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.