Bye bye P-82... :-(

[mustangdriver]

Nathan not to start a fight but by not going there you are only robbing yourself. The men and women who bust their butts every day in Dayton have nothing to do with this. The museum collection is something to see.

[mustangdriver]

This is the last thing I'll say on the P-82. Do I wish I can see this plane fly? You bet, but I don't blame nmusaf for doing what they did. Especially when the full story is considered. How many stories about the nmusaf on here have turned out as over exaggerated or untrue? I know of a few right off the top of my head.

[Jesse C.]

id take a girl with a tramp stamp (CAF) over the ones doomed to be pole dancers (NMUSAF)

Yeah, the only problem is that the CAF was treating more like the town whore and just passing it around and then wanted to trade it in for a new girlfriend.

I saw it while it parked here at Gillespie and it did not look all that great.

CAF had it on certain conditions, they violated those conditions and it got taken away, now everyone is crying foul. Nice.

As for those bashing the NMUSAF, shame on you, really. Lots of foiks have put a lot of hard work to keep those birds for generations to come. True, they have their skeletons in the closet but so do many so called non profit and private organizations.

And if anyone does not like seeing these kind of threads, then go read something else, nobody is making you read this.

Nuff said.

[Taylor Stevenson]

Jesse, not "Nuff said"... The DONATION of the aircraft TO the CAF has No limitations/restrictions etc. I just want to make sure people know that the "fact" you just threw out there was incorrect. It was an outright donation within the documents we possessed. If we had the government paying our bills, home court advantage, etc we would have won. The aircraft was in a state of disrepair for a while, yes. BUT you have to consider that we are working with ONLY donated time and money. Therefor priority went to other aircraft at the time. Believe me, it would have been flying in a couple years had we been able to keep it. Thats not an opinion, that is a fact.

As for bashing the NMUSAF. I do not disagree with the volunteers, goals, and objectives of the museum itself. HOWEVER this museum is run by an arrogant individual who thinks rules do not apply and who seems to be doing everything in his power to step on his friends toes. I WILL NOT support the NMUSAF as long as the General is around.

[mustangdriver]

Taylor, he pretty much called it correct. As much as the CAF would love to paint the picture of a nasty ol' General that just decided to take it back, it is untrue. I don't know how many of all of the specific restrictions but I just know of the one major one they broke. I also know of the few meeting that were had with the CAF, and how the CAF responded. I heard about each while in volunteer meetings, so no this wasn't idle chat. You can be unhappy as you want to but the excuses you are giving for why you lost are weak. Homecourt advantage and the big nasty government lawyers? Seriously? This reminds me of a guy in highschool who has a girlfriend he keeps dumping, but no one else can have her either. If this aircraft was so important, such a vital part of the collection, than why are we here talking? Because the thing that put the whole smash in the fire was when the CAF tried to sell it. I know I know the P-38. But we are not talking P-38. We are talking about the P-82. Let me ask you this. This all important P-82, if it had been found that the CAF owned it out right, what do you want to bet that this aircraft that is held in such high regard by the CAF would have been traded for a P-38 or something else. The suddenly it wouldn't of mattered.

Please take none of this as a personal attack, as I mean none of it in a personal way. I take heat alot for my support of the NMUSAF. Sometimes I agree that they are wrong, usually I just try to find out if there is a whole story(which there usually is) or if they are indeed wrong (that has happened as well). But that is just it, you have to understand that you are saying that you won't support the NMUSAF. Thats fine. But I also know several people that will not support the CAF. I try to look at what one another has done that is good for the preservation of old aircraft and support them all. Both have done alot for the sake of saving aircraft.

As for you saying that you would rather see a tramp stamp than a pole dancer, that is fine. But just to make Jack proud I have to tell you, I would love to be the one that gets to remove that logo off the P-82.

[Mark_Pilkington]

me109me109 » Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:23 pm

Jesse, not "Nuff said"... The DONATION of the aircraft TO the CAF has No limitations/restrictions etc. I just want to make sure people know that the "fact" you just threw out there was incorrect. It was an outright donation within the documents we possessed. If we had the government paying our bills, home court advantage, etc we would have won.

saying so doesnt make it true! I agree with Jesse, you may not agree with, or like the decision but thats what was determined twice by court.


I read the judge's reasons for the decision in the original court case, (when provided the link here on wix) where he dealt with all of the evidence, the court decision concluded the "donation of the aircraft to the CAF DID have limitations and restrictions, that was the very basis of the court decision!

I havent read the decision from the appeal but I assume there was no additional evidence submitted?, and I assume the result reflects the same assessment of the original evidence, resulting in the NMUSAF being determined to still own the aircraft and enforce its return under the terms of the conditional donation.

I can understand the CAF's frustration, the "donation" has so many conditions that it really more correctly a "conditional indefinate loan", and arose so far back in time that record keeping, and formal terms and conditions were poorly explained or understood? or enforced, perhaps on both sides.

But the case has been to court twice, and the NMUSAF's claim upheld each time, its not the fault of one man, he wouldnt be progressing without the supporting views of lawyers, and wouldnt be winning if the evidence didnt support the NMUSAF claim. Although on that topic, there is always at least one side in a court whose lawyers turn out to be totally wrong in their opinions when the decision is handed down, and despite one side's clients loosing, the lawyers always win.

While there are large and ongoing cases where clever legal two stepping has evidence ruled out, or biasing of juries, or simply through running many expensive retrials and appeals one side can exhaust the funds of another, denying "their day in court", in this relatively simple case, the CAF itself chose to appeal, and the appeal apparantly went through to a decision?

In this simple case it really doesnt help the cause to rely on emotional "we was robbed" claims of being outgunned by $$ for lawyers, or some bias in the state based legal systems, (if you honestly think the US legal system is that "corrupted" then you have bigger problems to worry about than the ownership of a P-82?)

Can anyone post a link (or copy/paste) the appeal judges reasons behind his decisions? to allow logical debate on the "facts" as presented in court?

Hopefully the CAF will clear the air by formally stating its position on the matter as either accepting the courts decision, or advising an intent to appeal on valid legal grounds.

Both of these organisations are doing great work preserving aviation heritage, and its a pity the USAF doesnt provide more support to the CAF given the number of people who see USAF heritage through the CAF's efforts, however ongoing "slagging off" at "The General", wont do anything to heal the rift, or help other MNUSAF/CAF "loans" let alone any new deal with the P-82?

regards

Mark Pilkington

[Jack Cook]

and and Mark...............

[John Cotter]

Jesse, not "Nuff said"... The DONATION of the aircraft TO the CAF has No limitations/restrictions etc. I just want to make sure people know that the "fact" you just threw out there was incorrect. It was an outright donation within the documents we possessed. If we had the government paying our bills, home court advantage, etc we would have won. The aircraft was in a state of disrepair for a while, yes. BUT you have to consider that we are working with ONLY donated time and money. Therefor priority went to other aircraft at the time. Believe me, it would have been flying in a couple years had we been able to keep it. Thats not an opinion, that is a fact.

As for bashing the NMUSAF. I do not disagree with the volunteers, goals, and objectives of the museum itself. HOWEVER this museum is run by an arrogant individual who thinks rules do not apply and who seems to be doing everything in his power to step on his friends toes. I WILL NOT support the NMUSAF as long as the General is around.

I talked to an attorney today that had reviewed the evidence and it appears that the orginal document restricted the CAF from selling the P82. If they did, it would then be subject to recall by the Air Force. Also after the CAF's attempt to sell the airplane, the Air Force Museum offered the CAF the opportunity to KEEP and FLY the P82 with very minimal restrictions. The CAF declined this offer.

I am pissed that the CAF lost this airplane. It is definitely one that I would have sponsored in the future.

[brucev]

John, can you tell us what the restrictions would have been? Or was the CAF worried about setting a precedent?

[rreis]

Or was the CAF worried about setting a precedent?

That could be also a good explanation why the NMUSAF took the action it did...

[mustangdriver]

Thank you

[tex-fan]

it's DONE! now [as my grandmother use to tell my brother and i] "let's play nice". PLEASE

[Young Shep]

Hopefully the CAF will clear the air by formally stating its position on the matter as either accepting the courts decision, or advising an intent to appeal on valid legal grounds.

I think Steve did try to clear the air with this statement - “Although the USAFM does not support the CAF’s mission to ‘Keep ‘Em Flying’ we are honored to support the mission of the U.S. Air Force,” said Brown. “We hope that they will come to see the benefit the CAF and all warbird organizations bring to their recruiting and preservation efforts.”

[mustangdriver]

But even that quote misses the point. It has NOTHING to do with flying this aircraft. It has to do with selling it.

[seabee1526]

The only way to really appreciate an airplane is to see it in it's element...flying. It is not the same if you can't get the sights, sounds and smells of a "live" aircraft (and for some of you sicko's the feel and taste).