Warbird Information Exchange

why can't I get cases like this when I get called for Jury duty...

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't totally sure and added that the "or something of the sort" in case I did screw it up.

I'm obviously rooting for the CAF in this one, but I think that a CAF win isn't necessarily a loss for the USAF because it will at least clarify the situation and there will be no questions as to who owns the airplane.

Just curious as to whether there is any logic, reasoning or (God forbid) common sense used by our gubmint in a case like this? It would seem that in times like this, our gubmint would be trying to do things to put them in a more favorable light rather than keep up the cowboy mentality they have used for the past umpteen years.

Go CAF!!!!!

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.

If the CAF doesn't own it, the I agree with the NMUSAF. How would you feel if you loaned your neighbor a lawnmower, and he sold it? If the court rules in the CAF favor then good, we will see this aircraft in the air again. If the rule on the side of the NMUSAF then we will see this aircraft restored to display status. Either one is better than just sitting in it's current state.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

If I loaned my neighbor a lawnmower that did not run and he spent the time and money to get it running and then sold it? Not sure where the logic would be in asking to have it back after he spent the time and money to get it running. Guess I am old fashioned like that

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.

Either way we ie. taxpayers and CAF members loose. Only the lawyers win. Why couldn't the two sides sit down and have a settlement and forget giving lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars. As CAF mushrooms I am sure sure we will never know how much it cost us. If the USAF said it was a loan, and had to stay with the CAF and it is back in Midland what is the problem? Makes one wonder what will happen if the CAF does prevail? I am sure the outcome will not be good no matter who wins. Kind of a stacked deck anyway as the USAF is playing on their home court.

I'm sure the CAF would have loved to work it out without lawyers. I don't think they have the same deep pockets as the USAF.

The problem OB is that the CAF has the title in hand for the aircraft and the USAF is the one making the stink about it. The only way to resolve who owns the airplane is for a court to decide. I agree that an out-of-court settlement is what should have happened, but the problem is that the DoD doesn't work that way. If they think it's theirs, then it's theirs and they'll fight tooth and nail to prevent it from going anywhere else than to them. The Navy's proven this time-and-time again by ignoring the abandonment laws and even going as far as attempting to have those laws changed to prevent private parties who find wrecked aircraft from being able to recover them for any use.

Sadly, the military believes that they can be the only stewards of their own history and if history has anything to say on that, I can only say that they have been the worst stewards of their history as it is they who have allowed important aircraft and equipment of their history to be totally eradicated from the face of the earth without saying a thing.

Everyone is forgetting that this is not just aobut the P-82. The NMUSAF has a ton of aircraft out on loan, and has had many people that have these aircraft on display, try and sell the aircraft as if it was there own. This HAS happened, and it took a ton of fighting to get it back. I am not going to go on about it here.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Yup a museum sent a AFM loaned F-100 and a gifted F-89 to the smelter recently

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Hi,

I think that the whole problem begain when the CAF agreed to a trade with a private party for an airworthy P-38. An F.A.A. title is issued to the person or group that registers the A/C with the F.A.A. This is a licensing procedure in order to operate an A/C in U.S. Airspace. It's more to determine responsability of operation than to determine legal ownership. I have heared that the original agreement states that it would remain on loan as long as it was displayed by the CAF, if it became surplus to their needs it would be returned to the Air Force. The Air Force does a pretty good job with the amount of air frames that are out there, the problem with a lot of them is that the group who has it on loan is responsible for its maintainence and up keep if their not maintained they are removed or scrapped. The Air Force supports recovery, restoration and display of its history in a much more user friendly manner than lets say the Naval history center who seem to be determined to destroy as much of their history as possible. We will have to wait and see were the cards fall.

Thanks Mike

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT

I fail to see how outdoor static display with the USAF would be a positive move for this airframe. Someone please enlighten me.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Where did you see that? The NMUSAF said nothing, but it is assumed that it will put it out doors. I think that there are many museums that would want to have it on loan to them that could take good care of it. The NMUSAF is undergoing attempts to ensure that rare and historic planes are being placed in climate controlled facilities.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

No offense intended but why don't they expend some of this effort on moving the Twin Mustang they do have clear ownership on into a climate controlled environment? With the money their spending on lawyers they could probably restore this airplane AND put a shelter over it.

That aircraft is in no danger of being sold off, traded, or wrecked.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager