Special Hobby 1/72 F-82G vs Monogram F-82G Pt.2

[Spruemeister]

Mono sprue 1

Mono sprue 2

Mono sprue 3

Mono wings

Mono seats and floor

Mono clear sprue

Mono decals

Overall, the moldings are typical for Special Hobby's short run kits with largish sprue attachments, slight flash and mold misalignments, and no alignment pins or sockets. Nothing to be too concerned with. Plastic is flat gray with very nice recessed panel lines. Monogram's kit is in shiny gloss black with raised lines. Oddly, my kit came with two full sets of instructions. They must really want you to pay attention to them, but as you'll see later that may not be so good. No part numbers on the SH's sprues, but the instructions show you a parts number map for everything. Canopies are molded as one piece with the windscreen as compared to Mongrams two piece canopies. SH's canopies have the sliding frame molded with the bubble. Monogram's sliding frame is molded separately in black plastic. Those of you who don't fret at delicate micro surgery will be fine. The rest of us will have to grouse at the fact that SH's cockpit is much better, with separately molded armor, seat back, seat pan, floor, stick, rubber pedals, panel, gunsight, some side wall detail, and the photoetch belts. And it will be hard to see under the closed canopies. Poo. No extra credit for Monogram's two pilot figures either. Hate pilot figures.

SH's resin bits include some very nice examples of the night fighter exhaust. Monogram's are molded to the fuselage pieces and are... meh. There are also two resin one piece rocket trees for the 5" HVARs. Which aren't included in the kit. Monogram's kit has them but I only count 5 total with one molded tree, along with a couple bombs and pylons. Wonder if I'm missing some Monogram parts. Both kits have the center radar pod and two drop tanks, but I like the shape of the Monogram tanks better. Monogram's kit gives you the option of opening up the gun bay and displaying the six centerline 50. cal Brownings with ammo. SH does not. SH gives you 6 little tiny gun muzzles that must be applied individually to the leading edge. That's fiddly if ever I saw it. Even with my WalMart readers my eyes are still every bit of 44 years old like the rest of me. I may have to give up on 1/72 scale.

Special Hobby's decals are very nice and include lots of stenciling, but I'm of the opinion right now that there red letters and numbers are too dark. I think Monogram got it right with a brighter red. I don't have a lot to go on here. Just a few color photos out there so my interpretation could be off. While were at it, I know neither of these two kits would technically NEED another decal subject, nor would one be necessarily profitable to print, but its my review and I can darn well wish for markings for the 339th FIS (AW) Johnson AFB, Japan 1952 can't I? Hmmm? (I have some info)

Fuselage profile comparison

The SH fuselage is obviously longer. These tracings show it to be mostly in the nose. I'm going to give this one to SH as the Monogram has always looked short to me. The vertical tail shape however is a different story. Monogram's has squarer corners and is 5mm higher. Advantage Monogram. The tracings are bit deceiving under the radiator. Both have a curved profile, but the Monogram piece has an integrally molded discharge vent that makes it appear like a straight line. SH's discharge vent is a separate piece.

Propellors. Ug. You may not want to know.

Separately molded blades. These are on sprue A.

These are on sprue C

The instructions make no distinction between assembling the left and the right props. They are both refered to as Step 11 and it appears they want you to believe they are interchangeable. They should not be. The real props are handed and rotate in opposite directions. I have spent some considerable time with my glasses (that again) and a 10x loupe looking at the 8 blades and I don't have a clue what Special Hobby was trying to do. The 2 possibilities are this:

1. They screwed up and molded two clockwise rotation props (as seated in the cockpit).

2. They screwed up and molded 6 clockwise rotation blades, and two counter clockwise rotation blades. I just can't tell. Looking at the differences in the leading edge profile versus the trailing edge profile, and the flat aft side versus the curved airfoil side, I still can't figure out if they were all supposed to be molded alike, or if somebody tried to do right but only cut the molds with two counter clockwise rotation blades.

Monograms props are correctly handed and one piece with the spinner, but their blades are way short and don't have the correct broader chord of the SH blades. Well fudge. I don't think its going to look right building the SH kit and using the Monogram props. I'm afraid it will kill the looks of the correct SH nose. And no, you can't rip the blades or props from P-51s. Unless I'm looking at it wrong and the prop blades are actually correct, this one gave me enough heartburn that it may get filed under "I've got other projects to build until or unless somebody comes out with a resin fix". Double poo. I hope somebody else out there has one of these kits already and can tell me what they see.

There are lots of other details that I will look at later, but for now I think this is as deep as I'm going to get with a side by side comparison. I want to build this kit as I think it has potential. Use a few Monogram pieces, add some other missing details, and it should be better than the other 37 year old contender. Just don't expect it to all fall in place. You'll have to model this one.

Man do we ever need a new tool 1/48 scale kit.

Rick L.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Spruemeister

[Babalugats]

Use a few Monogram pieces, add some other missing details, and it should be better than the other 37 year old contender. Just don't expect it to all fall in place. You'll have to model this one.

Hello Rick!

Many hanks for the review!

37 years? Guess again - just took a look at the box side of my 1973 issue Monogram F-82 and there is an even earlier copyright cited there - 1963!

Mis-handled props? A P-51ish tail? What were SH thinking?

So much for progress...

[LanceB]

Some notes I will add without being asked, as I have a Monogram F-82 that I periodically pull out of the stash and putz around with:

Monogram got the length almost exactly right according to the drawings in the Detail & Scale book (which matches the published dimensions given in that book, and on the USAF Museum's website). The F-82G was (edit) 39 feet 1 inch long, not the commonly cited 42 feet 9 inches - that dimension is for the total length of the nightfighting F-82s with the massive central radar pod. I have seen drawings that make the Monogram kit look way too short, but usually it turns out the drawings were made assuming that the actual length of the fuselages was 42'9", which they were not.

Where the Monogram fuselages fail is in the vertical stabilizer and rudder. The height is roughly correct for an F-82B but much too short for an F-82E/F/G/H. The fin needs to be made taller, the leading edge needs to be reshaped as it shaped incorrectly, and the fillet needs to be made to come up higher on the aft end and then taper down from there to its forward end.

Wingspan is about spot on, again according to the D&S drawings, and the outer sections are fine in chord although the tips are slightly off in shape. The biggest problem is the wing center section, which is about 1/8 inch to narrow in chord. Wing root chord, so I was taught back when I worked on planes, is measured at the aircraft centerline. If the wing is a straight-edged plank, as the center section of the F-82 wing is, the actual measurable chord where the wing meet the fuselage will match the specified chord. However, if the wing tapers (like the outer wing panels do) the chord where the wing meets the fuselage will be less than the "book" chord. Since the F-82 has both types of wing, the center section trailing edge is visibly further aft than the trailing edge of the outer wing sections. This is what keeps me from just building the Monogram kit, fixing the chord of the center wing section itself is easy, fixing the root requires more planning...

The Monogram main wheels are lousy, they should be replaced with Hasegawa Skyraider wheels. The Special Hobby kit wheels in the pics look a lot better. Special Hobby also looks to have gotten the planform of the elevator correct, the ends should be a straight line from the trailing edge to the hinge line, but angled to give rudder clearance. Monogram clipped the "corners" but only from the trailing edge in to about 3/4 chord of the elevator, not full-chord.

I'll have to double-check my kit props now, though. Didn't think to compare those...

Thanks for all the pics and the comparison!

Edited August 26, 2010 by LanceB

[tourist]

Thanks for the cool review.

This looks like a nice kit.

I notice a few mistakes which shouldn't be too difficult to correct.

The radar pod is too small on the new kit, these things were massive and it looks like Monogram got it right.

The center wing section should be longer from front to back, it was longer than the outer wings.

The propeller was an Aeroproducts prop not a Hamilton Standard, too bad they didn't include stencils.

They chose the wrong seat for an F-82G, they picked the Warren McArthur seat (same as P-51D) when it should be a metallic Shick-Johnson.

I can't really comment about the shape, dimensions or the propeller blades without taking a closer look for myself but I don't want to buy the kit if these are wrong!

Edited August 25, 2010 by tourist

[Spruemeister]

Lance,

Thanks for the additional information. I don't have a D&S book for the twin Mustang. Just a set of drawings with dimensions for the E model out of Model Airplane News. How would the E dimensions compare to the G? These plans lists the overall length from front of spinner to trailing edge of rudder at 39.01'.

Even if Monogram got the overall length exactly right, that nose is just too stubby looking to me when I view photos. Its just my opinion I know, but from the leading edge of the wing root forward things should be a bit longer looking than the scrunched Monogram molding.

If Monogram's vertical tail is too short, then SH's is absolutely goofed. It's at least 4mm shorter. Wonder if the Czechs got a little "Betty Joe" influence in the mix during research.

Again, I appreciate your additional insights, much of which I didn't know.

Rick L.

[tourist]

Here are the F-82's basic dimensions:

A small correction is in order, I checked my NAA F-82 manuals and the fuselage length is 39 feet, not 38.1.

Other sources put it at 39.1.

[LanceB]

Rick, the E,F,G and H were all dimensionally identical. The differences were to equipment fit only - no major structural changes. 39 feet 1 inch is I believe correct, I apparently mistyped above. The drawing Tourist posted is given in the D&S book, and they also have plans for the B, E and G variants.

I agree that at first glance the nose of the Monogram kit looks "stubby". Laid on the D&S plans, however, it matches up about perfectly in length from the end of the cowling to the glareshield. The exhausts are also in about the right place.

The panel lines are totally off, though. Monogram put the panel line for the firewall firewall (or the end of the cowl panels, which would match up with the firewall) right at the wing LE, just like on a P-51D. The firewall was actually well forward of the wing LE, and thus that panel line should also be far more forward than it is. It took me longer than I would like to admit to recognize this. Like you, I initially thought the nose was way too short but now think a big part of that appearance is an illusion caused by the panel lines being so screwed up. The Monogram nose is definitely much, much longer than a 1/72 scale P-51D nose, and it does match the D&S drawings which, while they may not be perfect, do at least match up quite well with the listed dimensions given in the layout drawing posted above.

About the props - I checked last night and in diameter they match the drawings. The blade planform is off I agree. The Mono blades taper a bit as you move from the root towards the tip. Now I have something else to worry about. Thanks!

[tourist]

I don't know of really good F-82 drawings, the AJ-Press and Burindo ones have a few problems.

Model Airplane News published very detailed drawings years ago, they are (poorly) reprinted in the "F-82 Double Menace" book and are probably the best ones available.

I do know however that all Squadron-Signal Mustang drawing are terrible.

Not one of them is close to real thing.

I wouldn't use them to judge a kit's accuracy.

[J.C. Bahr]

Got some information for you all to ponder on the Monogram F-82 length and some other issues and decided to dredge up this thread for it.

I was pretty sure I had a copy of the old Frog/Novo kit laying around and ran across it tonight, so started comparing it to the Monogram kit. When I held their fuselages up to each other... there was quite a visible difference in the nose lengths, but otherwise the rest of the fuselage, cockpit, vertical stabs and radiator housings matched up pretty good.

So I started poking around the internet researching lengths and started running across discrepancies on many sites that listed either 38' 1" or 39' 1" (or just 39' in a few instances). I'm throwing out the 42' 9" measurements for now as I'm certain that was with the radar pod of the F/G variants. One caveat here: I did not run across the 39' 1" measurement nearly as often as the 38' 1" reference.

I went and dug out my 1/72 scale ruler and started measuring. The prop spinners in both kits measure just slightly under 2' 3" Now here are the measurements for just the fuselage pieces themselves:

Monogram - 35' 11" (Approx)

Frog/Novo - 36' 11" (Approx)

So roughly about 38' 2" and 39' 2" respectively between them when you add their spinners. One scale foot of difference between them and that makes about 4.25 mm or about 5/32 of an inch of difference on the noses! Trust me, it doesn't seem like a lot, but is a visible enough difference to really throw off the Monogram kit. The more I look at it and compare to photos, the more it would seem that Frog/Novo got it right in this area!

The other thing that the Frog/Novo kit seems to have gotten right is the center wing-section chord. It matches up with the Detail & Scale drawings at a measurement of about 9' 6" The Monogram center section measures at about 9' 3" The outer wings are a different story though when measuring the wing-root chord on the two kits: About 9' 4" on Monogram and about 9' 7" on Frog/Novo!

The Frog/Novo kit is the Russian Novo copy and the instructions I got with it do not say what variant it is supposed to represent. The kit does include the radar pod, so it's safe to assume that it's meant to replicate the F/G variant. The radar pods differ in the following ways. The Monogram seems slightly larger in circumference and is a bit longer. The pod itself is 16' 10" and almost 18' 6" with its mounting pylon. The Frog/Novo pod is about 15' 11" and 17' 3" with mounting pylon. When I mount them up to the wing center sections and measure from their tip to the front of the wing, the Frog/Novo pod is 11' 3" and Monogram is 13' (although it would seem that the Monogram wing sits about 3 scale inches further back on the fuselage than the Frog/Novo, measuring about 28' from the rear to the front of the wing, so 41' altogether in length. Measuring Frog/Novo this way gives a total length of 39" 6" ... so if the F/G variant was supposed to be 42' 9" ... both of them royally screwed up the length of the radar pod apparently and the Frog/Novo kit is painfully obvious when you start dry-fitting all the parts together and the pod is not much longer in front than the tips of the prop spinners! EDIT: Not sure on the pod lengths now though as I just noticed in the F-82 "Mini-In Action" that they claim there was a shorter pod used on the earlier all-weather aircraft up through the F-model, so perhaps the G-model does have a longer pod to it.

Take that for what it's worth guys. I do know one thing though, it would tend to lend a little credence to the fellow that spliced in some extra length to the nose of his Monogram kit over on Hyperscale, but unfortunately I cannot find that specific article in their gallery anymore, so it must've been lost at some point in the last few years.

Anyone that has the Special Hobby kit in their possession care to weigh in on the measurements of that kit?

Edited November 30, 2010 by J.C. Bahr

[tourist]

Good comparison between the two kits J.C. thanks.

There were indeed at least two different radar nacelles, one didn't extend as far as the spinners the other went further but not by much (3 feet seems like a lot but I could be wrong).

I have information indicating that as much as three or four different nacelles could have been used between the F-82Fs and Gs.

One thing is sure, the 38'1" figure is wrong for the F-82 length.

All actual North American Aviation F-82 manuals give it as 39' or sometimes 39'1".

The NAA drawing I posted above put the length at 39.0125 feet (unless I messed up my calculations, after close to 20 years in the US I still struggle with feet & inches).

That would put the Novo kit a little closer to the actual length.

[chrism]

Check out the Jan 2011 issue of FineScale Modeler, Paul Boyer builds both models and give the pro's ans con's of each model.

[Jennings]

Just a note on drawings: "Really nice" drawings may be really nice to look at, but if they don't match the dimensions of the real airplane, that's all they are: nice to look at. The most gorgeous drawings are useless if they're not drawn based on known, verified dimensions. And plenty of them aren't.

J

[Falcon50EX]

So, before i chuck my Monogram F-82 kits, two questions:

1) DB Conversions made some resin noses for either the Frog or Monogram F-82 kits. Any Opinions? You know, INFORMED opinions??

2) Could the short nose problem of the Monogram kit be rectified by chopping the forward fuselage along the diagonal panel line, and inserting a plug of the requisite thickness?

Would like to rehab the Monogram kit if i could, since i like working with their silver gray plastic.

Cheers,

david

[Slartibartfast]

The NAA drawing I posted above put the length at 39.0125 feet (unless I messed up my calculations, after close to 20 years in the US I still struggle with feet & inches).

You got it exactly right.

That fractional foot is a smidge over 1/8" or a smidge under 1/64". Why the heck couldn't NAA reshape the spinner, removing that fractional foot to make it easy on us modellers some seventy years in the future?!

[J.C. Bahr]

Good comparison between the two kits J.C. thanks.

You're welcome.

I have information indicating that as much as three or four different nacelles could have been used between the F-82Fs and Gs.

Radar nacelles or engine nacelles?

One thing is sure, the 38'1" figure is wrong for the F-82 length. All actual North American Aviation F-82 manuals give it as 39' or sometimes 39'1".

Well here's what I'm wondering after spending several hours last evening looking over a lot of pics, drawings, profiles, etc. if Monogram is right with their length, but if that's the length for the early Merlin engined birds and then the additional foot was added with the Allison engined birds? Because in photos, to me it looks like there's a discernible difference in the cowlings of those earlier ones which would make the Monogram kit a good candidate for one of those, but it would just require changing the exhaust configuration to be correct.

So, before i chuck my Monogram F-82 kits, two questions:

1) DB Conversions made some resin noses for either the Frog or Monogram F-82 kits. Any Opinions? You know, INFORMED opinions??

I was hoping somebody with those in their possession might chime in on this as they came to mind last night and at the time when they used to be available I always remembered wondering what was wrong with the Monogram kit that would require new resin noses, but different exhaust configurations would answer part of that question. Maybe they corrected the length issue too. Anybody out there that can measure a set and get back with us please?

2) Could the short nose problem of the Monogram kit be rectified by chopping the forward fuselage along the diagonal panel line, and inserting a plug of the requisite thickness?

That is basically what the chap did in the Hyperscale article that is no longer available, but I just can't recall how much he added. I know he had a photo showing the sections he spliced in to the noses at that firewall line, but he did not make any mention about the short radar pickle. The other thing he did was to splice in a section to the center wing and the horizontal stab to make the distance between the fuselages a bit wider too.

For the length though, I'm thinking that this is the best way to handle the Monogram kit now and to add about a scale foot forward of the engine firewalls and a scale 1' 9" somewhere in the middle of that radar pod to make the supposed 42' 9" measurement of the G-model.

Sure wish we could get somebody to measure the cowlings on one of the ones at Dayton and the one at Lackland for definitive proof of a difference in engine cowling lengths. Unfortunately I do not know of any existing radar pods to measure.

[tourist]

You got it exactly right.

Why the heck couldn't NAA reshape the spinner, removing that fractional foot to make it easy on us modellers some seventy years in the future?!

I totally agree, those selfish bastards! :D

Radar nacelles or engine nacelles?

Well here's what I'm wondering after spending several hours last evening looking over a lot of pics, drawings, profiles, etc. if Monogram is right with their length, but if that's the length for the early Merlin engined birds and then the additional foot was added with the Allison engined birds? Because in photos, to me it looks like there's a discernible difference in the cowlings of those earlier ones which would make the Monogram kit a good candidate for one of those, but it would just require changing the exhaust configuration to be correct.

Sorry, I meant the radar nacelles.

The engine mounts and cowlings were different between the P-82B and the E,F,Gs to accommodate the switch from Merlin to Allison.

This meant some subtle shape differences between them but it's hard to gauge whether this also meant a difference in length.

I'll dig a bit deeper in my refs to see if I find additional information about this.

[J.C. Bahr]

Found it! I was wrong, it wasn't on Hyperscale, but Modelingmadness:

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/korean/zwetf82.htm

Also, some more measurements for thought. I've seen in several places where the P/F-82 started out as either an XP-51F airframe or a P-51H airframe with a 57-inch extension added in the rear fuselage. One problem though as the P-51H apparently had a 13-inch plug added into the rear fuselage over that of the XP-51F.

Detail & Scale goes with the P-51H airframe stretch and states that it went from the H's 33' 4" airframe to that of the 39' 1" airframe of the P/F-82... but a 57-inch plug would only add up to 38' 1" .... so there's 12 inches missing in that theory. Also, according to Joe Baugher's website, the XP-51F airframe was 32' 2-3/4" and with a 57-inch plug to it, that would make a length of (if my math is correct) 36' 11-3/4" which if the given lengths are correct, the P/F-82 couldn't have started out as the XP-51F airframe!

Keep in mind that the early P/F-82's used the Packard Merlin V-1650 which was the same as in the P-51H. Their cowling profiles look pretty similar. But if you look at the F-82E/G with the Allison V-1710, the profiles look much thicker just behind the spinner and especially so on the underside of the cowling where it looks like it's almost flatly parallel with the top line of the radar pod. The early cowling slopes up a lot sharper and also looks like the top cowling profile drops to the spinner a lot sharper.

If any of you have the Detail & Scale Part 2 on the Mustang, look at page 57, 2nd photo from the bottom of the EF-82D that is supposed to have retained the Packard V-1650 (is typed as 1750 in the caption, so probably a typo)... if that profile isn't dead-on for the Monogram kit in it's current state, then I don't know what is. Now compare that photo to the two top photos on the next page that are purported to be F/G-models... especially that 2nd photo from the top on page 58.

Edited December 1, 2010 by J.C. Bahr

[tourist]

Nice build.

After double checking my references I'm fairly confident there was no length difference between the various P/F-82s.

[J.C. Bahr]

After double checking my references I'm fairly confident there was no length difference between the various P/F-82s.

Did you read the additional info I added in my edit last night? Why does a 57-inch plug in the P-51H airframe only equal 38' 1" and not 39' 1" if that's the distance that North American claims?

[tourist]

Hi J.C.

I hadn't read your added comments when posting yesterday.

The detail and scale books provide a nice overview of the Mustang development but like all Squadron Signal books they are filled with errors and inaccuracies (way too many to count) and are misleading.

In fact the Twin Mustang was never made of two elongated P-51Hs, it's an old myth perpetuated by lazy writers who read each others books instead of doing proper research.

The P-82 was a new design, the fuselages were inspired by that of the XP-51F but were new (the Twin Mustang project actually started before the P-51H was ready for production).

The 57 inches "plug" is pure fiction probably created by taking the false 38'1" figure and subtracting the length of a P-51H (that's a poor way of doing research).

The 39+ feet figure I gave comes from actual NAA F-82 manuals that I have, so does the drawing posted above.

Which do trust more? NAA manuals or Bert Kinzey?

I can recommend two really good books about the Mustang, both written by writers who actually did their job:

-Mustang, the story of the P-51 fighter by Robert Gruenhagen (old book but still a classic for Mustang enthusiasts)

-North American P-51 Mustang by Malcolm V. Lowe (this one came out last year).

[Falcon50EX]

Has anybody been following Ken Friends F-82 design work over on LSP? Looks like he's starting from scratch. His progress is very impressive.

david

[J.C. Bahr]

The detail and scale books provide a nice overview of the Mustang development but like all Squadron Signal books they are filled with errors and inaccuracies (way too many to count) and are misleading.

I figured as much as the G-model profile in there just does not look right.

the fuselages were inspired by that of the XP-51F but were new (the Twin Mustang project actually started before the P-51H was ready for production). The 57 inches "plug" is pure fiction probably created by taking the false 38'1" figure and subtracting the length of a P-51H (that's a poor way of doing research).

I don't know if I'd say "inspired" as the XP-51F fuselage doesn't look much different than a slightly modified D-model with a different canopy and cowling.

You say all the NAA stuff pegs the length at 39' 1" ... any idea where the 38' 1" figure came from?

Also, is there any official length for the G with the pod? As I've now seen 42' 9".... 42' 5" and 42' 1" out there in books and on the net.

I can recommend two really good books about the Mustang

Do you recall a book specifically on the Twin Mustang that featured a nice painting of "Ole 97" on the cover? I thought I remembered seeing something like that a long while back, but couldn't find anything in any searches of Amazon.

[tourist]

Hi J.C, I have no idea where the 38'1" figure came from.

I disagree with your take on the XP-51F, it doesn't look like a P-51D.

I do not have an official NAA figure for the G with a pod (it may be buried in my refs, I have a lot of stuff) but all the books I trust give it as 42.2 feet.

The book you are thinking of is "Double Menace, P/F-82 Twin Mustang" by David McLaren.

It is probably the only book specifically about the F-82, other than the "In Action" mini.

Unlike McLaren's book about the P-51H I'm not sure this one would be a great help to modelers.

There is a chapter about the development of the F-82 at the beginning but most of the book covers the Twin Mustang's career in service.

The photos aren't great and tech details are few and apart.

There are a few charts but some of the figures are questionable (could be typos, I'm not sure).

For example, it also gives the G with pod at 42.2 feet but gives the same figure for every P/F-82 (except the E)!?!?! :D

[J.C. Bahr]

Speaking of the pod, I noticed on WIX that eventually the P-82B (Former CAF warbird) at the NMUSAF at Dayton will eventually get a pod added to it. They painted it as a G and it looks pretty good in its black tuxedo! :D Granted, not totally accurate (which has raised quite the stir on WIX many times), but nice to see that they're trying to be representative of that types time in combat in Korea. Their other one, Betty-Jo, is neat and all, but these aircraft just look so slick in black with their red codes!

Sure would like to know if the pod they're going to add is original or not.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to sound like I was totally equating the XP-51F to the D. I just saw a side-view photo of it last night and the rear fuselage did not look much different than a D... certainly not as stretched as an H and I think the D and the F's lengths were very similar.

[tourist]

I'd love to make it to the NMUSAF someday, two F-82s in one place is something I have to see.

I remember the heated arguments on WIX when the CAF had to give the plane back to the USAF.