Warbird Information Exchange

BDK

I agree with you that the government is unlikely to fly its historic aircraft, and quite frankly I don't see that as a problem.

On the other hand, I think it is wrong to characterize Federal and state museums as ruled by political fiat and private ones as wholly independent.

Tax breaks for private collections with a museum sign on the hangar are in essence political decisions - not a natural right. Being a 501 (c) organization depends on several factors, including IRS scrutiny. I am no expert, but I would imagine that the legitimate purpose etc feature in the equation.

Often, cities will donate land or incentives to attract major museums. This certainly was the case when NASM was selecting the site for its new facility (now at Dulles) but I seem to remember also with the CAF at the time it was pondering leaving Harlingen. Again, this is government/state (and certainly non-private) assistance.

The thousands of hours and dollars volunteered/donated by military units, often in terms of "valuable training" in dismantling aircraft etc, should also be counted in.

And in terms of grants, I seem to remember that the ill-fated Red Tail P-51C received a grant (cash) from the state of Wisconsin (?), Minnesota (?) or wherever it was based. There are probably more cases.

Finally, it is all too easy to laud private collectors for saving the umpteenth P-51D. I just don't see that many people lining up to save the likes of the only XC-99, and I am very happy that Dayton stepped in.

Gregory

I think I said "funded" by political fiat. Government contributed budgets for government museums have been reduced, they now rely more and more on private funding. This more closely follows the non-government museum model rather than one in China for instance, where the military museums are nearly 100% government funded.

My opinion is that a tax break (not collecting money) is different than actually giving money, much harder for the government to do. Maybe we should look to Airbus and Boeing to resolve the issue of subsidies for us!

This is true, but strings are attached. Could the CAF then sell this property and move somehere else? The government claims that people are attracted to the area by these entities, whether it is the CAF, Disney, or Boeing. Sometimes these things don't work out as intended. I can think of two locations just in Southern California where the city or county government provided land and new hangars to private industry. In one, the business faltered, regrouped and moved away. The hangar has been vacant for over a year on prime property. The other, a better offer was later made elsewhere so they moved. That property has remained underutilized since then. I'm talking tens of thousands of square feet here. My tax dollars were wasted on something that never would have been commercially viable.

And there are plenty of examples of where they made things worse because they were training and made serious mistakes...

Didn't know that. I would like to hear more details if anyone has them.

I am happy that Dayton took on the XC-99 as well. That aircraft is interesting, but we can argue whether it is a historically important aircraft or not. As a government owned aircraft though, it was not available for private recovery as far as I know. There are naturally exceptions, but the private sector can also restore and maintain Short Sunderlands, recover and restore P-38's and B-17's, and Constellations. The private sector even recovered the elusive Buffalo for the US Navy.

I don't want to turn this into a private vs public debate, particularly because I have worked with both and found good and bad things (and people) on both sides. I will just make two short comments.

I do think that diversity is a goal in itself, and I am grateful to all museums that attempt to save the strange, the unusual, the unobvious types. If every museum had the same collection policy, they would all be the same.
You will never hear me complain because a collector saves another B-17 or C-47, but if I were operating with government money they would be a very low priority in my budget.

From what little I have heard, the Buffalo story is too convoluted for bystanders to comment on. But it is interesting that at the end of the day the private sector recoverers sold/traded it to the public sector museum. Was it too expensive? Did it lack the appeal of the P-38?

Gregory

I'm happy they stepped in for this one off airframe too Gregory, and I agree there weren't many people trying to save the XC-99 but considering the size area required even to store such an airframe even in pieces then that alone would put it beyond the capability of most, but maybe not all, private collectors. About the only ones I can think of that would stand even a ghost of a chance to have done anything for it would have been Kermit Weeks and Paul Allen. Even those two names would have amounted for nothing if the airframe still belonged to the USAF though.