Both Twin Mustangs now on display at the NMUSAF

[Misterg97]

I travel to Midland a couple of years ago and get to walk all around, next to, rub against (lightly), and even smell the P82 twin Mustang. I travel to the NMUSAF last week and can't get within 50 feet of the same Mustang - on my birthday too. From these baseless facts alone, I'll side with the CAF (Civilian Airplane Friendly)! I got to get within .001" of an inch at Midland and it wasn't even my birthday. On my birthday, no closer than 50 feet! OK, had the NMUSAF known it was my b-day, would I have gotten closer? I think not! Send it back, right now, so maybe one day I can get "Oh so close again" and maybe, just maybe, even see it fly one day! Otherwise, take down the ropes/barricades/fences etc.
My $.02

Perhaps a little explanation is in order ... Last October or thereabouts, the NMUSAF announced they would begin a total makeover of the Korean Gallery for the upcoming 60th Anniversay or the Korean War in late June of 2010. Visitors would be limited in viewing the area.

That lasted till some time in late April or early May when the total gallery was roped off due to the equipment moving airplanes, constructing some of the larger displays, etc. I would venture to say thousands unfortunatley could not visit that portion of the gallery during the time it was completely roped off.

Last Friday afternoon, the 28th of May, the gallery was totally opened to the public and well before it was originally anticipated.

I volunteered yesterday in the MFG and will go on record to say it is one of the finest tributes to the Korean War anywhere in the country.

I proudly served in Korea with first the 41th EAB and later the 58th Fighter Wing.

The visitors yesterday had nothing but the highest of praise for the competed section. The videos and displays tell the story of the "Forgotten War" in a well respected manner.

I urge one and all ... come and visit it ... and for me personally, as a Korean Vet, I am honored and priveleged to already have close to 700 hours volunteering in the MFG consisting of both Korea and Vietnam

[John Kerr]

One of two photos of the F-82 when still on display at Lackland AFB, TX. prior to CAF acquiring.

[John Kerr]

2nd of two photos of the F-82 at Lackland AFB, TX.

[maradamx3]

I travel to Midland a couple of years ago and get to walk all around, next to, rub against (lightly), and even smell the P82 twin Mustang. I travel to the NMUSAF last week and can't get within 50 feet of the same Mustang - on my birthday too. From these baseless facts alone, I'll side with the CAF (Civilian Airplane Friendly)! I got to get within .001" of an inch at Midland and it wasn't even my birthday. On my birthday, no closer than 50 feet! OK, had the NMUSAF known it was my b-day, would I have gotten closer? I think not! Send it back, right now, so maybe one day I can get "Oh so close again" and maybe, just maybe, even see it fly one day! Otherwise, take down the ropes/barricades/fences etc.
My $.02

Perhaps a little explanation is in order ... Last October or thereabouts, the NMUSAF announced they would begin a total makeover of the Korean Gallery for the upcoming 60th Anniversay or the Korean War in late June of 2010. Visitors would be limited in viewing the area.

That lasted till some time in late April or early May when the total gallery was roped off due to the equipment moving airplanes, constructing some of the larger displays, etc. I would venture to say thousands unfortunatley could not visit that portion of the gallery during the time it was completely roped off.

Last Friday afternoon, the 28th of May, the gallery was totally opened to the public and well before it was originally anticipated.

I volunteered yesterday in the MFG and will go on record to say it is one of the finest tributes to the Korean War anywhere in the country.

I proudly served in Korea with first the 41th EAB and later the 58th Fighter Wing.

The visitors yesterday had nothing but the highest of praise for the competed section. The videos and displays tell the story of the "Forgotten War" in a well respected manner.

I urge one and all ... come and visit it ... and for me personally, as a Korean Vet, I am honored and priveleged to already have close to 700 hours volunteering in the MFG consisting of both Korea and Vietnam

Unfortunately for me, I did not visit on Friday. I was there Saturday and that portion of the exhibit was roped off. I wasn't the only disappointed and unknowing patron.

I'll return next year though and hope to see what I couldn't see this year!

[warbird1]

I saw both yesterday. 162 looks really good:

From this picture, it appears that the aircraft has a glossy black paint scheme. Is that accurate or did they originally have flat black paint?

[skymstr02]

Gloss is authentic for the night fighter version.

[warbird1]

Gloss is authentic for the night fighter version.

Why did they use gloss, any particular reason? It would seem like it would be more shiney by reflecting moonlight and therefore be easier for an enemy to spot you.

[Steve Nelson]

I once read that they tested several different colors and finishes on the P-61. For night operations Flat Black was better than the standard AAF camo of OD over Nuetral Gray, but Gloss Black was by far the best. Supposedly, they sent aircraft with each scheme through a searchlight beam. The OD/Gray and Flat Black ones were spotted easilly, then after a few minutes the searchlight crew called control and asked "when are you sending the third plane?" Control responded "we already did!" The Gloss Black plane made several more runs, and the searchlight never did pick it out. Don't know if that's entirely true or not, but it makes a good story!

Controversy aside, she certainly looks nice. I may be able to work in a stop at the NMUSAF later this summer..we're vacationing in Pensacola the first week of August (probably spend at least a couple days at the NMNA..I doubt the beaches will be open) then returning to Michigan in time for Thunder.

With two other F-82s under restoration to fly, hopefully I'll still get to see one in the air someday.


SN

[Mark_Pilkington]

Brad first off please know I reply to this meaning nothing but to be respectful, but the NMUSAF did indeed offer to let the CAF continue to operate the P-82. After the 2nd time of telling them where to go, the CAF was told that it would be static only. The first two attempts to work something out, were going to leave the CAF able to fly the P-82. It was only when court and lawyers were invloved that the "Static" terms were brought inalong with other aircraft.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings Chris, I'll be fine. Just don't pee on my foot and tell me it's raining. As you have a habit of doing, you are so fast to defend the Air Force Museum that you don't bother with the facts.

Word for word off of the court papers.

" Major General (retired) Charles Metcalf, Director of the NMUSAF, learned of the
exchange in the January 2003 issue of the magazine “Air Classics.” (Plt. Mot. Summ. J. Attach
2, Ex. 11.) He then informed Mr. Bob Rice (“Mr. Rice”), the CAF’s Executive Director, in
writing that the attempted sale of the F-82 violated the terms of the Certificate. (Id.) In the letter dated December 2, 2002, General Metcalf indicates that the F-82 was conditionally donated to the CAF Museum and the donation certificate contains the provision that the title of the F-82 would revert back to the USAF, at the Government’s option, if the F-82 was no longer used for the purpose and/or end use for which it was donated or retention was no longer desired. (Id.) In addition, General Metcalf indicates that he considers the information contained in the January 2003 issue of Air Classics as written notice that the CAF no longer wishes to retain the F-82.(Id.) Finally, the letter is considered by General Metcalf as formal notification that the NMUSAF is exercising the option to retain title to the F-82. (Id.) Then, out of an abundance of caution, the CAF cancelled the agreement to trade the F-82. (Cowan Decl. 10.) However, neither the CAF nor the AAHM agree with the Government’s position that the F-82 should be returned. (Id.) From late in 2002 until April of 2006, the USAF, represented primarily by General Metcalf, and the CAF, represented primarily by Mr. Rice, attempted to agree on ownership, possession, and operation of the F-82. The discussions between these individuals did not result in an agreement. The F-82 has not been returned to the NMUSAF and remains with the CAF. (Id.)"

"In an effort to settle this dispute, General Metcalf offered to loan the F-82 to the CAF for
static display purposes only. The CAF has apparently elected to decline this offer.The CAF also argues that forfeiture would be inequitable because the USAF explicitly gave its approval for the CAF to fly the F-82 and had knowledge of the F-82’s flying status and failed to object. In support of this argument, the CAF cites two documents. The first is the 1966 Release and DD Form 1149. This document is titled “Requisition and Invoice Shipping Document” and is merely a record that the F-82 was transferred from Lackland AFB to the CAF pursuant to the April 15, 1966 letter releasing the F-82. It is not any indication of ownership or indication that the Certificate was no longer valid."


"

I know there are fixed opinions out there as to who is in the right and who in the wrong, but the quote of court evidence above seems to quite clearly support Chris' claim of the facts?

The highlighted section seems to be showing from 2002 to 2006 the NMUSAF attempted to negotiate with the CAF in regards to ownership, possession and operation of the aircraft. Static display doesnt normally get described as operation?

Of course it does depend on the actual details of the negotiations, and perhaps only those who were present ie Metcalf and Rice really know what was proposed and rejected, but it seems to me that the CAF had no interest in negotiating in those days as it did not concede the NMUSAF had any ownership rights in any case? and so would not intend to accept any proposal that required that acknowledgement?

There has been a court case, (and now an appeal? as well), both upholding the NMUSAF's rights, resulting in the aircraft being returned to the NMUSAF.

Lets leave the dust to settle on an argument long lost? no amount of disagreements here will change the situation.

Chris is a strong supporter and volunteer of the NMUSAF, others are members and supporters of the CAF, while many of the rest of us think highly of both institutions, theres no point taking Chris to task just because we dont like the outcome?, the decision's been made, "twice".

regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

[hercules130]

Right on Mark.

I will add a two points.
1st. I saw the airplane in Harlingen for the first time when I was 7, it did not look that much different when I saw 15 years later.
2nd. The NMofUSAF has it on display for the tax payer free of charge 363 days a year indoors and in fantastic condition about 13 months after taking possession.

I know the NMofUSAF has done a few shady things, forgotten/ignored agreements and to some not been the best keeper of their toys, I also know the CAF at times has been guilty of shadiness and not being the best stewards of the machines in that organization. Both organizations have their defenses and reasons for past actions. All and all the F-82 in question is better off now than it was before.


This a great deal folks.

[Dan K]

Right on Mark.

I will add a two points.
1st. I saw the airplane in Harlingen for the first time when I was 7, it did not look that much different when I saw 15 years later.
2nd. The NMofUSAF has it on display for the tax payer free of charge 363 days a year indoors and in fantastic condition about 13 months after taking possession.

I know the NMofUSAF has done a few shady things, forgotten/ignored agreements and to some not been the best keeper of their toys, I also know the CAF at times has been guilty of shadiness and not being the best stewards of the machines in that organization. Both organizations have their defenses and reasons for past actions. All and all the F-82 in question is better off now than it was before.


This a great deal folks.

Your points are noted, but are really a case of comparing apples with oranges.

You already know that the process and time involved for flyable reconstruction versus static don't compare. You also know that static displays range from cosmetic repair all the way to virtually-flyable reconditioning. Not having been involved in any phase of the work done at NMUSAF, I am not in a position to describe her current condition as "fantastic" or otherwise. You did, and I would be very interested to see documentation as to the degree to which she was restored.

I also don't know how the museum and its projects are funded. I know the museum holds fund raisers for various projects, but does the museum also receive any federal funding at all? If so, then it is unfair of you to compare her current rebuild with one sourced completely by private funding.

Truth is, the CAF was in the process of getting her flyable--by trading her to an entity that could supply the needed capital. If the NMUSAF had not interceded, she would quite probably be well on her way to being flyable (Dare I say even in the air already?).

No, this does not seem like such a great deal.

[hercules130]

Do not agree with all you said, but you did catch me on one thing, I did say "fantastic condition". Do not know this either, I should have said she looks fantastic.

As for funding I considered that and do see your point on the issue, did not bring it up because I really do no know how the restoration was payed for.

Gary

[Dan K]

Do not agree with all you said, but you did catch me on one thing, I did say "fantastic condition". Do not know this either, I should have said she looks fantastic.

As for funding I considered that and do see your point on the issue, did not bring it up because I really do no know how the restoration was payed for.

Gary

Thanks for that, Gary.

Re-reading it, my last post sounds like a rant. It wasn't meant to be...typed too early in the day I guess. My bad.

The funding question wasn't directed at you--I honestly don't know: Does the NMUSAF receive taxpayer money, or is it exclusively funded from the private sector? Help anyone?

[JDK]

Truth is, the CAF was in the process of getting her flyable--by trading her to an entity that could supply the needed capital. If the NMUSAF had not interceded, she would quite probably be well on her way to being flyable (Dare I say even in the air already?).

Lets not forget to give the CAF a thumbs up for successfully getting it flying the first time. But also, let's not forget the need for a second restoration - to flying or otherwise - was due to the aircraft being crash-landed in CAF hands. Better care then would've avoided the whole argument. Yes, it's easy to criticise, but let's remember the whole story, not just the convenient bits.

Regards,

[Dan K]

Lets not forget to give the CAF a thumbs up for successfully getting it flying the first time. But also, let's not forget the need for a second restoration - to flying or otherwise - was due to the aircraft being crash-landed in CAF hands. Better care then would've avoided the whole argument. Yes, it's easy to criticise, but let's remember the whole story, not just the convenient bits.

Regards,

Can anyone possibly know the "whole story"? I certainly don't. Was P-82 #162 damaged as a result of reckless operation? What constitutes the dividing line between carelessness and the normal increase of risk assumed by operating vintage machinery?