Warbirds

 I have had a lifelong passion for military aircraft, particularly those dating back to the Second World War. Several years ago, I remember hearing about an incident related to the Commemorative Air Force's F-82 Twin Mustang, an aircraft which was in service during the Korean War. Basically what had happened was in the mid-1960s, the Air Force lent the CAF the F-82 with the understanding that the CAF would be the ones restoring and operating. At a fairly large price, the F-82 was restored to flying condition and flew for many years on the airshow circuit. However, in the mid 90s the aircraft crash landed, destroying its propellers, landing gear and causing some damage to the airframe. The CAF did not have the resources to repair the aircraft, so it was traded to another organization for a flying P-38 Lightning. However, this upset the Air Force (and consequently the Museum). They made the decision to reclaim the aircraft since the CAF was no longer operating the aircraft. After a relatively brief legal battle, the F-82 was taken back by the Air Force and now sits completely restored in the Korean War section of the Museum, painted as a typical nightfighter from the war. This is not the first time the Museum has repossessed aircraft- in 2005/2006,  the Museum took back the famous B-17F "Memphis Belle" from the city of Memphis, Tennessee, which had never been able to raise enough funding to properly restore and care for the aircraft.
  For the longest time, these cases never did sit too well with me, since I thought it seemed low of the Museum to take back an aircraft that an organization had expended so much effort into providing care for (however ineffective it may have been), especially given the fact that the Museum already had fully restored examples of both types of aircraft. Now though, having gained some sort of understanding for the museum's perspective, I can understand their concern in getting the aircraft back. They wanted to ensure that these rare and historically important (at least in the case of the Memphis Belle) aircraft would not be left in a sad state. I especially understand the concern with the Memphis Belle, which had essentially remained outside exposed to the elements and vandals for over forty years.
  A third and related story that arose during the 2000s was related to the Navy. During the Second World War, the Navy used several small aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes to train student pilots carrier take offs and landings. Not surprisingly, the students lost several of the trainers in the lakes. These aircraft were left on the bottom of the Lakes and were removed from the registry of aircraft with the Navy. Flash forward to the late 90s early 2000s, when a Navy investigative group discovered several of these aircraft still in intact and in surprisingly good condition on the bottom of Lake Michigan. However, when some private groups attempted to raise the aircraft with the intention of restoring them to flying condition, they were informed by the Navy that they were property of the Navy and off-limits. This seems to me ridiculous, since the Navy had long since written these aircraft off the registry. Fortunately, this issue has also been resolved- the Navy agreed to let some of the aircraft be raised and restored.


Here's a couple of articles on the F-82:
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2009/03/10/caf-f-82-goes-back-to-air-force-museum/
 http://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/the-f-82-twin-mustang-zero-sum-game/

Here's some information about the Memphis Belle:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_Belle_%28aircraft%29#Move_to_Dayton

And here's an article about the Lake Michigan aircraft:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-14/news/ct-tl-glenview-naval-foundation-lake-michigan-plan-20121114_1_wwii-plane-taras-lyssenko-a-t-recovery