Warbird Information Exchange

Chris, first off I consider you a friend, but your comments are off base.

I challenge you to go back through my posts in this thread and point out where I indicated correct or incorrect ownership of this aircraft. I assure you that the ownership issue is water far under the bridge with me.

I admitted in my posts that I DO NOT KNOW to what extent the P-82 has been (in your words) "improved". Making an aircraft look pretty on the outside is one thing. Restoration and preservation are another animal. Restoration to flyable is another. Cosmetically the P-82 looks fine now. I'm quite sure the CAF could've made her just as cosmetically pretty, don't you? But have you stopped to think about perhaps why the CAF didn't sink great money and time into a thorough cosmetic restoration?

The title of this thread stated that this P-82 is now on display. I expressed my opinion that I felt that a podless, Merlin-engined example--presented as a Korean War veteran--fell short of my personal expectations for the NMUSAF. I wrongly assumed that when the museum moved this aircraft to the display area that the preparation work was completed. I did not realize that more "work" (cosmetic or otherwise) is planned to be performed. I apologize for jumping the gun on this issue.

With which words did I scoff the museum's choice of honoring an MIA crew?

Am I disappointed that this P-82 will not fly? Yes

Do I hold the NMUSAF exclusively to blame? No

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Dan, first and foremost(and most important in my book) is that I too consider you a friend. The tone of my post, only part of which was replying to you, was meant in a positive manner. Basically what I am trying to say is that the NMUSAF didn't just decide to take over an airplane, they just didn't allow someone to trade something they owned away. I think there are some that don't see it that way. As for it's condition, when it came to the museum, I was a little shocked at it's rough shape. It was much rougher than shows in pics. It had been banged around a bit, the cockpit was rough, and there was damage to it still. Much of this was corrected, but I was told other work will be done on it. Dan so that we are on the same page;
Do I wish it was going to fly: yes
Do I think the nmusaf did the right thing:yes

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

You know I'm cool with it, Chris...first round at WIXfest V (as always) on me.



(Ps. It needs a pod! )

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Sorry Chris, I call BS.

Other than the cockpits, I want to see pictures of how rough the airplane was. Sheet metal wise all the repairs had been made before it left the CAF. I looked it over in Breckenridge and in Midland many times, including just a day or two before it left Midland (when these pictures were taken). If it was banged around, it was done when it was unloaded at Dayton or in transit (which I doubt). I'm assuming you aren't talking about typical damage from being around 50yrs or the standard hanger rash you can't avoid when shipping a plane.

I'd bet you $20 right now that if you go over and look in the cockpits, they will look pretty much like they do in my pictures. Maybe a little less dusty. Even though a restoration was started on a couple of occasions, very little was done to the cockpits ,systems wise, as the lawsuit happened before that work got really underway.

If I was a betting man, and I am, I'd say that not much was done to the airplane at dayton besides bolting it back together, figuring out what to do about props, painting it and rolling it into the museum. I'M NOT BADMOUTHING THAT IN ANYWAY, THEY DID A VERY NICE JOB. I'd even say it looks nicer than it did when I saw it fly in Harlingen.

I think it is a wonderful tribute to Korean veterans, just not as nice as it would be in the air.

_________________
Brad

Chris,

I could have been wrong about this and If I was I apologize. I'm still looking into it and will let you know.

In the event that anybody wonders why I keep diving into this, it's because I have absolutely no use for an airplane that doesn't fly, unless there is no another option. Just like I've got no use for a bald eagle stuffed and sitting on a perch in a museum. I've seen live ones and that is the only way to see them. I've worked on a lot of statics over the years but only because they had no chance of flying. Given the opportunity, I'll always go towards the flyers. I know nothing is going to change what happened as long as the Air Force museum has the government behind them. But I still like the subject.

I'm not trying to be all over Chris. I'm certainly not trying to be all over the Air Force Museum volunteers. They work with what they have. I think the management sucks in a serious way.

(I do wonder why they painted the exahust stacks black though!)

_________________
Brad

I think an important point to bring out regarding the condition of the F-82 is the fact that the aircraft never really had an in-depth restoration since it was taken from Lackland AFB and put into flying condition by the CAF. I remember seeing the F-82 fly for the first time, I believe, at Airsho' 77 or so, and even then I remember that the aircraft looked used and "not new". In other words, it's appearance looked like a typical USAF fighter would have back in 1950 or so. If I'm not mistaken the CAF only did basically an IRAN on the airplane after they got it, to get it quickly into flying condition. Can anyone elaborate on this?

Somewhere in my storage, I have a picture of me sitting in the cockpit of it when I was a little kid back then. Gary Levitz was quite the gentleman and offered to let me sit in the cockpit, which I did. I will always remember that special moment the rest of my life. It's amazing what little offers of graciousness can leave such a lasting life-long impression, especially when you are young. Warbird owners take note!

I posted these from Harlingen 1984 on a different thread years ago.






The only observation I'll make on this thread is that the folks, including leadership people, in the Restoration Department at NMUSAF have been working with me (both during my time working on TR and now with VFM) on various B-17 related issues and have been great.

Scott

Somewhere out there is a CAF "yearbook" of sorts that shows the -82 when it was acquired (for lack of a better word) by the CAF. Under a photo of some men working on it, it says that the plane would be assigned to the Central Texas Wing when flying. John Stokes was to be the sole sponsor of it, like he was on the P-39. John gave the CAF a $25,000 dollar check, and told them to let him know when they needed more. They never did, and the plane never flew. Legend has it that it was about this time that the B-24 was acquired from Pemex and they wanted the engines back. Supposedly a deal was worked to buy the engines for $25,000, and that's where John's money went, with the intent to repay the -82 fund and start work when the money came back to the fund.

Years later, Gary Levitz supposedly asked Lefty about getting the -82 flying and offered to put some sponsorship money into it. Wanting money, and the plane to fly, the sole sponsorship agreement with John was forgotten. The plane eventually returned to flight. This was one of the events that caused John to pull back from the CAF, and even start selling off his collection. At least that's how it was told to me.

I was sad that the plane wasn't going to join us at San Marcos, as we had always been told it would. I even was able to do some work on it at Airsho a few times. But I was happy to finally have had the chance to see it in the air!

When Ed did the damage to it, he stood up at the general membership meeting and said not to worry, he was going to get the plane fixed. Not long after that, it seems, he kind of went away from being active in the CAF. Ed was a real nice guy, at least to me, and I do miss him and P.D. Straw as well. They were a riot during the Airsho pilot briefings in Harlingen.

_________________
Mike

Brad, no worries man we are cool. I don't take anything on here as a personal attack unless it is meant to be just that. What I mean by the P-82 condition is that I was always under the impression it was ready to go just needed another prop. When it got to Dayton it was not in the condition that I thought it was in. That is not a knock on the CAF, it is just different than what I expected. It had hangar rash from different things, the cockpits were a bit rough, and the center pos and wings seemed sort of rough. it also could just have been dirty and giving me that impression. But that is not a knock on the CAF. Despite everything going on right now, I still enjoy the CAF and think that people should be proud to be a member of them. We can bash them all day long, but when they show up at a show, it is always great to see them. They turned out in force at the Doolittle Raider Reuinion, and many other events, to help make those events special.
Brad I agree that it would be great to have seen the P-82 fly. It's unfortunate that a deal could not be worked out. But at the very least, she is on her way to be restored and displayed in a great way, and will honor the men that flew the P-82 into combat.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I wonder if the USAFM had gotten the P-82 that sits at Lackland now instead, how long would it have taken them to get it on display? More or less time?

How about leaving the Dayton and Lackland birds right where they are and just swapping FWF? Does anyone know if the respective motor mounts fit either airframe?

Once swapped, offer 162's motors to Tom Reilly's XP-82 project and mount duds on Lackland's static bird.


Dan just bein' goofy (or am I?)

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Thanks for all the great photos Gents. They are much appreciated.

Gary

What does the USAFM gain from all this effort? Encouraging flight is an undesirable outcome for any former military aircraft, isn't it?

BDK the museum does/has/and is helping other groups fly their aircraft. I am not sure if they will do what Dan has suggested, but I think it would be cool. Sometimes they help in the form of information, drawings, and sometimes parts. When the museum restored the beaufighter they made enough copies of some of the engine parts for all of the remaining Beaufighter airframes so that the others would have them when ready.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

OK here is a question for someone at the USAFM Do you have any left over parts for an AT-10 or not?