Warbird Information Exchange

Questions for Old Shep:

Is Tom C. aware of all this litigation and legal precedent it might set for all former military hardware, including aircraft? Why not get his help - either through him publicizing the CAF's dilemma or having some of his high powered attorney's help out the CAF.

Does Tom have a role in all of this, or does he want to remain on the sidelines?

Also, if the CAF were to somehow win this appeal, could it adversely affect FIFI? In other words, could the Air Force, "give up" the F-82 and "win back" FIFI just to make a point and try to piss off the CAF?

What are the ramifications and implications of fighting this F-82 ownership dispute? Is this worth fighting over, at the possible loss of other former Air Force aircraft?

Lots of questions!!!

Bdk, P51Mstg and in his last post, mustangdriver have it right. "Ownership" is not always as simple as it's mine or it's yours. The parties don't agree about whether it was a loan or a donation but for purposes of the decision it doesn't matter. Donations can come with strings attached. The court found that the strings (terms and conditions) here are pretty clear, are enforceable, and include the provision Mark pointed to that if the CAF no longer wanted it, it would revert to the USAF. The CAF may never have told the USAF that it no longer wanted the plane, but the court agreed with the USAF that it was reasonable to infer that the CAF didn't want it when the CAF tried to deal it away.

I can think of various ways to attack this on appeal, but from what I can see, the appeal has not yet been filed (only a standard perfunctory notice to the trial court that there will be an appeal). So we don't know yet what the CAF's strategy is. Stay tuned.

August

I have to agree with August and Mark here. I am very interested in what will happen on appeal.

I think much of the venom directed against the USAFM in this matter is misdirected. This is not the USAFM stepping in and taking the airplane because the CAF wanted to fly it. This is the USAFM protecting their interest in the airplane upon what they considered a breach of the conditional donation. They may very well win the case, they could loose. But they felt the need to protect what they believed as their interest in the airplane.

And Matt, I think you are undertaking some unnecessary fearmongering. If the CAF loses this fight it does not set a precedent for the CAF to come take FiFi. (Yes I know the agreements are similar.) Well unless the CAF tries to sell or trade it. Since IMO that is unlikely, the USAFM will have to come up with a new angle to get at FiFi.

I'm in no way a USAFM apologist and I do think they act like the 1000 lb gorilla in the china shop quite often, but this isn't a case where I can find them at fault in the least. While I can see why the CAF wants to drum up support this is a simple matter one on aircraft and one contract. Nothing else. The CAF losing this case would in no way be a sea change in warbird operations or relations with the USAFM.

Jim

It does seem a pity that instead of agreeing that the best course wasn't followed, we've got an adversarial head-to-head with costs.

IMHO, the best outcome would be the CAF restore and fly the P-82 (Betty Jo being the 'historic' aircraft anyway, and safely preserved). The NMUSAF doesn't need another airframe back, and the CAF have clearly shown they no longer wish to get rid of the aircraft, whether they tried to do so before in ignorance, error or whatever - and evidently, the USAF isn't acting from the current CAF's position.

With it going to appeal in court, it's going to be a waste of CAF and taxpayers' funds, and that's to no one's benefit.

Naive question - could there be an out of court settlement? It would of course take people big enough to step past the macho & legal approach...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

All:

Speaking for the CAF we appreciate the show of support on this thread. We believe that this is a case we can win, and it most definitely is a case we (the entire warbird community) MUST make. Several people are prescient enough to see the writing on the wall about private ownership of surplus government equipment. Although at this time we are very confident the status of Fifi and of all the other aircraft in the collection is secure, one can never underestimate the motives of some who wish to demonstrate their authority.

To answer some questions: First, what can you do as an enthusiast? Obviously contacting your congressman or Senator is worth doing. I believe that, if you'll wait a few days, CAF HQ can provide you a "talking points" list to incorporate in your own missive.

Secondly, just spread the word...your friends in and out of aviation need to hear of this David vs Goliath story. We need a groundswell of support from the public, as that will generate media interest. The AFMuseum is as much a political animal as anything in the government, and so will react to that more than anything.

And, yes we have some political allies we're apprising of the situation. Rep. Sam Graves and Sen Jim Inhofe are two of our supporters and additional letters of support to them would be appreciated.

Third, our legal representatives have been very diligent and have encouraged us to appeal the court's decision as they believe we have a strong case....so strong and so interested have they become that they are doing this work at a greatly reduced fee. Not pro bono, but they have gone the extra mile in their approach. We are very satisfied with our legal representatives.

Fourth, the previous "client" who was helping us is no longer involved in a major way with the P-82 project, although he remains interested in seeing a favorable outcome.

Pirate Lex, shoot me a PM so I can gain some insight from your case. You are the "poster boy" for what we believe can happen in this instance. Eric Downing; we are so sorry that the Mauler thing went south. You are a true supporter of the CAF and our mission. I appreciate all your kind words on WIX, and I look forward to seeing you again at Airsho.

All for now.

Old Shep

Taylor, Yup, it was "Officially donated" HOWEVER as MustangDriver said, it was still donated with CONDITIONS ATTACHED. I'm not giving my personal feelings on it here, I'm simply going by what was in the decision.

The only real problem with the discussion here is that most people have never read the documents (I have not seen the ORIGINAL ones) and they go by simple statements that the USAFM DONATED the F-82, the CAF maintained it and operated it, hence the CAF should keep it. When actually (as we know now) there were conditions attached to the donation and the CAF was fortunate that the USAF let them fly this airplane.

I can add something else too which would have made this mess worse. IF the trade went through before the USAFM learned of it, they still could have taken the F-82 back. I think there had to be actual notice to the USAFM that the CAF was going to dispose of the F-82. It was simply luck that the USAFM saw it in Air Classics........

So there are 3 things the 9000 members of the CAF and warbird community can do to turn this around since the CAF lost in court. The USAFM can do what they want (within limits) with the F-82.

First EVERYONE cancel their subscriptions with A/C. I'm sure losing 2000 or so subscribers will put some pressure on them to do some press that the USAF will not like. After all you can say to some extent that A/C started all this.

Second ALL THE CAF members need to see their CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS. THERE are a lot of them. They need to see them in mass and let them know they are not happy. Groups of people scare them into action. The USAF is also SCARED of Congress and will listen to them. While the USAFM wants the F-82 back, the rest of the USAF wants more $$$ next year and they would rather have $20Billion for new F-22s than an old F-82. I can say from experience I know of one incident where a "VIP" was supposed to get a ride in an Fsomething fighter. He didn't make it past the preflight testing; He pulled out his cell phone and called a flag officer and told him in no uncretain terms that if this airplane wasn't safe enough for him to fly in, he was going to vote against buying anymore of them. His ride was later that afternoon and he got back safely.

Third, if the WARBIRD COMMUNITY thinks that the CAF should have the F-82, Then convince the owers of the planes and the pilots in the Heritige Flights that there are no more flights until the AF gets the F-82. Heritige Flights are a BIG PR thing for the Military. The USAF and USN have aircraft in their museums, let them restore them to airworthy and operate them. In fact they can do their own flights with an F-22 and a F-82 which would be nice...... That would put pressure on them. Also tell the general public that the reason there is no HF is because of the F-82. I really don't see the public caring one way or another, but the USAF is scared of the bad publicity.

So thats what can be done and it would take a lot of people to do it. I think there are a few CAF members who might write or see their elected officials, but I couldn't hold my breath that 9000 would show up in their local Congressman's Offices..... Same for canceling magazine subscriptions (I quit A/C some years back, even though I had been a subscriber since I was 10 and delivering newspapers in 1970, I have all the issues prior to that back to #1), few might do it, but not many (Subscribe to Warbirds Digest, its a LOT better)..... Lastly, I doubt the HF guys would do anything, its too cool to do it and they are too close to the military, plus I'm sure there is a fear that if they do something like that, they'd never get to do a HF again.

So... Looks like the F-82 is going back......

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

Mark, a few thoughts.

1. I wouldn't blame Air Classics. That would be shooting the messenger. The sh-- would have hit the fan whenever the USAF found out about the trade, and as you say, they could and would have clawed it back from the new owner. Then the CAF would have faced a lawsuit over the P-38 it traded for, and it would be an even bigger mess. Just as well that the issue came up before the deal was done.

2. If you want to see the original documents, some of the key ones are available from the court as exhibits to the summary judgment briefs by the parties, along with deposition excerpts etc. I am still reading them, as they are much larger than the opinion and I have an appeal for a client to deal with at the moment.

JDK, on the question of whether the USAF "needs" this F-82, you have to think big picture. The USAF has several satellite museums that no doubt would be delighted to have it, and an active loan program that could see the F-82, restored to display condition, exhibited anywhere in the US. Indeed, the court's opinion says that the USAF offered such a loan to CAF as a means of settling this lawsuit. Anyway the real point is whether the USAF OWNS the plane, not whether it needs it, just as it is irrelevant whether you happen to "need" the money someone has taken from you.

August

Thanks for some informed insight.

I was kind of trying to stand back from the thing. It's not a gap in their core collection. They only got interested when the CAF tried to trade it. Without throwing mud, it would've (and it would be nice to think it could - but it 'aint) been great if a re-negotiated settlement could have been arrived at without these costly cases.

If I donate cash to a rebuild, I don't expect to get it back when I want. Not an exact parallel, but the NMUSAF didn't 'need it' then; they only want it now, IMHO, because of an alleged breech of terms and a breakdown of trust - which seems a pity when it could be better resolved. Like any public fight, no-one's going to look good.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I know this is gonna' pi$$ some people off, BUT read the entire post before you sic the dogs on me....

It would appear that what we have here could be a case of "What good's a little power if you can't abuse it?"
Could it be that General "what's his face" is doing this (taking the F-82 back) to give the appearance of doing something (ie. making a name for himself.) "in the interest of preserving history" and really doesn't actually care about that particular a/c?

OK...I don't know the guy. He may be the greatest director the museum ever had and is sincerely interested in "saving" this a/c.
However, all this HOO-HA could stir up some negative publicity for the museum that he might not like.

Particularly if there's enough interest stirred up with the Congress to get some Senator (who also wants to make a name for him/herself) casting an eye on this. And we all know that politicians LOVE to get their faces on TV. I can see Sen. Hutchison getting in his face with, "Look here now General. How come you want to take this airplane away from these lovely folks?" Not beyond the realm of possibility.

On the other hand...Does the CAF want to expend all this time and $$$ to appeal this decision when that same time and $$$ could be spent on more productive things? Like obtaining other a/c they might like to have.

Don't get me wrong...I'd LOVE to see the F-82 fly. (If I live that long.) But I think the CAF needs to consider the cost vs. reward before they take this any farther. (ie. They spend a BIG bunch of money to, hopefully, retain the a/c so they can spend a LOT more money to get it airworthy.)

OK...flame on

Mudge the defensive

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

Air Classics has nothing to do with this other than they broke the news about the trade. Why penalize them?

You all know I am a big supporter of the CAF. But why is the AF the bad guy? The CAF decided to trade the twin mustang for a P-38 and thus violated the agreement that if they didn't want it, the AF could take it back. Am I oversimplifying this? It doesn't seem like it to me. Please correct me if so.

Someone made a BIG mistake and now the organization (now under new leadership) is paying for it and trying to back pedal.

I would love to see the CAF keep the Twin Mustang (and never have made the trade deal in the first place...) , but at this point, will all the ass kissing and "we're sorry, we want to keep it now" make any difference? They went to war with the AF and they lost. How is an appeal going to accomplish anything other than diverting money for other restorations? I hope I'm wrong. I really do! But I don't see it...

This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. P-38s are rare. F-82s are STUPIDRARE™

OH, just wanted to add, that i will definitely write a letter in support of the CAF when Old Shep posts his list.

Mudge- interesting opening thoughts!

Django- the whole point was that there wasn't an 'agreement'...

I can't wait to see what happens in round two!

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Then they should have no problem winning the court case. Oh wait...

Django wrote



Sounds right to me chief.

Just a few questions remains remains from my perspective at this point.

1) Can the CAF keep the AC if they do not wish to trade / sell it anymore ? I am not even thinking about flying it at this point......

2) How long before the appeal get's called ? If too long will the AC be moved in the mean time ?

Good point, Michael.

The wheels of justice do grind exceedingly slow. What happens to this a/c during the "waiting" period? I suppose it will just sit there, in limbo, and deteriorate even further. I'd bet the CAF ain't gonna' spend a lot of $$$ and energy on something they may, eventually, lose. But then again....who knows? (Da' Shadow do. )

Mudge the preservationist

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

"Deteriorate further" seems a bit harsh. It has a nice life inside the hangar at Midland. Unless of course it starts its new life sitting outside at Dayton.