, instead it is a sign of a lack of backbone and personal courage. The CAF has no one to blame but themselves.

[retroaviation]

If I'm reading this thing right, it's the CAF's fault. They caved when they should have stood up and fought. It's not gov't over reaching, instead it is a sign of a lack of backbone and personal courage. The CAF has no one to blame but themselves.

With all due respect, how do you figure? The CAF fought this from day one, spending a gazillion dollars to fight the case, and is still spending and still fighting. The disassembly and return of the airplane was ordered by the first court decision. And that was only done after the CAF (via Steve Brown) tried to meet them in the middle. Whether you agree with the CAF or the NMUSAF, I don't see it where anyone has "caved."

Just my $.02 worth.

Gary

[Xrayist]

If the CAF does indeed win an appeal and gets it back, how easy is it going to be to get the USAF Museum to get it back to them? Will it be taken apart and spread throughout many facilities, or kept in one place.
I hope they do get it back, but now that they no longer have possession of it, I doubt they have a chance.

[airnutz]

If I were the USAF, I'd want it back too.

Suppose you (the USAF) lent your friend (the CAF) your rare 19?? sports car (the P-82). This friend proceeded to crash it, and then let it sit in his garage for a number of years because he didn't have the money to fix it. All of a sudden the opportunity comes along for a better car (the P-38 trade), a different one, so he decided he's going to trade the car that's technically still yours for the new one. Would you be a little pissed and want it back? I sure would.

That's how I see this situation. This isn't meant to flame the CAF or anything, just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Would I have liked to see the P-82 fly? Sure. But I can honestly say I see where the USAF is coming from. And it's not like there aren't two other potentially flyable P/F-82s. I'm sure the NMUSAF will find an appropriate place to display it and it will be well cared for.

Hey, pal what are you doing by bringing common sense into this picture. I would have loved to see her fly, but I really do understand where the NMUSAF is coming from. The funny thing is that if these were two private owners, no one would have ever said a thing, but because it is NMUSAF, it is a huge deal. The museum is not taking it because they are doing what the Navy did with the F-14. THey are taking it because they and the court as of right now, believe it is theirs. Anyone here would do the exact same thing with it if it was theirs. ONCE AGAIN, Am I a fan of the decision? NO. But they have a point.

Common Sense? More of your opinion Chris...IMHO!

Suppose you were given a car with paperwork(and left a B-25 to fill the slot in the lot). Everythings fine for 40 years
until you decide to trade your car to another individual. The NEW lot manager calls you and says bring your car
back..it was only a loan! But sir we have the bill of ownership, you say. Sorry bring it back..the old lot manager wasn't
authorized to cede the car to you...Sez Me The New Lot Manager!

At the very least the General could have said, "No the F-82's a loan don't trade/sell it." Solved the owner/loan issue and
still leave the '82 with CAF. But no, he goes for the throat for seizure!

For 40 years there was no issue as to who owned the F-82 and the care or damage to it in the crash. When it was publicly
announced 40 years ago about the CAF ownership of the '82..not a peep out of the AF refuting the claim.

The General also seems to be trying to retrofit how things were done back then with the more stringent guidelines of
today. Some of the new attitude appears the USAF is being outright difficult and asinine just because they can to the
very people and public who support them and their history. The General could have picked far more reasonable
alternatives than the path he chose.

Just my .02

[hurk130]

If I were the USAF, I'd want it back too.

Suppose you (the USAF) lent your friend (the CAF) your rare 19?? Sports car (the P-82). This friend proceeded to crash it, and then let it sit in his garage for a number of years because he didn't have the money to fix it. All of a sudden the opportunity comes along for a better car (the P-38 trade), a different one, so he decided he's going to trade the car that's technically still yours for the new one. Would you be a little pissed and want it back? I sure would.

That's how I see this situation. This isn't meant to flame the CAF or anything, just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Would I have liked to see the P-82 fly? Sure. But I can honestly say I see where the USAF is coming from. And it's not like there aren't two other potentially flyable P/F-82s. I'm sure the NMUSAF will find an appropriate place to display it and it will be well cared for.

Or Not! What if you are Jay Leno "Car Collector Number One" (USAF) and already have two of these cars (P-82's) your friend (CAF) has had this car for so long that you didn't even remember he had it until someone else reminded you and you had to roll lawyers in to clarify ownership for sure, it changes the picture a bit. But then again your friend has a proven track record of crashing cars, you might want it back before it ends up a smoking hole in West Texas in a senseless crash (I stole that one). It does get confusing, doesn't it?
I also echo: That's how I see this situation. This isn't meant to flame the CAF or anything, just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Would I have liked to see the P-82 fly? Sure. But I can honestly say I see where the USAF is coming from. And it's not like there aren't two other potentially flyable P/F-82s. I'm sure the NMUSAF will find an appropriate place to display it and it will be well cared for. AND I would love to see the CAF finish this plane and get it out on the circuit. It benefits the public, the CAF and the AF to fly it.
That is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[george]

Agree, Airnutz. The analogy of loaning a car to a friend is no analogy. The P-82 was given outright to the CAF after they met the initial terms of loan over several years. If the CAF has to return it, seems like heirs of donors of aircraft to the AF museum could do the same thing - could say they don't accept the documentation that says it was donated to the museum.

Have to wonder where this court decision took place.

[N3Njeff]

Y'know, maybe if all the currently active Mustang, Sabre and Thunderbolt pilots and crews refused to take part in USAF Heritage Flights at airshows this year, that might get peoples' attention. If the USAF feels they are the sole representative of their own heritage, then let them figure out how to perform a heritage flight without the private sector.

I like this idea.

I hate to see it go to the USAF, I wanted to see it fly. I dont trust them once it gets into their hands. Look at the collings foundation. They have engines for the F-4 that was supposed to go with the airplane and someone changed the rules and the usaf is now holding them and not letting them have them.

Personally I would take all the airworthy stuff off before she goes and let them have a shell and wait for a court decision.

[jet1]

Y'know, maybe if all the currently active Mustang, Sabre and Thunderbolt pilots and crews refused to take part in USAF Heritage Flights at airshows this year, that might get peoples' attention. If the USAF feels they are the sole representative of their own heritage, then let them figure out how to perform a heritage flight without the private sector.

I like this idea.

I hate to see it go to the USAF, I wanted to see it fly. I dont trust them once it gets into their hands. Look at the collings foundation. They have engines for the F-4 that was supposed to go with the airplane and someone changed the rules and the usaf is now holding them and not letting them have them.

Personally I would take all the airworthy stuff off before she goes and let them have a shell and wait for a court decision.

GOSH it was ME...and YOU. Seems to me if WE paid for it WE should be able to decide what happens to it.

[A2C]

With all due respect, how do you figure? The CAF fought this from day one, spending a gazillion dollars to fight the case, and is still spending and still fighting. The disassembly and return of the airplane was ordered by the first court decision. And that was only done after the CAF (via Steve Brown) tried to meet them in the middle. Whether you agree with the CAF or the NMUSAF, I don't see it where anyone has "caved."

Just my $.02 worth.

I may be missing something here, but it appears they should've kept fighting and asked for help from lawyers sympathetic to their cause. So they have indeed caved. They gave in.

[bdk]

Are you suggesting they should defy the court order while waiting for their appeal to be heard?