Twin Mustang

[frog]

Summary...

The AF donated/loaned a Twin Mustang to CAF in 1968. They changed their donation regulations in 1970 and now want the plane back. CAF flew it until the mid-80s when it was damaged, but they have almost returned it to flying status. The AF is now demanding that it be returned to the AF museum, which already has a Twin Mustang. Their primary reason is that they don't want it flying...seriously, would you rather see this thing at a museum or flying at an airshow?

CAF Twin Mustang

Edited March 15, 2009 by frog

[StoleIt]

That is pretty damn gay...

[bucky60k]

Sounds like something the air force would do. It's all about heritage yeah right

[BQZip01]

Summary...

The AF donated/loaned a Twin Mustang to CAF in 1968. They changed their donation regulations in 1970 and now want the plane back. CAF flew it until the mid-80s when it was damaged, but they have almost returned it to flying status. The AF is now demanding that it be returned to the AF museum, which already has a Twin Mustang. Their primary reason is that they don't want it flying...seriously, would you rather see this thing at a museum or flying at an airshow?

CAF Twin Mustang

Seems to me that they may not have a leg to stand on. If they changed their rules after the fact, that's not the CAF's problem. It's USAF's. You can't make an agreement and then change your mind afterward and expect the other party to agree to it.

[CHS17]

Seems to me that they may not have a leg to stand on. If they changed their rules after the fact, that's not the CAF's problem. It's USAF's. You can't make an agreement and then change your mind afterward and expect the other party to agree to it.

Yes they can, just ask Qatari Customs...

[Young Crow]

You can't make an agreement and then change your mind afterward and expect the other party to agree to it.

Sure, you can't do that.

But I think we've all had enough interactions with the federal government to know that they can and do change agreements and expect the other party to deal with it.

[JarheadBoom]

Yes they can, just ask Qatari Customs...

Or the Democratic Party.

[Hacker]

This is yet another example of empire-building in the USAF. They're doing the same thing with the Collings Foundation.

Of course...the USAF loves "heritage", right?

[lj35driver]

They're doing the same thing with the Collings Foundation.

Hadn't heard about the issues with Collings. Are they trying to take the F-4 from them? I loved seeing that beast fly.

[Hacker]

Hadn't heard about the issues with Collings. Are they trying to take the F-4 from them? I loved seeing that beast fly.

No, there were about 6 engines that came with the original deal in 1999. Collings decided not to take the engines out of AMARC when they took delivery of the airplane. 2 or 3 years ago, they FODded out one engine, and went to AMARC to pick up one of their spares.

They met with the same deal: current CC at AMARG said, "the guy who made that deal with you wasn't authorized to do it" and did not let the engines go. Since it was a Congressional bill that donated the airplane and engines to them, you can imagine how that decision went over. CF has been trying for that long to get their Congressional supporters to straighten the USAF/AMARG out.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Phrases with the terms "US Air Force" and "heritage" included are quickly becoming tiresome, because the USAF seems to ignore it's own real heritage to invent a new heritage...presumably so someone else can get an extra star. Take the current AF symbol...I remember when it first became official..."we need a symbol that embraces our heritage..." Yet the symbol that had been used to represent the USAF since it's days as the Army Air Corps wasn't good enough? I was a LT back then and suddenly realized that "heritage" within the USAF is simply a buzz-word used by those looking for promotion opportunities.

[Steve Davies]

Does the AF have a GO that is the designated POC for heritage matters?

[brickhistory]

Does the AF have a GO that is the designated POC for heritage matters?

The USAF Historian, a civilian SES, is the heritage advisor to the CSAF who would make the final decision. Separate but related, the NMUSAF is part of the Air Force HO organization, but for practical purposes, it's an independent fiefdom.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

the Air Force HO organization

Where is this "ho" organization located?

[brickhistory]

Where is this "ho" organization located?

As would be appropriate, Washington, D.C. (and on Anacostia Naval Station).

As well as at MAJCOMs, each base, and each deployed location.

Being the historian at Nellis could be fun.

At Minot, not so much...

[Steve Davies]

Brick

If it's the USAF Historian, then that'll be Dick Anderegg. If it's him, I will drop him a line and ask him what's going on.

[brickhistory]

Brick

If it's the USAF Historian, then that'll be Dick Anderegg. If it's him, I will drop him a line and ask him what's going on.

That's him. As I said, he may/may not know of this as NMUSAF is essentially it's own entity despite being part of the USAF History and Museum program.

Tell him Brick said hello. He'll no doubt go deer in headlights as we only briefly chatted a year ago when I was job hunting for a USAF/HO job.

[mikew]

It might be useful to note that the CAF doesn't intend to restore and fly the F-82. CAF signed an agreement to trade the aircraft to a private individual, in alleged violation of the loan/donation agreement overseen by the USAFM. The original loan agreement with the USAF stipulated that the aircraft would be returned to the USAF if the CAF did not wish to retain possession. There is a dispute as to whether a later amendment turned the whole thing into an unconditional donation or not, and apparently a court decided that it did not.

Mike