Both Twin Mustangs now on display at the NMUSAF

[mustangdriver]

I know little about the AT-10 restoration as it was done before I satrted there, but I was told that there was very little of any use after they restored the better airframe.

[bdk]

BDK the museum does/has/and is helping other groups fly their aircraft. I am not sure if they will do what Dan has suggested, but I think it would be cool. Sometimes they help in the form of information, drawings, and sometimes parts. When the museum restored the beaufighter they made enough copies of some of the engine parts for all of the remaining Beaufighter airframes so that the others would have them when ready.

I'm surprised that the USAFM is in the business of manufacturing and/or selling parts for other people's aircraft. It seems that when the USAFM has control of an aircraft these days, if they ever do offer to release it, there is a "no-fly" clause attached. Not a promotion of flying aircraft in my book.

Would there be any benefit to the USAFM to swap the noted parts? I just don't see it. Sounds like a lot of work with little to nothing gained.

I don't think that either of these things advance their charter.

[mustangdriver]

Be sure to tell that to theWIX member who posted in this thread about the museum helping him with two different flying B-17's.

[mustangdriver]

And besides that what does any of that have to do with the P-82 stuff, or are we just now hunting for stuff to gripe about.

[bdk]

I'm responding to Dan K's question/statement about trading parts amongst airframes. You brought up the USAFM selling parts.

[mustangdriver]

Once swapped, offer 162's motors to Tom Reilly's XP-82 project and mount duds on Lackland's static bird.

What does the USAFM gain from all this effort? Encouraging flight is an undesirable outcome for any former military aircraft, isn't it?

That is what I replied to BDK.

What did the NMUSAF gain from helping us with patterns and metal from the B-17 restorations to help get the Colling B-17 "909" back in the air? They did it anyway. They are not in the business of flying their aircraft, but there are some ways that they can help out, and if approached the right way, they will help. If you walk in the door at Dayton and demand anything, you will get nothing.

As for the parts they made, I don't think they were selling them, but maybe trading them. Not sure on that one though.

[Second Air Force]

Be sure to tell that to theWIX member who posted in this thread about the museum helping him with two different flying B-17's.

Yes, it is true that I've been working with the Restoration side of the NMUSAF on a couple of minor things. To be clear, my request was for reference materials, drawings etc., a possible "behind the scenes" day or two poking around on the Belle, and taking photos and measurements to further my project at the time. At the time I made my initial contact I was still affiliated with the CAF and it was during the legal sparring about the P-82. I was up-front about my being a member of that group but was still given the OK to visit. The fact that I was working on a flyable CAF-operated Fortress was not a problem with the folks I talked to. As events transpired I left the CAF and didn't need to make the visit. The hospitality shown by everyone at Dayton is still much appreciated. Perhaps this fall I'll still be able to go out for to see the two Fortresses.

Since joining VFM and the Chuckie staff I've seen how the B-17 Co-Op has been trying to help with the Belle restoration. Dr. and Mrs. Hospers, and the Museum by extension, have assisted the Belle team with a few parts they needed. In return I've been able to ask about some research material I've been needing for a couple of my Chuckie projects, and our help may put me in line for a favor or two down the line.

To be certain, I've never dealt with anyone at the top of the NMUSAF organizational tree so I can't speak to any of this P-82 stuff, but the folks I've talked to have been fine people to deal with, even when I was a member of the "opposing team".

And I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Mustangdriver for helping me with my initial contact a couple of years ago.

Scott

[mustangdriver]

Thanks for that Scott! It was an honor.

[Taylor Stevenson]

If anyone can get interior shots of the P-82 post 'restoration', that would be great. Looks like they restored/preserved her like they do so many others, with a fresh coat of paint. At least this one's sitting inside, now they just need to work on the others.

[mustangdriver]

Ryan, the aircraft in the NMUSAF at Dayton are restored to as close to original specs as possible inside and out. If you are referring to aircraft at a base or another museum, it is the responsiblity of that base or museum to upkeep and restore the plane. However taking a hose to the P-82 was an immediate improvement. You can't bash the NMUSAF over the condition of the P-82 when it is an improvement over anything done to her in recent years.

[mustangdriver]

Also consider the short amount of time that the P-82 has been in Dayton. I can garuntee that interior restoration work will happen. For now they wanted to get it display ready and in it's place in the gallery. The interior work will take place, like so many others have while still on display

[Brad]

However taking a hose to the P-82 was an immediate improvement. You can't bash the NMUSAF over the condition of the P-82 when it is an improvement over anything done to her in recent years.

Now don't start overstating stuff Chris.....

All they did at the Air Force museum was put it back together and throw a nice paint job on it (and the wrong markings for the airplane, so much for authentic). They may have done something about the one wrong prop as well, I'm not sure.
This is what it looked like just before it was taken apart for shipment. (I don't think this is my picture, I found it in a bunch of other P-82 pictures that were emailed to me a while back. I apologize for not knowing the owner)

[mustangdriver]

Overstating what exactly? Why is cleaning and painting the aircraft so bad. Ryan called the Museum out saying that's all they did. Ok fine, but it needed it. And it is improved from the condition in texas. Like it or not that is a fact. Is it finished, no. But atleast it's a step in a positive direction.

[LadyO2Pilot]

However taking a hose to the P-82 was an immediate improvement. You can't bash the NMUSAF over the condition of the P-82 when it is an improvement over anything done to her in recent years.

Please remember that the aircraft was in a hangar where there was active and ongoing restoration and maintenance going on. And then it was trucked to Dayton.......yes I imagine it was a bit dusty.

My airplane is in a hangar with at least three ongoing restoration/maintenance jobs going on continuosly. I wash or clean it up for a show and come back two or so days later and it's covered with dust.

So your comment about a hose is a bit tacky. I suspect when it was being stored at your museum prior to slapping a coat of paint on it, it got a bit dirty there too.

[mustangdriver]

Also as far as the paint goes, why is it ok to be depicted as a night fighter by the CAF, but when the NMUSAF does it to the same airframe, with a MORE accurate and meaningful scheme, it becomes an issue.