Bye bye P-82... :-(

[bdk]

Looks like the CAF has lost its appeal to keep the P-82:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1512-full.html#201516

[Mudge]

When we were at NMUSAF in July, we were touring the reconstruction facility and I asked the guide if the F-82 was the one that had been at CAF. She replied, "We were told not to talk about that a/c."
I guess, since the "feud" is over, they can talk about it now.

Just another example of "What good's a little power if you can't abuse it?"

Sad


Mudge the disappointed

[mustangdriver]

Mudge, that is not the case. I know the NMUSAF has issues with some policy, but man it is just not so with this one.

[jet1]

..now some air force generals can strip a few souvenirs off it then have it crushed and turned into beer cans because, after all, they already have a couple of those. and don't need any more. remember the air force motto

"KEEP EM GROUNDED"

[mustangdriver]

The funny thing that I find here is that once again only part of the story is told, just to paint the NMUSAF in a bad light. Never mind that it had it's day in court twice, and both times the NMUSAF won. This isn't a case of the NMUSAF deciding they wanted something, it is a case of them getting ticked after something they believe they owned was being sold. Any one here would do the exact same thing if we felt this way. Especially when they made two visits to try and settle it out of court prior to this whole thing and were told to stick it in their ear.

[bluehawk15]

[quote="mustangdriver"]This isn't a case of the NMUSAF deciding they wanted something, it is a case of them getting ticked after something they believe they owned was being sold.

Of course the CAF had paperwork that lead them to believe it was something that they owned that they were selling/trading.

[mustangdriver]

Yeah, for the purpose of a ferry flight

[Rauhbatz]

Im looking at this from a business perspective: how many more patrons will the NMUSAF attract now that they have a second Twin Mustang?

One would need an electron microscope to find any uplift out of this situation. If was a NMUSAF sponsor Id question the expense/benefit of this transaction that could have been better spent elsewhere.

What's next? Maybe a hostile takeover of the second XF-85 Goblin from the SAC Museum? That would really bring the crowds in...

Ive been a patron of the museum for over 45 years...sure would like to see better governance in the future.

[Taylor Stevenson]

i wonder what "donation" means? Oh well, disappointing end, all it does is give NMUSAF negative PR. I really wish that Dayton had a general who supported flying the aircraft because at the end of the day, their goals are the same as ours: Preserve history, and support the armed services. No better way to do that then to fly the aircraft. I just hope she's going to be restored like she would have with us and not put on a pole like so many other of their preserved treasures. Prove me wrong NMUSAF...

[Taylor Stevenson]

Im looking at this from a business perspective: how many more patrons will the NMUSAF attract now that they have a second Twin Mustang?

You mean Third.

[gary1954]

The funny thing that I find here is that once again only part of the story is told, just to paint the NMUSAF in a bad light. Never mind that it had it's day in court twice, and both times the NMUSAF won. This isn't a case of the NMUSAF deciding they wanted something, it is a case of them getting ticked after something they believe they owned was being sold. Any one here would do the exact same thing if we felt this way. Especially when they made two visits to try and settle it out of court prior to this whole thing and were told to stick it in their ear.

NMUSAF won = G O V E R N M E N T

[mustangdriver]

Taylor she wasn't going to be restored with the CAF, it was going to be sold or traded. It is amazing how many people can ignore what is right or wrong because it means the P-82 would be static. Even if it stayed in the CAF it was going to be static.
Negative PR? Over fighting for what you think is yours? I don't think so. but in case you are right maybe we should make up huge decals to place all over our aircraft to help us get better PR.
CAF members that I was near all the time years ago. like 1996-2005 said that the P-82 was owned by the NMUSAF.

[Taylor Stevenson]

She was being "Traded" to further our goal of owning and operating one of every WWII combat aircraft. Therefor trading an aircraft that, despite a few members, had very little support for a fully restored, flying P-38 was a good idea. BUT once the you know what hit the fan with the NMUSAF, behind the scenes work was being made to restore her. Yes, it took the idea of us losing the aircraft to perk interest in the bird again, but she WOULD have been made flyable in a very short amount of time due to a couple individuals with great interest and the ability to do it right.

[Taylor Stevenson]

CAF members that I was near all the time years ago. like 1996-2005 said that the P-82 was owned by the NMUSAF.

Had they seen or talked to people who had seen the documents we have or were they individuals who were talking about matters they had only heard about?

I can say that i heard the NMUSAF B-36 actually belongs to the CAF, but does that make it true?

Yes, it was fuzzy subject that few knew enough about to talk about it, while most knew too little and therefor talked about it.

[Django]

Well at least it's finally over, but both organizations are going to have black eyes for years to come.