NMUSAF Asserts Ownership Over CAF P-82

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:04 pm

What a mess. Who, what person is NPA Holdings? Who in the CAF agreed or negotiated to sell/trade the plane to them?
I read the legal brief quickly, one thing that struck me was the langauge the judge used seemed pretty one sided.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:05 pm

Well, having read that 26 pg. document, I hope the CAF can find success at the appeal, but if the court was really being objective, then that may be hard.

On the other hand - it would be interesting to see the document mentioned in the Warbirds-Online post (see first link in thread)

Quote:

The certificate also included authorization to move this aircraft from Kelly AFB to the CAF’s then-headquarters in Mercedes, Texas. A cover letter for the Transfer Certificate included the following: “Attached is transfer certificate which you requested to establish title to the subject aircraft for the purpose of obtaining FAA certification and license for the operation of this aircraft.”

in it's original context to see if this really just means the ferry flight, or to really have title and flying privileges.

Ugh.

I wish that the bureaucrats would just realize that it's waaay better to let civilians spend their own money to keep our country's history alive, and make things simple - either sell it, give it away, or don't. I don't mind a few good monuments and museums being funded for the National museums, but private ownership and maintenance is sooo much better in the long run.

Ryan

Ztex · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:20 pm

From Eric's Mauler Post...

Quote:

Someone at the Navy told Bob that regardless of the paperwork that the CAF has, the Navy was claiming ownership and the airframes could not be sold. They also stirred up a bunch of crap about other airframes that the CAF currently operates, just to make a point.

And Matt Gunsch said....

Quote:

If they are not stopped now, next they will be coming for FiFi.

Yikes!

I just don't understand this mindset coming out of Washington...

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:26 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

Matt Gunsch wrote:

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.

You say do some research, well, your closer to it than I am, I know what Mike and others have posted, how about YOU tell the AF side. I know what I saw in the pics, they cut the longerons, and the photo of the plane on the museum web page shows clecoes in the area where the plane was split.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:46 pm

I'm not going into it on a public forum, but I suggest you do some serious research, or P.M. me.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

k5083 wrote:

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

Thanks for the link August. Seems pretty clear to a non-lawyer such as myself, but reading comprehension has never been my strong point.

If the CAF accepts a USAFM loan as a static, is that then an admission by the CAF that the original donation to them has expired?

RyanShort1 wrote:

A cover letter for the Transfer Certificate included the following: “Attached is transfer certificate which you requested to establish title to the subject aircraft for the purpose of obtaining FAA certification and license for the operation of this aircraft.” in it's original context to see if this really just means the ferry flight, or to really have title and flying privileges.

The judge seems to be saying that this was given to the CAF for the purpose of registering the aircraft for flight, but did not invalidate the conditional donation agreement that the P-82 be returned if the CAF no longer wanted it. Also, the FAA is not the "decider" in ownership disputes, the courts are.

Ztex wrote:

From Eric's Mauler Post...

Quote:

Someone at the Navy told Bob that regardless of the paperwork that the CAF has, the Navy was claiming ownership and the airframes could not be sold. They also stirred up a bunch of crap about other airframes that the CAF currently operates, just to make a point.

It sounds like the same conditional donation clause might be in effect for the Mauler that was in effect for the P-82. They can keep it and fly it for as long as they want, but can only transfer ownership back to the government- they cannot sell it. The Navy isn't claiming ownership as much as they are insisting on enforcement of the conditional donation document/contract the CAF apparently signed when they accepted these aircraft. It seems to fit.

EDowning · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:29 am

Mustangdriver wrote:

Quote:

I'm not going into it on a public forum, but I suggest you do some serious research, or P.M. me.

That's very wise not to "go into" this on a public forum. I have no problem with the relaying of exact facts to anyone but I have become aware some things that have been misrepresented by others about this situation and as a result, I have given Mike access to my legal team to defend himself from any further commentary that may be libelous. I know you wouldn't engage in that either via public or p.m. format, but some others would. Just a word to the unwise, that goes off with half the info.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:33 am

Eric I think you will find that have never "Bashed " anyone associated with this aircraft. If it wasn't for Mike, we wouldn't have an A-25. Period. I have said that several times and to those who I address in P.M. But in the A-25 thread (you know the one you started with Chop Chop) things were not presented from all view points.

EDowning · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:37 am

BDK wrote:

Quote:

It sounds like the same conditional donation clause might be in effect for the Mauler that was in effect for the P-82. They can keep it and fly it for as long as they want, but can only transfer ownership back to the government- they cannot sell it. The Navy isn't claiming ownership as much as they are insisting on enforcement of the conditional donation document/contract the CAF apparently signed when they accepted these aircraft. It seems to fit.

Well, I'm certainly no attorney, but based on my review and my attorney's review, the Mauler situation is quite different. Ownership was transfered not "loaned", but it's not worth what it would cost to litigate it to me. In fact, I think pursuing it any further would impact other airframes that are on loan, or so, I'm told. It looks like a classic case of "you may win the battle (mauler), but lose the war (request for return of other airframes that are on loan). The last thing I want to do is hurt the CAF in anyway.

EDowning · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:40 am

Mustangdriver wrote:

Quote:

Eric I think you will find that have never "Bashed " anyone associated with this aircraft. If it wasn't for Mike, we wouldn't have an A-25. Period. I have said that several times and to those who I address in P.M. But in the A-25 thread (you know the one you started with Chop Chop) things were not presented from all view points.

ERIC WROTE:

Quote:

I know you wouldn't engage in that either via public or p.m. format, but some others would

What part of this didn't you understand? As for the CHOP CHOP, they did. And as for presenting all view points, I always only represent one view point, mine. I always view your posts as your viewpoint, not a viewpoint representing the NMUSAF.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:56 am

Ha Ha I wish my view point was that of the NMUSAF. That would mean letting the CAF fly this P-82.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:01 am

EDowning wrote:

Mustangdriver wrote:

Quote:

Eric I think you will find that have never "Bashed " anyone associated with this aircraft. If it wasn't for Mike, we wouldn't have an A-25. Period. I have said that several times and to those who I address in P.M. But in the A-25 thread (you know the one you started with Chop Chop) things were not presented from all view points.

ERIC WROTE:

Quote:

I know you wouldn't engage in that either via public or p.m. format, but some others would

What part of this didn't you understand? As for the CHOP CHOP, they did. And as for presenting all view points, I always only represent one view point, mine. I always view your posts as your viewpoint, not a viewpoint representing the NMUSAF.

P.M. Sent

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

Interesting thread......... August thanks for posting the decision. For those who did not or do not want to read it let me explain it in a few lines. BTW I was a lawyer for a long time as August is now.......

This case has nothing to do about flying the F-82 or history or what the CAF has done with it in the past. Registration with the FAA means nothing. (that doesn't take into consideration leins or conditions attached to ownership). It has to do with how the CAF actually got the F-82.

The USAFM let the CAF have the F-82 and even let them fly it (I'd say that will never happen again) with CERTAIN CONDITIONS......

One condition was that if the CAF didn't want the F-82 anymore the USAFM could take it back (reversion of ownership) or the CAF had to demil it (chop it up to 1964 specs).

The CAF didn't want it and announced a trade for a P-38 (which one would that be?). The USAFM wanted it back. The CAF has to give it back and there should be no real loss to the CAF since aparently they didn't currently want it. (other than they don't have a P-38 now; which is of no contractual concern to the USAFM).

This is something that is VERY far removed from the Navy and sunken aircraft with no documents and no US Navy attempts to recover and some individual expending an exceptional effort to bring the aircraft to the surface and restore the corroded remains.

Really, if you think of the facts and the actions of the CAF (and I have no clue how they run internally), they really brought it on themselves.

I'm sure the CAF will take good care of the F-82 (last I saw it about 6 months ago it was hangared in TX). For the poster who jokingly said they should strip it of parts, or park it outside, I doubt the Govt would be amused that something bad happened to it. I'm sure someone would spend time in Federal Prison over it.

I know nothing about how the CAF acquired FIFI (beyond the basic story, I don't know about the paperwork on it)....... I can say that if the CAF says they are somehow transfering ownership of it to someone else, the same thing will happen.

Mark H

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:20 am

P51Mstg wrote:

The USAFM let the CAF have the F-82 and even let them fly it (I'd say that will never happen again) with CERTAIN CONDITIONS......

One condition was that if the CAF didn't want the F-82 anymore the USAFM could take it back (reversion of ownership) or the CAF had to demil it (chop it up to 1964 specs).

"However, in 1968, the Air Force confirmed the CAF’s request to fly the airplane and executed a “Transfer Certificate,” which stated “This will certify that F-82B aircraft Air Force serial number 44-65162 has been officially donated by the Air Force to the (CAF), Mercedes Texas"

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:47 am

Correct but it can be donated with certain clauses such as if they no longer want it, that it has to come back to the NMUSAF. Air Heritage had a similar deal with the C-123.

Warbird Information Exchange

NMUSAF Asserts Ownership Over CAF P-82

Who is online