Warbird Information Exchange

For some reason Jack, I thought you were talking about Liberty Belle. Not the Gas Staion plane.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

That's the catch word. I've never seen a bill of sale
(which of course means nothing) but I have seen the paperwork from
Altus giving custody to Mr Lacey for display purposes.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

I always thought he bought it as scrap, therefore it is all his.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I agree with your feelings of despair about the aircraft but I am just of the opinion that there is no good reason, no matter how compelling for the government to confiscate private property and re-distribute it to someone becuase "they know better" how it should be cared for. In this instance it is the federal government that is affectively making it hard for the organization to make headway (making it difficult to obtain non-profit status and difficult to resolve the ownership/registration issues). Somehow it just makes me wonder why the government standing in the way of progress for the private individuals all the sudden makes them the go to guy for figuring out who can do it best.

If the government really gave a rat's behind about history they would give all sorts of incentives to individuals who want to help preserve it such as tax breaks all around, legislation limiting legal liability, allow individuals/companies that donate their services and time the ability to right off their time, allow corporate sponsors legal liability protection, etc etc. The dirty little secret is that they don;t care a bit for preserving the history unless it is in their hands.

Scott Thompson covered the ownership issue fairly well here.
There would be an ownership dispute if the Air Force tried to reclaim the airplane. The Lacey's hold a bill of sale from the U.S. govt. that, I believe, technically gives them the right to display the airplane (not legal title, however). It was purchased with that limitation in 1948 from the WAA for $1,500 and the gov't would have a tough time trying to reclaim the airplane unless they could come up with the actual paperwork that granted the display agreement from its own records. Good luck with that, as those records have long been either consigned to some obscure box in the National Archives or destroyed. If those records were available, though, it would still grant Lacey the right to exhibit the airplane. I don't think there were any "condition of display" limitations imposed, so I think in the letter of the law Lacey is meeting his obligation. If he tried to sell or scrap the airplane, it would technically return to the jurisdiction of the gov't, except the gov't doesn't know nor care about it. At this point, I think the government would concede it is Lacey's airplane. Bottom line, however, is that it is a shame to see a B-17 go downhill like this in 2005 after we know better.
Jim Harley's photo from 2005 it's worse now!!!
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1377538645044851409lRYhbk

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

After talking with Jack I agree that the situation up there sounds a bit off. Still I am not willing to concede the fact that the government knows best when it comes to this stuff. It would be nice to see the aircraft come down and get in the hands of someone who would restore it but it sounds like with all the issues surrounding it we won't see anyone willing to invest a great deal of money into it.

If the USAF claims ownwership and has only lent/granted guadianship of thier P-82 to the CAF, I'm suprised that they would let them restore and fly it.

Has there been any other instances where an Air Force aircraft on loan has had flying privileges?

Regards,
Mike

Remember this was a deal struct over 40 years ago. Oh how times have changed!

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!