Warbird Information Exchange

By all means, I am not "bashing" the CAF. I grew up in the organization and was a member for many years. I still believe the organization is a fine one. However, I do not agree with the fact that they never presented the trade idea to the General Membership nor the Squadron that was working on the restoration. Both the General Membership and the Squadron found out about it after it was a done deal.
Of course it has united the membership to fight for it, the membership would have probably never agreed to get rid of it in the first place if they had been asked...

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on that last point. I think the General Membership would have agreed to make the trade. Why? Becuase it was a win-win situation. The F-82 goes to someone who is going to restore it right then and the CAF gets an already flying P-38 back.

I know that the P-82 squadron was lining up deals, but then again, one can say that they were "lining up" deals for 2 decades without any real results. This is the problem that you run into. It's the problem that is run into with China Doll and the TBM project. The CAF General Staff can only let an aircraft sit on the roster and cost money for so long before they have to start thinking about moving forward.

Yes, the squadron should have been advised publically, but my understanding is that some within the squadron were and they chose not to make sure the word got to everyone else. So it's a two-way street. In addition, those I've listened to the last several years and what I've read here in these forums seems to indicate that the first anyone at General Staff heard about any funding being pending or any deals being close was after the deal had been announced. Again, it's a two-way street. How is the General Staff supposed to know that you're still working on the project and really trying to get something done if no one tells them that? They can only work on the information they're given, and that's something that I hope gets changed here in the near future - especially as the idea of "we don't need HQ" gets blown into oblivion as it should have been years ago.

The Squadron had not been "lining up deals for two decades". They weren't even a Squadron that long. From the time the aircraft was wrecked in Harlingen in 1987 until the Squadron was formed in 1992, there was nothing done with the aircraft.
Once the Squadron was formed, they started doing work. The outer wing panels were gone through and re-wired. The Squadron located and purchased the very rare landing gear since the ones it is currently sitting on are of no use. The Squadron was working out a deal for the oh-so-rare propellers. The Squadron had just gotten the aircraft airlifted to California where some major work could finally begin.
Plus the fact that I would believe that a flying P-82 is much more rare than a flying P-38.

I didn't say the squadron, I said "they" as in the sponsor group and the CAF. The point being that for 20 years there had been a lot of "almost there" deals that never came to fruition. The Squadron formed in 1992, moved the plane to California years later (again, I understand it takes time to get funding for major projects, I'm not saying anything negative about that), started some work and was still working on deals, but here's the important point - was this communicated to HQ? From what I've heard and read, it doesn't appear to be the case. Some cosmetic restoration had been occuring, some parts had been acquired, but as far as HQ was aware, no firm plans had been put in place for the engines to be rebuilt/overhauled, no information had been passed up on the status of that deal for the props, and there was still a massive funding shortfall that the Squadron apparently didn't give any information on how they were going to come up with prior to a return to flight (i.e. the ANUAC and aircraft minimum funds requirement).

Again, my point is that the issue is a two-way street. HQ didn't clearly communicate the situation to the squadron and its members, but at the same time it appears the squadron didn't communicate its progress very clearly either to give HQ any level of confidence that they were making significant headway on moving the project forward. It does no good to continually state everything that the squadron was doing and try to put HQ in a bad light when there are issues on the other side of the street as well that contributed to the situation just as much.

CAPFlyer: You are sadly mistaken on your facts.
First- It took several years for the Squadron to move the aircraft from Midland to CA because HQ would not let the aircraft be moved, thus hindering any formal progress.
Second- HQ knew everything as far as any contacts or plans or "trails" being followed.
Third- ANUAC was paid every year and current, as well as hull insurance. The so-called back funds that nobody seems to know where the charges came from and moved with the aircraft from Harlingen to Midland were to start being paid on upon reaching flight status. Just like the Squadron had the sponsor level dropped from $10,000 to $3,500 until flight status is reached and then sponsor level would return to $10,000.

A short update.

The CAF is continuing the appeals process. No word at this point when the appeal will be heard, but we are still fighting.

Many folks have joined us in fighting this fight "in public." More are needed. Many have already contacted elected representatives: more need to.

In answer to Miscue's comments, I re-read mine posted earlier in this thread and find that there is nothing to add. Simply stated, there was NO MONEY within the P-82 Squadron to restore the airplane back when the "win-win" deal for the P-38 was made (as referenced by CAPflyer). People in the aircraft restoration business said a minimum of half a million to get the airplane even close to flyable: the P-82 Squadron had nowhere near those kinds of resources within its membership and the CAF "bank" had no money for that restoration as well. Letting an asset sit until it becomes a liability is incredibly foolish management...hence the decision to trade it. Now, we have someone with the means to actually restore the airplane; hence the legal action.

Ober, you are right...this has energized the membership. It is a fight worth fighting, win or lose.

Old Shep

Old Shep:
I think one of the points I am trying to make is: the aircraft was already a liability well before the Squadron got it. It had sat, with nothing being do to it from 1987 until 1992. At least when the Squadron formed and got a hold of it, things started to progress. Work was being done. HQ had just allowed the aircraft to be moved to CA where real work could be done on it. It wasn't even in CA very long before HQ decided to get rid of it. I don't believe the Squadron was given a fair shake, and I don't beleive HQ went about getting rid of the P-82 in the proper way. The general membership should have been informed before, not after, the disposal of the P-82, and definatly the Squadron.

Old Shep, have the appeal papers actually been filed yet? I have checked for them a few times, but have not found them. Interesting in seeing the arguments.

August