Both Twin Mustangs now on display at the NMUSAF

[kalamazookid]

[mustangdriver]

Karen The hose comment was meant as sarcasim after the museum restorations were called out. I mean no harm to the CAF, but I refuse to listen to how the big bad air force museum took the plane when it just didn't happen that way. Then when that story is out, challenge the way the museum is working on it.

[Brad]

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.

That isn't what you said. You said "it is an improvement over anything done to her in recent years". Yes the airplane needed cleaning and painting. The restoration was in progress before it was stopped because of the lawsuit. What sense did it make to paint it ,without finishing the restoration, just to hand it over to the Air Force? I never said cleaning and painting the airplane was bad. What I said was the only improvement from being in Texas is that it is painted and has all the sheet metal in place. It was in that same shape in Midland, except for the paint. This is about you overstating things. You are acting like the Air Force Museum did all the sheet metal work and completely restored it. That is just not the case. All they did was put it back together (like it was before it left Midland) and paint it. That was in response to this:

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.

I don't think anybody in the world would agree that a paint job is more of an improvement than all the work, sheetmetal and otherwise that was done over the last few years. I have no doubt it needed cleaning. Was a paint job an improvement over anything done in the last few months before it left Midland? You bet! All that was done in those last few months was.....nothing! It was tied up in a lawsuit.

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.

I never said it was fine for the CAF to depict it as a nightfighter and bad for the Air Force Museum. I'm talking about how you are the one always going on about how authentic the Air Force Museum does their restorations and how they are even rerestoring some planes to make them more authentic (you have said that before). The planes is 44-65162 and the fuselage code should be PQ-162, regardless of it being a nightfighter or not. I understand that there is some historical significance to the new paint job and I've said before that it looks good. What I don't understand is how that is "MORE accurate"? Accurate gloss paint (wrong for this particular model) but completely wrong markings for this plane regardless of the paint color? Quite a tradeoff.

I mean no harm to the CAF, but I refuse to listen to how the big bad air force museum took the plane when it just didn't happen that way. Then when that story is out, challenge the way the museum is working on it.

Neither of us know all the facts about the lawsuit. But in the past I was privy to some information about the transactions, paperwork, threats (implied or otherwise) made by people from the Air Force Museum. I'm not posting any of it here because it can't be totally proven so I'm not getting into that boat. Someday you and I can sit and talk about it. It probably won't change your mind about your unwavering devotion to the Air Force Museum but it could very well lessen it!

I'm not challenging the way the museum is working on the airplane. In fact, that is far from it. If it sounds like that,it is unintentional. What I am challenging is you not bothering with the truth about stuff when you go to blindly defending the Air Force museum.

[mustangdriver]

Brad, as far as the comment, "better than anything done in recent years", should have read recent months. Whenever it was that the museum stopped workign on it again. Brad just as I am sure that you know some of the inside details about the threats from the museum about other aircraft, (of which I too know about, one of which really surprised me). Is that how I would have handled it? No. However this was when the CAF was threatening yet a 3rd court hearing. The NMUSAF didn't want to go to court the first time.
I will make you a deal Brad, and for everyone else sick of hearing me talk of the NMUSAF. I will stop blindly defending them, when others stop blindly bashing them. We are on page 9 of a thread that started because I just wanted to update everyone that the P-82 was out on display. Are there some facts I more than likely don't know? maybe but here are some facts that can not be changed no matter how bad you hate to hear them;

The NMUSAF was going to allow the CAF to fly the P-82

The CAF told the museum no twice

It went to court twice

The NMUSAF won both times

The NMUSAF is trying to honor the pilots that flew the P-82 into combat with a representative paint scheme

I agree that if we sat down and talked over some beers it would be a pretty cool time. I'd be willing to buy the first round.

[Warbirdnerd]

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)

I am pretty sure I took that photo during AirSho 2005. It was used in WarbirdDigest a couple of times. No worries about not knowing it was mine Brad. I was not sure until I looked at my original...

[Bill Greenwood]

The CAF did fly the P-82, but after the accident it sat for many years. I don't know if there is any one of the rare props needed to fly again or if it is a money/sponsor problem, but in either case it was not flying, and the AF museum was not the cause. Then the CAF decided or tried to sell or trade the plane, I think to a private party. So the AF museum got involved. The CAF thought they had the legal case on their side, but either didn't or didn't have the political support to win.
It is a shame that some negotiation could not have reached a good solution then, perhaps the CAF keep the plane, even if static for some years, or make some payment to the AF museum.
In the end, it seemed that the AF general became so stubborn that the outcome was only to ground the plane, perhaps permanently and display it where they already had another one.
I see nothing wrong with Mustangdriver or anyone else having or voicing support for either sidej just be honest about what is fact and what is opinion.

[Zachary]

In the end, it seemed that the AF general became so stubborn that the outcome was only to ground the plane, perhaps permanently and display it where they already had another one.

Does this fall into the fact or opinion category?

[mustangdriver]

Bill even up to going to court the CAF was going to be allowed to display it static. For as much heat as the NMUSAF takes on here, this one can't be chalked up to them.

[Taylor Stevenson]

For as much heat as the NMUSAF takes on here, this one can't be chalked up to them.

Chris, we've argued this many times. Being the son of the Chief of Staff at the time of this debacle, I can say that one side CAN, rightfully, blame the NMUSAF (more specifically Metcalf). I guess it just matters which side you're entrenched on. On this issue, I'm CAF you're NMUSAF. We both had documents "proving" our sides. You view it differently and won in court, but that doesn't mean you [NMUSAF] weren't in the wrong. The venue, and judge can determine a case. Anyway, I'll stop talking about it.

Yours in friendly disagreement,
T

Last edited by Taylor Stevenson on Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Taylor Stevenson]

In the end, it seemed that the AF general became so stubborn that the outcome was only to ground the plane, perhaps permanently and display it where they already had another one.

Does this fall into the fact or opinion category?

It falls in the fuzzy middleground between fact and opinion

[Misterg97]

For as much heat as the NMUSAF takes on here, this one can't be chalked up to them.

Chris, we've argued this many times. Being the son of the Chief of Staff at the time of this debacle, I can say that one side CAN, rightfully, blame the NMUSAF (more specifically Metcalf). I guess it just matters which side you're entrenched on. On this issue, I'm CAF you're NMUSAF. We both had documents "proving" our sides. You view it differently and won in court, but that doesn't mean you [NMUSAF] weren't in the wrong. The venue, and judge can determine a case. Anyway, I'll stop talking about it.

Yours in friendly disagreement,
T

May I ask "Chief of Staff" of which and whom?

[Taylor Stevenson]

CAF---Gordon Stevenson

[Mark_Pilkington]

For as much heat as the NMUSAF takes on here, this one can't be chalked up to them.

Chris, we've argued this many times. Being the son of the Chief of Staff at the time of this debacle, I can say that one side CAN, rightfully, blame the NMUSAF (more specifically Metcalf). I guess it just matters which side you're entrenched on. On this issue, I'm CAF you're NMUSAF. We both had documents "proving" our sides. You view it differently and won in court, but that doesn't mean you [NMUSAF] weren't in the wrong. The venue, and judge can determine a case. Anyway, I'll stop talking about it.

Yours in friendly disagreement,
T

As someone who admires both organisations from afar, and read the court transcript of the first case when it was linked into this site, its getting tiresome to hear this issue still being argued on "party lines".

All of the documents "proving" each sides arguments should have been put into the case, which apparantly happened, two court cases reviewed them and found on the basic facts that the USAF provided the P-82 on a conditional donation (loan) to the CAF, and that the CAF defaulted on that arrangement by advertising the aircraft for sale, and that the aircraft therefore was required to be returned to the USAF.

It seems to me the gripe with Metcalf arises from his decision to enforce the legal rights of the USAF?, if this aircraft was being retained by an overseas museum who had it on "loan" and had defaulted and wouldnt return it, I suspect he would be getting pats on the back?

I think the whole mess started with the creation of a "conditional donation" rather than a more clear "long term loan" , and then worsened by the passing of time, turnover of participants on both sides, and perhaps poor records of documents/discussion?, leading many in the CAF to consider the aircraft was theirs, an honest assumption, and a reasonable position to reject the claims of the NMUSAF and to challenge their claim, but in any case the case went to court twice, and the NMUSAF prevailed.

Apparantly other than the two people apparantly directly involved in the CAF and NMUSAF negotations from 2002 to 2006 (Metcalf and Rice according to court records?) everyone else seems to be simply cheering for their "home" side based on second hand opinions etc?

Word for word off of the court papers.

" Major General (retired) Charles Metcalf, Director of the NMUSAF, learned of the
exchange in the January 2003 issue of the magazine “Air Classics.” (Plt. Mot. Summ. J. Attach
2, Ex. 11.) He then informed Mr. Bob Rice (“Mr. Rice”), the CAF’s Executive Director, in
writing that the attempted sale of the F-82 violated the terms of the Certificate. (Id.) In the letter dated December 2, 2002, General Metcalf indicates that the F-82 was conditionally donated to the CAF Museum and the donation certificate contains the provision that the title of the F-82 would revert back to the USAF, at the Government’s option, if the F-82 was no longer used for the purpose and/or end use for which it was donated or retention was no longer desired. (Id.) In addition, General Metcalf indicates that he considers the information contained in the January 2003 issue of Air Classics as written notice that the CAF no longer wishes to retain the F-82.(Id.) Finally, the letter is considered by General Metcalf as formal notification that the NMUSAF is exercising the option to retain title to the F-82. (Id.) Then, out of an abundance of caution, the CAF cancelled the agreement to trade the F-82. (Cowan Decl. 10.) However, neither the CAF nor the AAHM agree with the Government’s position that the F-82 should be returned. (Id.) From late in 2002 until April of 2006, the USAF, represented primarily by General Metcalf, and the CAF, represented primarily by Mr. Rice, attempted to agree on ownership, possession, and operation of the F-82. The discussions between these individuals did not result in an agreement. The F-82 has not been returned to the NMUSAF and remains with the CAF. (Id.)"

"In an effort to settle this dispute, General Metcalf offered to loan the F-82 to the CAF for
static display purposes only. The CAF has apparently elected to decline this offer.The CAF also argues that forfeiture would be inequitable because the USAF explicitly gave its approval for the CAF to fly the F-82 and had knowledge of the F-82’s flying status and failed to object. In support of this argument, the CAF cites two documents. The first is the 1966 Release and DD Form 1149. This document is titled “Requisition and Invoice Shipping Document” and is merely a record that the F-82 was transferred from Lackland AFB to the CAF pursuant to the April 15, 1966 letter releasing the F-82. It is not any indication of ownership or indication that the Certificate was no longer valid."

But I really worry when its claimed in relation to this issue that the state or judge would have resulted in a different outcome of a case? sure a particular judge might put less weight to some evidence or fact incorrectly, thats why appeals go to a higher court?

but are we really implying here there is a local home ground advantage in US justice?

I dont think any of us will really be convinced here by others simply claiming their side is "right" or to what Metcalf and the NMUSAF "did or didnt" offer Rice and the CAF, the court has heard the testimony and made its decision as to the "donation" agreement, and the right of the NMUSAF to require return of the aircraft.

Surely after two court cases we can stop the "we was robbed" responses to this issue? or claims that the courts got it wrong and its all
"Metcalf's fault?" Its not a game of sport, with one wrong decision by the umpire letting the wrong team get over the line with a higher score?

If there is more evidence and documents to "prove" or to support the CAF position why wasnt it tabled in the first two court cases?, if all of the evidence was tabled, accept the judgement or appeal? if there really is local bias in courts surely a Federal court of appeal would be impartial and fair?

The CAF looses nothing by accepting the outcome and moving on, the aircraft is already returned, and perhaps over time the wounds can heal?


regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[bdk]

Surely after two court cases we can stop the "we was robbed" responses to this issue? or claims that the courts got it wrong and its all "Metcalf's fault?"

So did George Bush "steal the election" or not? That was settled in court yet 49% of the population seems to still claim he did.

My point is, don't expect facts to get in the way of serious emotion on either side.

[Dan Johnson II]

Oh what I'd give for just one of these USAFM threads not to devolve into the same old pissing contests.

Maybe we need a politics of warbirds thread for all those who wish to be mad at the CAF, USAFM, this warbird owner or that warbird owner etc.