Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:55 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 1329
Location: Dallas TX
Django wrote:
Well at least it's finally over, but both organizations are going to have black eyes for years to come. :(


agreed

_________________
Taylor Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: P-38
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:34 pm 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:53 pm
Posts: 3803
Location: Aspen, CO
I can see that the AF museum might not want to see something they had donated or loaned to a museum go onto the private market.

And I don't think the CAF did a great job of caring for the plane. From my standpoint sometimes funds are being spent for planes or projects that have practically no historic significance, that should have gone to support/restore the great WW II combat planes that were the foundation of the CAF for so many years. As for as I know, the decision to trade/sell the P-82 was made by staff and never put to a vote of the membership. I am not sure about this, but I am a life member and I never knew of the deal until the problems arose. Whatever happened, no matter how good or bad the intentions of those involved, in the end we lost a valuable HISTORIC AIRPLANE, and I we lost the paperwork and public relations end of it also. It was sort of like two guys in white shirts having a mudball fight; in the end neither winner or loser look too good.

The CAF may have taken a combative stance with the AF when all this came up, thinking (not knowing) that they had clear titile and were in the right, and thinking that the AF was in effect, going back on their word.

HOWEVER, IN THE END, AS IT IS NOW THE AF MUSEUM HAS TAKEN A PLANE THAT DOESN'T SEEM VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM , AND PREVENTED THE CAF from ever restoring it to flying condition.

This seems to be the insistance of that one general, who I never heard of before.

COULD NOT SOME COMPROMISE HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AT ALL. PERHAPS THE CAF KEEPING THE PLANE FOR 20 MORE YEARS WHILE BEING RESTORED THEN WILLINGLY RETURNING IT TO AF? I don't know, but it seems a waste.

I think I know what the CAF view is of the AF Museum, or that one guy is, Iwonder what their museum really thinks of the CAF?

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:12 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:58 pm
Posts: 3282
Location: Nelson City, Texas
For once Taylor and me see eye to eye. Yes originally the CAF was going to trade the P-82, but afer the MUSAF bitched the CAF was going to keep it and restore it. Yes Taylor knows better than most the goings on in making this happen. The money for restoration was there and not coming out of another CAF pocket. Seems to me we lost the court case on the NMUSAF home court. Don't tell me there is no home court in Federal
Court. If not lets try it in San Antonio.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:21 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 2:14 pm
Posts: 2370
Location: Atlanta, GA
This whole Da-n deal just makes me sick! I am glad I got to see the aircraft fly. I hope it will be well taken care of, & displayed properly. If it can't fly, then at least keep it looking good. :?

8)

_________________
Fly Fast Make Noise!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:15 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 4707
Location: refugee in Pasa-GD-dena, Texas
Just goes to show ya', no matter how right you think you are...it's never a good idea to tell a General to go f*ck himself! :shock:

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:50 pm
Posts: 378
Location: Northern VA, USA
Obergrafeter wrote:
Yes originally the CAF was going to trade the P-82, but afer the MUSAF bitched the CAF was going to keep it and restore it.


Without knowing the relative bargaining positions of the CAF and NMUSAF and how they changed throughout the episode (if anyone wants to post them, it would be appreciated), the summary above seems to mirror what I've read here and elsewhere.

It seems to me that actual ownership and possession were two different issues and should have been addressed as such. Even if the ownership was in dispute, there was (iirc) no doubt that the aircraft had been placed into the CAF's custody for the purpose of care and operation. So long as the aircraft was being properly cared for, the issue of ownership could be dealt with separately.

Why, then, did NMUSAF determine it needed to retake physical possession of the aircraft, when a simple C&D and injunction on the sale/trade would have sufficed? It seems to me there are a couple possible answers to this. One, the NMUSAF has either definitive or potential plans to do something with the aircraft (maybe trade it to another museum?) or Two, NMUSAF decided that it needed to set an example and throw its weight around to discourage other custodians of its property from trying to claim that they have ownership rights.

Possibly both. There have been a number of "repossessions" or ambiguous-terms trades by NMUSAF/USAF over the last few years. Memphis Belle being brought to Dayton, the A-12 that was moved from Minnesota to the CIA, the F-82, the Swoose-for-SSSB/B-17 to be named later swap with NASM.

Airplanes and artifacts are increasingly being treated like currency/barter goods. Getting the F-82 both gives NMUSAF a fairly-rare yet redundant artifact it can trade for something it wants, and sets a precedent (possibly a series of precedents) for future repossessions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:24 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:08 pm
Posts: 2993
Location: Bunker Hill, WV
Garth wrote:

Getting the F-82 both gives NMUSAF a fairly-rare yet redundant artifact it can trade for something it wants, and sets a precedent (possibly a series of precedents) for future repossessions.


Why would the NMUSAF need to "trade" for something it wants when, it would appear, that it can merely "repossess" something it wants.
What the he!!...the Navy seems to have that procedure down to an art form.

Mudge the cynic

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:00 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:15 pm
Posts: 1399
Location: San Diego CA
Well, at least it won't be wearing a Tramp Stamp! :roll:

So, now that all this is done, any updates on the ones that will fly?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:22 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 1329
Location: Dallas TX
id take a girl with a tramp stamp (CAF) over the ones doomed to be pole dancers (NMUSAF)

_________________
Taylor Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:50 pm
Posts: 378
Location: Northern VA, USA
Mudge wrote:
Garth wrote:
Why would the NMUSAF need to "trade" for something it wants when, it would appear, that it can merely "repossess" something it wants.

Mudge the cynic


There are certain things that the NMUSAF wants, but can't just claim ownership of.

The Space Shuttle Atlantis, for instance. NMUSAF desperately wants it, even has space for it mapped out in their new building. But if NASM decides it's going to claim ALL the Orbiters (as it does with other space artifacts, like Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules), NMUSAF is going to have to pony up a bit to get it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:08 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:31 pm
Posts: 1352
Location: Galveston County
me109me109 wrote:
id take a girl with a tramp stamp (CAF) over the ones doomed to be pole dancers (NMUSAF)


Gotta admit, the boy has a way with words. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:51 am
Posts: 329
As for their day in court, lets see how even that was. The CAF had to pay lawyers to represent them, while the general could order as many lawyers, clerks, and aids that he wanted to use for the case, with us taxpayers footing that bill. He who has the money usually wins in court.
I picture this plane being put someplace like Silver Hill to be restored in what, about 90-100 years from now?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:23 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 1329
Location: Dallas TX
Well at least if the NMUSAF puts her next to one of their others we'll see the only P-82 formation that will ever occur again.

Image

_________________
Taylor Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: yep and heck...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:02 pm
Posts: 786
Location: US
me109me109 wrote:
Well at least if the NMUSAF puts her next to one of their others we'll see the only P-82 formation that will ever occur again.

Image


its nicely stored OUTSIDE in the fresh air.....where it can DETERIORATE into its base materials. "on your left you will see a lump of metal that was once a proud aircraft, and next to it is another..."
well you get the idea...
Im still trying to figure out EXACTLY WHEN we lost our country "of the people, by the people and for the people"


Last edited by jet1 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ?????
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:27 pm 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 11:21 pm
Posts: 11471
Location: Salem, Oregon
maybe they'll trade it for a P-38 and then ground that one instead :shock: :? :? :twisted:

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tankbarrell and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group