The Air Force Museum Needs Two Twin Mustangs?

AVWEB INSIDER

Post comments | View comments by other members (16)

March 13, 2009

Note To the Air Force: Butt Out

Email this blog |

Print this blog

By Paul Bertorelli

Adults.

Every organization needs at least one. But it looks like the U.S. Air Force Museum is coming up one short. I'll get to the adult part in a moment, but first the reprise.

Earlier this week we reported that the Commemorative Air Force lost a court fight with the Air Force Museum over custody of one of the rarest of warbirds, an F-82 Twin Mustang. The CAF got its F-82 from the Air Force free and clear back in the 1960s and evidently had the paper work to prove it. But now the Air Force Museum wants the F-82 back. The CAF sued to keep it, but a district court in Ohio sided with the Air Force. During the court case, the CAF produced an unambiguous paper trail suggesting that all of this was legit. In other words, they didn't exactly swipe it in the middle of night from the pole on which it was perched at Lackland Air Force Base.

But the court didn't buy it. There's apparently a reversionary clause somewhere that says the government owns everything forever.

The CAF pledged to appeal the case, but in the meantime, they offered to drop the case if the Air Force would allow CAF to keep the F-82 as a static display. No deal, says the Air Force. Ship it back. So, at the moment, the CAF says it will comply, but it's pursuing the appeal.

Here's the adult part: Wasn't there someone—anyone—in the Air Force Museum who could hold both palms up and say not only is this not worth the expense of a court case, it is a PR disaster to boot. The irony is that the Air Force already has an F-82 in its collection. Here's a picture of it.

So what's going on here? Nothing but a bureaucratic turf war by the heavy hands of the Air Force museum. They can, so they are. Since they already have an F-82, they don't need two. There's no discernible national interest for the Air Force to waste taxpayer money on retrieving an airplane that they clearly transferred to private owners but now want back solely because they don't like former military airplanes to be flown out of their control.

The Air Force's position isn't entirely without merit. There's always a real risk that an irreplaceable military aircraft that flies could be lost in a crash. On the other hand, seeing an airplane actually fly rather than reposing in some dusty static display has a raw appeal and that's what the CAF is all about. Here, the Air Force seeks to deny the airplane-interested public the choice of seeing both—a museum piece and a flying example. More troubling, are they now going to go after every warbird owner out there with giveback claims?

So, I dunno…with my usual solomonic dispassion as a neutral bystander, I would just say this to the Air Force: Grow up. Get over it. Move on. Stop being a bully and wasting taxpayer money on stupid stuff like this. Let the CAF keep the F-82 and if they rebuild the thing and are unlikely enough to drive it into a smoking hole, that's their business. With reward comes risk.

It would be nice if the Air Force understood that.

Comments

I've been through the USAF museum several times since I was a child and it is a national treasure for sure. I can understand the logic of not flying the only example of a historic aircraft, but I dreamed of seeing what some of those old aircraft sounded like when flying overhead. To me, it's absolutely awesome to see a group like CAF actually flying some of these historic aircraft. Without knowing all of the details, it sure seems like a dirty trick that the Air Force is pulling on the CAF. I'd hate to see them "demilitarize" all the privately owned warbirds out there - but there are those who are pushing for this to happen.

posted by Josh Johnson on March 13, 2009 (report abuse)

While I think the CAF is one of, if not the most, dedicated group to restoring and protecting WWII warbirds, this blog twists thing just a bit in the wrong direction.

What Paul fails to mention is that this whole thing started when CAF was trying to sell (actually trade) the airplane, not restore it to flying condition. That is what got the neck hairs standing at the USAF. I think that was even reported here on AVweb a few months ago.

That said, I agree that the whole mess is petty and juvenile, on USAF's part, considering the time the CAF has been in custody and maintaining it. However, the documents are reportedly opaque as to whether the USAF gave/donated the airplane or just loaned it. The courts sided with the USAF, unfortunately. Or is it.

Reports are that the F82 has sat in storage for most of the time the CAF has had custody. Little effort was expended to restore the aircraft to flying status, for whatever reason. Speculation was that it's unusual twin fusalage structure was too daunting to restore to flying condition, thus the reason to sell/trade.

Now for the "Adult" part? I whole heartedly agree with Paul. The USAF has spent a bunch of money stopping the CAF from making the transaction on a piece of property they had no interest in for 40 some-odd years, only to hang an albatros around our necks in taxpayer dollars.

posted by Roger Dugan on March 13, 2009 (report abuse)

>>What Paul fails to mention is that this whole thing started when CAF was trying to sell (actually trade) the airplane, not restore it to flying condition. That is what got the neck hairs standing at the USAF. I think that was even reported here on AVweb a few months ago.<<

Not sure how this is relevant. The warbird community routinely horsetrades airplanes, components and engines. That's how they keep these relics flying. They're bought and sold and even shipped out the country. Virtually every warbird you see at OSH was in the U.S. inventory at some point. Does the Air Force now lay claim to all of them? Will it ask for them back if it becomes aware of a sale or trade, as it did with the F-82? Point is, there is no compelling national interest for the Air Force to behave this way. On the other hand, they look really dumb by doing it. That alone wins the argument to cease and desist, in my view.

posted by Paul Bertorelli on March 14, 2009 (report abuse)

I'd like to start by saying that I agree that the USAF is handling this case very poorly. But, I also would like to say that before you post comments, you should research a little bit. I don't recall the site, but yes, the CAF's F-82 is and has been un-airworthy for quite some time. It had a landing gear failure (possibly pilot error, don't remember.) Bottom line, F-82 has one standard, and one counter rotating engine. The counter rotating prop was damaged beyond repair during the botched landing. They can not, and most likely will not be able to find a replacement. I believe it to be at least 10-20 yrs since this bird has flown. The last I heard they were going to restore the bird for static display but still no counter rotating prop. I wish that they could find or mfg. a prop but odds are slim. I just don't understand how the USAF is going to take possession with out paying a pretty penny for the work which the CAF has done to the bird....

posted by Josh Waddell on March 14, 2009 (report abuse)

Actually, I did research it. I read the trial record, all of CAF's correspondence and interviewed CAF. The airplane was damaged on landing and hasn't flown since 1986. CAF doesn't have the resources to restore it to flying condition, but they believe they've found an organization that can. So they negotiated a trade, which is how the Air Force learned of the F-82. In my view, it doesn't matter whether the Air Force is steamed about the airplane flying again, or if the idea of the trade irritates them or maybe they don't like the way they mow the lawn at CAF HQ. Any way you look at it, there's no public interest for the Air Force to take back an airplane they clearly gave away and forgot about 40 years ago. The service simply lacks the wisdom to do the right thing. And it's just dumb.

posted by Paul Bertorelli on March 14, 2009 (report abuse)

There are some people in the military....

I remember a few years back in TX the Texas Air gard asked the military for a plane they answer "we do not have that plane" the TAG said if we can find one can we keep it? they said yes and the found one, after truck it to the Vally some General wanted to cut the spar of the bird and the police had to intervene since the Texans pull their guns too. They kept it!

posted by Ivan Menchero on March 16, 2009 (report abuse)

Having been in the USAF I can assure you it's no bastion of bright, they couldn't locate even one of 4 hijacked large airliners on 9.11.01. Actually I'm pretty sure they are the agency responsible for the term "military intelligence" being one of the world's best-known oxymorons.

posted by Karl Schneider on March 16, 2009 (report abuse)

As I understand the military services have taken distinctly different approaches to ownership of retired, lost and loaned aircraft. The Navy has historically argued that they maintain ownership of all of their aircraft regardless of status. Could it be the Air Force is trying to shed its "Boy Scout Camp" image and show a tough side like the Navy? Heck of an arena to try it, though

posted by John Henson on March 16, 2009 (report abuse)

What really concerns me is that this could go far beyond the F-82. What is to stop the Air Force from next laying claim to a restored abandoned warbird, such as "Glacier Girl". If this possibility exists, it could put a real damper on the continued restoration of abandoned air craft. Who is going to invest large sums of money restoring an aircraft if the possibility of it being taken away exists? The Navy's current position that they own all abandoned Naval air craft is the main cause of the limited number of Navy air craft available for show at our air shows. Is this the way the Air Force is headed? I am afraid so.

posted by Terry Carmine on March 16, 2009 (report abuse)

What percentage of flying warbirds have been brought back here from other countries after doing service in their militaries? It seems like claiming those would be a little harder.

posted by Mike Holshouser on March 17, 2009 (report abuse)

As a retired Army command Sergeant major I would like to remind all of you. The air force song which states-Nothing can stop the United States Air Force.so it seems true.

posted by william durham on March 18, 2009 (report abuse)

Hey! Can anyone give a little Twin Mustang History? How Many? Why were they built? What was there intended mission? Actual Mission History? Or Web Link to such Information

posted by Loren Bovee on March 19, 2009 (report abuse)

I sent my comments to the USAF museum through their webpage inquiry form:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/main/contactus.asp

Take a second and let them know how ridiculous they are being!

posted by Dave B on March 19, 2009 (report abuse)

As a member of the CAF I would like to add a few comments. These are my personal observations and are not authorized by CAF HQ. The F-82 has not been flown for a number of years because it cannot be deemed airworthy. The CAF's goal is to "preserve in flying condition a complete collection of combat aircraft which were flown by all military services of the United States ....for the education and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans." Obviously, of the CAF 171 aircraft not all are in flying condition. With rare and antique aircraft such as these, it's not always possible, both logistically and financially. Some are being restored, and for various reasons, some will never be flown again . When an aircraft cannot be SAFELY flown, it goes on static display. Mr. Dugan stated we were trying to trade/sell the aircraft. Actually, it was an agreement with The Cavanaugh Flight Museum to preserve the aircraft and several others. Operating a museum such as this is an expensive endeavor in normal times. In economic conditions such as we have now, museums must co-op with each other in order to exist. The Cavanaugh Flight Museum is a great organization and we're thankful for their co-operation. At any rate, The USAF is simply making maintaining the museum even tougher in already tough times. If allowed to do this to the CAF (which it looks like they will) who's next? Cavanaugh, Planes of Fame, Lone Star Flight Museum, or just anyone that owns a warbird?

posted by Col Glenn Larson on March 19, 2009 (report abuse)

N.A. built about 275 P-82s of all varieties, see here, scroll down for the listings and photos. http://www.aerofiles.com/_noram.html

posted by Bill Bailey on March 19, 2009 (report abuse)

Guess the Soviets (Russians) ought to ask for their SU 29 Back from the AF museum as well. Ain't bureaucracy wonderful. After all is isn't theirs. A crying insult to the CAF.

posted by Jim Bruchas on April 2, 2009 (report abuse)