Warbird Information Exchange

i would like to see more static museums like the old Champlin Fighter Museum which would maintain a great deal of the aircraft in operational condition including running and taxing them. Of course it takes more money but to me is a much greater attraction. I definitely see value in saving last of types and the "Memphis Belle"s and "Enola Gay"s in static museums. I mostly get disheartened when I see an aircraft (not last of types or mass historical significant airframes)go into government owned museums. Forthe most part you know once an aircraft gets back into the hands of the government it will never fly again and probably not be well maintained (exception NASM and NMUSAF). The government was in a big hurry to cut these aircraft up and didn't even bother to save the one of a kind prototypes for future generations to see. I am not saying save everything that would be impractical but they could have saved at minimum the prototypes and the several of each type (the Memphis Belle was slated to be scrapped until the mayor of Memphis found it and bought it. If it was let up to the government there would be basically nothing left and now they try and find every loop hole to screw people out of recovering wrecks, take aircraft out of private hands etc. They do the same thing with military vehicles. We have an M5 Stuart tank that we began restoring and we rebuilt the engines etc, then one day TACOM came by to inspect our 155mm Howitzer and took the serial numbers off of the tank as well. They sent us a letter saying "Provide us with evidence that this tank was legally purchased from the government." We said "we don't have anything but the bill of sale from the place we bought it from and it is 60 years old there is no paper trail so why don't you prove to us that you still own it." They said "sorry the building containing those files burned down 25 years ago so unless you have documentation proving it was purchased from the government we still own it."

It makes me sick to see anything end up in the hands of the government.

Mustang, my vote for both, but with more love for the flying museum. Certainly, I don't want to see the real Spirt or Wright Flyer exposed to destruction and the NASM is the right place for them. But what you see there is only the shell of the experienc that was that plane. It is the difference between reading about Martin Luther King in a book as opposed to seeing and hearing him speak, seeing him walk into a hostile group of cops and white supremacy types, seeing his effect on people of both races. The trouble with the non flying museums is they condition people to think of these planes as something that is detached from real people, that most people's idea of "flying" is to ride in the back of an aluminum box, which although safe and fairly cheap, is about as much of a personal experience as a Fedex package.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Compared to wildlife, I would think that static air museum are like the zoo, while the fliers are like animals in the wild. I think that aircraf tin static museums, for the most part, are kept in great shape, and are not wasting away. The NMUSAF says this about our aircraft. THese are not just restored aircraft, but monuments to the men that flew them, worked on them, and served with them. I don't hink it would be right to put fiberglass models in the museums, as they are modesl not aircraft. Now, for the people that fly, own , and maintain warbirds. THey are a special breed. They preserve these aircraft in flying condition, and that is just as important. I flew Fuddy Duddy last year, and it was the most educational thing I ever did. It was great to smel the exhaust, and feel the vibration of this most powerful aircraft. Both museums are important.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

While I agree that static museums have their place, I cannot agree with your assessment that aircraft in static museums are "kept in great shape." A large number of static "museums" are really just aircraft stored outdoors, parked in rows with a plaque placed in front of them. Many of those airframes are rotting away, getting very little attention at all...especially aircraft from the Korean War and after.

Now when I speak of static museums I am speaking of museums like NMUSAF, NASM, Museum of Flight, and similar. Not a field museum. I agree that I am not a fan of seeing them outside.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

There's definitely a place in the world -- and a need for -- for both static collections and flyable collections. I am a HUGE proponent of flying warbirds, but historically significant airframes that can't be replaced if destroyed should be preserved. EVERY airframe is NOT historically significant of itself, and those "ordinary" warbirds should be the ones prowling the skies and showing future generations what it was all about.

I think Helldiver makes the best points. In Many cases, it is cost prohibitive to even think of putting something back in the air. Also in todays litigative (is that a word) world where everyone is lawsuit happy, I don't think any insurance companies would jump at the opportunity to insure a one of a kind aircraft. Another is the dynamics of the aviation community. It seems as though very few are actually putting up the massive cost associated with a flying restoration (bless those people) and just as few are busting their rears six or seven days a week to do the work while a lot of people piss and moan about what is or is not being done. If you're putting up the cash or doing the work then I value and respect your views. I am up to my butt in a MiG-15 project that may or may not fly in the future. That ugly word cost again, will be the limiting factor. But the work that we are doing will be to airworthy standards and documented so if the money does become available we can procede accordingly. If the money doesn't find us, then we will have a very good static aircraft that many who come to our museum can experience and learn about the Korean Conflict. I know more people out there could learn if we were to take it to airshows as a flyer but again, IT AIN"T CHEAP!!!! I think that static museums and static aircraft have their place in the whole scheme of things, in fact, I think one of the best is the diorama at Chino with the Betty Bomber in the jungle scene. ANY aircraft I believe could be made a flyer, it's just the age old theme of money and manpower. Is there enough of either?

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.

I think that Steve flying around in the Peashooter is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. It belongs in the air. I would also LOVE to see the Enola Gay airborne. I am very very aware of the risks involved here...but, when we fly these planes and people see, hear and feel them, it INSPIRES the next generation to keep it alive and keep it going. That's my belief anyway.

I would prefer that artifacts of any type with the historical significance of the Enola Gay remain in a static/ well maintained environment. To me flying the Enola Gay would be along the lines of allowing guests to the National Archives to handle the original copies of the Bill of rights or the Untied States Constitution as they can other less significant archival material because it might spark and interest in someone to study history more closely, or for them to want to get involved in the preservation of historical documents. The risk vs reward for flying a non-replaceable intimate part of American history is just not here. You can always find/ build from scratch a copy or replica of a B-29 if you have the right amount of money, but you can't build another Enola Gay, once it's gone its gone.

I agree that most of these birds belong in the air but on the other hand there are plenty of fliers such as the Heritage Foundation that have fliers in mint condition but access to them is limited. I don't have a problem with this as people have the right to do what they want with their property but just an example of the fact that they are flyable doesn't mean that they inspire more youngsters. I think that the Enola Gay restored and maintained in great condition and displayed in a way that you can really get the most out of her is the best solution for an artifact of that significance because she will be around to inspire kids long after it is too cost prohibitive or illegal to fly military aircraft in this country.

I agree withthe elevated displays. I am not a fan.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I think animals in a zoo can at least move and might roar, you just won't see them chase prey. A static plane is like a stuffed animal or a wall trophy. Think of a sailboat, sitting indoors as opposed to bobing on the waves with the sail filling, or a fine violin sitting in a case as opposed to being played by a master.Let's fly them when if they aren't super historic and rare, and let's try to do it as safe as possible.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

That is all I am saying bill. If they are ultra rare, or historic to leave them static. I just think that there are museums that are static museums, and tell a story(Pearl Harbor Museum, or any of the national museums), and that are just as important.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I don't like elevated displays, aircraft on pylons, and especially restored aircraft hanging form the ceiling. I know it is a matter of space but I much rather see just a bunch of aircraft lined up in cheaper metal building (ie Planes of Fame static displays, or old Champlin than have an exotic expensive building with aircraft hanging from the roof where you can't get close to them. I think the NMUSAF does a pretty good job keeping most of the stuff on the ground but some of the smaller stuff is hanging and the BUFF and some others are elevated. For the most part though they are on the ground.

The B-47 is elevated , and I am nto a huge fan of that, but it looks great. The B-52 is elevated as well, but in all fairness, even if it wasn't, you would be able to see nothing that you can't see now. That thing is just that huge. I am a fan of placing full sclae mock-ups on display out doors as gate guards. For the most part, you can't tell the good ones apart form the real thing, until you get really close. Keep the real aircraft indoors, or in the air.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager