Warbird Information Exchange

That sucks, but if the AF Museum still wants to give someone the P-38, please someone give them my number and address for delivery!

_________________
California Air Heritage Foundation
B-25J / C-47B / And the list goes on....
"Never start a fight with 7 men when all your packin' is a 6-Gun! "

Proud Supporter of....American Aeronautical Foundation 501(c)(3)
http://www.aafgroup.org

So I guess it's a good thing Tom Cruise didn't put a bunch of money into the restoration project..or did I miss something lately.

Exactly, Mustangdriver.

The NMUSAF already has a P-82 on display; that doesn't fly. Neither will the one in question if it goes to Ohio. Sure, it hasn't flown in a while, but at least the CAF had/has plans to get it back in the air. That would not be the case if the NMUSAF gets posession. In order for this P-82 (see picture) to get back in the air, the CAF has to keep interest and posession.


Tommy

Yeah, right... Did you see the Ju-52 tender thread? If the USAF does in fact own it, it will never ever fly again.

If I were the CAF, I would start selling parts to get some of the other P-82s into the air and give the USAF the dataplate. That way the USAF knows for certain it will never fly. Oops! I meant push it outside until the USAF picks it up and hope that none of the parts have gone missing.

I guess that luckily, I'm NOT the CAF.

GENTLEMEN, it appears that the CAF has a document from the NMUSAF / AF that is over 40 years old giving them ownership of the P-82 and if you'll go here http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=12102 you will see who the FAA believes to be the owner… the CAF. Why is it that the NMUSAF sends out annual requests for status of their aircraft on loan (including a few on loan to the CAF), yet never acknowledged the P-82 until they decided they wanted it? Read the press release by the CAF, it spells this out clearly. Bear in mind my concept of time may be a bit distorted seeing as the CAF has had ownership of this aircraft twice as long as I have been alive. We MUST make sure our voice is heard!

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Maybe the AF museum is pushing for ownership so the A-25 moving crew would have something to cut apart and move.

It is time to b&tch slap the 900lb goriila in ohio. If they are not stopped now, next they will be coming for FiFi.

I strongly suggest you do a little research before you continue to ramble on about things.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I agree that if the NMUSAF gets ownership, that we may not see this fly again. It is my hope that the ownership deal is worked out, the CAF gets to keep it no matter who owns it, and we all get to see it in the air. If it does get pushed out side I hope it is to run it up or fly it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

But if it is not yours, then you would be in trouble. Remind me never to lend you my lawnmower.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

For anyone who has taken "Law 101" or who feels that actually knowing the basis of the court's decision might inform your opinion, I have obtained the court's July 1 ruling. It's a small (54 Kb) pdf file and you may download it here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/143771160/7 ... n.pdf.html

August

This should be coordinated with CAF headquarters before anything else.

If I may be of any help please PM me.


Pirate Lex
http://www.BrewsterCorsair.com
763-458-8701

_________________
An ego is no match for gravity.

I think the public needs hear of this court fight. If the Government can declare ownership of something like the F-82, which has been in the private sector for close to 40 years then then conceivably they can claim ownership of ANYTHING that they have surplussed, sold, gifted to the private sector.

If some bureaucrat got a bug in his ear to take back my army helmet or my military rifle and use this kind of legal force, with a precedent such as the F-82, then what's to stop them?

Sounds like a slippery slope for all the coffee cups, web belts, Jeeps, L-Birds and P-51's out there in private hands.

Write your representatives. Tell them what you think.

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

Regardless, that was a pretty funny line. I’m sure Matt wasn’t being serious about the FiFi claim. But it does seem like they do shift there weight around without consideration. If all the aircraft at the NMUSAF don’t fly, fine. Understandable.

But why must they have more than one type of aircraft on display or in there inventory?!? The NMUSAF not only holds one of the greatest collections in there hands, but possesses numerous other examples around the country, lent out to other museums. I know this is a little off topic but, these other aircraft that are on loan to other museums shouldn’t be ground bound forever. Given the right financial stability and the positive motivation of the local group that are associated with the loaned aircraft, I believe that these aircraft (regardless of what exact ones they may be) should be allowed to be brought back to airworthy status.

I hope to see this P-82 grace the skies again. But you'd think by now after 51 years of faithful service to the American people, the NMUSAF would be trying to gain the support of the CAF at any chance they got.

Long live the C.A.F.

Chris

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

You have to remember that the CAF has had their problems and done a few things to the NMUSAF that wasn't cool either. But I agree with some of what you say.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I think that the "private law" approach might be just the ticket for this situation. The court approach is appropriate and needs to be followed through, but having a sympathetic Midland based U.S. Representative push a small provision into a piece of legislation this fall that formally recognizes the CAF ownership of the P-82 in question would formally and finally settle the question. At that point, the court action would be made moot by Congress. I discussed this approach in regards to Pirate Lex's successful effort with the Navy in a previous thread, quoted below. Maybe Lex's provision would provide the Midland congressman/woman with the ready-made text as well. Shep, Ober, is this something that you guys might initiate with the local office for your congressman?

kevin

I'm no expert by any means, but I have found the following: Try the link below to see what the Navy wants... but I looked in the 2005 defense appropriations bill as it was finally enrolled as public law 108-375, and couldn't find the provision inserted anywhere.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-12a.htm

However, in the same act, under Title X is the following "private law," which seems to give anyone interested a model of how to get clear title to an aircraft that they might find in Lake Michigan, the Pacific, etc. I would guess, however, that it might take a little bit of sway to convince your local senator or congressman to slide such a neat and tidy provision on your behalf into the national defense appropriations bill. See the text of the provision below:

kevin

SEC. 1083. TRANSFER OF HISTORIC F3A-1 BREWSTER CORSAIR AIRCRAFT.

(a) Authority to Convey.--The Secretary of the Navy may convey,
without consideration, to Lex Cralley of Princeton Minnesota (in this
section referred to as ``transferee''), all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to a F3A-1 Brewster Corsair aircraft (Bureau
Number 04634). The conveyance shall be made by means of a deed of gift.
(b) Condition of Aircraft.--The aircraft shall be conveyed under
subsection (a) in its current unflyable, ``as is'' condition. The
Secretary is not required to repair or alter the condition of the
aircraft before conveying ownership of the aircraft.
(c) Conveyance at No Cost to the United States.--The conveyance of
the aircraft under subsection (a) shall be made at no cost to the United
States. Any costs associated with the conveyance and costs of operation
and maintenance of the aircraft conveyed shall be borne by the
transferee.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such
additional terms and conditions in connection with a conveyance under
this section as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!