Not NMUSAF, but no Mauler for me, either........

EDowning · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:38 pm

Although no one at the CAF said I had to keep this confidential, I think it is now worth mentioning in light of the NMUSAF/P-82 press release. I had approached the CAF about buying the 2 Mauler airframes in order to restore them into one flying example. Gary Austin and Bob Stenavik handled the situation with great professionalism. Gary sent went through all of the paperwork that the CAF had obtained from the Navy and sent me an inch and a half thick FEDEX package of paperwork that looked like the CAF had undeniable ownership rights. To be completely sure, I paid my team of attorneys (that never want to approve anything for any reason) and they even agreed that the CAF had ownership. Based on this, I shot the CAF a fairly generous offer that would have guarenteed that I would restore the airframes to flying condition. The deal was, of course, subject to approval by the CAF General Staff. As an final precaution, Bob Stenavik flew to D.C. to meet with the Navy and make sure that the ownership issue was clear.

Someone at the Navy told Bob that regardless of the paperwork that the CAF has, the Navy was claiming ownership and the airframes could not be sold. They also stirred up a bunch of crap about other airframes that the CAF currently operates, just to make a point.

I doesn't make much sense to me, the paperwork shows that the CAF owns it, I was willing to spend between 1 and 1.2 to get a rare type flying again, but the Navy would rather let it rot in a Texas field, than have it fly.

Just to be clear, I have no interest in pursuing any meetings or litigation or other B.S. to attempt to get these airframes. I am just going to pursue other types. I don't, however, have much use for the Navy or NMUSAF attitude toward these transactions.

No boo hoo stuff either.... The CAF and I gave it a shot and it didn't work out. Kudos to Gary Austin and Bob Stenavik for all the work they did on this. You couldn't find more professional people.

Even so, the Skyraider and Mauler in formation would have been cooooool!

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:07 pm

Well crap. That really sucks. Good for you trying. I wish it would have worked out.

kevin

gary1954 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:10 pm

Is there any one Frickin Congressman that has a frickin interest in Warbirds?

Ztex · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:16 pm

Quote:

Someone at the Navy told Bob that regardless of the paperwork that the CAF has, the Navy was claiming ownership and the airframes could not be sold. They also stirred up a bunch of crap about other airframes that the CAF currently operates, just to make a point.

The slippery slope I mentioned in the F-82 thread...and someone joked about FiFi???? Careful what you joke about...

Good for you for trying Eric! Go get some other machine you (we) can be proud of!

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:21 pm

Ztex wrote:

Quote:

Someone at the Navy told Bob that regardless of the paperwork that the CAF has, the Navy was claiming ownership and the airframes could not be sold. They also stirred up a bunch of crap about other airframes that the CAF currently operates, just to make a point.

The slippery slope I mentioned in the F-82 thread...and someone joked about FiFi???? Careful what you joke about...

Good for you for trying Eric! Go get some other machine you (we) can be proud of!

Who said I was joking about the AF museum coming after FiFi ? if they succeed with the F-82, what is to stop them for going after the B-29 ?

Ryan Keough · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:28 pm

This is certainly becoming a disturbing trend...

Have you considered a Guardian? I know of at least a few people here in Mesa, AZ that would do cartwheels on a 400 degree tarmac if one saw air under it's tires again.

EDowning · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:36 pm

Guys,

I am not happy about the Navy's actions here, but, I'm just guessing that the Hitler thing might be a little over the top. I just posted this info in light of the P-82 info because I was curious about public opinion.

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:40 pm

Eric,
Thanks for the info... It shows that this isn't just an isolated case. This is what we're up against...

btw you aught to restore an L-5... its cheaper! :lol:

EDowning · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:46 pm

Ryan wrote:

Quote:

This is certainly becoming a disturbing trend...

Have you considered a Guardian? I know of at least a few people here in Mesa, AZ that would do cartwheels on a 400 degree tarmac if one saw air under it's tires again.

I like the Guardian, but for whatever reason it doesn't do that much for me. I liked the idea of having a bigger engine than the little one on my Skyraider. Long term (and I mean long term, I don't have sufficient multi experience now) I am interested a big bad A-26. So I will probably get more serious about getting a C-45 in the near future to get me prepped for that goal.

EDowning · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:52 pm

Taylor wrote:

Quote:

btw you aught to restore an L-5... its cheaper!

What I should do, is hire you to be that little voice of reason, that I seem to be lacking! Pay attention down there at Vandy (particularly to the spelling classes :shock:

), we could all use a little more common sense.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Eric, how about a Tigercat or Mosquito? Both are very unique and rare! There's a few Mossie projects around. With Yagen's Mossie being rebuilt down at AvSpec's, the knowledge and ability to reconstruct a Mossie certainly exists! You could learn to fly multi's and get experience while it was being rebuilt/restored!

If you want something really unique, how about a Vultee A-31 Vengeance? There are 2 or 3 down at Precision that are being rebuilt to flying condition. They're big bad single engine bombers powered by the 2600! I'm sure one of them could be bought!

Just some ideas.

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:38 am

Eric,
It would have been great to see you and Mike restore the AM-1's. This is a completely disturbing trend of assertion of ownership. I don't think it is specific to the Federal government- there is a resemblance here to all the local laws that are sprouting up around the US which extend eminent domain over "blight" properties which are then used for the public good (translation: seized and sold off to developers). It's sick, and I doubt the framers would have agreed with it in any way, shape, or form.

astixjr · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:36 pm

I've been stewing over the outcome of this deal since Eric gave me the bad news. From fellow WIXer John Kerr's photo collection, note the NAS St Louis on the fuselage band. I was thrilled about the idea of Eric bringing the CAF Mauler projects to St. Louis. He would have funded a world class restoration on a really cool aircraft and helped bring some interesting St. Louis aviation history back "home". Maybe the Navy can protect these Mauler projects for future generations by dumping them in the ocean.

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:14 pm

Eric,
Make an offer on Erickson's AM-1. Seeing has so much of his stuff is leaving Tillamook :idea:

Django · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:15 pm

What if you became the CAF Mauler Wing... with the understanding that it not be eligible for rotation... ever? Sounds crazy, I know. Just a thought.

Warbird Information Exchange

Not NMUSAF, but no Mauler for me, either........

Who is online