Both Twin Mustangs now on display at the NMUSAF

[Mark_Pilkington]

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.

I'm not an expert on US politics, and thats not a topic encouraged here in anycase, but the parallel with GWB is that he apparantly won a second term without any dispute at all, so the "court" of voters reinforced the earlier decision - smiles

I realise there are still strong emotions over the (P-82) outcome, but that outcome is the outcome, it would be better to let this dust settle, and focus on generating universal, financial and physical support for the CAF's other wonderful projects such as FIFI, 'Ol'927 etc

In an "ideal" world, the USAF / US Government should be providing some level of support for the operation of the sole flying B-29?, and the CAF generally? given the CAF's preservation and display of USAF history.

regards

Mark Pilkington

[Ken]

I've been watching this thread from a deployed location. It's like a train wreck where you just can't look away and I disappoint myself by continuing to read these posts. The real slap in the face is that the gov't blocks images on WIX (I assume to preserve bandwidth); I can read posts, but not see any photos, so the P-82's new scheme is still a mystery to me.

All this crap about "honoring the vets". Every week flag draped caskets pass through here, some on my plane. The back and forth - the retort to every statement - honors no one - least of all, the author(s).

Ken

[mustangdriver]

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

Taylor just remember that at the time of the first announcment of the P-82 ordeal, I was an active "Col" in the CAF and volunteer at the NMUSAF. So I got both sides of the story from VERY accurate sources, not just some guys talking in a hangar. I was actually on the side of the CAF until I got the full story of everything. Alot of people here say that I am fast to defend the museum. I think if the NMUSAF is wrong, then they are wrong. No group is perfect, however I like to hear the actual facts from both sides, rather than just hang up one side before hearing everything out. Taylor, like you said even though we disagree, no reason it can't be done friendly manner. People are going to bash the NMUSAF or the CAF no matter what, but they are both great organizations.

[mustangdriver]

Ken, sorry to hear that you have to deal with the things you are while on deployment. As for this thread, I started it to inform everyone that the aircraft is on display. Sorry that I refuse to backdown from something because it is not popular. I have personally attacked no one, and even while not seeing eye to eye, liek to think that this thread has remained civil for the most part.

[Brad]

I can read posts, but not see any photos, so the P-82's new scheme is still a mystery to me.

All this crap about "honoring the vets". Every week flag draped caskets pass through here, some on my plane. The back and forth - the retort to every statement - honors no one - least of all, the author(s).

Ken

Ken,

Find me on global (my first name is John) and I'll email the pictures to you. Altus blocks WIX completely but allows facebook and youtube. I still can't figure that out.

As for the second part, I'll assume you are talking to me. I'm really not posting anything in this particular thread for the purposes of honoring vets. For the most part, at least from me, It's not even about how the airplane ended up in Dayton. I was trying to get Chris to be truthful about the condition of the P-82 and what was done to it at Dayton versus back in Texas. Unfortunately, it had to be drug out of him one message at a time. I wouldn't normally bother with a thread like this. But I know for certain (because I was physically there) that some of the stuff he posted in regards to the P-82's condition were flat out wrong.

[mustangdriver]

Right it would have been cool, and still possible if the CAF had cooperated. I suggest you read the take back the CAF thread as there is much to do about the P-82 hidden in there. Then again it wouldn't happen because the CAF was trying to get rid of it anyway. That's one of the reasons it's sitting where it is. It makes me sick to see people complain about the P-82, but only wish to tell the part of the story how the big bad NMUSAF took the plane. We wouldn't want to tell of the meetings where the CAF was told they could keep the plane, fly it, just can't get rid of it, and the leadership of the CAF said, "In your ear".

Chris,

The Air Force museum never said the CAF could keep the airplane and fly it. They told the CAF they could keep it for static display only.

I know for a fact, as do one or two others on this board, that the Air Force Museum even went as far as threats of action on other airplanes that they have "loaned" to the CAF, based on the fact that they weren't being kept up to display standards as layed out in the original paperwork!

Brad, with all due respect that was your first comment. It had nothing to do with the aircraft condition at all. As for me being wrong I stated that the aircraft is improved over how it was in Texas. it has been cleaned up and painted. That is improvement. I didn't say it was fully restored. I also said the plane was rough. It is( I too was physically there when it came in the shop). So where exactly was I wrong?

[mustangdriver]

In the past I wrote that the NMUSAF putting it on displa is the best thinig to happen to it in the past few years. I meant months as there was work being done on it prior to the lawsuits. My hat is off to the volunteers and squadron meembers of the P-82 (Whichever Wing that was) that was working on it. I know what it is like to have your project aircraft go away and under not favorable terms in your eyes. I had it happen to a P-47 and a P-51. My comments are not meant to be aimed at those volunteers, but aimed at those who only want the side of the story that depicts the big bad NMUSAF comign to get the plane, and that just isn't what took place.

Brad, I have no hard feelings, but I am done with this thread. The CAF boys have their side of the story, the NMUSAF has their side. Anyone really interested can actually find out everything. I am just tired of arguing about it. My intention of this thread was to just let everyone know that the plane was on display.

[Bill Greenwood]

Mustangdriver, while the CAF may have made mistakes which brought on the conflict with the NMUSAF, in the end I'd blame Metcalf, or if you prefer give him the credit.
You say the museum would have allowed the CAF to keep the plane as static, even that there was an offer to let them fly it pre court case. I haven't seen any documents from Metcalf's side that say that. Maybe this was possible if each side was more conciliatory, but the initial letter from Metcalf does not sound like there is much room to negotiate.
I understand that it is human nature to be upset by having to go to court, and especially so for the military who don't like to be questioned; but in the end, even after the court case, Metcalf could have shown some generosity and good will and negotiated a binding legal agreement to let CAF keep the plane as a static loan, at least for some years. I know the CAF did not want to accept static, but they weren't flying it anyway. The agreement could have specified a certain amount of restoration to be done, paint and cleaning at a minimum., and the CAF pay any legal fees which they may have had to do anyway.
I don't think it can be both ways, that Metcalf is nice guy, who just happened to take back the CAF plane. He may have had the legal right, but still not the high road.
I think I looked up Metcalf, and found that he is really sort of the bureaucrat type. Is there anything in his background to admire over some of the vets that built the CAF?
So now the plane sits static in a place that already had another one. And it does look better than when it was at CAF, at least.
And I and others really appreciate your insider type reports on this and other matters, even if me may not agree with all of it.

[Taylor Stevenson]

After reading Bill's post, I need to make a clarification. When I say NMUSAF I don't mean the museum entity itself, I mean the leadership (i.e. Metcalf). The NMUSAF is a great museum with some flaws in the leadership, heck I think even the CAF has had problems with that. Anyway, glad to see it painted, even if there are no bugs on the leading edge...

[mustangdriver]

Taylor I have nothing but respect for the volunteers and crewmembers of the CAF Aircraft. I wish to make that clear. AS I alwas say it was the CAF that really started the big warbird movement

[airnutz]

The "high flare" is a widely known cause of the crash, but what most people don't talk about is why he flared high. I've been told by several CAF members that this aircraft had the airspeed indicator either in knots, or MPH, I don't remember - exactly opposite of what he was used to flying. In other words he was using mph for his airspeed and approach numbers when he should have used knots or vice-versa.

I recently had a chance to view photos of the accident. Curiously three of the prop blades
on the right engine appear to be in the feathered postion.

Yep, I've heard the airspeed indicator story too..dunno if it's true tho.

[Mark_Pilkington]

Mustangdriver, while the CAF may have made mistakes which brought on the conflict with the NMUSAF, in the end I'd blame Metcalf, or if you prefer give him the credit.
You say the museum would have allowed the CAF to keep the plane as static, even that there was an offer to let them fly it pre court case. I haven't seen any documents from Metcalf's side that say that. Maybe this was possible if each side was more conciliatory, but the initial letter from Metcalf does not sound like there is much room to negotiate.
I understand that it is human nature to be upset by having to go to court, and especially so for the military who don't like to be questioned; but in the end, even after the court case, Metcalf could have shown some generosity and good will and negotiated a binding legal agreement to let CAF keep the plane as a static loan, at least for some years. I know the CAF did not want to accept static, but they weren't flying it anyway. The agreement could have specified a certain amount of restoration to be done, paint and cleaning at a minimum., and the CAF pay any legal fees which they may have had to do anyway.
I don't think it can be both ways, that Metcalf is nice guy, who just happened to take back the CAF plane. He may have had the legal right, but still not the high road.I think I looked up Metcalf, and found that he is really sort of the bureaucrat type. Is there anything in his background to admire over some of the vets that built the CAF?
So now the plane sits static in a place that already had another one. And it does look better than when it was at CAF, at least.
And I and others really appreciate your insider type reports on this and other matters, even if me may not agree with all of it.

Bill,

I think you are judging Metcalf and the NMUSAF on the basis of legend rather than evidence?, when there seems clear written evidence to the contrary?

Chris' claims in regards to the NMUSAF's offers negotiate to continue to permit the aircraft to be "operated" and later for the CAF to retain it on static display are all provided in writing in the quote from court documents posted by Brad four pages pack in this thread and pasted below.

The CAF disputed the NMUSAF's ownership rights, rejected the NMUSAF's attempts to negotiate, and the issue went to court, the court upheld the NMUSAF's ownship and the right to require the aircraft to be returned under the terms of the existing binding agreement, the CAF disputed that decision and took it to appeal, the appeal court upheld the earlier decision and enforced the existing agreement requiring the the aircraft to be returned.

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."

The NMUSAF had (according to the court records above) tried negotiations from 2003 to 2006 regarding the aircrafts operation and then offered the opportunity of ongoing static display with that rejected?

Why would you then expect them to now show "generousity"?, "good will"? and try to enter a new "binding agreement" for the CAF to retain the aircraft, when earlier attempts to negotiate the same outcome under the existing agreement had apparantly failed? and it had taken 7 years and two court cases to prove they own the aircraft and to enforce the existing "binding" agreement?

The dispute obviously became very bitter, and perhaps personal (as shown by the attitudes to General Metcalf in this and other threads), its also disappointing that other aircraft on conditional donation were apparantly used in threats? but lets keep to the facts as presented in court? and accept them as truth rather than simply ignore them?, or show documents to prove them wrong, not just opinions?

The NMUSAF probably handled this process with the precision accuracy of carpet bombing, knowing the approach of government bureaucrats and lawyers, but the CAF would also seem to need to take some responsibility for the outcome? after 7 years of attepted negotiation by the NMUSAF?

It seems clear that through to the appeal case, the CAF did not accept the NMUSAF's claims of ownership, or that the conditional donation certificate was still in force, as their case claimed ownership title had transferred and that the certificate no longer applied.Obviously that belief caused the CAF to reject the earlier 7 years attempts to negotiate, or any of the NMUSAF's earlier "offers".

The two court cases showed the CAF to be incorrect in those beliefs, and the conditional donation agreement was still in place, as was the NMUSAF's rights of ownership.

Its easy to understand how successive new CAF administrations came to that belief due to the years that had past, and the opinions that had developed, and unfortunately the poorly documented, and managed situation of those conditional donations.

The CAF headquarters fought against the NMUSAF on the basis of their beliefs of the facts, the court unfortunately proved otherwise.

Its not really fair to keep bashing Metcalf as the "bad guy who took the CAF's aircraft", without accepting the efforts he apparantly made to resolve it? and the NMUSAF's legal ownership, the CAF needs to take its share of the outcome arising from rejecting those earlier efforts.

Accept the outcome, and the court decision, and move on?



regards

Mark Pilkington

[K5DH]

I have no horse in this race. I respect both the CAF and the NMUSAF for what they do. However. . . I have a question to ask. I'm not trying to further inflame things, and I'm not trying to shift any blame from one side to the other. The courts have decided how it's going to be, and the case is closed. After reading all of the hype, opinions, facts, pseudo-facts, court transcripts, "he said, she said", and so on, there's one little bit of information that doesn't seem to be brought up very much. Here is my question:

Didn't the CAF start this whole mess by making a deal to have the P-82 leave the CAF?

If that's true, it seems to be an indication that they didn't want the aircraft any longer, for whatever reason. The reason or reasons for that decision do NOT matter with regard to my question! I'd simply like for someone with ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the deal to answer my question, with only the facts and not opinions and emotions. I believe it's really a "yes" or "no" question.

Like Mustangdriver, I consider the CAF to be the originators of what we know today as the warbird movement. They were the groundbreakers. Their name is a household word, even among the non-warbird masses. The NMUSAF is arguably the greatest aviation museum in the world. Their collection of aircraft and related artifacts is unmatched. Their restorations are superb. Their preservation of history is wonderful. I've never met anyone who came out of the Museum unimpressed. As I said above, I hold both organizations in high regard. They both do great work.

As for being a historical artifact, I think the P-82 will be of more educational value on display at the NMUSAF, simply because far greater numbers of people will have the opportunity to see it and read about it than they would if it was still in the care of the CAF, flying or static, in Midland, Texas (which is not exactly a tourist mecca). Again, I'm not taking sides here. I'm trying to look at this with a pragmatic view. I'm looking at what's best for the public. You know who I mean: the nice folks that ALL OF US in the warbird world are (allegedly) trying to educate.

[Brad]

Didn't the CAF start this whole mess by making a deal to have the P-82 leave the CAF?

Depends on perspective Dean but I don't think it's simply yes or no. Basically yes, it started when the CAF attempted to trade the P-82 for a P-38. But the ugly part started when the USAF decided (right or wrong) to take the plane back.

[Bill Greenwood]

Mark, you have some good points. It would have taken a different attitude and perhaps more goodwill than most would have, but what if the first approach by Gen. Metcalf to the CAF had been a polite phone call followed by a letter reminding them that the terms of the loan of the P-82 prohibit the sale of the plane? The CAF then may have kept the plane as before, no sale or trade, no court battle.
It is possible that the CAF took a very hard line when it was trying to negotiate with Metcalf; you or I or us may not really know who was at fault or if there was ever a real chance for any flex on either side. But I don't know Metcalf or anything positive about him, so perhaps I see him as just another bureaucrat who doesn't see value in these planes flying.
The NMUSAF is a great static museum, I'd love to go see it again. I'll never forget seeing the striped concentration camp suit.