Air Zoo Gets a Grumman Mallard

[kalamazookid]

Air Zoo to receive million dollar plane donation
On Sunday, May 20, a 1947 Grumman Mallard is scheduled to land at its new home at the Air Zoo and become the newest addition to the museum’s collection, thanks to the donation of Roland LaFont.

The Mallard is a large, twin-engine amphibious aircraft that was built between 1946 and 1951 and was designed for regional airline operations such as harbor-based city-to-city flights. Of the 59 Mallards produced, the aircraft that will be donated to the Air Zoo was number 14. Today, approximately 32 Mallards remain registered in the United States.

The Mallard has been a “dream plane” of LaFont, who resides in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He acquired it in 1993. When he decided to donate the plane to an aviation museum, he turned to the Internet to research museums nation-wide to find the right resting place for his aircraft.

He typed “aviation museums” in a search engine and clicked on the first entry: Air Zoo. After looking through the Air Zoo’s website, LaFont decided not to look any further—he knew had found the perfect home for his beloved plane.

“The Mallard represents a unique period in aviation history and is unlike any other aircraft in the Air Zoo’s collection,” says Bob Ellis, executive director of the Air Zoo.

“The romance of flying boats and ability to fly to exotic ports is all but lost in the hectic and completely unromantic airline transportation of today.”

The Mallard will eventually be put on display on the Air Zoo’s Main Campus.

Mallard Specs
Crew: 2
Length: 48 ft. 4 in.
Max. Speed: 187 knots
Capacity: up to 10 passengers
Wingspan: 66 ft. 8 in.
Range: 1,120 nautical miles

[Steve Nelson]

Neat! Another hole filled in the Zoo's Grumman collection.

SN

[John Ceglarek]

It was supposed to come in Sunday morning, but I don't know if it did or not. I haven't been over to check it out yet.

John

[Ztex]

Don't mean to be a curmudgeon...but...

Great!
Yet another flying airplane locked in a building to gather dust.

[John Ceglarek]

Mr. LaFont had numerous options for his aircraft...he could have sold it, or he could have donated it to any number of museums. The fact that he chose to donate it to the Airzoo speaks highly of how the museum's aircraft are maintained. No, it won't fly...nevertheless it will be available for people to see and learn about. So, please, no more negative comments about the fact that it won't be flown. Get over it.

John

[mustangdriver]

Mr. LaFont had numerous options for his aircraft...he could have sold it, or he could have donated it to any number of museums. The fact that he chose to donate it to the Airzoo speaks highly of how the museum's aircraft are maintained. No, it won't fly...nevertheless it will be available for people to see and learn about. So, please, no more negative comments about the fact that it won't be flown. Get over it.

John

Thank god! There are alot of people that bash static air museums, and I just don't get why. Why don't people get that both museums as needed? I say it time and time again on here due to all of the bashing that goes on here. Anytime some one says hey we restored this Corsair to static display for the museum, some one says 'Oh big deal it is static, or they have the balls to say that they consider it a replica since it is static.

[Ztex]

Well.

I am not bashing static museums.

I understand the need for a flying museum and a static museum.

I understand that the Air Zoo is a first class museum that maintains their collection very well.

I have never considered a static airplane to be less of an airplane...certainly not a replica.

I think I have the right to lament the fact that a flying example of an airplane is going to be placed in a static museum.

I consider it preferable to sitting on a ramp or on some pole to rot away.

I will "get over it"

[mustangdriver]

Ztex my confussion wasn't really aimed at you, but you brought up a comment that I thought needed talked about.

[CAPFlyer]

The museums I like most are the ones that do restorations right - to airworthy status. Whether or not the planes ever fly, if it's restored to airworthy status, then you know the work was done right. There are several museums out there (large and small) who've gone to that length and that's the way to do it. The Vought Retirees group restored a pair of Corsairs, an RF-8, and A7 (that I know of) to 100% airworthy condition. None will probably ever fly again (engine removed from the jets, no fluids in any of them), but it's nice to know that should the opprotunity arise, it's possible with an annual, fluids, and a flight worthy engine, that they could indeed go back in the air. And since all are in hangars, the maintenance on them is more keeping the planes clean than having to do anything major like with outdoor exhibits.

Yes, we all lament when a plane goes to its final resting place (be it a museum or scrap yard) because the plane will only be shown, not seen. The biggest impact that an aircraft can have on a person is when they see it flying. Then, and only then, do they understand the history behind the airplane. To just have it shown to them in a museum is a great tool for them to learn about it, but it doesn't help them understand it like an operating aircraft does. The other thing I lament is that so many museums only do a "static" restoration, which means the interior looks like crap and so they seal everything up and hide it from the public so that they can't see that the plane is really only a shell of its former self. I wish more museums would take time to fully restore the planes and find ways to let people tour inside of them, that's the one thing that flying aircraft really have over static ones - people can get *IN* the airplanes and understand what it was like to sit in that cockpit or gunner's seat, or back in the cabin of an old airliner or transport. It gives them that little perspective of what it was like "back then". It's something that few static aircraft can give.

[Mike]

Thank god! There are alot of people that bash static air museums, and I just don't get why. Why don't people get that both museums as needed? I say it time and time again on here due to all of the bashing that goes on here. Anytime some one says hey we restored this Corsair to static display for the museum, some one says 'Oh big deal it is static, or they have the balls to say that they consider it a replica since it is static.

Not the same thing at all.

I agree that both types of museums are needed, and have no problem with good, accurate restorations to static condition.

However, aeroplanes are meant to FLY, and every time a flying one is entombed in a mausoleum to gather dust for ever more, it is a sad, sad day.

I'm not sure I understand your rather bizarre comment about aircraft becoming replicas once they are restored to static - that's a new one on me!

[Eric Friedebach]

He typed “aviation museums” in a search engine and clicked on the first entry: Air Zoo. After looking through the Air Zoo’s website, LaFont decided not to look any further—he knew had found the perfect home for his beloved plane.

That may be an oversimplification as to how the transaction took place, but the Air Zoo has a great website.

IMO, there are way too many organizations with flying aircraft and restoration projects that have stale websites.

[mustangdriver]

Thank god! There are alot of people that bash static air museums, and I just don't get why. Why don't people get that both museums as needed? I say it time and time again on here due to all of the bashing that goes on here. Anytime some one says hey we restored this Corsair to static display for the museum, some one says 'Oh big deal it is static, or they have the balls to say that they consider it a replica since it is static.

Not the same thing at all.

I agree that both types of museums are needed, and have no problem with good, accurate restorations to static condition.

However, aeroplanes are meant to FLY, and every time a flying one is entombed in a mausoleum to gather dust for ever more, it is a sad, sad day.

I'm not sure I understand your rather bizarre comment about aircraft becoming replicas once they are restored to static - that's a new one on me!

A while back while discussing restoration, someone here siad something to the effect off, "The planes that are in static museums are in my book replicas, it would be the same as if they would just put fiberglass replicas in there." I do't remember what thread. My point is that we should be happy that a plane is being saved. Whether you guys see it or not, there is a huge attitude here toward non flying museums. That shouldn't be. It is great to see them fly, but we need both. Please take note that I am not saying ground the warbirds, I love to see them airborne as well. But there is always something negative here if going to be static. Just like the F4F in the Pearl harbor Museum.. It was a flying airplane, and it was made static. Peple here were all jacked about it. Relax, there are still some Wildcats that fly. You can'tell me that the Pearl harbor Museum is not important. You guys say that it does not happen here, but how many times have I wrote, "hey guys remember both types of museums are needed, " to defend a museum. Even here we have them compared to graveyards. Static museums play a very importatn role. And yes I agree with a restoration effort to flgiht status. Most of the aircraft in the NMUSAF, NASM, and Naval Aviation Museum are restored to those standards. There are some cases where it just can't happen. O.K. rant over. I am going back to sleep. I am on night shift. I also am sorry for taking over your thread man.

[John Ceglarek]

Amen to what Mustangdriver said. I too have commented in the past that "keep 'em flying at all costs" doesn't work for everyone, for various reasons. There's the example of the Airzoo's SBD, on the one hand...making that aircraft flyable would have cost a HUGE sum of money, and at the end of it all it would have been classed as a replica (so I'm told) due to the huge percentage of non-original parts. The Airzoo made a conscious decision to keep the airplane as original as possible, both to same it's combat history and a lot of $$, even though that meant it would never fly again. That restoration has been hailed as nothing short of phenomenal, and you would have to look pretty darned hard to find things are are not correct. In other cases, museums make a conscious decision to not fly in order to conserve $$ for other projects (like the Michigan Space Science Center soon to open at the Airzoo), or simply to preserve what they have (warbirds do crash, as we all know). Don't get me wrong...I love to see them fly too, but I recognize that flying doesn't work for all organizations. As Mustangdriver pointed out, very often members of this board are critical or situations such as the Airzoo's Mallard or the Pearl Harbor Museum's Wildcat, where flyable aircraft are put in static displays. That shouldn't happen, IMHO.

OK, I've said my piece.

John

[kalamazookid]

I stopped by the museum today, but no Mallard.

[John Ceglarek]

I suspect the Mallard is on the ramp at what is now called the East Campus (the original building), which is closed until June 9 when it will reopen as the Michigan Space Science Center. I don't know this for fact, but I don't see how they could have gotten it into the restoration building, as full as it is. But maybe they did.

John