CAF(?) AM-1 Mauler

[Taylor Stevenson]

No flame war at all. In fact the P-82 is a good example of what could happend with the Mauler if one were to get her flying via a "loan" from the Navy.

Short(ish) story: The USAF loaned the P-82 to the CAF way back when with the restriction that if the CAF didn't want it anymore/couldn't maintain it, etc., then they'd give it back. There was a subsequent document from the USAF that appeared to outright gift the P-82 to the CAF. Therefore, the CAF was under the understanding (I still believe rightfully so) that the P-82 was theirs. They pumped in a ton of money over the years to keep her in the air, unfortunately she had a landing mishap and was substantially damaged. After years of trying to drum up support and money (a LOT of it), it was decided that the better move for the goals of the organization would be to trade the P-82 wreckage/project for a restored and flying P-38.

At this point, remember two things: 1) Per the documentation, the CAF believed it owned the P-82 outright and, therefore, could sell/trade/assign/gift/lease/destroy her at will; and 2) The goal of the CAF is to "save an example of every aircraft that flew during World War II" and a flying P-38 fits the bill better than some P-82 wreckage.

Well, the deal was about to go through when an article published in a reputable warbird magazine caught the eye of The General. The General and the NMUSAF said the CAF was violating the terms of the original agreement and they wanted the P-82 back. Obviously, the CAF disagreed with this, pointing to the documents they believed gifted the P-82. There was a legal battle. NMUSAF had home-field advantage and won. Now, she sits static in Dayton with another P-82, while the NMUSAF's third example sits outside in the elements at Lackland AFB.

I would be worried about a similar scenario occurring with respect to the AM-1 and the Navy. Especially after considering that the Navy is particularly more adamant about retaining ownership of "their" (our) wrecked/abandoned/etc. warbirds (a certain Brewster product comes to mind).

I hope the Mauler eventually falls into private hands (one in particular), but I don't see it happening...

Hope that clears it up, and if I've missed anything important, please chime in (Randy, Bill, etc.).

(Sorry for the long answer... Law School has done a great job of making me long-winded...)

[Taylor Stevenson]

I missed a central point of your question, Mark. The difference between a "loaned" AM-1 and the CAF P-82 is that the CAF believed they owned the aircraft, in which case spending money to get her flying makes sense, whereas in the AM-1 scenario, the up-front understanding would be that ownership would ultimately reside in the USAF. In my opinion, there's no real incentive to pump money into something that isn't yours, or at least will not perpetually fulfill the goals of your influx of cash (i.e. flying).

[Mark Allen M]

Thanks Taylor, well stated explanation and the jist of what I believed the story to be as well.

There was a subsequent document from the USAF that appeared to outright gift the P-82 to the CAF. Therefore, the CAF was under the understanding (I still believe rightfully so) that the P-82 was theirs.

This sentence above would appear to be the most important and critical aspect of the whole business and it's outcome. The fact that the CAF believed they owned the aircraft and made the decisions to spend money to get it flying perhaps made sense to someone at the time, but in retrospect was no doubt a poor decision. (perhaps 'poor' is not the correct word to use here, 'misleading' may be a better word). Never-the-less it would be interesting to review this USAF document to see just what it entailed and what and how created such confusion on both sides.

[Taylor Stevenson]

You're right, Mark.

Hindsight being 20/20, the CAF should have requested written confirmation from the USAF immediately after it got the "gifting document" that it was an outright donation. That being said, if you believe someone legally gifted you something and they haven't asked for it in decades, you'd probably assume it was yours as well. (Hypothetical "you")

It would have been pretty nice to see three P-82s in formation... Oh well.

[Taylor Stevenson]

That being said, I would LOVE to see this some day:

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/martin_mauler_1.jpg

(Beware: Shameless link to internet photo)

[Jerry O'Neill]

Question is, where did the CAF get the AM-1 in the first place?
NEAM acquired their Mauler, now at Tillimook, from the U.S. Army at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in MD. It was not Navy owned and, I believe, most of the 1960's targets there were also owned by the Army. If they got it from the Army, then the Navy has no claim to it.
Jerry

[Taylor Stevenson]

Now, that I don't know. My only real memories of the Mauler hulk are comprised of me crawling all over the thing while the adults were in General Staff meetings...

Eric?

[Brad]

The Mauler came from the range at Socorro, New Mexico. It was owned by the Navy.