Poor Flak Bait

Taigh Ramey · **Posted:** Sun May 04, 2008 9:54 pm

I am sorry if I came across as argumentative as I am not arguing in any way. I am simply stating the fact that Flak Bait does not belong to the AFM. I do not know what the original agreement was with the Memphis Belle so I cannot comment on that.

I have seen the document that transferred Flak Bait's title from the Army Air Force to the National Air Museum, the predecessor to the NASM. That transfer was approved by law passed by congress.

The NMUSAF certainly could request that Flak Bait be loaned to them but for the NMUSAF to state that they are putting the NASM on notice seems to be quite a stretch.

Is it the official position of the NMUSAF that they own Flak Bait? Since you are working there can you confirm this with Mr. Metcalf?

Thanks,
Taigh

michael luther · **Posted:** Sun May 04, 2008 10:49 pm

Some years ago, I had the chance to visit silver hill, when we entered the building with Enola Gay inside, the tour guide welcomed everyone to touch the nose art! I'm still shocked by that! They said they were testing 3 different waxes on different sections of the nose art, and wanted to see how well each type would hold up, and protect the surface.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun May 04, 2008 11:56 pm

Taigh Ramey wrote:

I am sorry if I came across as argumentative as I am not arguing in any way. I am simply stating the fact that Flak Bait does not belong to the AFM. I do not know what the original agreement was with the Memphis Belle so I cannot comment on that.

I have seen the document that transferred Flak Bait's title from the Army Air Force to the National Air Museum, the predecessor to the NASM. That transfer was approved by law passed by congress.

The NMUSAF certainly could request that Flak Bait be loaned to them but for the NMUSAF to state that they are putting the NASM on notice seems to be quite a stretch.

Is it the official position of the NMUSAF that they own Flak Bait? Since you are working there can you confirm this with Mr. Metcalf?

Thanks,
Taigh

Hey man, I didn't take it as you were being rude. I was always under the impression that you are as well. SO I really don't know much about the whole deal. But that did come from the top at the NMUSAF. Who knows. I for one am a huge fan of FlakBait as well as Shootin In at the NMUSAF. So as long as she gets put back together I am cool. But it would be great to see her at the NMUSAF, and Shootin Inn at the NASM. THe B-17 thing is still all up in the air as well.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon May 05, 2008 2:28 am

Steve Nelson wrote:

As for Flak Bait, I could live with it if they just carefully touched up the areas damaged by visitors, as long as the original paint is left alone. Although I suppose a convincing argument could be made that even those marks are part of her history.

Good grasp, there, Steve. Not part of her operational history though. The technology of 'carefully touching up' is a couple of hundred years old, and well advanced - in the arena of art preservation, conservation and restoration. That level of approach is the baseline for organisations such as the NASAM. It's not a big deal, just, evidently, a bit new to some warbird fans.

airnutz · **Posted:** Mon May 05, 2008 2:57 am

Steve Nelson wrote:

As for Flak Bait, I could live with it if they just carefully touched up the areas damaged by visitors, as long as the original paint is left alone. Although I suppose a convincing argument could be made that even those marks are part of her history.
SN

I'll pick up that gauntlet Steve..
Damaged...or historic evidence of being adored? An example of the museums previous policy
encouraging the touching of a "real" artifact..how many appreciative Veterans were responsible
in helping polish that spot?

Assemble her and display her with all of this birds patina with pride.. :wink:

Zachary · **Posted:** Mon May 05, 2008 7:52 am

In addition to historical evidence of being adored as stated in the previous post, I would also leave the shiney spot with a posted notice to museum visitors explaining how the oils in their skin can damage paint and even the metal over time and why museum aircraft should not be touched.

Zack

old iron · **Posted:** Mon May 05, 2008 8:12 am

Hello,

For all the beating of chests about making Flak Bait whole again and on display at Udvar Hazy, the present exhibit on the Mall has a lot to say for it. It would be seen by more people, and those people get a very intimate view of the original markings, and the inside. There is nowhere else where one can get within a meter of the original markings on an historic aircraft. Viewers seeing the assembled aircraft at UH might not be able to get within ten meters of those markings.

I would suggest that they keep Flak Bait where it is and concentrate on assembling aircraft at UH that would otherwise not be on display at all.

Kevin,
.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon May 05, 2008 9:28 am

Most of the people that see FB in her present condition, think that is all that is left of her. FOr some of those people that is the only B-26 they will ever see. So they come away not knowing what the heck a B-26 even looks like. Besides that, most of the people that visit the mall museum only will not appreciate what FB is all about, besides some beat up old airplane. The die hard people that know what she is, will make the trip to UH (if that is where she goes) to go see it along with the many other treasures housed there.

Warbird Information Exchange

Poor Flak Bait

Who is online