Bye bye P-82... :-(

fritzthefox · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:24 am

It's my goal in life to paint something people will fight over as much as this airplane.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:26 am

Rick I am sure there is corrosion inside the airplane. But it is no where near as bad as what is being stated on the forum. As for spars I was talking about WWII era aircraft. Jets and such that are going to be displayed off of USAF facilities usually go through a demil process. Just like any other branch of the military.

Chunks · **Joined:** Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:02 am **Posts:** 361

Mustangdriver said

Quote:

The scary thing I see here is no one seems to be concerned with whether or not justice was served.

OJ had his day in court, doesn't mean justice was served.

Also, I would love to see the pictures you took when you did the inspection on the twin mustang at Lackland and determined that it wasn't as bad as some people claim. What was your biggest surprise when you got all of those inspection panels off? Did you make any recommendations concerning future preservation, or did you determine that no further action be taken?

Chunks

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:30 am

I have never claimed to see the P-82. As I stated above someone else here on WIX went and looked it over a bit, and did get a look at some interior portions, and said it was not bad. Not me. Is there corrosion going on there? I am sure. But why are we talking about the Lackland AFB P-82? Beause people are looking for a reasn to complain and say that the USAF was unfair. If this was two private owners people here wouldn't care nearly as much. But because it is the CAF and NMUSAF (two favorites among people to bash), it is like flies on honey. The NMUSAF tried to handle this on a good tone twice. The plane was even going to be allowed to fly still, but the NMUSAF was told to go pound salt. Twice. Then it got ugly and went to court, and the NMUSAF won. Twice. This has nothing to do wth the GEN. Are some of the things you guys say about government policies, and maybe even him true? You bet. But this is not a case of that. Would I bite on the F-105 stuff. You bet. I am on Rick's side 100% on that.

jet1 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:31 am

Chunks wrote:

Mustangdriver said

Quote:

The scary thing I see here is no one seems to be concerned with whether or not justice was served.

OJ had his day in court, doesn't mean justice was served.

Also, I would love to see the pictures you took when you did the inspection on the twin mustang at Lackland and determined that it wasn't as bad as some people claim. What was your biggest surprise when you got all of those inspection panels off? Did you make any recommendations concerning future preservation, or did you determine that no further action be taken?

Chunks

is just ANOTHER WORD anymore and carries no meaning.
If they would make CRIME ILLEGAL and punish those who carry out crime, then crime would largely disappear. unfortunately crime is NOT ILLEGAL as it is strained through so may layers of gray.

wwrw2007 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:16 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

I have never claimed to see the P-82. As I stated above someone else here on WIX went and looked it over a bit, and did get a look at some interior portions, and said it was not bad. Not me. Is there corrosion going on there? I am sure. But why are we talking about the Lackland AFB P-82? Beause people are looking for a reasn to complain and say that the USAF was unfair. If this was two private owners people here wouldn't care nearly as much. But because it is the CAF and NMUSAF (two favorites among people to bash), it is like flies on honey. The NMUSAF tried to handle this on a good tone twice. The plane was even going to be allowed to fly still, but the NMUSAF was told to go pound salt. Twice. Then it got ugly and went to court, and the NMUSAF won. Twice.

I would like hear about the first two times this went to court when the NMUSAF tried to work things out. What was the offer? If the museum really cared about P-82's why do they have one sitting outside at Lackland? It's time to bring that one inside and treat it like the rare bird that it is. Based on what I have seen here I would tend to side with the CAF, if there is more to this story let's hear it.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:00 pm

Re, OJ "winning" in court. He won the first case because the prosecution was a little asleep at the start and did not get a change of venue in the trial. OJ got a jury of, if I recall right, 9 or 10 minorities. The case was over right then. No way were these people ever going to vote for conviction of a very popular Black hero. Heck, OJ had even been popular with most white people. There were rumors of his temper and abuse of his wife before. My stock broker was from Santa Monica and told me of these, well before the case. But I don't think OJ was looked down on by anyone then like Mike Tyson is now. Marsha Clark may have thought that Black women on the jury would be sympathetic to the female victim, but in fact, these jurors were first of all, and above all, Black, before they were female. The other big factor of course is that the L A police have a long history of minority abuse and the defense was smart enough to make the police a target, the bad guys, in the case. People did not believe the cops even when the evidence supported most of what they said. Did the cops plant some of the evidence? Perhaps, but I don't think they invented the crime or did it themselves to frame OJ. Someone had to commit the murders, and I don't think the cops did it to frame OJ. So OJ "won" that case, but he lost most people's respect.
In the first case there were bloody footprints made by a rare shoe; a size 12 Bruno Magli. Only a few like that were even sold in the US, much less in LA. OJ denied ever owning any of that "ugly ass shoe". Before the second trial several photographs came out of OJ wearing just those shoes in front of 50,000 people at halftime of a pro football game where he was the on field commentator. Not much doubt he was lying.
So he lost the 2nd case, the civil case,where he was found responible for the killings. If I was a juror, while I am not a big law and order type guy who's always going to side with the prosecution, the state, the cops; in this case I could have voted for conviction with a clear conscience and certainty beyond the legal standard of "reasonable doubt".
The defense tried to concoct a smokescreen about the blood evidence, the DNA, being degraded. But this does not carry validity. You can take some of my blood, my DNA, and leave it on the sidewalk for days, for years, and it may degrade so that it is not readable, BUT it won't become the DNA of OJ or his wife or Ron Goldman.
I don't know if the USAFM won the court case because they were right, or just had the better legal team or more favorable jury. In any event, while mistakes were made by the CAF, it is the general at the AF museum that has lost most respect as I see it.
I'd like to know more about this guy, his background, his career, his allegiances etc.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:19 pm

wwrw2007 wrote:

mustangdriver wrote:

I have never claimed to see the P-82. As I stated above someone else here on WIX went and looked it over a bit, and did get a look at some interior portions, and said it was not bad. Not me. Is there corrosion going on there? I am sure. But why are we talking about the Lackland AFB P-82? Beause people are looking for a reasn to complain and say that the USAF was unfair. If this was two private owners people here wouldn't care nearly as much. But because it is the CAF and NMUSAF (two favorites among people to bash), it is like flies on honey. The NMUSAF tried to handle this on a good tone twice. The plane was even going to be allowed to fly still, but the NMUSAF was told to go pound salt. Twice. Then it got ugly and went to court, and the NMUSAF won. Twice.

I would like hear about the first two times this went to court when the NMUSAF tried to work things out. What was the offer? If the museum really cared about P-82's why do they have one sitting outside at Lackland? It's time to bring that one inside and treat it like the rare bird that it is. Based on what I have seen here I would tend to side with the CAF, if there is more to this story let's hear it.

It didn't go to court, the NMUSAF tried to tell the CAF they owned the aircraft, but nothing would change, twice. Each time the CAF said stuff it. Now you have what you have. So what I am hearing is that if you lend something to someone and they try and sell it, you should let them so that no one thinks any less of you? Sounds crazy to me.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Bill Greenwood wrote:

Re, OJ "winning" in court. He won the first case because the prosecution was a little asleep at the start and did not get a change of venue in the trial. OJ got a jury of, if I recall right, 9 or 10 minorities. The case was over right then. No way were these people ever going to vote for conviction of a very popular Black hero. Heck, OJ had even been popular with most white people. There were rumors of his temper and abuse of his wife before. My stock broker was from Santa Monica and told me of these, well before the case. But I don't think OJ was looked down on by anyone then like Mike Tyson is now. Marsha Clark may have thought that Black women on the jury would be sympathetic to the female victim, but in fact, these jurors were first of all, and above all, Black, before they were female. The other big factor of course is that the L A police have a long history of minority abuse and the defense was smart enough to make the police a target, the bad guys, in the case. People did not believe the cops even when the evidence supported most of what they said. Did the cops plant some of the evidence? Perhaps, but I don't think they invented the crime or did it themselves to frame OJ. Someone had to commit the murders, and I don't think the cops did it to frame OJ. So OJ "won" that case, but he lost most people's respect.
In the first case there were bloody footprints made by a rare shoe; a size 12 Bruno Magli. Only a few like that were even sold in the US, much less in LA. OJ denied ever owning any of that "ugly ass shoe". Before the second trial several photographs came out of OJ wearing just those shoes in front of 50,000 people at halftime of a pro football game where he was the on field commentator. Not much doubt he was lying.
So he lost the 2nd case, the civil case,where he was found responible for the killings. If I was a juror, while I am not a big law and order type guy who's always going to side with the prosecution, the state, the cops; in this case I could have voted for conviction with a clear conscience and certainty beyond the legal standard of "reasonable doubt".
The defense tried to concoct a smokescreen about the blood evidence, the DNA, being degraded. But this does not carry validity. You can take some of my blood, my DNA, and leave it on the sidewalk for days, for years, and it may degrade so that it is not readable, BUT it won't become the DNA of OJ or his wife or Ron Goldman.

Well, what I really think about the NMUSAF and the General is...........

Hold on, wait a minute, I'm in the wrong thread. Somehow I ended up in the off topics section by mistake.

mtpopejoy · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:30 pm

I understand you point Chris about if you loaned something to someone and they wanted to sell it, yes it would make you mad.
My issue with that statement is that it was loaned 40 years ago. The aircraft was wrecked 20 years ago and NMUSAF didn't demand it back then for not being well kept like they say they will.

It would be like borrowing something from a friend and that friend totally forgets about it and 40 years later when you go to sell or throw away that something that friend comes barging back in and creates a stink about something they forgot about. WOW, talk about rambling....

I don't like what happened but it also sounds like the CAF tried to play hardball at first then when the USAF called their bluff they tried to backpedal and it didn't work out.

I don't know what the Hades I'm trying to say, just word vomit I guess. :vom:

Regards,
Mark

wwrw2007 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:35 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

It didn't go to court, the NMUSAF tried to tell the CAF they owned the aircraft, but nothing would change, twice. Each time the CAF said stuff it. Now you have what you have. So what I am hearing is that if you lend something to someone and they try and sell it, you should let them so that no one thinks any less of you? Sounds crazy to me.

Whoa slow down here. I'm not bashing anyone. What I would like to know more about is these offers that the NMUSAF made to the CAF that would have allowed them to keep the plane. If the museum really did try to work things out and the CAF wouldn't even discuss it then maybe they did deserve to lose the plane. It's just that I've never seen any details of the two offers you say they gave to the CAF including possibly allowing them to fly the plane. On a side note though there sure seems to be a lot of planes that the museum owns including the Lackland P-82 that are receiving a lot more neglect than the CAF P-82 was getting if the museum truly cares about them (which I believe they do to an extent) they really needed pursue them planes with the same effort they did with the CAF. Even after the CAF agreed not to sell the plane.

seabee1526 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:18 pm **Posts:** 459

Sorry of off-topic, but didn't the Air Force also ship off a B-24 to England instead of the museum at Willow Run were the B-24 was built? I wonder what the thinking was not to keep her at "home"

Django · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:50 pm

Maybe they can trade back for the B-24 now? :lol:

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

seabee1526 wrote:

Sorry of off-topic, but didn't the Air Force also ship off a B-24 to England instead of the museum at Willow Run were the B-24 was built? I wonder what the thinking was not to keep her at "home"

The B-24 was traded for a Spitfire. I don't remember, but what did the museum at Willow Run offer the NMUSAF?

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:00 pm

Re legal advice. I don't know who,what, or how in regard to the details of how the CAF tried to negotiate with AF .

BUT, one thing you must remember about legal advice is that it really is technical advice, it is not necessarily moral or even logistical.

If I asked the police or a lawyer about noise from my neighbor's snow blower; I found that it is illlegal for him to run it before 7 am. The cops can and did come out and stop him from doing it at 6:30 when someone complained. He can legally do it at 7:01. Is it smart, or necessary or neighborly to do it that way? Could several of us have gotten together and ask him politiely to wait till later to turn it on? Don't know.

Just sort of reading between the lines, it is possible that the CAF took a hard line and did not negotiate when they might have.

But, it seems to me that I have heard nothing good about the USAFM general. Generals are, in general (don't you love that phrase) mini dictators, and as such they get used to being obeyed. I doubt if he spent much time worrying about whether his orders were fair or right. They don't have to make a profit like a CEO of a business. They don't have to convince anyone of the correctness of their order. They just have to keep the generals above them happy, and the CAF may not have had a friend in the chain or in Congress.

Warbird Information Exchange

Bye bye P-82... :-(

Who is online