Warbird Information Exchange

hmmm oops I seem to have replied to the wrong person, same sort of reply from you though so I guess a similar reply from me is warranted. I suggest you read what I wrote to guest.

I do agree that one of a kind american airframes deserve a similar importance to one of a kind japanese or german ones though but there are plenty of american museums with expertise in american manufacture. why not loan them to them for a while to get them in the public eye and restored by competant people and restore the historically as important but airframes where it is harder to find skilled labour that knowns the construction methods, like the serain used as an example before, should, to me, be done by people who have had to deal with those techniques before and as such should be done by the NASM who have the experience.

or would you rather they have perfect american airframes and the rest of the possibley botched jobs by people who are learning from almost scratch as they go? I believe there was comment of a P40 or something at pensacola or somewwhere that was restored out of house and was not done to very good standards. would you like to see the serain have been treated similarly?

sorry but I firmly believe in displaying the ENTIRE history of a conflict. the allies and the adversaries as without either of those there are gaps in it and we get such things as how WW2 history is shown in the movie peral harbour. do you honestly believe that without accurate displays that kids in 40 years will not believe that there were 2 fighter pilots from pearl harbour who fought the japanese attack and then repaid the japanese by taking part in Doolittle's raid on tokyo?

as for returning an airframe to how it was at a certain time in it's existance that's great except for one thing, you are either destroying or refusing to recognise anything else it might have done or become after that date. It is like saying "you are a 20 year old and we will treat you as such despite the fact you married at 22 and had kids when 24 and 25 and served with distinction as various things from 26 to 35. we want to show you as you were when you went to ( insert place name here )." surely you have more respect for the item than that and/or the history of it after that one point in time? if it were a person then you'd have just insulted every single returned serviceman anywhere and told them that their lives after that one point in their service is nothing.

of course only my view and take on things but hey, it is a discussion where opinions get aired.

Jeffrey,

I don't see how you get all that from the posts. On a simple level, I think the NASM should devote resources to restore or at least display the B-17D. They have chosen instead to devote alot of their resources on a small number of foreign aircraft, primarily Axis power types captured at the end of the war and put in the collection. I don't think it's a particularly "American-only" attitude to advocate the restoration of this aircraft. Frankly, I'd like to see it out of the collection and go elsewhere as there are few groups that could treat it worse and many that would at least put it on display. The total neglect of the "Swoose" almost seems purposeful, though I would not suggest that it is.

Trade it to a museum that wants it.

Agreed, national collection FOR america, not a national collection OF america.

I wish I could think of these short forms faster. they'd save me so much typing.

I agree it should be shifted and displayed although with limited resources it seems to me they are doing the best that they can for the highest number of rare airframes. The cost and area required for the display of a B17 might well equal or surpass the cost and area required for 3 or 4 of the other airframes done instead. That is the main point to my mind. it was the way the posts were phrased that evoked those responses from me. They displayed an attitude which seemed to be " why waste money on foreign aircraft while our aircraft sit and wait? " which is what I objected to in the main.

How many aircraft on display at the NASM are of American origin, compared with the foreign types ? . I personally prefer the 'one of a kind' or very rare types.. which means mostly foreign .
U.S. types - B-17s [ not D models I know] , Corsairs, P-40s etc , are relatively common, not only in museums , but at airshows, so IMHO it is good that they concentrate on other rarely seen types.

Dave

As ever, a great discussion!

I'd just like to point out the difference between types of artifacts (in this case - aircraft) as of interest to the museum.

A. The actual aircraft that 'was there' or did the deed - e.g. Alcock & Brown's Vimy or Amy Johnson's Moth 'Jason' in the Science Museum; the Swoose (UK)

B. A representative type - e.g. the Hurricane at NASM.

C. An example of technological excellence or interest - the Serian or Arado 234 at NASM.

I'd agree with aerovin's comments regarding a bias toward late war Axis types, but if you regard the Museum's brief to show technological excellence (type c.) then it seems less odd.

Tackling the 'why don't they send X to...' question. The answer is usually because there's various agreements, conditions and requirements some of which cannot be made public due to the nature of the agreement, as RR already aluded to. It's worth making suggestions, but the answer is (all to often 'no'.)

Cheers

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Agreements may be a factor with other aircraft but the B-17D is U.S. government property through and through.

This may be a good time for the Air Force Museum to examine other airframes in museums that are rotting away in outside displays. The B-17's at Tulare,Ca., and Grissom Air Museum in Indiana come to mind not to mention the P-82 at Lackland etc, etc, etc.

This is an interesting discussion... if a little complicated.

1: The primary existence of the NASM was originally, and still is as far as I know, a national repository of aviation TECHNOLOGY, with history a significant, but distant, second. This is the reason why some aircraft in the collection, notably Douglas the XB-42 and XB-43 are preserved as fuselages only (wings sawn off!), as the interesting technology was in the fuselage. There are other such examples (DC-7 and RF-101 forward fuselages, etc.). I must admit that I don't subscribe to the idea of preserving the part, instead of the whole, but there you go... that's what the museum was set up to do, and it's doing it at an industry leading level. Nationality of the technology was not important, just the technology itself.

2: NASM has not primarily concentrated on the axis types. The biggest single project was the enormous undertaking of B-29 "Enola Gay"... this took about 20 years. Only two axis types have received significant attention in the past twenty years, the Seiran, and the Arado 234. Everything else has been either preservation, or tidying up for display in Udvar-Hazy.

3: The history of the B-17D "Swoose" after Dec.8th is a far more interesting and significant story in and of itself. It participated in the first US night bombing raid of WWII. Was pieced together in the aftermath of damage during raids on the Japanese, and then acting as an executive transport all over the Pacific region to many very important people including future president, LBJ. It is a significant aircraft, and is very worthy of complete restoration, but NASM has been so focused on the very difficult, and extraordinarily expensive efforts to get Udvar-Hazy together it has been stretched to the fullest. For the last five or six years no new complete restoration has been started, just work to finish those already under way, and preservation/touch up work to get other airframes ready for display in as-is condition.

4: NASM is not perfect... no museum is, but without their effort, so many very important aircraft and historical artifacts would no longer be with us. They are a credit to the nation. To say that they should restore all of our aircraft before restoring any of those from other nations is also extremely short-sighted, and makes no sense whatsoever. If we were talking art... would that mean restoring "Dogs at Cards" before looking after the "Mona Lisa"? I think not. There isn't a single aviation museum in the world which has a better reputation or collection than NASM, so give 'em a break for goodness sake.

Sincerely,
Richard Allnutt

For those interested in the history of the "Swoose" go here...

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/boeing_b17d.htm

[url][/url]

[quote="RMAllnutt"]This is an interesting discussion... if a little
2: NASM has not primarily concentrated on the axis types. The biggest single project was the enormous undertaking of B-29 "Enola Gay"... this took about 20 years. Only two axis types have received significant attention in the past twenty years, the Seiran, and the Arado 234. Everything else has been either preservation, or tidying up for display in Udvar-Hazy.

Hmm...

Irving (completed December 1983)

1983 makes that 21, almost 22 years... I said past twenty years.... twenty years is a very long time when the complaint is that they focus too much on axis aircraft. Two axis aircraft in the past twenty years... considering everything else they have achieved, I think your complaint is thin, to say the least.

R.

Perhaps we should all applaud Dayton for its constant efforts to improve the historical significance of the aircraft on display.

First, it replaced its generic B-17 with the far more historical Shoo Shoo Baby, which it went out of its way to recover and restore after an adventurous life.

Then it secured the future of the Memphis Belle, arguably the single most historical B-17 airframe still in existence.

Ultimately, Dayton will have preserved three B-17s for future generations, with a higher standard of restoration and accuracy than is possible at many other museums and collections. How bad can that be?

Gregory

I dream of the day of seeing the B-17D on display. I truly feel that that she should have an upcoming block on the restoration schedule. The A/C is very historical and should be displayed with its history explained.

BUT I also want to see some of these rare types of axis aircraft. I enjoy seeing them. Sometimes I think too much. I can’t wait to go to the new hanger. The Enola Gay looks like she may be better looking now then rolling of the Boeing line. While we can be critical of what the NASM is not doing and what they are doing, we must remember that B-17D is safer in a warehouse somewhere in Maryland then in the scrap yard somewhere or as a aluminum pot in someone’s house.

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

I've been following this discussion as well and there are many valid points from each side, so here's my two cents worth....

I love to see rare types of aircraft, in fact some of my favorites are some of the late war aircraft that helped push the envelope, design or performance-wise. As for the NASM my honest opinion is that there are two aircraft in their inventory that should have been restored a long time ago - "The Swoose" and the Me-163 they have on loan to the Mighty Eighth AF Museum. Considering that the NASM is geared more towards the technological breakthroughs, then (IMHO) push that Komet towards the front of the line!

As for "The Swoose", if it doesn't necessarily meet the NASM's criteria as an aircraft which helped advance aviation in some technological manner, then trade it to another museum that is willing to restore and display it proudly. Though would be rather nice to eventually see both it and the "Memphis Belle" in the same location, by the same token, another museum could use the "Swoose" as a centerpiece and everyone could benefit from that.

The whole "Memphis Belle" thing I am not really sure which way to lean. It does seem as though the city of Memphis has had plenty of time to do a proper job of restoring and housing such a historic aircraft but isn't that what they were in the midst of doing when the AF made their decision?

As I said, just my two cents worth, feel free to make change

_________________
Victory By Valor (Motto of the 20th Fighter Group)

I think that its very important to remember that Swoose is the most historical B-17 extant, and no other survivor has the airframe pedigree and or historical interest of the Swoose. The Belle is or could be the first to survive 25 missions over occupied Europe, and had a film made of her crew. The aircraft has been painted and repainted and stipped a few times during various attempts to preserve her. Shoo Shoo Baby flew several missions and is a true 91BG aircraft, with a combat history before internment and postwar use. Its important to remember that a NASM restoration is extremely detailed and every part that is replaced from original is stamped as such, thus the historical authenticity is certain 500 years from now. NASM believes that their aircraft will all eventually be the last of their type. Baby was heavily damaged by the time recovery was completed and had replacement wings fitted as hers were destroyed in shipping. All turrets are replaced as are all stations and equipment in the fuselage, nothing is original to the aircraft. Belle is an unknown quantity for me here, but I believe that as she was a trainer for the latter half of the war, she would have shed some of the equipment she had as a bomber. Swoose is a time capsule of continuing conversion in the field. She was rebuilt at Albrook field, but was one of the last airworthy survivors of her type in 44' AND due to her sentimental value, was retrofitted with the latest equipment they could find. Still she has not been rebuilt since, and the problem posted by Swoose is one that is quite a conundrum as far as her restoration is concerned, and perhaps why she has not been restored as of yet.

Most of their display aircraft are single point in time aircraft, as their event, A Bomb, or speed record took place in a certain time under a certain configuration at that time. Swoose has such a rich history that takes place over many configurations and modifications that picking a time is a little more difficult. what to choose, Dec 8, 1941 or Feb 1941...ect...

Swoose is the most significant 17 and it is a complete accident that she survived. She is the only aircraft that survived that enjoyed theatre use from the very beginning to the very end. No other type or survivior can claim the same.

Bravo to the USAFM for saving Belle, but Swoose should stay where she will be preserved the best.