USAF Museum rejects F-82 settlement offer from CAF

gkainz

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
8,401
Location
Arvada, CO
Display Name

Display name:
Greg Kainz
from CO Pilots Association email:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
300px-F82_twin_mustang.jpg

(F-82 "Twin Mustang" seen above, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-82_Twin_Mustang)

Original documentation shows where the USAF GAVE the CAF this rare and historic aircraft many years ago, but this evidence was somehow deemed insufficient when the case was recently heard in Federal Court located in Dayton, OH - the same city that the USAF museum resides. The CAF asked for a neutral court venue but that request was also denied. The offer below was done after the Federal court decided that it wanted the F-82 back just as the CAF was nearing completion of a full restoration.

The USAF Dayton museum already has on display a fully restored F-82 and does not show more than one example of each type. In fact the CAF's collection is more complete that the USAF's pertaining to WWII aircraft yet receives no federal funding. The CAF was founded in 1957 to acquire, restore and preserve in flying condition a complete collection of combat aircraft which were flown by all military services of the United States, and selected aircraft of other nations, for the education and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans.

I just saw our F-82 at the CAF in Midland, TX last weekend. It is being displayed there plastic replica (non-flyable) propellers, but otherwise almost complete. The CAF museum (http://www.airpowermuseum.org/) is fully affiliated with the Smithsonian, and has a very large and wonderful WWII exhibit, besides their unique flying aircraft. See http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/ for further overview.

Please write your senators and congressmen on this further injustice, and forward this to anybody else you think can help or is interested.

-----Original Message-----
From the desk of the CAF President, Steve Brown...

Air Force Museum Rejects F-82 Settlement Offer from CAF

The National Museum of the Air Force (USAFM) Board of Directors rejected the Commemorative Air Force's (CAF) offer to drop its lawsuit concerning the ownership rights of the F-82 in exchange for allowing the airplane to remain on static display at the CAF Airpower Museum in Midland, Texas.

In a written proposal, hand-delivered to the Air Force History Department in Washington D.C., the CAF proposed to drop its appeal and let the ruling in the trial court stand, in exchange for allowing the CAF to retain physical possession of the F-82 in the USAFM’s Loan Program. The same loan program is used across the country for static Air Force owned aircraft at aviation museums.

The proposal submitted by the CAF states, “This proposal is put forth in the spirit of trying to put this unpleasant disagreement behind us….. Although we still disagree with the position of the Air Force to not allow its vintage warbirds to fly, we would prefer to continue this discussion through persuasion versus litigation.”

“I had great hopes that this would be an amicable way to agree-to-disagree, yet still concede to the USAFM’s policy to not fly the F-82, which has supposedly been their concern. This decision to reject our proposal is confusing and disappointing.” said Stephan Brown, President and CEO of the CAF. “Our mission is to Honor American Military Aviation, through the flight of these historic aircraft, but we felt it was better to keep this important piece of our history on static display, rather than lose it altogether.”

The response to the CAF’s proposal by the Director of Air Force History and Museum Policies and Programs states “After a robust and thorough discussion, the voting members of the Heritage Board unanimously decided that, based on the history of this matter and the precedential import of the judicial determination concerning the ownership of the F-82 to the National Museum of the United States Air Force and the other Armed Services, the offer of settlement could not be accepted.”

As a result of the declination of the CAF settlement proposal, the F-82, which has been a part of the CAF history for 40 years, must be shipped back to the USAFM in Dayton, Ohio immediately.

“Of course, the Judgment will be obeyed”, said Brown. “And it will be a sad day for 9,000 active CAF members and those before them, who have poured tens of thousands of dollars and man-hours into saving this airplane. How ironic that our founders Lloyd Nolen and Marvin “Lefty” Gardner saved this airplane (and many more) from the Air Force’s destruction, just to have the Air Force Museum repossess it in order to ‘preserve’ it.”

“However, now we will continue forward with the Appeal. The Appeal is a de novo review, in which the Appellate Court is not bound by the trial court, but reviews the entire case. We are hopeful that the Appellate authority will see things differently,” Brown concluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
How ironic that our founders Lloyd Nolen and Marvin “Lefty” Gardner saved this airplane (and many more) from the Air Force’s destruction, just to have the Air Force Museum repossess it in order to ‘preserve’ it.”

Yeah, that is ironic. "Thanks for all the hard work fellas. We, uh, we're gonna take it back now. Here's a nice kick in the a$$ for the trouble!"
 
Yeah, that is ironic. "Thanks for all the hard work fellas. We, uh, we're gonna take it back now. Here's a nice kick in the a$$ for the trouble!"
They tend to do that. There was an SR-71 (or something of the kind) restored by a bunch at MSP that the Air Force took back the same way.
 
Original documentation shows where the USAF GAVE the CAF this rare and historic aircraft many years ago, but this evidence was somehow deemed insufficient when the case was recently heard in Federal Court located in Dayton, OH - the same city that the USAF museum resides. The CAF asked for a neutral court venue but that request was also denied. T

Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't grant change of venue. WPAFB is all Dayton has now. The city is on life support, and I would have been very, very surprised to see the seat in Dayton bite the hand that feeds it, if you will.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
If you say so, place looked OK to me last time I was there. Still sucks, though.
 
If you say so, place looked OK to me last time I was there. Still sucks, though.

I just moved away a year ago, and get out there about once a month. It's terrible. Lexis-Nexis has introduced huge cuts, National City, NCR, Dayco, and Delphi, not to mention the Moraine plant for GM. As others can tell you, it's rotting from the inside out.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
I just moved away a year ago, and get out there about once a month. It's terrible. Lexis-Nexis has introduced huge cuts, National City, NCR, Dayco, and Delphi, not to mention the Moraine plant for GM. As others can tell you, it's rotting from the inside out.

Cheers,

-Andrew

And this is different from the rest of the US how exactly? Still, sounds like you know more than I.
 
And this is different from the rest of the US how exactly? Still, sounds like you know more than I.

Given the places I spend time in (East Coast, rural South, large Asian and European cities), the rot is far more advanced in Dayton than most other places in the US. Akin to Detroit without some of the scale issues. Cincy isn't doing terrible, but it's one bad move by P&G away from tumbling down into the rut with Dayton, Toledo, Rochester, and other old-line manufacturing cities that are rotting from the inside out. Dayton is hit especially hard because it had a huge new property market, and a booming property ladder. My old neighborhood, an "upper middle class" new development, has a foreclosure rate of 14% (14% of the homes in the neighborhood, out of 1600, are in foreclosure), according to my old RE agent.

Just my view...

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Like I said, you sound like you know more than I. Wasn't pulling your antlers. Still sucks for the Confed..., er Commemorative Air Force. Sucks for old warbirds in general. I wouldn't try restoring one after this, the military might try and take it back. They're probably really happy about that though, someone with an old warbird could turn into a terrorist or some other nonsense.
 
Theft.
Let's hope for the appeal.
Which, if won, will still end up costing the CAF a bunch of $.
 
Karma's a *****. Should have never caved to PC pressure and changed their name. Look for the rest of their collection coming my way soon.

Seriously. :devil:
 
Yeah, that is ironic. "Thanks for all the hard work fellas. We, uh, we're gonna take it back now. Here's a nice kick in the a$$ for the trouble!"

It looks like a long-running disagreement:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200311/ai_n9325660


The USAF Museum has announced it "will pursue every option available" to get back the NM F-82 Twin Mustang once held by the Commemorative Air Force. Museum officials charge that the CAF ignored warnings about trading the rare fighter to Jim Fry in exchange for the ex-Museum of Flying P-38 Lightning. The CAF also traded the wreckage of P-38 Scatterbrain Kid II along with the damaged Twin Mustang. The USAF had conditionally donated the F-82 to the CAF in 1966. The aircraft was on outside display at Lackland AFB and a crew from the CAF made it airworthy and flew the machine to the then-CAF headquarters at Harlingen, Texas.


In defining the transaction, USAF Museum director Maj. Gen. Charles Metcalf stated, "A conditional donation enables the receiving entity to take possession of the aircraft with the requirement that it return tbe aircraft to the USAF should it no longer wish to retain possession.

So, it looks like it may not be such a clear case of the USAF welching on a deal...


Trapper John
 
Any gummint big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take everything back.

What I just know, is that if it had remained in gummint hands, it would have been cut up for scrap 40 year ago. The only reason it now exists to be repossessed is because of the CAF. I would send it back after a good shredding through a metal grinder.
 
I would send it back after a good shredding through a metal grinder.
That was my initial gut reaction too, but I also realize that it is totally contrary to what the CAF believes in. I would, however, demand payment for improvements based on the time and money put into it (at standard repair shop rates, of course.)
 
What I just know, is that if it had remained in gummint hands, it would have been cut up for scrap 40 year ago. The only reason it now exists to be repossessed is because of the CAF. I would send it back after a good shredding through a metal grinder.

Good point and an excellent plan. Problem is that I don't have it in me to murder a plane like that just because someone else is completely despicable.

If it was my plane, I would ship it back to them totally unharmed. One piece at a time..via USPS..to multiple addresses..they'd have to pay shipping in order for the postal service to hand it over.

Then again, if they got really whiney about it and pushed me too far, I might ship it to them a piece at a time...after I dynamite it and run it through the firey furnace.


They don't really want it. They don't really have a use for it. They should leave it alone.
 
That was my initial gut reaction too, but I also realize that it is totally contrary to what the CAF believes in. I would, however, demand payment for improvements based on the time and money put into it (at standard repair shop rates, of course.)

They may actually have a good case for unjust enrichment.
 
I think it should be preserved and displayed, and I don't really care about where or by whom.

The hint of a "rest of the story" is rather amusing. Sounds like they traded their Ted Williams for a Cal Ripkin but just happened to end up with it again when the swap meet was over. Hard to hold the high ground there.

I imagine that is why they didn't fair so well in District Court. Especially with a written agreement in place.
 
I think it should be preserved and displayed, and I don't really care about where or by whom.

The hint of a "rest of the story" is rather amusing. Sounds like they traded their Ted Williams for a Cal Ripkin but just happened to end up with it again when the swap meet was over. Hard to hold the high ground there.

I imagine that is why they didn't fair so well in District Court. Especially with a written agreement in place.

Exactly. If someone would come up with a copy of the original 1966 agreement, we'd know a lot more.


Trapper John
 
Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't grant change of venue. WPAFB is all Dayton has now. The city is on life support, and I would have been very, very surprised to see the seat in Dayton bite the hand that feeds it, if you will.

Cheers,

-Andrew

Why? Federal judges are appointed for life and do not answer to anyone in Dayton.
 
Thing is, the USAF museum already has one! I saw it when I visited. Neat plane. Why play the bully? I'd love to see one IN THE AIR.
 
What's even sadder, this could potentially be a landmark case for any warbird in private hands. The gummint could go after anyones pride and joy with a ruling like this. Given the unlimited legal staff against an individual, or small group, they would be crushed.

Gummint - what a ******* farce.
 
Back
Top