mustangdriver wrote:
kalamazookid wrote:
If I were the USAF, I'd want it back too.
Suppose you (the USAF) lent your friend (the CAF) your rare 19?? sports car (the P-82). This friend proceeded to crash it, and then let it sit in his garage for a number of years because he didn't have the money to fix it. All of a sudden the opportunity comes along for a better car (the P-38 trade), a different one, so he decided he's going to trade the car that's technically still yours for the new one. Would you be a little pissed and want it back? I sure would.
That's how I see this situation. This isn't meant to flame the CAF or anything, just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Would I have liked to see the P-82 fly? Sure. But I can honestly say I see where the USAF is coming from. And it's not like there aren't two other potentially flyable P/F-82s. I'm sure the NMUSAF will find an appropriate place to display it and it will be well cared for.
Hey, pal what are you doing by bringing common sense into this picture. I would have loved to see her fly, but I really do understand where the NMUSAF is coming from. The funny thing is that if these were two private owners, no one would have ever said a thing, but because it is NMUSAF, it is a huge deal. The museum is not taking it because they are doing what the Navy did with the F-14. THey are taking it because they and the court as of right now, believe it is theirs. Anyone here would do the exact same thing with it if it was theirs. ONCE AGAIN, Am I a fan of the decision? NO. But they have a point.
Common Sense? More of your opinion Chris...IMHO!
Suppose you were given a car with paperwork(and left a B-25 to fill the slot in the lot). Everythings fine for 40 years
until you decide to trade your car to another individual. The NEW lot manager calls you and says bring your car
back..it was only a loan! But sir we have the bill of ownership, you say. Sorry bring it back..the old lot manager wasn't
authorized to cede the car to you...Sez Me The New Lot Manager!
At the very least the General could have said, "No the F-82's a loan don't trade/sell it." Solved the owner/loan issue and
still leave the '82 with CAF. But no, he goes for the throat for seizure!
For 40 years there was no issue as to who owned the F-82 and the care or damage to it in the crash. When it was publicly
announced 40 years ago about the CAF ownership of the '82..not a peep out of the AF refuting the claim.
The General also seems to be trying to retrofit how things were done back then with the more stringent guidelines of
today. Some of the new attitude appears the USAF is being outright difficult and asinine just because they can to the
very people and public who support them and their history. The General could have picked far more reasonable
alternatives than the path he chose.
Just my .02