Warbird Information Exchange

Howdy folks. I have seen alot of different posts about the P-82 and the question of ownership. I have also seen posts by folks wanting to know a little more about it. I have spoken to previous crew members just to assure I have all the facts.
The CAF aquired the P-82 about 1967 from the USAF. The P-82 had been a gate guard at Lackland AFB in San Antonio, TX (there were two there back in 1967). "Rumor has it" or I should say what I was told by the older crew members was that it was a conditional loan. If the CAF wanted to get rid of it, the aircraft was to revert back to the USAF. But, that is for the powers that be to decide.
There were approximately 276 Twin Mustangs built, with only 20 of them being "B" models with the Merlin engines. There are 2 "B" models left. The CAF P-82 and the P-82 "Betty Joe". I believe the other gate guard at Lackland AFB is an "E" model. I believe Walter Soplata had another "E" model as well as most of an XP model.
The last time the CAF P-82 flew was in 1987. At the time, it could only be flown for small intervals, I was told about 30 minutes and then you had to bring it back in. This was due to a leaking prop seal. This was not what caused the accident. The man flying the aircraft basically stalled it onto the runway while landing from about 25-30 feet in the air. Results were obvious prop and engine damage, the right gear sheared off and the left gear collapsed, the scoops were flattened like pancakes. The aircraft was parked in the back corner of the fighter hanger in Harlingen until a support unit, the P-82 Squadron was formed around 1990-1991.
This Squadron had member all over the country with a deep devotion to the P-82. Quite a bit of work was accomplished from the P-82 Squadron. The outer wing panels were removed and trailered to another location where the interior wiring was stripped down and replaced. Landing gear was located, purchased, and shipped to Midland. Fake prop blades were made to at least make the aircraft look more presentable for fundraising at Airsho. When the Squadron moved their base from Midland to California, they even got the aircraft transported at no cost by the military.
Then, without warning to any of the membership, CAF HQ decides to trade the aircraft for a P-38. They did not tell the Squadron members anything or give them warning that this was going to happen. They did not inform the General Membership that the trade was going to happen. It was a big secret deal. HQ would not tell the members who it was traded to. When I called HQ and spoke to them, I asked them why they decided to get rid of the P-82 and I was told "because it technically isn't a WWII aircraft". It was designed towards the end of WWII as a long-range escort for B-29s. It actually flew in Korea. But yet, there are Korean and Vietnam era aircraft in the collection.
Bottom line is the aircraft had a very interested and keen support group that was making progress, even if it was slow progress. Now the aircraft is back where it started...sitting in a hanger with nothing being done.

Okay, first, how many P-82 threads are needed here?

Second, I think this kind of discussion needs to take place within the CAF, not aired out on a public forum. There were obviously some deals that took place that some knew about and some didn't, but griping about it on a public forum doesn't seem productive. Nor will it change anything.

Sorry, the other threads seem old and more of a rant or arguement instead of the history and facts, so I posted a more current thread.



I will agree that the CAF is still a fine organization, even if it has altered from what is was in Harlingen in the days of Lloyd Nolen. There are both positives and negatives in the move to Midland. The people involved in the litigation within the CAF, from what I understand, are under a gag order and cannot talk about it. Most of the people that used to be involved with the CAF and P-82 that know the facts are no longer members. I am not griping, and I am sorry if it seems as though I am, I just want people to know the facts....and you are right, it probably would not change anything, positively or negatively...just want people to know the facts.

I, for one, applaud this post. I have asked the question before about the status of the P-82. I have asked it at CAF shows and to CAF members when they have their hands out asking for donations. You would think I was asking the government to turn over all the files on the JFK assasination! A simple, "It's none of your business, just give us some money" would have been a better answer than I ever got.
I even asked a member if I donated money specifically to the P-82 if that would entitle me to an idea of its progress....I got a "deer in the headlights" look back. He would gladly take the money, but as for what I was "buying", well, again, it was none of my business.
I was a member of the CAF for several years. But when they became politically correct and dropped Confederate from their name, I dropped my membership. It seems like so many other things now, someone has to take a great idea, club, company, etc. like the original CAF and turn it into what it is today.......a totally bastardized version of what was intended.
(The opinions here are strictly my own and do not reflect the opinions of the administrator, web designer or other members of this forum.)

I also see nothing wrong with this thread. As long as it is kept on a cool level, it is fine. There are alot of questions about this very rare aircraft, and it is like you are aksing about the stealth fighter. I am a current Col. in the CAF, and I know nothing about it. I have heard rumors, and I just go on assuming that they are just that, but I have never heard anything official from the CAF.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I would love to see this discussion taking place within the CAF but since that is not happening, I see no problem with a person taking the time to try and find out facts and details of the situation. That said, the "dogfights" taking place in the other posts are out of line, there is such a thing as the "PM" folks, use it if you want to get nasty.
Back to the trade that started this conflict:
What of the other two airplanes that were part of the deal? Where and what is the status of "Scatter Brain Kid II"? I know that the "flyable" P-38 has been since sold to a new owner, is there any truth to the rumors that both engines were found to be wrung out upon the "acceptance" inspection performed by the SoCal Wing?
Bob
Another CAF Col

I have not heard where "Scatterbrain Kid II" is. I did hear the rumor of the P-38 engine being bad upon the "acceptance" inspection, but I do not know if there is truth to the matter.

So Scatterbrain kid II still exists?

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I am a member of the SoCal wing. The "flyable" P-38 that was part of the trade was flown in, but the engines were overhauled, but of dubious origin. From what I understand, the engine rebuilder had had some recent issues with some previous work. Today, Jack Croul owns that P-38 and it flew at Chino.

My initial pause with this thread was that I have seen other threads on other sites turn into a free for all against the CAF, unfairly and unjustly in my opinion. I didn't want to see that happen here. There are certainly questions about this particular transaction, but there is probably a good reason for the secrecy. Who knows what kind of secret handshakes and favors get done behind the scenes in warbird trading...

As far as the name change, I think it is better this way as it is a better name for what they are. How many times did you tell someone "I am a colonel in the Confederate Air Force" only to have someone look at you sideways and say "I didn't know they had planes in the Civil War". Part of what they do is to educate people about the planes, people and history of WWII. The name better suits what their mission is.

The name change didn't bother me. As long as they are saving warbirds.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Was is not intended to be the largest flying museum in the world whose sole purpose was to inform the future generations about the sacrifice of those brave men and women? If not, then why ARE we the largest flying museum with more than 150 aircraft??? This is a VERY personal subject to me and for you to call this great organization a bastardized version is not only incorrect but also idiotic.

Miscue....
First off, If the general staff votes to trade a NON FLYING plane for a FLYING WWII aircraft then it is up to them to do so. The CAF goal is to FLY aircraft and if we have a plane sitting that we can trade for a very RARE plane to fly then doesn’t that seem to correlate with the goal? YOU vote the GS in. It is like any organization or government in America, if you dont like the leadership GET INVOLVED to change it. As far as I know you aren’t a member anymore and neither is Xrayist. If you both had such a beef then why not at least TRY to change it instead of moaning and trying to stir things up.

If you love warbirds, then why try to bad-talk an organization keeping your "love" flying...??

If these comments get me blocked or restricted from this forum then so be it, but I will not tolerate people insulting an organization who keeps your dreams alive!

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

The charter, goals and actions of any non-profit organization need to be transparent to the members and potential donors. If there is no trust the organization will not be able to flourish.

That being said, you do need to be secretive at the request of donors. You also may need to be secretive in any deals you do to keep the busybodies and opportunists (including people on the internet) from queering the deal. Oftentimes opinions and unfounded allegations bubble up from outsiders making negotiations far more difficult than they need to be.

The question I would ask is if this trade was consistent with the stated goals of the organization? Was this trade arrangement legal within the bylaws of the organization?

If so, maybe the board of the CAF just blew it when attempting to trade something they thought they had title to. If they just blew it then the membership has to decide whether or not the board is incompetent and should be voted out. I don't know, but maybe an attorney was consulted regarding the ownership issue. Maybe the board did their due diligence regarding ownership and was surprised by the challenge from the USAF. Unless all legal channels have been exhausted already the board may yet be vindicated.

It has been stated by people that should know that the ownership issue is tied up in litigation. If so, the board cannot answer questions about it.

If I was a member of the CAF (and I am not), I would want to know if this trade met the stated goals of the organization and if the trade was in compliance with the bylaws. If so on both counts I would have to agree to disagree if I was not happy with the proposed trade.

An organization can't make every member happy all of the time. If you are unhappy enough about the trade you need to either insert yourself into the decision making process of the organization or drop out. If you consider the P-82 arrangement to be a negative, you have to balance this against all the other things the CAF does. Is the net result positive? Is it positive enough for you to continue to support the organization?

Facts are great, but what are your goals by stating these facts? Is the result embarassment to the organization? If you want to effect change in an organization I don't think that a public forum is the proper place to do it. All it does is make existing and potential donors question the value of their donations in the future. That is never good for a non-profit organization. The organization's image may be tarnished for years to come and it may all be unfounded.

Gary's post on the B-24 is an example of how to generate a positive image for an organization. I think a lot of the discussion on the subject of the P-82 has been counter to the image that Gary and many volunteers have tried very hard to build with their parts and monetary donations and sweat equity.

bdk, I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

But seriously, that is exactly the sort of level-headed, rational approach which is sorely lacking in many of these hot-button discussions, and I sincerely appreciate you bringing a calmer voice to this discussion.

Thanks,

Lynn

I have debated over the last week or two about posting on the Twin Mustang, so here goes.......
1) Good stuff by all. Pretty much everyone has their own opinion and are most certainly entitled.
2) "Der Ober" was correct that Ed messed up on landing. He stated that he would get the plane back in the air, but Hq and Ed got sideways, well .....
3) Miscue is correct. The P-82 Sqdn got blindsided, and that is being nice about it..
4) BDK is correct that secrecy (to a point) is necessary to complete a deal. IMHO, the trade SHOULD have been put to a general membership vote.... same as selling the PV-2D, and the now for sale Hispano.
5) Scatterbrain Kid II was part of the deal, taken as payment for work completed on the P-82B at Breckenridge..
6) Taylor, I like your enthusiam and idealistic viewpoint, which is great. But, be prepared 'cause, as one general staffer has told me on many occassions..... "No matter how much you duck, you are going to get hit with s**t in the face." I am going to debate you on the P-82. There are ONLY FOUR known (complete) survivors. Ours is a P-82B! One of TWENTY completed before the end of WWII! Does this QUALIFY as a WWII aircraft? In my book that does.... Did it have the significant WWII history as the P-38? No. Does the P-38 have the Korean War history that the P-82 has? No. The thought that the P-82 is not a significant bird does not wash. Take for instance the J7W1 Shinden. Just because it did not see combat does not make it any LESS valuable. I would love to have MORE Japanese, Italian, and German aircraft in the collection.....
7) Yes, there is a gag order on the General Staff.....
8.) This is also on an old post in a debate between the Col Rohr and I, but in a Winter Conference about two years (maybe three) ago, Bob Rice announced to the assembly, that when a title search on the P-82 was enacted, there were NO leins against the title.......
9) The last detail on the litigation (that I know) is that the attorney's can't even agree on the venue for the hearings.
10) TC is well aware of the preceedings with the P-82.
11) Xrayist, sorry that you are not involved anymore.... On the name change, see Randy Wilson's post and once again, look back on some of the debates between Rob and myself....... If all else fails, talk with a couple of the current general staffers about the dollars that were not coming in from sponsors with the old name....
Ok, probably p*ssed off a bunch of people....... Taylor, this was not a personal attack... You're OK kiddo, and your dad is pretty cool too. Alan

_________________
Just call me Al.

You know it cracks me up every time I hear somebody trash the CAF. No organization is perfect. The CAF is the oldest and largest with thousands of member’s worldwide. We are constantly trying to improve the way we do things. I like most who volunteer have long since realized that what you get out of any endeavor is proportional to what you put into the endeavor. Those who wish to nitpick and sit on the sidelines are missing out on something that for many of us has been the most satisfying and rewarding experiences of our lives. The aircraft we work on and fly are the bonding agent for the wonderful people who share this passion. If you love something deeply you will fight like hell to keep it going. Changing the name from Confederate to Commemorative, or fretting about the twin Mustang mess isn’t a showstopper in my book.

_________________
Check out our new website.
CAF SoCal Wing http://www.cafsocal.com/