Warbird Information Exchange

I was told by a member of the restoration team that did the Boeing Bee and the 307, thatntheyntried to get the Swoose but were turned down.

Norm

Not at all, I think they deserve the negative attention. For years they left the Swoose outdoors at the Gerber facility, now they ignore it.

I'm not against anyone restoring foreign aircraft...but I'm very critical of their priorities in restoring them.
How many dollars did they spent on the Hurricane and AR 234?
(I'm betting our UK friends could have done a better job on the Hawker and at lower cost).
And it's not a question of JUST money, they got Dornier to do the DO 335 and Boeing to do the 307.
The fact that a B-17, 24, 26. (I'm not sure about a 25)..or dozens of other warbirds are not on display in the nation's capitol..site of the WWII memorial is nothing short of criminal stupidity.



Wrong, the Navy set aside aome German and Japanese stuff at NAS Willow Grove.
And the Swoose was stored for years at Andrews AFB.

How about the Strawberry Bitch (and other rare stuff) at the NMUSAF?
The AF and Navy saved a good deal, true the mass clear out of the C-54 plant a Chicago was tragic, but a lot of planes were saved.
(Compare to the UK were several important types were scrapped to extinction i.e. Stirling, Halifax...)

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Oooo, a challenge. May I present a US operated Lysander?


(Profile by Artur Juszczak, Copyright MMP Books.)

A number of US airmen were also brought back to England from Occupied Europe by 161 and 138 (Special Duties) RAF Squadron Lysanders - I think they'd disagree with you, John.


Your identification of a 'deep rooted prejudice' might simply be a mandate to show non US types because there are numerous other collections in the US showing US aircraft. After all, there are the NMUSNA and NMUSAF covering nothing but US military types.

And there's a baseline assumption difference here, between you and I. A national collection should (IMHO) have an international holding - that's what makes any great art gallery great, the British Museum a 'world' rather than 'British' treasure, and so on. National collections lead (IMHO) to ignorant nationalism - unhealthy at best. (There's a distinction between museums of a nation and museums belonging to a nation - the latter usually having an international holding, the former being about how great and interesting we are - often somewhat saccharine and often found in totalitarian states.) Should a museum give people 'what they want' (which would lead to a B-17G and a P-51D display) or what they need to know - which starts with a B-24 and P-40 - both 'more important' than the two icons I mentioned before them - and leads to aircraft types that are unique in the country, like the Lysander, and that were designed to attack the mainland USA - like the Seran. The Reductio ad absurdum of 'returning' all types to their place of origin doesn't stand a moment's examination, but pops up all to often.

At the moment the NASM has secured a significant US types collection safely in store, and is displaying a number of aircraft that are unique, both in the US and globally. The US types in store are in many cases duplicated by others elsewhere on show. There's no loss except time here. We aren't talking of them disposing of or scrapping the machines.

I don't see it as a black and white issue, but I'm just providing a counter to John's very reasonable points.

Bear in mind that it's a relentlessly 'glass missing a 1/2 inch' argument here - most countries in the world would be delighted to have the variety of aircraft on show that the US has - active (in private hands) and in museums. Complaining about aircraft being in store is very understandable but is also looking for perfection.

As to the Swoose, I agree there's little to be lost by erecting the aircraft as is, worn, vandalised but on show. There's education to the public to be had there. It is a fact that 90% of the general public have no idea about the amount of work that goes into a (NASM level) restoration. A 'before' example would help. A donation pot couldn't hurt either.

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

JDK
We're in agreement...as you know, I love the Lysander...and highly recommend your excellent book Westland Lysander published by Mushroom Model Publications. It is the finest book covering one aircraft type I've ever read.

My point, and I think I do have one, is the National Museum doesn't have some very important aircraft on display.
It would be like the Science Museum in London just had a 707 and not a Comet (yes, I know they have neither in South Kensington)....or Hendon had a B-17 and not a Lancaster.

Yes, a world class museum needs to show an international sampling of aircraft (and I'll offer a minor correction, the NMUSAF does show allied and enemy aircraft). The RAF Museum indeed has a B-17 and a US marked (and recently donated by an American) P-51.
Of course Duxford is home to the American Air Museum. Well done.

But for a national museum located in the nation's capitol not to have a B-17 and other WWII warbirds is odd/troubling or stupid (depending on your passion on the subject).

Just don't get me started about them not having a Bell 47A/B/D/G on display. :D

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

I've read most of this thread and decided that I'd through my 2-cents in. I've been a volunteer at NASM for 12 years. My opinions are my own and DO NOT represent those of the museum. The bottom line ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line. It takes money, lots of it, to restore/preserve aircraft. ( I know this to be true because I own one and have restored many others.) The museum made the decision not to begin any new long term restorations until a new restoration facility is constructed at Hazy. If you would all like to see a new facility anytime soon, open up your check books and donate all your money to this worthy cause. The Hazy facility, and all future additions to it will be privately funded. And yes, the P-61 was paid for by a former Northrop test pilot, but the aircraft was far from "restored". It was given a good clean up for display. I know this because I spent a few days helping work on it. As far as other "claims" that aircraft are chosen based on 'liberal' bias at the museum, I find this hard to believe. I do know that overall condition of the aircraft ie; does it need to be restored/preserved soon in order to "save" it play in the decision on priority in the shop. Also, is a particular aircraft/artifact needed for an upcoming display. The Swoose, while being a crowd favorite, is actually in fairly decent shape. and it will be restored once it can get to the new restoration shop at Hazy. (now would be a good time to finish writing your check to fund the new restoration shop!)

That's my 2-cents for now. Standing back, ready to duck, awaiting responses.

Glenn

_________________
"Remember....it's always better to overshoot and have people think you can't land than to crash and prove it!"