Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:41 pm
Had to go check my pictures from 1999 to double-check, but this is the same plexiglass "protection" on Flak Bait I saw during that visit - just never occured to me to actually touch the a/c in 1999.
The bomb markings in my (film) photos from 1999 show various stages of wear, including those areas behind the plexiglas (out-of-reach of the public display). The vast majority of the bomb mission markings show red (top coat) over yellow. While I am certainly not condoning people touching Flak Bait, not all the wear you see in the picture is from vandals or improper care by NASM. Yes, the a/c should be completely protected...currently a shame, really.
And this stupidity and human nature is not a completely current day phenomenon - people tore pieces off the Spirit of St. Louis long before NASM acquired it, both at Le Bourget and subsequent USA tour stops. Memphis Belle was vandalized at several war bond tour stops, etc., etc.
Yes, NASM (and many others) need to do a much better job of protecting these artifacts. Of course, when you make something idiot proof, they go and create a better idiot!
The bomb markings in my (film) photos from 1999 show various stages of wear, including those areas behind the plexiglas (out-of-reach of the public display). The vast majority of the bomb mission markings show red (top coat) over yellow. While I am certainly not condoning people touching Flak Bait, not all the wear you see in the picture is from vandals or improper care by NASM. Yes, the a/c should be completely protected...currently a shame, really.
And this stupidity and human nature is not a completely current day phenomenon - people tore pieces off the Spirit of St. Louis long before NASM acquired it, both at Le Bourget and subsequent USA tour stops. Memphis Belle was vandalized at several war bond tour stops, etc., etc.
Yes, NASM (and many others) need to do a much better job of protecting these artifacts. Of course, when you make something idiot proof, they go and create a better idiot!
Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:52 pm
warbird1 wrote:
Wow, I can't imagine that NASM would NOT want Flak Bait on display! That's quite shocking, considering her rarity on SO MANY LEVELS!
Obviously, there would have to be some kind of trade for this to happen. Any ideas on what the Air Force Museum would trade for Flak Bait?
Be happy she still exists WB1, unlike this beast
I am not trying to make light of anything, nor take away from the work put forth by the Smithsonian, nor Flak Baits' significance and I know at the time this was perhaps deemed as more war junk, but scrapping a one of a kind rarity........Yowza!!
Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:54 pm
Few points
On an earlier thread I stated that Flak Bait was now protected by plexiglas. I was clearly mistaken. I remember the plexiglas being there, but it isn't.
Second, there is clearly an enormous amount of anger over those pictures. Well, given that we're dealing with the slow desecration of a priceless historic treasure, it's time to step up and do something about it other than gripe on an internet forum.
I've spent some time running down contact numbers for those who could possible help.
First, there are precious few publically-available options at the Smithsonian ( http://www.si.edu/contacts/ ) and NASM ( http://www.nasm.si.edu/help/contact.cfm ). My recommendation, tho, is to copy down the press office emails and cc all correspondence to other to them.
Second, everyone can find and contact their Senator ( www.senate.gov ) and Congressman ( www.house.gov ) through those two websites.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the one area of the Congress that has the most influence over the Smithsonian is the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies ( http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcomm ... ienv.shtml ). The important thing here, for those who know the US Consitutition, is that ALL spending bills originate in the House, and within the House they originate within the Approps Committee. The Approps Subcommittee Chairs aren't called "Cardinals" for nothing, and getting members of the subcomittee that controls the Smithsonian's budget looking into the matter will get immediate notice (given the recent history of scandals at the Smithsonian, it might also result in Flak Bait being pulled off of public display ... for it's own protection).
Finally correspondence should also be sent to Jacqueline Trescott at the Washington Post ( http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staf ... +trescott/ - and yes, this is an email form rather than a mailto). Ms Trescott covers the Smithsonian, and is the one who wrote the article on Swoose going to NMUSAF ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 32_pf.html ).
One last thing to note: all correspondence should link to and/or reference the pictures posted here on this thread. They speak louder than words, and really say it all.
On an earlier thread I stated that Flak Bait was now protected by plexiglas. I was clearly mistaken. I remember the plexiglas being there, but it isn't.
Second, there is clearly an enormous amount of anger over those pictures. Well, given that we're dealing with the slow desecration of a priceless historic treasure, it's time to step up and do something about it other than gripe on an internet forum.
I've spent some time running down contact numbers for those who could possible help.
First, there are precious few publically-available options at the Smithsonian ( http://www.si.edu/contacts/ ) and NASM ( http://www.nasm.si.edu/help/contact.cfm ). My recommendation, tho, is to copy down the press office emails and cc all correspondence to other to them.
Second, everyone can find and contact their Senator ( www.senate.gov ) and Congressman ( www.house.gov ) through those two websites.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the one area of the Congress that has the most influence over the Smithsonian is the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies ( http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcomm ... ienv.shtml ). The important thing here, for those who know the US Consitutition, is that ALL spending bills originate in the House, and within the House they originate within the Approps Committee. The Approps Subcommittee Chairs aren't called "Cardinals" for nothing, and getting members of the subcomittee that controls the Smithsonian's budget looking into the matter will get immediate notice (given the recent history of scandals at the Smithsonian, it might also result in Flak Bait being pulled off of public display ... for it's own protection).
Finally correspondence should also be sent to Jacqueline Trescott at the Washington Post ( http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staf ... +trescott/ - and yes, this is an email form rather than a mailto). Ms Trescott covers the Smithsonian, and is the one who wrote the article on Swoose going to NMUSAF ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 32_pf.html ).
One last thing to note: all correspondence should link to and/or reference the pictures posted here on this thread. They speak louder than words, and really say it all.
Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:57 pm
Two more points. There are no email addresses on that subcommittee page. It'll involve a little bit of work, but people will have to go back and search for the offices and office emails for the subcommittee members.
For those of you who are constituents of Congressmen who sit on the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, (or just Approps in general) it is especially vital that you reach out to your Member on this.
For those of you who are constituents of Congressmen who sit on the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, (or just Approps in general) it is especially vital that you reach out to your Member on this.
Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:34 pm
I hate when this kind of thing happens. It's bad enough when people manhandle new paint on restorations but when it comes to historic pieces, they need to be removed from the touch of the general public who have no idea of the historic value of what they're touching. It's like what happened to the Memphis Belle being allowed to deteriorate like it did. I can't believe that one was left as long as it was.
Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:04 pm
Me neither. I never understood that one. I think it is also the blame of some of the people. Don't touch stuff in a museum. If I had done that as a kid(I know I am only 28 now), I would have been killed.
Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:48 pm
On topic, I'm curious as to what the NASM's rationalle is for such a failure of their mandate?
Sorry if it came over as 'obnoxious'; Mustangdriver have had our disagreements, and it was meant in fun; I'm not interested in 'making a fool of anyone'. Sometimes the intended humour doesn't go over, like Bill's 'wry' remarks in the US Spitfire thread. Sorry about that.
As to the vocab issues, no apologies. Don't care what word you want, the concept of conservation rather than restoration or rebuild is, IMHO, an important one in aircraft preservation, and is often (sadly) skipped here on WIX. Sorry if I didn't spell right, or put it over nice.
I also hope some people come here to learn stuff (I certainly do) rather than have their prejudices reassured.
Lastly, it's been advised not to take guidance from guys with horns at house no.666.
Regards,
Chicoartist wrote:Jim MacDonald wrote:JDK,
Not sure if you've heard of the word "Obnoxious", but that's the way you come off in most of your posts. I'm pretty sure that most of us don't come here to learn new vocabulary words.
Oh BTW, before you try to make a fool of somebody, it might help if you do a spell check on your own post. Maybe your "Big Word" for today should be "convenience".
Mac
Seconded.
Wade
Sorry if it came over as 'obnoxious'; Mustangdriver have had our disagreements, and it was meant in fun; I'm not interested in 'making a fool of anyone'. Sometimes the intended humour doesn't go over, like Bill's 'wry' remarks in the US Spitfire thread. Sorry about that.
As to the vocab issues, no apologies. Don't care what word you want, the concept of conservation rather than restoration or rebuild is, IMHO, an important one in aircraft preservation, and is often (sadly) skipped here on WIX. Sorry if I didn't spell right, or put it over nice.
I also hope some people come here to learn stuff (I certainly do) rather than have their prejudices reassured.
Lastly, it's been advised not to take guidance from guys with horns at house no.666.
Regards,
Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:56 pm
I remember visiting the "NEW" museum late in 1976 and at that time I don't remeber any plexiglass other than the piece that sealed the fusalage off on the rear.
Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:04 pm
welcome to the words free & public.....
Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:00 am
tom d. friedman wrote:welcome to the words free & public.....
Maybe they could start charging 10 dollars to sit in the cockpit
(P.S.to the NASM please do not take this seriously!!) I hope this situation gets sorted quickly though before any further damage is done to this irreplacable aircraft.
Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:52 am
The plane has been set up like this since the Museum opened in 1976. I wouldn't expect anything to change unless the plane is removed for assembly...
Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:54 am
I was there the week the museum opened, and I remember that "new carpet smell" in the galleries.
It was electrifying to walk into the WWII gallery and have your breath taken away by Keith Ferris' mural. The aircraft looked magnificent, too.
I visited again a couple years ago, and I was shocked at how dingy, cramped, and run-down that room had become. It smelled bad, too.
It was electrifying to walk into the WWII gallery and have your breath taken away by Keith Ferris' mural. The aircraft looked magnificent, too.
I visited again a couple years ago, and I was shocked at how dingy, cramped, and run-down that room had become. It smelled bad, too.
Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:16 am
Rich,
I agree. 32 years ago the NSAM was an awe inspiring building and after so many years with a miniscule part of the collection on display in the Castle and the annex (Quonset hut behind the castle); it was just amazing to be able to see so many planes is such a great display.
Long term planning and protection may not have been very high on their list of priorities. Complacency surely set in and with development of Udavar Hazy, funding may have cut. Just my 2 cents
I agree. 32 years ago the NSAM was an awe inspiring building and after so many years with a miniscule part of the collection on display in the Castle and the annex (Quonset hut behind the castle); it was just amazing to be able to see so many planes is such a great display.
Long term planning and protection may not have been very high on their list of priorities. Complacency surely set in and with development of Udavar Hazy, funding may have cut. Just my 2 cents
Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:20 am
I agree with everything said so far here. I have a particular interest in this aircraft since my good friend, Capt. Sherman Best, flew 16 of his 63 missions as PIC on "Flak-Bait".
I will state that when the museum first opened in 1976, there was no plexiglas around the aircraft except the open radio compartment end. By 1980, the powers that be realized that the visitors were leaning on the fuselage to look in the bombadier's plexiglas nose. The paint serverly wore off the left side of the nose in this area and that's when they installed the plexiglas panels around the nose area.
This means they are aware of the dangers of the public touching an original artifact like this on a daily basis.
Why then would they not continue the plexiglas and extend it the entire length of the nose?
They know there 's been a serious problem in the past, and corrected that, but this is just as serious.
Would they let visitor touch George Washington's saddle everyday?
I think if you touched that, they'd throw you in jail!!!!
This isn't like touching a fully stripped and restored aircraft that doesn't retain it's original paint. Once the original paint is gone, it CAN NEVER BE PUT BACK ON!
My two cents but I think actually sending a letter to the proper people would do the most good.
On a side note, I wonder how the two sections of "Flak-Bait" will differ when they are finally re-united. Will the rear section be much darker since it's been out of the "lights" since 1976? Light can do a job on paint. Maybe the nose will look much more faded that the parts in storage.
Jerry
I will state that when the museum first opened in 1976, there was no plexiglas around the aircraft except the open radio compartment end. By 1980, the powers that be realized that the visitors were leaning on the fuselage to look in the bombadier's plexiglas nose. The paint serverly wore off the left side of the nose in this area and that's when they installed the plexiglas panels around the nose area.
This means they are aware of the dangers of the public touching an original artifact like this on a daily basis.
Why then would they not continue the plexiglas and extend it the entire length of the nose?
They know there 's been a serious problem in the past, and corrected that, but this is just as serious.
Would they let visitor touch George Washington's saddle everyday?
I think if you touched that, they'd throw you in jail!!!!
This isn't like touching a fully stripped and restored aircraft that doesn't retain it's original paint. Once the original paint is gone, it CAN NEVER BE PUT BACK ON!
My two cents but I think actually sending a letter to the proper people would do the most good.
On a side note, I wonder how the two sections of "Flak-Bait" will differ when they are finally re-united. Will the rear section be much darker since it's been out of the "lights" since 1976? Light can do a job on paint. Maybe the nose will look much more faded that the parts in storage.
Jerry
Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:19 am
Jerry, the scientist at the NASM have that under control, they are going to bring the remains of Flak Bait out into the sun and let them sit for, oh probably 10-30 years so the paint can fade to match the cockpit/nose section. Government operation ya know.