Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:33 pm
Sorry y'all. I did what I could to help get the Mauler back in the air. There's not much I can personally do with the F-82 deal.
Gary
Gary
Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:07 pm
retroaviation wrote:Sorry y'all. I did what I could to help get the Mauler back in the air. There's not much I can personally do with the F-82 deal.
Gary
Gary, you are one of the best people to come along for the CAF in a long time! You have made a difference! I used to complain & bitch about the B 23 sitting going to sh-t, & I got put in my place. I was told if I cared that much to get a program going. Well that just was not an option for me, so I am glad to see the airplane going someplace where someone wants it. I guess its the same with Maulers, at least they ain't sitting there any longer going to sh-t. Don't sweat it buddy, you have done what you could. I really wish we didn't have any of these great airplanes just sitting, but I ain't got the money. & it ain't a perfect world. Please don't get me wrong here, I ain't real happy about the CAF having to give up anything to be sitting there on static display, but it sureas he11 is better than they sit there & fade away. Sorry for the rant.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:19 pm
I want to respond to Tim, but first I want to add a few comments about the Mauler...As is usual with airplanes and the CAF there is always a back story.
The CAF was "given" the two Maulers with the "understanding" that the CAF would restore one for the Navy to displayble static condition and THEN would be able to fly the second Mauler. For a variety of reasons, that didn't happen in exactly that sequence, and, with the take-off accident (which killed several "thorobred" horses in a corral: hence the airplane was dubbed the "Alpo-Martin Mauler") the two airframes gradually started on the road to derelect-hood. The Navy did contact us back in Doug J's time inquiring about the status of the airplanes they "loaned" us for static display and we pretty much knew at that moment that the handwriting was on the wall about an ownership battle if we tried to do anything with the Maulers. No unit expressed any real interest and no individual until Gary's (and the CAF's) friend came along and triggered the search for definitive ownership. This took CAF folk to Washington DC, to some legal counsel, and to our political friends. That it happened at the same time as the controversy over the P-82 made it all the more difficult. I too am really sorry that we couldn't act on the offer of Mr. Able-Dog...
When Gary said that this is the best outcome for the airplanes he is right. The CAF simply doesn't have the resources (read "money") to fund any rebuilds to static display condition, as much as we would like to. I've seen too many well-meaning individuals and groups take on a project within the CAF and then simply run out of ... money, leadership, enthusiasm...and the result is a dis-assembled pile of parts that immediately start disappearing. We've implemented a Grant Program within the CAF to try to help units fund the rebuilds of various airplanes that have been limping along for years...I think our limited resources are better used toward airplanes that we own free and clear, to make them fly, than to fight another legal battle with the Navy.
Tim, glad you are a Life Member, and I greatly appreciate the support you've given us in W/Digest, but I gotta disagree with you about the CAF abrogating its leadership role in the fight with the P-82. I think, when all the dust has settled, that everyone will see we have gained support for the entire warbird movement and in a positive way. Our President, Steve Brown, with the support of the General Staff and the membership of the CAF, has put us in a much stronger position by taking the actions we took. The warbird movement will benefit.
Whew! Didn't mean to be so wordy...
Old Shep
The CAF was "given" the two Maulers with the "understanding" that the CAF would restore one for the Navy to displayble static condition and THEN would be able to fly the second Mauler. For a variety of reasons, that didn't happen in exactly that sequence, and, with the take-off accident (which killed several "thorobred" horses in a corral: hence the airplane was dubbed the "Alpo-Martin Mauler") the two airframes gradually started on the road to derelect-hood. The Navy did contact us back in Doug J's time inquiring about the status of the airplanes they "loaned" us for static display and we pretty much knew at that moment that the handwriting was on the wall about an ownership battle if we tried to do anything with the Maulers. No unit expressed any real interest and no individual until Gary's (and the CAF's) friend came along and triggered the search for definitive ownership. This took CAF folk to Washington DC, to some legal counsel, and to our political friends. That it happened at the same time as the controversy over the P-82 made it all the more difficult. I too am really sorry that we couldn't act on the offer of Mr. Able-Dog...
When Gary said that this is the best outcome for the airplanes he is right. The CAF simply doesn't have the resources (read "money") to fund any rebuilds to static display condition, as much as we would like to. I've seen too many well-meaning individuals and groups take on a project within the CAF and then simply run out of ... money, leadership, enthusiasm...and the result is a dis-assembled pile of parts that immediately start disappearing. We've implemented a Grant Program within the CAF to try to help units fund the rebuilds of various airplanes that have been limping along for years...I think our limited resources are better used toward airplanes that we own free and clear, to make them fly, than to fight another legal battle with the Navy.
Tim, glad you are a Life Member, and I greatly appreciate the support you've given us in W/Digest, but I gotta disagree with you about the CAF abrogating its leadership role in the fight with the P-82. I think, when all the dust has settled, that everyone will see we have gained support for the entire warbird movement and in a positive way. Our President, Steve Brown, with the support of the General Staff and the membership of the CAF, has put us in a much stronger position by taking the actions we took. The warbird movement will benefit.
Whew! Didn't mean to be so wordy...
Old Shep
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:18 pm
Thats Too bad I was looking forward to getting my hands dirty on that beast, I guess I'll have to be happy working on the CAF TBM on my weekends Thanks Mike
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:33 pm
Old Shep wrote:
Tim, glad you are a Life Member, and I greatly appreciate the support you've given us in W/Digest, but I gotta disagree with you about the CAF abrogating its leadership role in the fight with the P-82. I think, when all the dust has settled, that everyone will see we have gained support for the entire warbird movement and in a positive way. Our President, Steve Brown, with the support of the General Staff and the membership of the CAF, has put us in a much stronger position by taking the actions we took. The warbird movement will benefit.
Whew! Didn't mean to be so wordy...
Old Shep
Old Shep:
If indeed that proves to be true, I will be the first to admit that I was I was wrong.
As a side note, this doesn't temper my enthusiasm or support for the CAF. I have the utmost respect for Steve and his vision for the organization. However, I do reserve the right to disagree with any decision, and being as opinionated as I am, I gonna call em like I see em, until proven otherwise
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:41 pm
Steve Rister wrote:Well, after losing the B-23, JU-52 and now the Maulers what's next?
That's my concern.
what happened to the Ju 52
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:43 pm
Robbie Stuart wrote:retroaviation wrote:Sorry y'all. I did what I could to help get the Mauler back in the air. There's not much I can personally do with the F-82 deal.
Gary
Gary, you are one of the best people to come along for the CAF in a long time! You have made a difference! I used to complain & bitch about the B 23 sitting going to sh-t, & I got put in my place. I was told if I cared that much to get a program going. Well that just was not an option for me, so I am glad to see the airplane going someplace where someone wants it. I guess its the same with Maulers, at least they ain't sitting there any longer going to sh-t. Don't sweat it buddy, you have done what you could. I really wish we didn't have any of these great airplanes just sitting, but I ain't got the money. & it ain't a perfect world. Please don't get me wrong here, I ain't real happy about the CAF having to give up anything to be sitting there on static display, but it sureas he11 is better than they sit there & fade away. Sorry for the rant.
Well thankfully the B-23 was sold and will be saved and will be FLYING again someday.
Hopefully I will be touching that B-23 soon!
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:45 pm
Interestingly enough, the manner in which the CAF in general and Gary in particular handled my potential purchase of the 2 Maulers is what lead me to rethink my involvement in the CAF. I had already been a member for several years and I sponsor the MO Wings TBM. I hadn't been as involved in the last couple of years because of the demands on my time from my own warbirds and I was fence sitting on where I wanted to go with my involvement beyond my own airplanes. After working with the CAF on the Mauler situation it became even clearer to me what a first class group of people they are. In many ways I think they were more disappointed with the outcome than I was, if that's possible. They love warbirds and want to see them fly. What more could you ask for?
That's why I upgraded my membership to a Life membership just this year.
Get involved if you can. Go to Airsho if you can. You won't be disappointed.
Just my two cents.
That's why I upgraded my membership to a Life membership just this year.
Get involved if you can. Go to Airsho if you can. You won't be disappointed.
Just my two cents.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:49 pm
Nathan wrote:Steve Rister wrote:Well, after losing the B-23, JU-52 and now the Maulers what's next?
That's my concern.
what happened to the Ju 52
Sale pending.
It's best for me not to comment any further on this one.
Gary
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:52 pm
aww well I am really sorry to hear that Gary. 
Thanks for the info.....hopefully she will be kept flying.
Thanks for the info.....hopefully she will be kept flying.
Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:52 pm
Eric, Jack Erickson in Tillamook has a very complete Mauler that used to be with the New England Air Museum. I only mention it because he has sold several airplanes recently and it might be a possibility. The Planes of Fame has a LOT of Mauler bits also. It is a very big airplane, but I think you are used to those?!
Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:36 pm
Sale Pending on the JU-52!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where in the hel l did that come from???? Was it ever listed in a CAF publication as for sale/ Can't get a sponsor to cough up 30-40 K in two months so lets sell it!!!!!!!! I told all the members that would listen to me that when we sell the first one it will open the flood gates. Old Shep you and any other of the powers that be better listen to me on this one. Sell it and you can keep your few favorite planes flying, but you will do it with a bunch less members so sell em all. That way the rich and powerfull will have their toys and the rest of us can sit on the sidelines and lust after them but we will all be 200 dollars a year richer!
Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:10 pm
Sorry Ober, but it's been up for assignment for much longer than you realize. It's been at least 6 months since it got to Midland after being given up. In addition, Gary did put up that the airplane was also open for sale at the same time he told us the B-23 was going to be available for sale.
It's sad to see, but I also don't think it's "flood gates" by any means. The CAF needs to move forward. If no one is going to step up and no one has shown ANY interest in the aircraft (as happened with the C-131), then why keep it sitting in Midland eating up precious HQ money? If you have the desire or means to sponsor it - then do it. Otherwise, I would be supportive of this move to try and ensure that money isn't being wasted on keeping airplanes at HQ that no one in the CAF wants to maintain. I know that I'd rather my membership dues go to getting our name out there and AirSho improved, not paying for planes that should be flying to sit in the hangar at Midland with no support.
It's sad to see, but I also don't think it's "flood gates" by any means. The CAF needs to move forward. If no one is going to step up and no one has shown ANY interest in the aircraft (as happened with the C-131), then why keep it sitting in Midland eating up precious HQ money? If you have the desire or means to sponsor it - then do it. Otherwise, I would be supportive of this move to try and ensure that money isn't being wasted on keeping airplanes at HQ that no one in the CAF wants to maintain. I know that I'd rather my membership dues go to getting our name out there and AirSho improved, not paying for planes that should be flying to sit in the hangar at Midland with no support.
Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:06 am
Haven't studied Garys' postings that carefully, but beleive me if I had seen it I would have spoken up before now. I think with a little more time the JU-52 could find a sponsor, and maybe lowering the 30-40k buy in would find an immediate sponsor. If everything is so open who is the buyer? I recon that will hack me off also. From where your standing the gates might not be open but down here us little guys are drowning.
Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:43 am
Ober, until the sale is final, it is rare for anyone in any deal to say who the buyer or potential buyer is. Please don't try to use that as an excuse to flame people. I'm sorry, but when I was at Midland late last year with Dave, there had been no progress or even interest on the Ju-52. The buy-in is where it is for a reason. It's not to get rid of the airplane, but because that's how much debt it's got on it. That's why they had to give it up. No one within the organization was willing or able to step up and HQ can't just keep paying on the loan(s) for the airplane.