Warbird Information Exchange

Is this a 'joke' post?

Did you not look at the photos before posting the 'why this did not go to a museum'? A museum of what? A museum of what not to do at an airshow? A museum of aircraft wrecks?

Good grief!

_________________
S.

He might not have known this was a crashed plane at the time he posted it.

This is the part that kind of confuses me. I'm guessing they're from a different aircraft.

Also included are (3) 10x10x3 tail/wing sections that are currently bagged in weatherproof packaging.

aeroeng

Two outer wing sections and one fin/rudder make for (3) 10x10x3 tail/wing sections

The thing that makes me wonder is, if it is indeed the well photographed 2003 oopsie, why did it take the Gov't almost eight years to decide that it was 'scrap'? I'm pretty sure that was an obvious call, ohhh, about 30 seconds after impact?*


*yeah, I know it takes some time to strip any salvable components, but 7 1/2 years?

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

The investigation took about a year (yes, I know the cause is pretty obvious, but that is the way it is). Then, following the investigation the Air Force has to hold on to it for at least two years (not sure if that can run concurrently with the investigation) as evidence in case there are any lawsuits/trials/further investigation required. Then somebody has to jump through all of the hoops for "proper" demil and disposal, which can take around a year or so.

So in reality it has only been "sitting" for about four years or so. Someone at Mountain Home is trying to clean up their aircraft graveyard and finally decided to get rid of the hulk. At one point Nellis had broken air frames stretching back about 20 years worth before they decided to bother about cleaning up their boneyard. It is a very painful process that has to be followed for some poor Master Sergeant or Captain maintenance officer to get rid of a wreck.

JMC

All due respect but, if I were to see that in a museum, I'd just keep walkin'. I might also wonder why the museum used up critical space to leave a pile of aluminum.

Mudge the unimpressed

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

Where was the "boneyard" at Nellis? I was stationed there, and have been there TDY many times, and never seen such a place.

_________________

Somewhere out on the range, I suppose. When I was stationed at Mountain Home in 2003 I had a lot of discussions with their crash recovery folks about what to do with crashed airplanes because of the Thunderbird. That is what I remember them telling me, that they had recently cleaned up the place where they kept the crashed airplanes (I chose to call it a "boneyard" I don't remember if they had a different term for it).

I try to be as accurate as possible when I am telling "war stories" but I am guilty of a faulty memory too sometimes. I have never been to Nellis, but remember having discussions with them about cleaning up their crashes because the place where they kept them was getting too full. I will willingly accept any correction so that I can have my story straight.

JMC

It being a complete airframe is sort of irrelevant to the history of the crash event. If anything that was a key moment in Thunderbird's history and made for some truly spectacular photos. I always though that the value of a museum piece is to have an engaging story behind it, not merely something that looks shiny and new and flies. I do see that isn't really a perspective that makes much sense around here because the primary focus is flying warbirds and restoration. I'm pondering things with the wrong crowd. I think it would be an engauging museum piece to show off the tail section with a backdrop of the ejection photo with a detailed story plaque in front of it. The problem with museums is they'll just throw a plane someplace and not give context of interest at all to it. What bothers me most is museums don't seek to spark the interest of anyone, nothing is interactive in their displays and they want to show something clean and complete or it's trash. Even then, if they can't be bothered with a particular plane they'll just chop it up to be rid of it.

A few of you have a lack of interesting vision when it comes to things like this.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org

BHawthorne-

I'll take the bait! I think what you have envisioned just stretches the bounds of what a lot of museums do or like to do. The problem with what you suggest (from a museum perspective) is that it requires a lot more thought, planning, and funding for a truly different type of exhibit. For instance, at our museum we have a Spartan NP-1 biplane. Once it was assembled, we were able to design a simple exhibit with a neat backdrop, some non-intrusive barricades just to keep kiddos back from a fabric-covered airplane, and a few waist-high interpretive panels that show photos and share stories/data on what the airplane is and why it matters. With this piece, you have to take a completely different tack.

What I would envision would be this piece as the centerpiece of a discussion of the physics of flight and aerodynamics. Many aviation museums have a science component as at least a part of their mission. One thing that static museums (like ours) don't do particulary well sometimes is to explain how flight works and what happens when the basic laws of aerodynamics are ignored or when the vehicle in question fails to follow those laws. If you had a combat-veteran F-16, complete and intact, sitting near this piece, it could be used as a compare-and-contrast to allow folks to better understand what happens when x,000 pounds of airplane hits the ground at xyz mph from zyx height. Why did it get all crumpled? What identifiable parts still remain compared to the intact F-16? It also can spark a discussion of the life-saving equipment that protects military pilots. So he ejected. As a kid, the response is, "so what?" With an ejection seat, a discussion of the height the aircraft was when it crashed and video of the event, maybe even an interview with the pilot, you could explain how fast that sequence of events happened that caused the pilot to eject. How does an ejection seat work? Does it hurt? What are g-forces? Could they kill a pilot? How many pilots have to eject in their careers? All of these are questions/discussion starters that an older couple touring by themselves or a school class with a docent could explore in the context of this pile of crushed aluminum. You don't need this pile of aluminum to tell that story, but I believe it makes a much greater impact if you have it. Will our museum step up to the plate? No, as it has little to do with the history of aviation in our area. But for a museum with a broader mission, it is an opportunity to have a neat (and different) exhibit. For several thousand more dollars, I'd bet you could have an exhibit designer create a seat to climb into that would allow the rider to experience the feel of the g-forces the pilot did when he ejected. Or something similar.

All it takes is money and vision. The other thing that an exhibit like this requires is space- and lots of it. A DC-3/C-47 can require about 7,000 square feet just sitting, due to its rough 70x100 foot dimensions. At all museums, space is at a premium. If the decision is between doing an exhibit like this with a beat up relic and bringing inside a couple of intact fighters on loan from the NMUSAF, guess which one is going to win most of the time?

I get the vision. To do it right would be neat.

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

BHawthorne
Wow, "interesting" take on other peoples honest opinions.

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

I'm with Tulsaboy... that is somewhere along the same lines as I was thinking when I saw the wreckage. I don't think you would even need the whole thing.... Just a big chunk with discernible Thunderbird markings. And the Thunderbird angle is what helps tell the story because as we all know, these pilots are considered the best of the best and even the non-aviation folks know who the Thunderbirds (or the Blue Angels) are and what they represent.

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

Reminds me of the cliche about one man's trash is another man's treasure. I think it still boils down to the fact that you can't save everything.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.

does anybody know what the number is of the aircraft in question is? any pic's of the aircraft that can be posted here?

_________________
You can't see me!!

My thought on it being worthy of a museum ultimately hinges upon does the item tell a compelling story that can engage people? I think depending upon how it's shown it could be a large conversation piece. I think some people simply don't think of aircraft pieces in those terms though and is why many find what I'm saying perplexing. If I looked at a random F-16 in a museum I wouldn't give it much second thought, but if I saw something like a huge chunk of Thunderbird, I'd be curious why it's there and the story behind it. I guess my sense of adventure and curiousity does not match up well with other people though.

I look at thrown away fuselages a bit differently I guess because my F-84F was excessed from the Texas Aviation Museum to be cut up and was sold off as scrap. It survived being torch cut and forklift skewered to be my personal flight simpit. Other people's trash are the stuff simpits are made of. I might be a little too low-brow on my projects compared to some of the real flying projects around here, but I do it for a fun hobby and that is really what counts in the grand scheme of things. I don't know too many other people that own x-military aircraft, but I thought this would be a place that I might fit in better than other places on the internet. As someone who saved a fuselage from the shredder, I find the "we can't save em all" mindset to be rather apathetic.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org

I applaud your efforts on the F-84 cockpit. I think it was well worth saving and is a great piece. I've considered buying a couple of piles of wreckage myself so I appreciate them I just don't think this particular one is significant.

Can't save them all is not apathy it is reality like it or not. That is just my opinon of course and I thought that was what you were looking for here.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.