Warbird Information Exchange

(please, stop)

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

Me neither. And as a rider to the following, I've no great support for one organisation over another, but my comments are made to provide some balance to a CAF-orientated view here which has been as 'economical with the truth' as the attacks on the NMUSAF leadership has been.

Me also.

That's an unarguable point where the events changed course. Other points are:
- the CAF getting control of the aircraft and permission to restore and fly the aircraft;
- the CAF crashing the aircraft (no technical fault in the aircraft);
- the CAF finding that a restoration was going to be more challenging (ultra-rare parts) and expensive to restore (see previous point);
- as you mention, the CAF coming to an arrangement with another organisation to trade that aircraft (for a restoration to fly);
- The NMUSAF flagging that as a title issue;
- discussions between the CAF and NMUSAF going sour;
- lack of clarity and understanding of legal status of papers presented in court;
- TWO open, transparent and legal judgements giving title to the NMUSAF where the CAF were able to offer whatever material they had to prevent that.

Despite the mention of 'not knowing the full story', all the facts that enables a legal judgement were in the open and twice a US court gave a decision on ownership. It should be no surprise to anyone that the NMUSAF leadership were not prepared to re-negotiate ownership by then. Likewise, while the CAF has a number of good reasons for its action, it was a less-than-ideal custodian of the aircraft for the majority of the period of its care for the artefact, starting with poor decision making and an accident. (Big thumbs up for the earlier getting control and restoration, on the other hand.)

Some of us might not like the decision, but with the most generous feelings towards the CAF, they got the best chances and they made the running until the latter period, and that was unarguably triggered by CAF actions. Anyone may not like the NMUSAF leaderships latter approach, but they were legally within their rights. The decision's been made, and like it or not, it helps no-one to complain it was the 'wrong' one.

Anyone attempting to place blame on one organisation and believing the other is faultless is simply being partisan. It's also worth mentioning, I think, that several generations of management and leadership of both organisations have played roles in the saga - not always in agreement with their predecessors' views and decisions. Certainly the modern CAF is more careful of aircraft.


Not really, the aviation collection of the Smithsonian has a much more significant collection of aircraft and artefacts that are original historical examples of global importance, and also not confined to subjects relating to - or opposing - one military arm of one nation.

But it's certainly one of the great collections!

It's arguable as to how much flying an aircraft meaningfully increases its visibility. It's certain that active aircraft engender a greater interest than static, and people travel to to aircraft of both kinds, but generally only airworthy aircraft travel to see new audiences, while the experience of seeing an active aircraft is different. I've certainly travelled a long way to see both kinds.

[However both only offer a percentage of the reality (killing people isn't generally an acceptable airshow act, but is a core part of most warbirds' role) and both static and active aircraft and owners can (and sometimes do) offer poor history and sometimes simplistic jingoistic 'history lessons' as well as 'honouring' veterans and so forth. But that's a digression.]

IMHO, it's simply silly to assume only airworthy or static museum are the options, and with multiple survivors of the type, there's no reason not to have both. And we should see another Twin Mustang fly eventually, just not this one.

I'd not be surprised if the NMUSAF just got the Twin Mustang on show after a clean and tidy up, for obvious PR and political reasons, and they'd have been silly not to have done so. However it is better presented now, and its chances of preservation (static) are greater than they were, and there's no reason to believe any deficiencies in presentation. Rightly people will point at other aircraft and a Twin Mustang rotting on external show while in NMUSAF ownership, but as we all know, pointing at others 'getting away with it' won't help your court case.

You may not agree with Chris 'Mustangdriver' but he has at least been clear to remain polite, and accepted where he's been wrong cheerfully, and has continued to share his understanding and insight of the NMUSAF. But he's not General Metcalf or the General's spokesperson, although you'd think so by some reactions.

Just a few of the facts and an opinion based on those. I'd hope it is time to move on, for some.

But one (I think) important last point - I'd also add that we lose a good deal of input on WIX due to aggressive putdowns. Some of that comes from some of us who don't like accepting that our personal preferences aren't actually correct or supported by legally tested facts.

We can't bully others into agreeing with us here; not should we restrict the discussion by trying to coerce other posters. We can certainly review and change our own views and opinions based on the information and opinion brought here - we are only our own masters.

I come to WIX to learn what's going on, and gain from others' views - which then changes what I think, sometimes not an easy thing to do or accept. Do you?

Just a few thoughts,

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Are we done yet?

For rreis or Jesse or whoever does not like the long discussion on the F82; why not just skip this topic? Why is there any urge to shut down or shut off this topic for those of us who do enjoy reading it? Have a little respect, or a lot of respect for the idea of free speech; and don't be threatened by it. You can hold on to whatever idea you have no matter what anyone else says or you might even learn something that at least influenced your view. And what does length matter, the one on the tanker contract went forever.

WIX is the exchange of information, which also includes facts, opinions and discussion. I and others have found this topic interesting, informative, and I don't have to agree with or have others agree with everything I say. WIX desperately needs something to give it interest; seems to me and some others that it has gotten boring for the most part. Hey, I haven't even received my normal weekly threat to be kicked off in some time.

Sometimes opinions are given very strongly, or the other side not given their due. But in the end I think most of us come to a better understanding of the issues. I'd guess most of us see value in both CAF and NMUSAF and wish there'd been better understanding between the two.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Sorry, I just finally had to toss my two cents worth in.

I put the "blame" on the former CAF leadership. Very few members knew of the trade until it broke in Air Classics. We were told the P-82 was going to CA to be restored, not traded. Had the membership at large known about the intent to trade/sell the -82, those of us who have been around a while would have spoke up and details about the possession of the P-82 would have come to light. That's what is good about our current administration, there doesn't seem to be too much that is kept behind closed doors, if anything.

I didn't like it when the CAF painted the P-82 black. I am not thrilled with the NMUSAF painting it black either. I do understand the reason, and am happy with the reason behind the paint and markings.

I saw the Twin Mustang fly in Harlingen, and I do wish I could see it again. Hopefully there will be another take to the air someday. I think we do need to move on from this issue now. Hopefully lessons have been learned on BOTH sides from it.

_________________
Mike

Mike,

I have to completely disagree with you.



Sure, had Bob sent a membership wide press release out there would have been some who didn't want to see the bird go. However, I think the vast majority would see the immediate benefit of having a FLYABLE P-38 (a WWII aircraft to boot) rather than a P-82 sitting in Midland. Also, as to the members questioning the ownership, I feel you are making your opinion with massive amounts of hindsight. If the GS and President (two entities well schooled in the paper-trail of the aircraft) all believed the P-82 was an OUTRIGHT DONATION (based on USAF/CAF documents on hand) to the CAF, then what makes you think a lot of the membership would raise question? The previous statement is not meant to degrade those members involved with the P-82 or say they weren't aware of the history of the aircraft just expressing the fact that the leadership present, that you think was poor (I am very close with the former CAF President and I somehow know a GS member very well and I can say that there are no two better leaders), had all the 'facts' at hand when making this decision.

Also, this was a decision was made by the GS who were voted on by YOU. There was probably a reason the trade was not highly publicized (and this will anger those of you on this forum who think every restoration or transaction should be public knowledge at that very instant), could it have been that they didn't want the deal to fall through? Not saying they were trying to hide anything, just that they maybe could not have wanted to offend the other party (with the P-38) by screaming to the world "Hey look! The inks not dry, but look what we have now!" This transaction wasn't meant to be a backhanded deal kept from the membership.



The fact that you said this is laughable. There is a huge problem with this with today’s GS and President. Hence all the rumblings going on (Take Back the CAF, the Museum litigation, expelling dedicated and honorable members, putting a FOUNDING FATHER OF THE CAF on probation, etc.).

I don't mean to rehash all these points over and over again, but I feel as someone who has a unique insight into the CAF side of the transaction, I should chime in. While I respect your opinion , Mike, I don't want everyone to think that your opinion reflects those of the rest of us.

T

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Taylor,
Had it not been said that the plane was going to CA for restoration, which was apparently not the case, given that the trade was announced shortly after it arrived, but that it was going to be traded, those of us who have been in the CAF for a while would have pointed out that it was always our understanding that the P-82 was "ours" for as long as we wanted it, but should we decide to dispose of it, it could only go back to the USAF. If I knew this, why didn't they, if they indeed had all the facts at hand?

While my opinion might not reflect those of the "rest of us", I find it to be fairly representative of many of us who have been in the CAF over 30 years.

_________________
Mike

Gotcha. My goal was to establish that A. it wasn't a backhanded deal meant to be kept from the membership, B. The leadership then was far from poor (that claim I take very personally), and C. Everything in the current leadership is not as hunky-dorry as you made it out to be. No hard feelings, just differences of opinion.
T

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

I didn't intend to say that the past leadership was "poor", as in not good. The communication between HQ and the units did leave a lot to be desired. The appearance, to those in the field, seemed that it was a backhanded deal, even though I understood the goal while not understanding how it was possible (given what I understood about the P-82). I never said the current leadership is "hunky-dorry", just that there doesn't seem to be as much going on that the membership isn't aware of. The lines of communication between HQ and units seem to flow a little better.

Things will never be like they were back when Lloyd was around. (some would say "Thank God!") I was lucky to have joined during what I consider to have been the Silver Age of the CAF, and at such a young and impressionable age.

_________________
Mike

Don't worry Taylor. Mike has been drinking from the Kool Aid. Boy oh boy me and Taylor agreeing on something. Heii is freezing over!

In case of emergency, check the following:

1) Check for pulse of the horse
2) Check and see if horse is still breathing
3) If 1 & 2 above are not present, horse is dead and it is highly recommended that one removes one's self from the a fore mentioned horse.

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

Scary isn't it...

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

You are right, I certainly did make that as one of my first comments. Shortly after that, I said:



I guess I could have gone back and deleted that part of the original post when I realized I couldn't prove what I was saying at the time. But I didn't, I owned up to the fact that I wasn't sure that I was right.

Somewhere on this board there is a post you made about somebody telling you that the plane had arrived at the museum and you hoping to see it. I read it a couple of days ago. I tried to find it again tonight but just didn't have time. You may have seen it shortly after it arrived but you said yourself you weren't there when it arrived.

I'm still hoping you will find out exactly what was done to this plane beyond putting it back together, washing and painting it. I'm willing to bet that the answer is nothing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but I'm betting that is the truth. The plane is on display and that is all the museum wants to do with it. If you can answer most of the questions that people have on this thread by calling your friends at the museum then the questions go away. Better yet, see if they can get you pictures of what they did. Surely they document the projects that way.

If you'll send me your address again, I'll send you the pictures I have of the work that was being done prior to the plane going back to the Air Force. Unfortunately with the format of them, I can't figure out how to post them here.

I'm still lined up to take a C-17 to Oshkosh so I look forward to meeting you.

_________________
Brad

Good post Brad.

That may well be true. But why would that be done?

My view is that getting it onto display quickly like this is, IMHO, entirely a reaction to the political situation and as can be seen from other NMUSAF restorations isn't a reflection of their normal restoration or conservation practices. A full restoration would divert effort from more historic aircraft on the list at the moment, also a bad call.

What would the reaction of the pro-CAF camp have been if it had gone into deep store and joined the very end of the restoration queue? (Which is what 'should' have happened, in some museum management plans.) Even more mud slinging over 'being taken from the CAF and then hidden away'. It is clean, tidy and on show.

Yes, it's now likely to be cleaner and kept tidy than for the majority of the CAF's ownership of it. That's not a fair assessment of the CAF's efforts, which we'd all agree were laudable, but likewise the NMUSAF are clearly damned for whatever they did with it now - on show or not. Like the whole saga, there are shortcomings from good intent on both sides.

That's just a presumption, without evidence one way or another. Again, we could ask to find out, and we might get a straight answer. Given the way the subject is entirely agenda driven by some, here and in the ownership dispute, I'd reckon a straight answer might be unlikely.

Were a pod and gear to turn up, I'd suspect a fuller restoration would be triggered. There's no reason why not. Timescales? Museums like this (at least in theory) plan a lot longer ahead than active aircraft organisations.

As some have intimated, it's a very dead two-headed pony; both static and as a much flogged saga. For those that care, there's enough info on what happened, why and when in these threads and in the public domain to draw their own conclusions. As I said before, I'd hope the CAF (and others) have taken the learning experience for future decision making and are moving on.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Brad If you mean was I there as the truck pulled in no, sorry if that is the impression I gave. I was there shortly after it arrived. It was still all packed up how it came in. And had been in Dayton for only a week or two I think. Not sure.
I guess I am just happy they gave it attention in the rather short time they've had it. I also think that you are going to see the aircraft improve over the years with more equipment and such. Restoration work goes on constantly there while the aircraft is on display. Not that the CAF wouldn't have done it as well. I too look forward to meeting up in person and shaking hands. If you come to the WIX cookout, Ill buy the first beer. Oh and can you pm me your address. I'm away from home but have something to send you.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager