CAF F-82 update

[k5083]

Mark Pilkington wrote:

"........with the CAF given they are effectively running a USAF Heritage Flight of grand proportions,.......:

Not sure what you meant by this?
Thx,
VL

I think I know what he means. He means that the CAF's activities are of great benefit to the USAF inasmuch as they trumpet the USAF's past achievements and display its historic hardware in a way that, if there were no CAF or similar organizations, the USAF itself might feel the need to do. For the USAF to be enemies of the CAF is like a football team being enemies of its own cheerleaders. Or maybe I should say its alumni.

On static vs. flying, it's funny how every topical internet forum that I frequent has one running controversy with extremists on both sides and reasonable people in the middle. On my photography forums it is film versus digital. Here it is static versus flying. We have the extreme flying position well represented here -- static airplanes are dead, they may as well be plastic models, if it can be made to fly it should, etc. -- just silly, uneducated thinking. There is really nobody on this forum representing the other extreme of keep 'em all grounded, although in the real world there are lots of such people. Here on this forum all we have is some people who take conservation, preservation, and static displays seriously and since they are the only straw men available to be knocked down, that is what happens -- despite the fact that they are actually centrists in the debate.

August

[Mark_Pilkington]

Mark Pilkington wrote:

"........with the CAF given they are effectively running a USAF Heritage Flight of grand proportions,.......:

Not sure what you meant by this?
Thx,
VL

I meant that the CAF, in operating examples of historic USAF aircraft as flying memorials and for public exhibition and commemoration events such as a B-29, B-24, 2x B-17's, multiple-25's, P-51's . P-47's, P-40s and T-6 aircraft, not to mention lesser types, is effectively operating an American or USAF equivalent to the RAF's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight of 1 lancaster, and a handful of Spitfires and Hurricanes, but on a much larger (grander) scale or proportions, and all at no cost to the USAF or US Government, (and have done so for over 30 years).

Surely an organisation the USAF should be encouraging and working with closely?

regards

Mark Pilkington

[P51Mstg]

vlado wrote:
Mark Pilkington wrote:

"........with the CAF given they are effectively running a USAF Heritage Flight of grand proportions,.......:


I think where Mark was going was that ..... Since the CAF has been preserving and operating warbirds for so many years (before the formal HF) they are in and of themselves an ambasador of USAF history which benefits the USAF in their recruiting efforts........ (IE Kids gain an interest in military aircraft and want to join the USAF rather than the Army or no military service at all).......

Mark H

[JDK]

I don't think I've been complimented as a straw man before...

As to the CAF doing a USAF PR job...

That's all very well, but the CAF isn't (and shouldn't be) controlled, directed or legislated for by the USAF or the NMUSAF.

In the way that the RAF have copyrighted the RAF roundel (yes, really) and come up with a logo for the 'Royal Air Force' there are funny people who think that an air force should control all aspects of its public face. If it's not under their control, then they're not endorsed, and we start to move into product placement, command and control of brand identities and stuff that should make all who deal with oily stuff truly afraid.

Interestingly for comparison, the BBMF is an RAF unit, the staff are RAF personnel and it operates RAF aircraft for the RAF. The RAF Museum is a civilian entity, and not part of the RAF in any way - an 'arms length' relationship. While there are significant problems with the competence of those running the RAF Museum (IMHO) that remains a better 'model' than a military run museum.

Just some straws...

[Dan K]

...However if it is true that only those supporting Flying warbirds are welcome here, along with their opinions, and its not also for supporters of historical military aircraft in static museums, then I will cease my visits and participation as soon as Scott confirms that...

I admire rebuilds to flyable. But as owner/rebuilder of a static project, it would be hypocrisy on my part not to concur with Mark's comments above. If the opinions of static supporters are truly not welcome at WIX, then it is time to part ways.

[RickH]

Dan, Mark, James, et al, I don't think that everyone doesn't see a need for static museums. I've been promoting a working relationship between flyers and static museums for years. I think that flyers should be the catalyst that reminds people that the statics are out there.

My paticular problem is when individuals involved with the statics take a proactive approach to acquiring more flying aircraft simply to ground them. It's hard enough to keep these things flying without having to constantly battle with folks, who at the very least, should be at least standing out of the way. Instead you have individuals who are supposed to be in the same sphere of interest, actively looking for ways to block, take, and actively destroy what others of worked so hard for. And they are expending vast amounts of public rescorces to do it !

What really ticks me off is that they do it from an amazingly arrogant and self righteous position because they are from a large govt entity and obviously, as such, they know best !

[marine air]

Wouldn't that be interesting if the Air Force took back possession of the F-82 and returned it to the Air Force Museum premises only to have it sold shortly thereafter to a civilian buyer because the obsolete airframe is "surplus to their needs."

[old iron]

MarineAir said:

Wouldn't that be interesting if the Air Force took back possession of the F-82 and returned it to the Air Force Museum premises only to have it sold shortly thereafter to a civilian buyer because the obsolete airframe is "surplus to their needs."

As far as I know, none of the national museums - aircraft or otherwise - would sell an item from their collection. They might deaccess to another collection, or trade an item to a private party, but I know of no example where NMUSAF or another national museum SOLD an aircraft.

I think both NMUSAF and NASM have sometimes come under fire for being involved in a trade that someone percieved as overly generous, or that the private party might have profited from. I think this happened with the NASM Shchurmovik, which was obtained in trade for several military trainers. Both museums are now increasingly wary of any trades with private collectors.

[k5083]

In the way that the RAF have copyrighted the RAF roundel (yes, really) and come up with a logo for the 'Royal Air Force' there are funny people who think that an air force should control all aspects of its public face.

Copyrighted? I really doubt it. Trademark, yes. But I doubt that a copyright in the roundel would hold up.

August

[Mark_Pilkington]

........it is unfortunate that the USAF cannot form a close relationship with the CAF given they are effectively running a USAF Heritage Flight of grand proportions, and permit the CAF to fly the F-82 on the NMUSAF's behalf?

A flying F-82 would only add to that heritage flight, especially given the NMUSAF have two other static examples.

Hopefully once this adversarial situation between the CAF and USAF has dissapated, a better and stronger relationship might be forged? and airworthy operation of the NMUSAF F-82 by the CAF be contemplated under a revised loan agreement?

In Australia we have two small military service heritage flights operated by the RAAF and RAN.

The RAAF Museum have entered into an agreement with the Temora Aviation Museum, for Temora to restore and operate the RAAFM's Flying CAC Sabre, (and there had been an intent to transfer the RAAFM's flying Mustang to Temora's care as well).

While the RAN recently issued a restricted tender to selected organisations to operate its historical flight on itsbehalf, and are in negotiation with HARS.

Given these aircraft are already operating ex-military aircraft for exhibition, some bean counters within Defence consider its more their core business to do that, than a modern defence unit?

I personally feel the USAF and NMUSAF could form a similar relationship with the CAF involving the F-82.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[FG1D Pilot]

While on the General Staff of the CAF, I couldn't discuss the P82. What alot of you seem to dismiss, just like the general, is that after the loan agreement was made, approximately 5 years later, the Air Force sent a letter to the CAF releasing the P82 to the CAF. It was standard, and still is, that aircraft donated by the Govt. must be used or displayed per the loan agreement, for 5 years and then the aircraft may be owned by the organization, unless the agreement doesn't allow. The requirements are still the same, but the Air Force and others don't allow the ownership part in the agreements anymore. Look at how many Jeeps, Trucks, or Humvees are on the road through the same type of federal requirements. On Vehicles the time is less. The General would never accept or acknowledge the second letter. And many attempts were made in the beginning to talk it over. Bob Rice went to see the General and wasn't treated very well. I have heard the General speak, and there's no doubt what his personality is. He's a general and everyone else is not.

[Mark_Pilkington]

While on the General Staff of the CAF, I couldn't discuss the P82. What alot of you seem to dismiss, just like the general, is that after the loan agreement was made, approximately 5 years later, the Air Force sent a letter to the CAF releasing the P82 to the CAF. It was standard, and still is, that aircraft donated by the Govt. must be used or displayed per the loan agreement, for 5 years and then the aircraft may be owned by the organization, unless the agreement doesn't allow. The requirements are still the same, but the Air Force and others don't allow the ownership part in the agreements anymore. Look at how many Jeeps, Trucks, or Humvees are on the road through the same type of federal requirements. On Vehicles the time is less. The General would never accept or acknowledge the second letter. And many attempts were made in the beginning to talk it over. Bob Rice went to see the General and wasn't treated very well. I have heard the General speak, and there's no doubt what his personality is. He's a general and everyone else is not.

Doug,

This issue went to, and was decided in a US Court, who also ruled that the aircraft remained property of the NMUSAF and discounted the second letter as being requested for, and created to assist the CAF achieve FAA registration, as is clear when reading the court judgement.

If "standard" arrangements existed (& still do?) for conversion of ownership after 5 years, why wasnt that evidence recorded in the case evidence and court judgement, and therefore impacting on the court decision, and resulting in a decision in favour of the CAF.


I personally believe there is little benefit in "maintaining the rage", it would be better for the relationship between the CAF and NMUSAF to be healed and future co-operation develop based on recognition of the NMUSAF F-82 ownership and exploration of airworthy operation on that basis, (which i personally believe was the intent when the aircraft transferred to the CAF from the USAF in the first place)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

[JDK]

In the way that the RAF have copyrighted the RAF roundel (yes, really) and come up with a logo for the 'Royal Air Force' there are funny people who think that an air force should control all aspects of its public face.

Copyrighted? I really doubt it. Trademark, yes. But I doubt that a copyright in the roundel would hold up.

Yeah, that. Have a look at the credits for 'The Curse of the Ware Rabbit'.

Dan, Mark, James, et al, I don't think that everyone doesn't see a need for static museums.

Perhaps you could mention that to the next insightful remark from one of our Pavalovian posters on 'dead airframes' or 'plastic' aircraft? I'd appreciate the backup.

I'm sure you do, which is why I enjoy your input here, and adds respect to the work you do.

I've been promoting a working relationship between flyers and static museums for years. I think that flyers should be the catalyst that reminds people that the statics are out there.

A very good point, and what is a critical relationship. Neither aspect can show it all.

My paticular problem is when individuals involved with the statics take a proactive approach to acquiring more flying aircraft simply to ground them. It's hard enough to keep these things flying without having to constantly battle with folks, who at the very least, should be at least standing out of the way. Instead you have individuals who are supposed to be in the same sphere of interest, actively looking for ways to block, take, and actively destroy what others of worked so hard for. And they are expending vast amounts of public rescorces to do it !

No argument about that. But, if I understand the case, the NMUSAF has clear title to the aircraft and the CAF were betting on a legacy and non-authoritative paperwork.

I'm sure you'd be the last one to ask that there be exception to the laws of ownership in the USA - after all that's what's being fought for.

One acid test is how the think would look if the protagonists were reversed. An odd picture indeed.

What really ticks me off is that they do it from an amazingly arrogant and self righteous position because they are from a large govt entity and obviously, as such, they know best !

The issue, IMHO, isn't about them being government, but being a large bureaucratic organisation that doesn't have to listen or act under forms of pressure - a problem with society, not just government. That said, I can see and certainly accept your frustration.

It's not a good situation, and I can't see a good outcome.

Cheers,

[RyanShort1]

While on the General Staff of the CAF, I couldn't discuss the P82. What alot of you seem to dismiss, just like the general, is that after the loan agreement was made, approximately 5 years later, the Air Force sent a letter to the CAF releasing the P82 to the CAF. It was standard, and still is, that aircraft donated by the Govt. must be used or displayed per the loan agreement, for 5 years and then the aircraft may be owned by the organization, unless the agreement doesn't allow. The requirements are still the same, but the Air Force and others don't allow the ownership part in the agreements anymore. Look at how many Jeeps, Trucks, or Humvees are on the road through the same type of federal requirements. On Vehicles the time is less. The General would never accept or acknowledge the second letter. And many attempts were made in the beginning to talk it over. Bob Rice went to see the General and wasn't treated very well. I have heard the General speak, and there's no doubt what his personality is. He's a general and everyone else is not.

Doug,

This issue went to, and was decided in a US Court, who also ruled that the aircraft remained property of the NMUSAF and discounted the second letter as being requested for, and created to assist the CAF achieve FAA registration, as is clear when reading the court judgement.

If "standard" arrangements existed (& still do?) for conversion of ownership after 5 years, why wasnt that evidence recorded in the case evidence and court judgement, and therefore impacting on the court decision, and resulting in a decision in favour of the CAF.


I personally believe there is little benefit in "maintaining the rage", it would be better for the relationship between the CAF and NMUSAF to be healed and future co-operation develop based on recognition of the NMUSAF F-82 ownership and exploration of airworthy operation on that basis, (which i personally believe was the intent when the aircraft transferred to the CAF from the USAF in the first place)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Mark,

There are plenty of judges in the US who do not actually rule on cases in a lawful manner. My understanding from talking to CAF individuals is very similar to what Doug posted. They had an original agreement, and then a second agreement that seemed to clearly indicate the CAF's position of ownership. In addition, the fact that other required paperwork (donation status related) backed this up in the mind of the CAF persons involved.

The sad thing is that there seems to have been a major shift in the thinking of the people of this country in the last 30-40 years. It used to be that the government was limited with specific duties. People didn't expect government to be the big brother and didn't want it to be that way, and someone like this fellow up at the NMUSAF would have likely been out of the way quickly. Of late we seem to be a nation expecting handouts, turning to statism, and frankly distrustful of the people that the government is supposed to protect.

Ryan

[RickH]

Mark, just because one judge decided this way doesn't mean that the apellate courts will agree. The appeal by the CAF was dropped , for whatever reason.

I choose to believe, on my own, that duress was applied to the CAF that possibly could have jepordized other aspects of the collection. It looks , to me, like someone made the decision not to risk it. This observation is based solely upon my view of how the General and the USAF are going about their business these days. It's all very disappointing.