Bye bye P-82... :-(

[Dan K]

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

Can't trade it to the Limeys...they may try to fly it.

[seabee1526]

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?

Not the NMUSAF per se, but Willow Run did provide 8000 +/- B-24's 65 or so years ago

[warbird1]

Just so everybody has a little background info on General Metcalf - the current Director of the NMUSAF that we are all talking about - I found a bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D._Metcalf

[Boneyard]

As for the lackland p-82 there is a thread on here that someone had had the chance to get up close and personal with it and that was in pretty good shape.

As for the F82s condition, that too is BS. It looks passable because it has relatively fresh paint. No one has opened up any panels nor looked under the skin. It has been outside since the 60s, are you so naive to believe there's nothing hiding inside ?

[Rant On]

You are right Rick. I saw the F-82 a while back and you could just tell that there was corrosion going on under the crappy paint job it's been given. Why should a rare aeroplane like this be displayed in such a manner? The NMUSAF seems to have it's priorities ALL wrong.

I've never been a great admirer of the NMUSAF. I've visited the museum once and it was ok but was not impressed by a lot of what I saw and am not impressed by what I have heard about the way they operate, including the F-105 travesty which they should be ashamed of. They have the quantity and quality of aircraft on displaly but, IMHO, it's just done all wrong, I've enjoyed visits to smaller aircraft collections, both in the USA and abroad, a lot more than my visit to the NMUSAF.

And don't get me started on the many static display aircraft that are displayed across the country that are ultimately THEIR responsibility and which are left to rot and decay. These aircraft belong to the Nation, not the NMUSAF.

[Rant Off]

[Chunks]

Mustangdriver said

I have never claimed to see the P-82.

This is what you said..

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.

Then exactly how bad is it? I guess my point is that with both airplanes you don't really know any of the facts, do you? I don't either. The only people that know are the ones that were present during the discussions/proceedings or the invisible man that inspected the one in San Antonio. It's pointless to argue. Your point of view is based on hearsay, not some golden nuggett that only you have access to. You want everyone to accept your position as fact and justice and discount the opposing interpretations. Your opinion is based on your passion for the NMUSAF and nothing else. Nothing wrong with that, just quit pretending that it's anything else.

Chunks

[airnutz]

It didn't go to court, the NMUSAF tried to tell the CAF they owned the aircraft, but nothing would change, twice.

Well..didn't NMUSAF change their footing a few times? Telling the CAF to turn the F-82 over because of poor
condition due to the crash? Or, the original paperwork was negated because the individual who approved
the paperwork wasn't authorized to do so?

Wasn't a B-25 traded to the AF as part of the deal? Someone refresh my memory here please? The BS pool is
pretty deep and long here.

[Mark_Pilkington]

.

I understand how many in the CAF would consider they were hard done by, and that this aircraft belonged to the CAF, especially given the CAF's formal statements after the first court case and "rallying of the troops" to support an appeal.

Most volunteer groups suffer from poor filing and record keeping, and transfer of knowledge from administration to administration, ie loss of corporate memory.

I have followed the P-82 saga for a quite some time and from the court judgements it seems clear that the P-82 was "donated" to the CAF with strings attached (better described as an indefinate loan), the letter of "ownership" was requested, and provided to facilitate FAA registration.
The CAF's public declaration to dispose of the aircraft in trade for a P-38 triggered one of the strings attached to the "donation", and the NMUSAF had the aircraft returned in accordance with that requirement.

It would seem to me poor record keeping,lost corporate memory, linked with a typically poor government wording of a document (donation versus loan), has led to this confrontation.

There has been a court case, and an appeal that has upheld those facts.

Unfortunately the opposing sides, (based on their own interpretation of the strengths of their case) have not been able to find a middle ground, the CAF appeared to pursue that after the loss of the first court case, with offers to retain the aircraft for static display only, but without accepting the NMUSAF ownership, the courts findings, and publicly reserving its right and intention to pursue an appeal.

Faced with that situation, the NMUSAF (and the General) would seem left with no choice but to conclude the "donation" agreement, and have the aircraft returned.

Unfortunately in every court case, at least one side's lawyers are found to be incorrect in their assessment of the evidence, and advice to their clients, ie despite their over confidence prior to the case that they will definately win their clients loose, left empty handed and empty wallets.

This issue has gone to court twice now, I think every one other than the "gov'mnt conspiratists" should be able to accept the umpires decision, and the fact that all of the CAF's "evidence" was presented to defend its view of the situation.

I think its about time the dust was permitted to settle and the CAF and NMUSAF given the opportunity to forge new relationships, the constant picking of this scab will never let it heal, and that will be to the detriment of the relationship and any possibility of other "donations"/loans, including return of the P-82 for static display.

The NMUSAF and the CAF are both important collections of historic aircraft, and both are worthy of support, ideally the USAF would recognise and support the CAF's efforts in displaying USAF flying heritage, however if CAF supporters continue to publicly bag the NMUSAF, (and therefore the USAF) I suspect such relationships and support will remain lacking.

The CAF itself now formally needs to set the tone on its position in regards to this matter now that the appeal has been handed down, and ensure its supporters dont damage the CAF / NMUSAF relationship to the detriment of the CAF in the longer term.

Obviously being from the other side of the world I dont have any "skin in the game", and are therefore not trying to skew support for one group over the other, but simply commenting on the facts as they seem.


Regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[gary1954]

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"

And That!!!!burns my a Double s up every thime I think about that

[Speedy]

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"

And That!!!!burns my a Double s up every thime I think about that

Just my .02 cents worth...but there are two B-24's in England that I know of. One at RAF Hendon and one at RAF Duxford. I've seen both of those in their settings and have to say that considering B-24's flew a whole lotta combat out of Britain, it is appropriate to have them on display 'across the pond'.

There are at least a handful of B-24's here stateside--some flyable, some otherwise--but we DO have several. Not questioning the importance of the Museum at Willow Run...just making an observation.

[mustangdriver]

Mustangdriver said

I have never claimed to see the P-82.

This is what you said..

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.

Then exactly how bad is it? I guess my point is that with both airplanes you don't really know any of the facts, do you? I don't either. The only people that know are the ones that were present during the discussions/proceedings or the invisible man that inspected the one in San Antonio. It's pointless to argue. Your point of view is based on hearsay, not some golden nuggett that only you have access to. You want everyone to accept your position as fact and justice and discount the opposinginterpretations. Your opinion is based on your passion for the NMUSAF and nothing else. Nothing wrong with that, just quit pretending that it's anything else.

Chunks

My statements have all been based on facts that I have either read her(in the case of the lackland afb p-82 which we are talking about for no other reason than those wanting to b@&$h for the sake of it) or from time volunteering with both the CAF and NMUSAF. Sorry if that my opionion is unpopular but it's based on every fact I've ever seen from both organizations.

[Mark_Pilkington]

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"

And That!!!!burns my a Double s up every thime I think about that

The B-24 was swapped for a rare Spitfire Vb now on display in the NMUSAF.

The B-24 has been restored, placed under cover, displayed in US markings, in the "AMERICAN Air Museum at Duxford - A purpose built museum dedicated to the sacrifices of US airmen in WW2 in the European theatre, and therefore reminding the UK and European visitors who stream past it each year of those sacrifices.

I would have thought the US still has enough B-24's sitting outside to focus on improving their preservation prospects rather than decrying a valid museum trade, excellent long term preservation and US war memorial outcome?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[warbird1]

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"

And That!!!!burns my a Double s up every thime I think about that

What was the offer from Willow Run in regards to the B-24? Was there any kind of offer at all, or just a willingness to accept donation of the aircraft with "no strings attached"?

The fact that the B-24 went to England doesn't bother me in the least. It is receiving far better care there than it did on the parade grounds at Lackland. I saw it before it left for England in it's neglected state, and often wondered when or if this plane would ever receive the care it deserved. Warplanes come and go to different countries, it's not a big deal. Just think of how many planes have come across the pond from England to the U.S. - probably at least 10 or so major warbirds in the last decade. Unless an airplane is historically important, like "The Enola Gay", the Wright Flyer, "Spirit of St. Louis", etc I don't have a problem with airplanes going overseas, especially if they receive far better care from their custodians than they presently would have otherwise. The only thing that perturbs me is some of the silly "culture embargoes" that some countries have like Australia where warplanes that were not even used are not ever allowed to leave the country. Free trade, free information flow, and unrestricted sales - are those not good things for the preservation of warbirds?

[Bill Greenwood]

I like the things Chris, Mustang driver writes, even if I may not always agree with all of it.
They are not mean spirited, they are not focused just on attacking someone or some other organization. And they give insight into the workings of a major museum.

So I hope to share a deviled egg and a brownie with you this summer at Zachs. But I still don't think I'll be buying a beer for your accountant friend.

[seabee1526]

No, I don't believe that there were any trades offered. I didn't mean to start anything, I just thought that the aircraft was historically significant to the quickly fading memory of the Arsenal of Democracy represented by Willow Run.

[Mark_Pilkington]

[quote="warbird1 The only thing that perturbs me is some of the silly "culture embargoes" that some countries have like Australia where warplanes that were not even used are not ever allowed to leave the country. Free trade, free information flow, and unrestricted sales - are those not good things for the preservation of warbirds?[/quote]

Australia has a moveable cultural heritage law that requires the export of historic aircraft to be approved, and allows for the denial of export if the aircraft is considered significant to Australian culture and history, AND there is not two similar aircraft preserved in public collections in Australia.

Such a policy allows for many aircraft in Australia to be bought and sold on the open market, (and if applied to the Lackland B-24 from a US perspective would have allowed it to leave to the UK on the basis of the preserved examples elsewhere in the USA.

The Spitfire Vb now in the NMUSAF, swapped for the Lackland B-24 came from Australia, the NMUSAF Beaufighter also came from Australia (and in my opinion should have been denied an export permit, however the AWM's mark II was considered an equivalent spitfire despite the different technical and operational significances (one being a European war veteran the other being a Defence of Darwin veteran.)

The Oscar now in Paul Allen's collection came from Australia, and was the sole intact example, and a war prize captured by Australian's in PNG, (in my opinion that should have also been denied an export permit.)

The only surviving Australian built DH Mosquito in the country was denied an export permit and is now fully restored in the Australian War Memorial.

A mustang and ME-109 were impounded by Australian Customs and forfeited due to customs fraud, the ME-109 had not had an export permit applied for, or assessed, it was being smuggled out disguised as a mustang. (in my opinion the ME-109 was delivered to Australia as a war prize, was the sole intact example in the country, and should have been denied an export permit had an application been made)

The number of aircraft denied an export permit from Australia can be counted on one hand, and includes the Moorabbin Beaufighter, which was correctly denied an export permit.

"where warplanes that were not even used are not ever allowed to leave the country" - so which particular aircraft examples do you have, to back up such statements.

Unfortunately, such un-imformed "throw away" comments become legend and then "fact" with no relationship to the truth.


regards

Mark Pilkington