Question for Gary on CAF Mauler
Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:39 pm
With the positive changes at NHC, might the present situation with the Mauler be reversed? Just hoping, I guess. Thanks.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:03 am
The Maulers are going to the Martin Museum, up North. They should be leaving the CAF in March, I believe.
Gary
Gary
Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:41 am
Devastating turn of events. They should be up in Missouri right now being restored to flight, and I was hoping that would be the case with the new cooperative attide at NHC.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:47 am
It would have been nice to see them restored to airworthy, but considering the circumstances, I think the Martin Museum will make a good home for them.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:02 am
What did I miss? Why are they leaving at all? Did we sell them? Don't remember seeing an offer, or an ad for assignment.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:08 pm
Martin Maulers to the Martin Museum at Baltimore? Nice fit for some rare birds that have been in the boneyard for years. This is the first that I have heard that they were moving as well but they are moving. I would rather see the restored to static state then to have them doing nothing but providing shade for a bunch of rattlesnakes.
Was this a sale or a trade?
Bob
Was this a sale or a trade?
Bob
Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:39 pm
George wrote:
Every now and then, I find something I agree with 100%. Well, this is one of those.
Devastating turn of events. They should be up in Missouri right now being restored to flight, and I was hoping that would be the case with the new cooperative attide at NHC.
Every now and then, I find something I agree with 100%. Well, this is one of those.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:56 pm
planenutti wrote:Martin Maulers to the Martin Museum at Baltimore? Nice fit for some rare birds that have been in the boneyard for years. This is the first that I have heard that they were moving as well but they are moving. I would rather see the restored to static state then to have them doing nothing but providing shade for a bunch of rattlesnakes.
Was this a sale or a trade?
Bob
Is that where they are going?
Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:58 pm
Obergrafeter wrote:What did I miss? Why are they leaving at all? Did we sell them? Don't remember seeing an offer, or an ad for assignment.
Back when I was in Midland, 1992-1994, the Navy contacted us about the Maulers. They had been loaned as statics to the CAF. The CAF didn't own them. They offered us to restore one for them and restore one for the CAF, but nothing ever happened after that. That's how I recall the deal, but I could be wrong, it's been a while and it wasn't high up on the list.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:06 pm
If Gary is correct and they are going to Martin, then Baltimore is the only place that Martin has a museum. Been wrong before, going to be wrong again but don't think so this time.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:51 pm
A thread on here last year explained that the CAF does own the Maulers. Lawyers studied all the documentation and agreed that the aircraft are indeed owned by the CAF. If I recall the thread correctly, the Navy never said the CAF doesn't own them, yet inferred that they couldn't sell them. Can somebody explain this to where it makes some kind of sense?
Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:24 pm
I don't know if it makes any difference or not, but I don't personally like the way all of this worked out either. But with that being said, it IS in the best interest of the CAF to just allow the Navy to reassign the airplanes to the Martin museum.
Yes, we do have paperwork from the Navy that says they were given to the CAF (just like the paperwork we have on the F-82). but as we all know these days, just because it's on paper signed back in the '60's or '70's, that doesn't mean it has any merit in today's court system. The airplanes were up for assignment for years in the CAF, but nobody expressed any interest in taking them on. Recently, a very good friend of mine offered to purchase the airplanes from us, but the Navy not only said that they own the airplanes, they also said that under no circumstances will they ever fly. Rather than taking on yet another legal battle over paperwork and ownership on an airplane that we now "can't" sell, and seemingly nobody in the CAF even wanted, it was decided to let the Navy reassign the airplanes.
For the five years I was employed with the CAF, I tried every angle I could think of to make things work out to where the Maulers (or at least one of them) could fly again. But ultimately, it just didn't work out. I know that there will be opinions all over the board about this decision, but I can assure you that at the end of the day, it IS in the best interest of the CAF and the Maulers (although the potential purchaser of the airplanes would've been the ultimate miracle for the airplanes...I just couldn't make it happen).
Oh, and just so y'all know, the Martin Museum wasn't the first place that was chosen by the Navy for them to go. But after the initial museum chosen (another very well known museum) made the comment to the fella that was going to haul the airplanes that they "would rather scrap the second one at it's current location, rather than pay for the shipping of just a parts airplane," I raised heck and said that no part of those airplanes would be scrapped on my watch! The next thing I heard, the Martin Museum was named as the new caretakers of them.
So, while I know that many of you CAFers out there may not like that the Maulers are leaving, please understand that sometimes the best way to save an airplane is to send it somewhere else.
Let the flaming begin.
Gary
Yes, we do have paperwork from the Navy that says they were given to the CAF (just like the paperwork we have on the F-82). but as we all know these days, just because it's on paper signed back in the '60's or '70's, that doesn't mean it has any merit in today's court system. The airplanes were up for assignment for years in the CAF, but nobody expressed any interest in taking them on. Recently, a very good friend of mine offered to purchase the airplanes from us, but the Navy not only said that they own the airplanes, they also said that under no circumstances will they ever fly. Rather than taking on yet another legal battle over paperwork and ownership on an airplane that we now "can't" sell, and seemingly nobody in the CAF even wanted, it was decided to let the Navy reassign the airplanes.
For the five years I was employed with the CAF, I tried every angle I could think of to make things work out to where the Maulers (or at least one of them) could fly again. But ultimately, it just didn't work out. I know that there will be opinions all over the board about this decision, but I can assure you that at the end of the day, it IS in the best interest of the CAF and the Maulers (although the potential purchaser of the airplanes would've been the ultimate miracle for the airplanes...I just couldn't make it happen).
Oh, and just so y'all know, the Martin Museum wasn't the first place that was chosen by the Navy for them to go. But after the initial museum chosen (another very well known museum) made the comment to the fella that was going to haul the airplanes that they "would rather scrap the second one at it's current location, rather than pay for the shipping of just a parts airplane," I raised heck and said that no part of those airplanes would be scrapped on my watch! The next thing I heard, the Martin Museum was named as the new caretakers of them.
So, while I know that many of you CAFers out there may not like that the Maulers are leaving, please understand that sometimes the best way to save an airplane is to send it somewhere else.
Let the flaming begin.
Gary
Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:56 pm
Well, after losing the B-23, JU-52 and now the Maulers what's next?
That's my concern.
That's my concern.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:59 pm
Gary, you're right, I don't like it. But the last comment you made says it all.
The reality is that the CAF doesn't have the resources to restore and maintain what it has. I wish Eric could have gotten both of them. Things sure are different than they were in the '60s and 70's. This endeavor that started off as a hobby for some duster pilots and volunteers has become so expensive I wonder how long it can last.
This is not directed at the CAF, but it seems no one is able to just do what's right anymore. Every decision is based on politics, political correctness or selfishness. It seems these battles over ownership are like custody battles, it's never really about the kids, it's about winning the argument.
Wish I had more to give, and I wish that what I did give could be used on the airplanes instead of legal battles and hotel rooms
Chunks
So, while I know that many of you CAFers out there may not like that the Maulers are leaving, please understand that sometimes the best way to save an airplane is to send it somewhere else.
The reality is that the CAF doesn't have the resources to restore and maintain what it has. I wish Eric could have gotten both of them. Things sure are different than they were in the '60s and 70's. This endeavor that started off as a hobby for some duster pilots and volunteers has become so expensive I wonder how long it can last.
This is not directed at the CAF, but it seems no one is able to just do what's right anymore. Every decision is based on politics, political correctness or selfishness. It seems these battles over ownership are like custody battles, it's never really about the kids, it's about winning the argument.
Wish I had more to give, and I wish that what I did give could be used on the airplanes instead of legal battles and hotel rooms
Chunks
Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:06 pm
While I don't want this to turn into a "flame war", this and the F-82 decision are pretty disappointing. The CAF wants to be seen as the leader of the warbird movement and they are the ones who are the best positioned to fight the NMUSAF and the NMNA on these issues.
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.
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.