CAF F-82 update

[mustangdriver]

But there is alot of your opinion in there (no disrespect intended), and we all know hoe much you love the NMUSAF.

[k5083]

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.

There are plenty of judges in the US who do not actually rule on cases in a lawful manner.

Translation: There are plenty of judges in the US with whom Ryan disagrees.

You'd best bear in mind the tale of the three baseball umpires having drinks at a bar and discussing how they call balls and strikes. The first ump declares, "I call them as I see them!" The second ump puffs his chest and says, "I call them as they are!" The third ump smiles, sips his drink and says, "They ain't nothing until I call them." What judges decide is the law, like it or not.

The US probably has the best trained, least corrupt judiciary in the world -- something that cannot be said of either the legislative or executive branches, at any time in history.

The documents Doug referred to are publicly available in the docket as exhibits to the briefs. I've seen them. Both sides had competent lawyers and made every argument they could. Both sides also had serious problems with their cases. Anyone who thinks this was a lay-up for either side is blinded by bias.

August

[Jack Cook]

As far as I know, none of the national museums - aircraft or otherwise - would sell an item from their collection.

The NA Museum in PCola sold FM-2 N20HA/N45JC when it became excess
after the GL Wildcats started coming up.

[Tim Savage]

As far as I know, none of the national museums - aircraft or otherwise - would sell an item from their collection.

The NA Museum in PCola sold FM-2 N20HA/N45JC when it became excess
after the GL Wildcats started coming up.

I 'think' the NMUSAF sold some T-6s, (including the one that was on display for years) and also recently advertised the Ju52 among others. I am not sure how the actual transaction took place, it might be that they have you purchase services from someone else and then 'trade' them for the airplane...

[Obergrafeter]

Well by reading about the sale of the JU-52 the only thing Midland cares about is having to get rid of the P-82 and not get any money for it. Doug you know Werner would be turning over in his grave hearing of this. This is the most disrespectfull thing HQ has done yet. Membership retention........foreget it! Oh and having two on the market will really drive the selling price up. Yeah right on that one Steve>

Last edited by Obergrafeter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Brad]

They also sold the HA-1112 and they sold the C-118 that used to be on display here at Altus.

[RickH]

M/D, let's get this straight once and for all. You seem to think that I don't like the NMUSAF, you're dead wrong ! It's a great place, great airplanes, great mission, and mostly great people.

What I don't like is the arroganceand heavy handedness that seems to emanate from some individuals.

I,personally,by name, have been at the receiving end of some of these attacks. I have seen the emails that call me nothing more than a pirate and a thief. I have seen the USAF flatly state that a contract signed some years ago was no good because the people who signed it were not authorized. I have been told by local Houston FSDO personnel that when we FODDed the #2 engine on the F4, that they may want to check up on our F-4 maintenance because we were obviously not doing things correctly and that they were sure there would be other problems. The lady identified herself as being from the NMUSAF. The F4 was transferred to the Foundation in 1999, the engine issue happened in 2006. So someone at NMUSAF is actively watching what we do and is ready to cast aspersions at a moments notice ! WHY ?

How about the Lt at Hill AFB who was told in writing, from a NMUSAF email address, that they recommended that he have no further contact with myself or CF people if he valued his career. He was told that we were constantly trying to work outside of a well established system and that we were known to steal parts !

The Chief Historian of the Air Force was told that it was known that we routinely stole parts off of statics in order to keep the CF F4 flying. Nevermind that the ONLY time we ever got a part was at Langley, it was ordered pulled from an RF4 by the Colonel in charge, by USAF personnel, and we replaced the part the next day with a brand new part that we had in Houston. It had a 15.00 price tag. When I sent the individual at NMUSAF the information that the part was repalced by a brand new one, his comment was that if the CF F4 was so important that the USAF would be doing it so that it could be done right !

How about the NMUSAF individual that sent a nasty letter saying that by going outside of their system to acquire the flyable F4, we had put in jeopardy, the very being of the NMUSAF and all it stands for.Because of that he was going to actively comment in the negative when the Foundation was reapplying for the renewal of the FAA exemption letter that allows the Foundation to fly experience flights in the bombers. Nevermind that USAF JAG guys recommended that the Foundation pursue legislative means to effect the transfer of a flyable F4, they didn't have a mechanism in place to transfer a flyer.

We won't even get into the race to destroy the last unmolested F105 at AMARG.

Am I a little pi$$ed? You bet I am ! The folks out in the warbird community do not need this kind of grief from the folks running the "National" museums. It's hard enough to do this without having to look over your shoulder everyday. They should be helping not hindering. Both sides would be a lot better off if they worked together. But as long as the General is in charge that aint gonna happen. Before you start defending all of the great things he's done at the museum, I believe that his main mission was to expand and get the funds raised for the building program. He's done a commendable job in that regard. However his attitude and reputation towards others in the warbird and museum community sucks !

So maybe you should think twice before you try to trivialize my thoughts with a flippant remark.

But there is a lot of your opinion in there (no disrespect intended), and we all know how much you love the NMUSAF.

Last edited by RickH on Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[brucev]

if the CAF is completely right in this case (as i believe) then i fail to understand the logic of giving in so "they'll" be nicer to us next time.

do financial considerations preclude a lengthy court battle?



peace in our time i guess

[JDK]

if the CAF is completely right in this case (as i believe) then i fail to understand the logic of giving in so "they'll" be nicer to us next time.

See k5054 (August)'s post above. We can all 'believe' what we like, the CAF's case failed the first test. It's arguable that it might've made it at an appeal. Anyone who thinks it's easy, or they have been hard done by in court needs to think again. The stupid bit is that it got to court.

RickH, I hear you, and I do appreciate the basis of your responses previously.

I'm interested if you have documentation of the libel or slanders you mention, and if it's possible to sue individuals within a military or museum on that basis? Just thinking aloud.

Just like on WIX, there's nothing more dangerous than someone who knows they are 'right' whatever the facts, evidence or situation. Nasty.

Regarding the points made by Tim and Ober, I keep thinking of the axiom 'losing a battle to win a war'. I think we can assume anyone calling this situation is guessing to some degree.

Regards,

[RyanShort1]

There are plenty of judges in the US who do not actually rule on cases in a lawful manner.

Translation: There are plenty of judges in the US with whom Ryan disagrees.

Thanks for that , but groups on both sides of the fence politically and in various other arenas would probably be more than happy to point out examples. Perhaps I should be a little more cautious about the way I word it, but basically I would stand by the statement. I think a lot of the current crop of judiciaries are happy to essentially make their own laws by their decisions, and by looking to other sources, rather than \accurately interpreting the existing laws.

What judges decide is the law, like it or not.

That's not actually how it should be. The judge is supposed to look at the situation fairly, and APPLY, not make the law. Sometimes (fairly regularly?) judges overrule each other (lower courts), and sometimes they've been proven flat out wrong. Other times, they've chosen to take a different view on a law that has previously been clearly defined not only in word, but in written statements of intent by the author of the law. Not even the justices on the Supreme Court always agree with each other on the interpretation of the law. There are several different schools of thought on law and it's purpose, application, and whether or not it's "living" and can be re-interpreted... I happen to believe that it is based on transcendent principles that cannot change and that a good law has a proper interpretation that should stand the test of time... This case is certainly "muddy" in the way that the USAF used to treat the CAF regarding the P-82, and how they are treating them now.

The US probably has the best trained, least corrupt judiciary in the world -- something that cannot be said of either the legislative or executive branches, at any time in history.

Undoubtedly, but there are some weird ones currently in the mix as well.

The documents Doug referred to are publicly available in the docket as exhibits to the briefs. I've seen them. Both sides had competent lawyers and made every argument they could. Both sides also had serious problems with their cases. Anyone who thinks this was a lay-up for either side is blinded by bias.

August

I've read through a bunch of the documents that were posted as well, and while I agree that neither side seemed to have a slam-dunk case, the way I read the decision I wasn't convinced of the matter. The way I understood things, the first bit of documentation would tend to favor the NMUSAF, but looking at other factors one would tend to think that the CAF folks weren't completely idiotic for thinking that the status might have been changed.

I personally believe that there are some serious issues peripheral to the case that are major factors. Whether they be economic, personality, or otherwise related, it isn't helping either party in the long run.

FYI, I am not anti-judge or anti-lawyer. I've known a BUNCH of good ones that I like being around and enjoy talking to.

Ryan

[mlenoch]

Mark, et al.....from several posts ago, thanks for the clarification.
VL

[mustangdriver]

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.

Rick, like I said, this is all I meant by your opinion and beliefs getting into the mix. These are your words not mine. Like I said I meant no disrespect. Do I defend the museum in Dayton, and things done there? Yes of course. I love the place. Are they perfect? No. No place is. Rick, I could go into a list myself of what one group did to some people in the are, but I choose not to. Rick, if Dayton is mentioned alot of times you don't even give it a chance. The F-105 deal. It is not destroyed, it is a static at Evergreen and looks great. It doesn't fly, but it is an awesome display, and is preserved. AS for the F-4 stuff, I am really not involved, but it also doesn't sound like all of that is really NMUSAF. What I mean is a lady talking to the FSDO? Claiming she is with the NMUSAF? That sounds like she is making some stuff up. I never bash what you have done with that F-4 or the A-4, I am just asking for some common courtesy.

[RickH]

OK, let me put this as simply as I can for you.

They are the 800 lb gorilla in the room and they act like it ! It starts at the top and trickles down through the chain of command.

The original post was based upon my observations over several years of the actions of a few in power at the NMUSAF. They have a record, they have made few friends in the museum/warbird world.

The examples I cited are the tip of the iceberg, other individuals and organizations have experienced similar harassment and bullying. I have had a curator of a major museum tell me that they were afraid of the NMUSAF people because even though he only had a few things on loan that if they got on their bad side they could make his life a living h3ll !

[BTBackseater]

While I do not post here regularly I do look for information and went here to find out more about the P-82 and in the 4 pages there were maybe 1 page on the P-82. There were more discussion on legal matters and static vs flying and while they have there place for discussion can it done other than under this topic. I am not trying to argue either side but just would like to see the space used for the topic it self.

[mustangdriver]

OK, let me put this as simply as I can for you.

They are the 800 lb gorilla in the room and they act like it ! It starts at the top and trickles down through the chain of command.

The original post was based upon my observations over several years of the actions of a few in power at the NMUSAF. They have a record, they have made few friends in the museum/warbird world.

The examples I cited are the tip of the iceberg, other individuals and organizations have experienced similar harassment and bullying. I have had a curator of a major museum tell me that they were afraid of the NMUSAF people because even though he only had a few things on loan that if they got on their bad side they could make his life a living h3ll !

I understand what you mean Rick. If that stuff is going on, then that is not cool. I would like to see a better relationship between the NMUSAF and the warbird world too. I also agree that the NMUSAF should use the flying museums as PR to educate about the static ones. Was the FOD in the F-4 in PIT?