Warbird Philosophy: A View from the Other Side

[Noha307]

Just today I happened to come upon an interesting series of blog posts written from the point of view of a conservator. Initially, I assumed they were written by someone who worked for the U.S. Navy. However, it appears as though he is actually a grad student at East Carolina University. Nevertheless, the posts are a thought provoking read on warbirds and how they are "recover[ed], conserv[ed], and exhibit[ed]". The first post deals with the different methods of "treatment" - for lack of a more all encompassing term. The second deals with the ethics of recovery and restoration. I thought everyone here might be interested because - although the author does a good job presenting both sides fairly - he concludes with a point of view similar to the U.S. Navy and offers some insightful, yet debatable arguments for that position. For the time being, I will avoid passing judgment on the correctness either point of view.

• Warbirds and Wordplay; or Restoration, Preservation, and Conservation
  
• Warbirds, etc., Part II

[Flying Pencil]

Thanks for sharing the find.

[DoraNineFan]

The author should have done more research before stating that a group of "adventurers" had "crashed" the Kee Bird. The root cause of the destruction falls plainly on human error and doing things in a rush, which could be a textbook study of human factors.

I am glad that it was mentioned that the USN policy of leaving aircraft in situ is not exactly conservation. A much stronger case could have been made there, with examples of rare aircraft that are corroding away and descriptions of the natural and chemical processes that will destroy aircraft in situ. Nothing was mentioned of the Lake Michigan aircraft or ultra-rare types that could be saved before they are lost. Since this is published from East Carolina University, the author could easily have used the Lex Crawley F4U recovered from an NC swamp as an example of aircraft that would have been lost without the efforts of warbird hunters and in fact would be doomed by USN policy. The writer could also have shown the differences between warbird restorers and the aircraft that are in the care of the NASM, whose restoration processes and mission are strongly geared toward actual aircraft conservation. No mention of the government's disposal and scrapping of aircraft that took place in the 1940s and 1950s that saw the loss of many rare aircraft with little thought to conservation.

Last edited by DoraNineFan on Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[CAPFlyer]

As mainly a fan with very little hands on experience with maintenance and/or restoration of warbirds, I will refrain from responding to the posts on their page, but as they are in public forum, I would encourage those here with much more background than I to post comment/rebuttal to them. They are presented as opinion pieces which means they're open for constructive criticism. I think she would benefit greatly from the historical and first-person knowledge of the members of the forum to help correct her erroneous understandings about some of what is done and help her learn both sides of the story so a more complete picture can be painted. The more people who get educated about what the operators and restorers do, the more likely that people will understand them and help sway the Navy and Government from their policies that have been very anti-conservation even in the very recent past.

[SaxMan]

Unfortunately, the comments are closed on the "Part II" section of the article dealing with FIFI and Kee Bird. His argument is that if the CAF sells rides, then they must be doing it for profit, therefore it was an unethical conservation. The author doesn't seem to understand that the rides are to help defray operating costs. I don't think there is anyone who makes a profit operating warbirds.

[wendovertom]

I agree with SaxMan - no one I know is making a living flying WWII aircraft. There are a few individuals who through wise investments and the support of a secondary income are able to stay on the air show circuit with warbirds but they are really the exception to the rule.

Tom P.

[k5083]

The poster just seems a bit naive about warbird maintenance and operation costs. Not a lot of research went into it; then again, they are just blog posts by someone not primarily interested in airplanes.

The more general prejudgments about what constitutes "ethical" or "illegal" treatment of artifacts concern me more than the specific factual errors. Looks like the work of a student still feeling out the museum conservation field.

August

[Noha307]

They are presented as opinion pieces which means they're open for constructive criticism.

This is what I really liked about the posts. While the author eventually does state his position on the issue, they are written more to just make people think about the topic rather than simply taking a one-sided "my view is the correct one" approach.

[p51]

I'm surprised he hasn't tackled the paint/markings issue (for example, almost none of the P-51s flying today actually wore invasion stripes during their service histories but a high % of them have them now). Would be fun to see his take on the 'flying billboard' (or CAF 'tramp stamp') principle on warbirds today...