Cavalier Mustang 68-15795 in the UK -- what happened to it?

[Randy Haskin]

In the late 1970s, the US loaned a Cavalier Mustang to the RAF Museum after it was retired from active service.

The airplane was 'rebuilt' at RAF Upper Heyford (presumably by USAF personnel) in '76, then the RAF stored it at RAF Henlow in '77. Three years later, the RAF Museum sent the aircraft back to the USAF, apparently claiming the aircraft was ‘inappropriate’ for display due to being a Cavalier. Coggan's book says the aircraft was "rejected" by the RAF Museum.

Can anyone shed any light on to what this was all about? Was the RAF looking for a WWII vet or something?

[blurrkup]

Found this looking through mustangsmustangs.com

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/su ... 5795.shtml

I would think that as the RAF didn't use Cavalier Mustangs that is why it was sent back.

They now have two, 44-73415 which is at Cosford and '44-13317' Donald (believe its actual number is 44-74409)

[HELLDIVERS]

blurrkup would be correct I remember when it arrived at MSP and its still there

[Randy Haskin]

Yup, I know where it is now and what condition it's in.

I just want to know what happened to it in the UK.

- What was done to it during the rebuild at Upper Heyford?
- Why did the RAF Museum refuse it?

I would think that as the RAF didn't use Cavalier Mustangs that is why it was sent back.

That's sort of like saying that they didn't use PBYs that were converted into fire bombers. There's nothing about a Cavalier-rebuilt Mustang that makes it tangibly different than a NAA Mustang. There are many, many of them that are flying on the warbird circuit today fully decked out as "WWII" config Mustangs after a restoration.

My question is why an airplane that could easily have been put into WWII configuration was rebuffed.

[JDK]

My question is why an airplane that could easily have been put into WWII configuration was rebuffed.

This is just my speculating... The RAF Museum has generally undertaken restorations of ultra-rare types that in-house rebuilds are the best route for restoration - such as the Supermarine Southampton. Mustangs, as we know, aren't rare; a significant history or significant originality would come up without them needing to do or sub-contract a Cavalier de-mod, as did, twice subsequently with Mustangs 'turning up'. There may have been some other issues not for public consumption.

Just a thought.

[Randy Haskin]

There may have been some other issues not for public consumption.

Just a thought.

Well, that has been my assumption, but I was hoping that someone might have some firsthand or secondhand information on it.

To be honest, my thought (with the complete absence of any other information) was that there must have been something of significance involved in the matter.

If the RAFM simply didn't want the aircraft, they either wouldn't have taken it from the USAF in the first place, or they would have returned it back to the USAF quietly.

Instead...it was "rejected" (quoted word from one source) as "inappropriate" (quoted word from a different source).

So, that leads me to think that there's something else going on with this airplane or the deal with the USAF that isn't obvious to the casual observer.

[mike furline]

Here's a few pics,

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... ersion=6.0

[adflyer]

More recently after repaint...

[mike furline]

Straight from the horses mouth.

This is the response I received from the RAF Museum about 68-15795,

"Thank you for your e mail. Almost from day one of the RAF Museum's
existence we have had P-51D Mustang (or earlier mark on our shopping
list.) That early in the RAFM's history we would have been looking for
an airframe which could represent the many hundreds of Mustangs which
saw service with the RAF.

We have always had a good working relationship with our friends at
W-PAFB and in the 1970s it appeared that they had located a P-51D for
us. This airframe was shipped unseen to the UK for our use. Upon
arrival it was found to be a Cavalier conversion and deficient in
important parts. Although appropriate for a USAF COIN aircraft it had no
place in our collection. This was in no way the fault of the National
Museum of the United States Air Force but other American agencies.
Eventually the aircraft was returned to the USA.

Richard Simpson
Keeper
Aircraft and Exhibits"

Regards,
Mike

[Randy Haskin]

Hmmm, interesting.

I guess it was deficient in that it didn't have guns...or WWII radio equipment...other than that, I don't know what parts it would have been "deficient" in.

It's not like it was turned into a different airplane in the Cavalier conversion. It was still a P-51...no different than, say, an On-Mark Invader is still an A-26.

[Mike]

And the next deal that they did, with the Eagle Sqn Assn IIRC, brought them an empty shell of a P-51D, deficient in almost every piece of internal equipment.

[Randy Haskin]

Mike -

That makes it an even weirder deal.

There's got to be more than meets the eye to this one.

[k5083]

Hmmm, interesting.

I guess it was deficient in that it didn't have guns...or WWII radio equipment...other than that, I don't know what parts it would have been "deficient" in.

It's not like it was turned into a different airplane in the Cavalier conversion. It was still a P-51...no different than, say, an On-Mark Invader is still an A-26.

The museum's position on the Cavalier is perfectly understandable.

Whether a Cavalier is a P-51 and an On Mark is an A-26 is just semantics; it is very arguable that they are not.

The real point is that any museum or collector truly interested in a historical artifact would rather have something that has always been in the appropriate configuration and has substantial original content, rather than something that has been converted and has to be converted back using parts from other airplanes. "Restoration" is almost a dirty word in museum circles; it is something to be kept to a minimum.

I can't speak to the "next deal" Mike referred to.

August

[mike furline]

Mike -

That makes it an even weirder deal.

There's got to be more than meets the eye to this one.

Is it possible that "inappropriate" simply means inappropriate in this instance and nothing more?
Would certainly make for a strange conspiracy, cover-up or anything else as sinister.