Plans are moving along for the new building at the NMUSAF

[APG85]

Lighting costs BIG DOLLARS. The more lights that are on, the bigger the bill and the NMUSAF is huge. Skylights are great (NASM) but they can be detrimental to artifacts and they are hard to design into the building architecture. They also have a "shelf-life"...

[Pat Carry]

Lighting costs BIG DOLLARS. The more lights that are on, the bigger the bill and the NMUSAF is huge. Skylights are great (NASM) but they can be detrimental to artifacts and they are hard to design into the building architecture. They also have a "shelf-life"...

Very true but it seems they went out of the way to make it dark.

The Air Force Museum is doing a good job of gradually increasing their inside display area. I would imagine another building beyond the new one planned now will happen eventually.

For the long range, what would really be nice to see someday would be better lighting in the existing and future buildings.

Lighting should a priority. In 2003 when they opened the Cold War Gallery I was very excited about seeing the addition. When I saw how dark it was, I thought the building contractor forgot to put in lights! I think the very dark conditons detract from the overall experience of what the museum has to offer.

I agree Pat. 2003 was the first year I had been at the museum since 1991. While I love the airplanes in the Cold War Gallery like the B-36 and others, the level of lighting did strike me as less than ideal for sure.

Lighting costs BIG DOLLARS. The more lights that are on, the bigger the bill and the NMUSAF is huge. Skylights are great (NASM) but they can be detrimental to artifacts and they are hard to design into the building architecture. They also have a "shelf-life"...

Yes Skylights and/or more lights do cost money, but when I first visited the Udvar-Hazy I was really struck by how wonderful the lighting was relative to the Cold War Gallery and other buildings at the AF Museum.

[Misterg97]

My photo taken in the Cold War Gallery.

[Ken]

1. The black interior and minimal lighting was intentional.
2. Maybe it was a move to minimize UV damage.
3. I still don't like it one bit.
4. I don't pay their bills, nor am I on their Board; I'm just glad they're there.
5. I would rather discuss accurate paint schemes than museum lighting.

Ken

[PhantomAce08]

With the lighting, I think they are going more for a "shrine feel" or something like that for the aircraft. I actually like the lighting--results in great looking photos!

[StangStung]

1. The black interior and minimal lighting was intentional.
2. Maybe it was a move to minimize UV damage.
3. I still don't like it one bit.
4. I don't pay their bills, nor am I on their Board; I'm just glad they're there.
5. I would rather discuss accurate paint schemes than museum lighting.

Ken

This is the correct answer.

Except for 3. I don't mind the dim lighting. It lends a bit of drama and at the same time, I got fine photos last time I was there.

Twinkie for Ken.

[JohnB]

Before we get carried away not-picking about lighting...(and a few other annoyances aboutthe museum)..
Let's remember...it's FREE!!!! (Yes, I know about taxes and such).
Compare it with the RAF museum which used to be fairly expensive to get in...and Duxford isn't cheap (but it's not a government museum,IIRC).