CAF P-82 Talking Points

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:36 pm

You asked for 'em and here the talking points are. If you do contact a local representative, please email me a copy at Me109me109@aol.com.

"A Note From the President

Members of the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) and Warbird Enthusiasts:

As you have read, over the past few days, we have decided to release the details in our battle to retain the F-82 that was donated to the CAF, by the Air Force, 40 years ago. As I mentioned in the Press Release - although this is a legal issue between the CAF and the Air Force, we feel that this is more about one man’s personal prejudice against the restoration to flying status of our aircraft veteran – CAF’s F-82. Although the press release speaks for itself, many of you and others in the Warbird Community have asked us, “What can we do?” “How can we help?”

If you would like to help, here are the things you can do. Please contact your local Congressional Representative or Senator. These are the talking points:

· The CAF’s position is that it owns the F-82, since it was donated without conditions in a 17 JAN 1968 letter stating, “This will certify that F-82B aircraft serial number 44-65162 has been officially donated by the Air Force to the Confederate Air Force, Mercedes, Texas, under the provisions of 10 USC 2572”.

· Gen. Metcalf notified the CAF in Dec 2002 that an attempted sale of the F-82 violated the terms of the conditional lease “Certificate”. Upon learning of the claimed reversionary condition, and without agreeing to its validity, the CAF chose to “undo the deal” and title and possession of the F-82 was transferred back to the CAF, where it remains today.

· The CAF attempted to negotiate with the USAFM from 2003 until 2006, with the goal of maintaining possession of the aircraft and restoring it to flying condition. The Director of the USAFM desired this aircraft to be rendered unflyable, therefore no agreeable solution resulted.

· The CAF has a Sponsor and desires to keep the airplane and restore it to flying status.

· The CAF honors the men and women of the Air Force and did not want this dispute made public, but had no recourse when the Air Force demanded the immediate return of the aircraft. The CAF’s fear is that the Air Force will render this aircraft unflyable, making a resulting successful appeal moot; as the purpose of the CAF is to restore and FLY vintage military aircraft.

· The CAF has stood and stands ready now to negotiate with the Air Force, outside of the courtroom – with the goal of returning this aircraft to flyable status in the perpetual care of the CAF.

Already we have gathered support from 6 prominent Congress members who are working hard on our behalf….but we need more! Congressman Sam Graves, from the Sixth District of Missouri is spearheading the charge. If anyone has contact with members from the Armed Services Committee; especially the Chairman, those would be very helpful.

I appreciate all of the support we have received from the CAF membership, the Warbird Information Exchange and Warbird enthusiasts around the world.

Keep the F-82 Flying!!

Stephan Brown
"

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:07 pm

Our local govt got into a battle with pilots and then AOPA and the FAA. One of the members of the band Eagles had a house here and he is anti gen av and anti airplane noise. He gave $100k under the table to the county's lawyer to restrict night flying here. First, it was openly a noise issue, and when that didn't sell fully, they turned it into a safety issue. Anyway, many pilots thought having the FAA on our side was sufficient. It helped, but the local pols were persistent and went over the FAA to the members in Congress, like Sen. Ford as I recall, that control FAA funding. Thus the FAA backed down, in part, and a compromise was reached with some restrictions put into effect.

So if it gets really combative, the way to win may be, if possible, to find influence with the congressional members who control the funding for that museum. This is a big step, and may not be easy, but would have a big effect. Virtually everything in govt is about money, and that is where the control lies.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:26 pm

I don't know Mr. Greenwood. I personally don't want to see the good things done at the NMUSAF stopped because of funding issues. I don't see how that doesn't just make them more angry. Certainly we wouldn't want an under-the table deal being discovered and discrediting a good cause.
What I really hope happens is for there to be a clear policy shift that publicly and privately recognizes the need for the preservation of well-maintained non-flying aircraft, preferably of historic value, that are in AIRWORTHY condition, so that they are preserved for the next generation, while at the same time allowing for a large number of privately owned flying aircraft that WILL be maintained by their owners by the nature of a free market. Sure, some aircraft will deteriorate at one point or another, but most of them will eventually be picked back up and restored again, and if you've been to some of the museums I've been to - including and especially US Air Force bases, then a reasonable person would have a hard time arguing that they are being better preserved in static condition!

Ryan

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:44 pm

Ryan, first please, it is Bill, not Mr. Greenwood. Also, I didn't write anything calling for any "under the table deal". I wrote that the Eagles guy tried to use it against pilots here.

You may think or hope the NMUSAF or the Gen involved is going to do the right thing. And may the tooth fairly come down and grant you a 10,000 hour TBO on your airplane engine. The CAF has already negotiated with them for years to no avail. They or the Gen wants to ground or confiscate the plane.

I am not interested in hurting that AF museum, but like almost all govt agencies, programs, and decisions; money is the deciding factor. If those who control funding for the AF museum, can be persuaded to the CAF cause in this matter, ( a big IF) and are willing to reduce funding, you'll see one of two things for sure. Either Gen Grab Em and Ground Em will change his position quickly, or they will get someone else in his place to do it. Most likely both.

Can a public opinion oriented campaign work? First, I am not so sure the public would be on the CAF.s side, although most pilots probably would. The CAF position and history has some weak spots that the other side can easily argue.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:51 pm

Bill,
Got it! I didn't mean to imply that you were suggesting any secret deal, just that the mere mention of it was scary.
And yes, optimist that I'm choosing to be, there's always hope!

Ryan

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:04 pm

As for hope, when Lockheed wants the govt to buy Raptors or Haliburton wants a no bid sweetheart deal, or Exxon wants a tax break, they rely on lobbyists and political influence. Hope is about all the powerless are left with.

And yeah, some people say anything and most everything I write is scary.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:36 am

Does anyone have a list and contact info on the members of that committee?

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:18 am

Senate Armed Services Committee:
DEMOCRATS

Carl Levin (Michigan)
Chairman

Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut)
Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska)
Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Mark L. Pryor (Arkansas)
Jim Webb (Virginia)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)

REPUBLICANS
John McCain (Arizona)
Ranking Member

John W. Warner (Virginia)
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Susan M. Collins (Maine)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina)
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina)
John Cornyn (Texas)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Mel Martinez (Florida)
Roger F. Wicker (Mississippi)

Ryan, are Inhofe and Cornyn already on board?

kevin

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:59 am

There you go get politicinas invlolved because they really care about warbirds.

Here are my feelings. Is it wrong for the CAF in trying to do something that is against the agreement? Yes. Should they be allowed to keep the P-82 in airworthy condition and keep it that way? Yes. I say and I have made myself vocal in Ohio(not that it matters) that the CAF should keep the P-82 in the air. If there comes a time that they do not want it, then it should be returned to Dayton.

Chris · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:52 pm

Since the P-82 was officially donated to the CAF by the USAFM, then why would the CAF "RETURN" it to Dayton. It doesn't belong to them anymore in spite of what Gen. Metcalf thinks. It wasn't a matter of the CAF not wanting it anymore. A flyable P-38 was offered in exchange for the P-82 so it could be made flyable as well. A win-win situation for both sides. It would not surprise me at all to see them pack it away in some hole in the wall hanger just to spite all the people who would like to see it fly.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:22 pm

Mustangdriver, it is a shame that pilots or Wix members like myself may have to choose between a nice museum like the AF or a flying organization like CAF. What other option does the AF museum leave us? The CAF has tried negotiation for 3 years and court for a year to no avail. And if court did not work then the next step is political pressure, or perhaps public opinion.

It would seem if the AF museum wants a static P-82, isn't there one sitting outside at Lackland collecting bird droppings?

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:24 pm

Quote:

It doesn't belong to them anymore in spite of what Gen. Mudface thinks. It wasn't a matter of the CAF not wanting it anymore.

At this point it's more like what the judge thinks :idea:

BTW it's Gen. Fine :twisted:

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11335

mustangdriver wrote:

Is it wrong for the CAF in trying to do something that is against the agreement? Yes.

No it isn't. Agreements are renegotiated all the time for a multitude of reasons- assuming that both parties agree that there is in fact an agreement in place.

FG1D Pilot · **Joined:** Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:42 am **Posts:** 450

mustangdriver wrote:

There you go get politicinas invlolved because they really care about warbirds.

Here are my feelings. Is it wrong for the CAF in trying to do something that is against the agreement? Yes. Should they be allowed to keep the P-82 in airworthy condition and keep it that way? Yes. I say and I have made myself vocal in Ohio(not that it matters) that the CAF should keep the P-82 in the air. If there comes a time that they do not want it, then it should be returned to Dayton.

That depends on which agreement you are referring to. The first letter of agreement had conditions. The second letter said ( I am paraphrasing ): "You have met the obligations of our agreement and the P 82 is given to the CAF".
In the requirements of aircraft donation, until the past few years, you had to follow the requirements for 5 years and then you owned it. It is still the same way with federal surplus donations to museums. Items must be utilized for 1 year. Vehicles for 2-3 years and aircraft for 5 years. After you complete the requirements, then it is yours to do as you wish, including selling it. The change a few years ago, was that they no longer surplused certain "implements of war". This change has been in the last 10 years or so. Seems that the good Gen. decided to retrofit the agreement using the first letter. He has never acknowledged the second letter. I have seen both letters.

I think the CAF made a mistake in trying to negotiate. They ( we ) should have told them to shove it.

k5083 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:43 pm

Wow, that's some paraphrasing!

August

Warbird Information Exchange

CAF P-82 Talking Points

Who is online