Mudge wrote:
Make sure you thank the "powers that be" for "flexing their muscles" (ie. lawyers) to take the twin Mustang away from the CAF.
Mudge the pi$$ed
me109me109 wrote:
From the CAF perspective though, If your neighbor came to my house and said that I couldnt drive my own car and claimed that they owned it, I would tell them much worse than "stuff it in your ear".
APG85 wrote:
How come every time Chris takes the time to post some info about the Museum, it turns into an attack on Museum policies that forces Chris into a defensive position? How about we just let him post his info without it turning into a museum "bashing" game. Just my two cents...
I understand how many in the CAF would consider they were hard done by, and that this aircraft belonged to the CAF, especially given the CAF's formal statements after the first court case and rallying of the troops to support an appeal.
Most volunteer groups suffer from poor filing and record keeping, and transfer of knowledge from administration to administration, ie loss of corporate memory.
I have followed the P-82 saga for a quite some time and from the court judgements it seems clear that the P-82 was "donated" to the CAF with strings attached (better described as an indefinate loan), the letter of "ownership" was requested, and provided to facilitate FAA registration.
The CAF's public declaration to dispose of the aircraft in trade for a P-38 triggered one of the strings attached to the "donation", and the NMUSAF had the aircraft returned in accordance with that requirement.
It would seem to me poor record keeping,lost corporate memory, linked with a typically poor government wording of a document (donation versus loan), has led to this confrontation.
There has been a court case, and an appeal that has upheld those facts.
I think its about time the dust was permitted to settle and the CAF and NMUSAF given the opportunity to forge new relationships, the constant picking of this scab will never let it heal, and that will be to the detriment of the relationship and any possibility of other "donations"/loans, including return of the P-82 for static display.
The NMUSAF and the CAF are both important collections of historic aircraft, and both are worthy of support, ideally the USAF would recognise and support the CAF's efforts in displaying USAF flying heritage, however if CAF supporters continue to publicly bag the NMUSAF, (and therefore the USAF) I suspect such relationships and support will remain lacking.
The CAF itself now formally needs to set the tone on its position in regards to this matter now that the appeal has been handed down, and ensure its supporters dont damage the CAF / NMUSAF relationship to the detriment of the CAF in the longer term.
Obviously being from the other side of the world I dont have any "skin in the game", and are therefore not trying to skew support for one group over the other, but simply commenting on the facts as they seem.
I would certainly agree there is no need to bring this issue into every post relating to the NMUSAF, and no need to hold Chris/"mustangdriver" responsible as the WIX NMUSAF spokeperson, he is simply a volunteer donating his time and effort to preserve aviation heritage.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Chris - please post photos of the Beau, and talk the "General" into painting it in its historic RAAF combat veteran markings - smiles
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
