Bad news from Aviation Museum

k5083 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:19 am

kalamazookid wrote:

Dan Johnson II wrote:

Nathan wrote:

Well, thanks to our government. I've said it before that museums and aircraft will have little importance anymore and the article states that there is no idea what to do with the aircraft yet. Hopefully go to other museums but some might be cut up too. Im trying to keep my thoughts from becoming political but its becoming hard to do anymore. My gears are grinding...... :evil:

I love old airplanes as much as anyone, but I'm not quite sure how this becomes the 'governments' problem? I don't want a political discussion either, but lets be honest, when the screaming is about cuts, cuts, cuts, and privatizing things, then the issue here is where is the private money needed to preserve these aircraft?

In the overall scheme of things, old airplanes are way down the list in terms of what we should spend our money on in particular when there are numerous examples elsewhere.

We can't have it both ways where the stuff that is important to us is untouchable but everything else is fair game.

Again, if they are that important, then someone from the private sector needs to put their money where there mouth is.

Are there not examples of all of these birds at the USAF Museum or Air and Space Museum?

And yeah I'd love to save every last one of them, but I'm trying to keep it in perspective. How many birds on poles are rotting out there that the local VA or City took on and then let rot. If the money isn't there, what other options are there beyond private money?

Great post.

+1.

August

Nathan · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:04 am

jwc50 wrote:

WallyB wrote:

davidwomacks wrote:

"Almost entirely a postwar collection," I guess it's okay to write off the 67+ years since the end of World War II. The aircraft of the late 40's, the 50's, 60's and 70's are among the most interesting in history and are my primary interest in aviation history. I hope that most of these aircraft can be saved.

I agree. 50's-60's aircraft are most interesting to me. Most I've never seen fly. We all love the history of ww2 types but it seems anything after ww2 that doesn't have combat history is not of any interest. Sometimes I find airplanes cool for what they are...machines.

Nathan · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:04 am

Quote:

Are there not examples of all of these birds at the USAF Museum or Air and Space Museum?

Yes there are. But isn't the goal in the warbird movement to increase the number of types surviving? Not decrease them? :drink3:

Interesting topic,
Nate

cptsmith · **Joined:** Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:59 pm **Posts:** 70

The mention of all the B-17 and B-24's being scrapped after WW2 with no public outcry is true. But shouldn't we learn from the past? Those planes are rare today, but there are more B-17's surviving than B-47's, F-105's or F-84's. Are the accomplishments and sacrifices of the airmen of the Korean, Vietnam, or Cold War conflicts any less important? Once these aircraft are scrapped they are gone forever.

p51 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:19 am

I used to swing by this museum probably every 6-12 months when I lived in Florida. Such a shame to see all these planes going (mostly for the ones being scrapped), but I went through some photos not long ago I took back in 1996 and the Thud was in pretty sorry shape even then, I can't imagine she slid downhill a bit since that time. And the deep South isn't the best place to store airplanes outside, with a climate subject to such extremes.
I will back Lance on his comments about the museum doing so much with so little. Having seen the place as a kid, it's amazing what it'd turned into by the time I'd left the South in the late 90s.
But I have to agree with those so far who've pointed out that, "Oh, there's plenty of those," is what people used to say about B-17s...

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:28 am

This is a great museum that does a ton with very little. That said, they are not being forced to give anything up that they don't want to. They were asked to consider their goals and mission and to focus on that. What this allows is them to give better care to the aircraft that they feel are most important to their collection. The other aircraft can be reassigned to museums that feel that those airframes are important to their missions and goals. It is sad to see that a few may be cut up, but they are saving many, and even the ones being cut up were offered to other museums. No one bit on them. I think you are going to see other museums face this. For many years some museums just grabbed anything they could with no ryhme or reason. That sounds fine until you have to take care of them. Also take note that they have requested a B-17. Just keep watching that. There is a method to the madness.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11280

Maybe they should sell them on eBay and use the money to improve the museum?

navion91104 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:55 am

SEND AIRFRAMES HERE!!!! I'll take 'em...

Vosburgh Airfield is California semi-dry, no corrosion, best place for aircraft storage / preservation and I have 40 acres of airport to park airframes. I have folks who can move airframes as well.

Please don't chop up what we can have saved and displayed at a WWII era airfield!

Best,

Jason

------------------------------------------------------------
Vosburgh Airfield, P.O. Box 207, New Cuyama, CA 93254
jason.vosburgh@vosburghairfield.com

www.airnav.com/airport/5CN4

www.VosburghAirfield.com

p51 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:38 pm

If they're gonna hack up the BUFF, is there any chance that the museum will sell or donate any parts that might be wanted by others? I'd imagine that the nose would be a desireable part, as would other pieces. Heck, I'd love to have some sections of the skin from a B-52...
I hope they'll either strip anything useful before the torches get lit, or allow people to hack up whatever they might want.
I'm reminded many years ago of a park airplane (I can't recall when, where, or what type it was) that was ex-military, when it got scrapped the park people let people make off with whatever they want and someone grabbed the entire cockpit section...

K5DH · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:12 pm

There's a big problem with government-owned museum aircraft being reassigned to other museums. The receiving museum must foot the bill for disassembly, transportation, and reassembly, as well as taking on the financial responsibility for the restoration and upkeep of the asset. VFM has recently gone through this process, twice. The cost of transporting the EA-3B from AMARG to our facility in Fort Worth amounted to tens of thousands of dollars. Transporting the CH-21B to our facility from less than 150 miles away in East Texas was a bargain at a cost of "only" $3,000. Who knows how much it will ultimately cost to restore and maintain these two aircraft? It won't be cheap, especially for the Whale, which will sit outside. At least the Banana will reside indoors and be protected from the elements and the vandals.

Remember the big stink about the Navy scrapping the entire fleet of A-3s that were on bailment to Raytheon? Only a few were saved and the rest were destroyed where they sat. ALL OF THEM were made available to museums. The Navy didn't want to just scrap them. They tried to find them homes. Nobody wanted to take on the ones that ultimately didn't make it. Why not? Cost was the biggest factor, and lack of public interest was second.

It's easy to sit at a keyboard and type, "Why doesn't some museum step up and take on these aircraft?" Making it happen is a whole 'nother ball game. Have YOU donated money or time toward saving one or more of these potential victims of the breaker's torch? I have. Several times.

old iron · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:55 pm

k5dh: well stated!

Considering our collective limited resources, I think our collective money should be concentrated on buildings that will house aircraft and the museums that have the resources to build such buildings. In the big long-term scale of things, nearly all the post-WWII aircraft displayed presently outside will ultimately be scrapped. Some of the WWII birds, which include various B-17s, B-24s and such that are displayed outdoors may ultimately see preservation, but only if they get inside in the fairly near future. The Pima museum is perhaps the only exception to these statements due to its dry climate.

Also on the big long-term scale of things, it will not be too many more years that we will see any of the large WWII aircraft as flyers. Despite claims to the contrary, the oil peak is pretty much upon us. Oil supplies will diminish in the fairly near future, and quite possible in the next five years. This means that the airshow circuit that supports many of our flying warbirds is going to change significantly, and soon. What will become of these aircraft? I would assume that these will be preserved, but only if they are ultimately incorporated into the major museums that have housing for them, and they might displace other aircraft to destruction outdoors.

Flying Pencil · **Joined:** Sun May 04, 2008 11:31 am **Posts:** 161

cadet77 wrote:

This is a very sad day indeed for the Aviation Museum.

A few comments from the viewer side: The article gives the impression that the director is downsizing the collection in the museum by scrapping loaned aircraft that cannot be kept in pristine condition because of a reduction in paid staff. The photo of the director pointing to corrosion as "rust" on a B-52 shows he has no real understanding of aircraft that are stored outside on long term display.
Why are people placed in positions of management in museums who have no understanding of museums? I visit museums often and find few that maintain the aircraft in their collections in perfect condition. The museum could maintain the aircraft with the help of volunteers and reduced expectations of aircraft condition. The director provides no vision for the museum in the article other than wanting to add a B-17. All of the aircraft in the list could be given to other museums that would be required to move at their own expense. Scrapping the aircraft on site or behind closed gates at AMARC is a very short sighted outcome for the aircraft. Many of the aircraft on the list are being made like the B-17, unobtainable.

cadet77

You said it, brother!

Flying Pencil · **Joined:** Sun May 04, 2008 11:31 am **Posts:** 161

hang the expense wrote:

Because we cant go political on this PC website I will just say there is a common thread about all this stuff being scrapped.The world war 2 birds was the big start of our aviation history and only a few people had the presence of mind to save some aircraft for future generations while most did not.Saving only the birds at the airforce museum denies the rest of the country the chance to have their own local museums.Its very hard to convince people to donate money and time to a project that very well may be reclaimed,taken back or cut up on site.Wake up.

I can go with that.

The Russians have made huge profits selling old military aircraft (cough MiG-31, Mig-21, Ant-125).

When some Senator wanted to recall B-29 Fifi, you know we have problem.

4RG.I.'S · **Posted:** Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:43 pm

Does anyone know if any of the aircraft are actually offered or available to another museum and what the terms might be?
What happened to the ones listed as already gone?
Does anyone knoe specifically if any/which ones will be scrapped?

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11280

old iron wrote:

Also on the big long-term scale of things, it will not be too many more years that we will see any of the large WWII aircraft as flyers. Despite claims to the contrary, the oil peak is pretty much upon us. Oil supplies will diminish in the fairly near future, and quite possible in the next five years. This means that the airshow circuit that supports many of our flying warbirds is going to change significantly, and soon.

"They" have been saying this for 25 years. The US has huge oil reserves. They only things keeping it from us is politics.

k5dh wrote:

It's easy to sit at a keyboard and type, "Why doesn't some museum step up and take on these aircraft?" Making it happen is a whole 'nother ball game. Have YOU donated money or time toward saving one or more of these potential victims of the breaker's torch? I have. Several times.

I'll tell you why. Many smaller museums don't want the strings attached. POF gave back all the aircraft they had on loan for just that reason.

If these were to be sold outright- even with the proviso that they not be flown, the person that bought them would take care of them. Most of the WW2 warbirds in public museums came from private owners after all. That's how they avoided the scrap drives postwar.

But I'm just a libertarian, so you can ignore my opinion.

Warbird Information Exchange

Bad news from Aviation Museum

Who is online