Desirable Aircraft for National Museums

[AirJimL2]

A life time ago when I took volunteer training at the "National Aviation Museum" (named as changed a few times since then, at Rockcliffe/Ottawa, I was specifically instructed to tell people the aircraft were part of the "National Aeronautical Collection" displayed by the "National Aviation Museum". It would seem they do have a national mandate.

Mike,

Indeed they do have a national mandate, but not a strict Canadian historical mandate. I think they are more interested in telling the story of aviation from an international technology standpoint with a Canadian focus, rather than the history of Canadian aviation. Therefore, you see things such as an AV-8A Harrier in the collection rather than what I would consider more important items to Canadian aviation history such as the DHC-4, DHC-5 and CL-215. (Though I'm sure they would love to have someone give them one or two of those.) In my opinion, that really isn't a national aviation collection. But I'm a former history major and not an engineer so I tend to look at things through the historical lens, rather than the technological lens.

And as a disclaimer, none of this takes away from it being an amazing museum.

There's a Tracker in Conair Waterbomber markings (I understand it's actually an unconverted spares airframe) as well as a CL-215 at the Canadian Bushplane Museum in Sault Ste. Marie, ON. This museum is a real hidden gem..they have a spectacular collection in a really nice facility, a pair of big old Seaplane hangars on the St. Mary's River. It's a bit out of the way, but more than worth the effort to visit.

Steve,

Yes, but it that isn't a national collection. There are a few preserved waterbombers in smaller museums in Canada. A TBM in the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum, an A-26 at the BC Aviation Museum, the planes you mention in Sault Ste. Marie, and now the Firecat at the Canadian Museum of Flight. I just think it is a major hole in the collection at Rockcliffe.

Jim

[cooper9411]

Yankee could of had a B-24 back in 2005-06. They were in talks about recovering the B-24 out in the Aleutians. Never came to be.

[Clifford Bossie]

I would like to see the NMUSAF find a P-43.

[Steve Nelson]

There's a Tracker in Conair Waterbomber markings (I understand it's actually an unconverted spares airframe) as well as a CL-215 at the Canadian Bushplane Museum in Sault Ste. Marie, ON. This museum is a real hidden gem..they have a spectacular collection in a really nice facility, a pair of big old Seaplane hangars on the St. Mary's River. It's a bit out of the way, but more than worth the effort to visit.

Yes, but it that isn't a national collection. There are a few preserved waterbombers in smaller museums in Canada. A TBM in the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum, an A-26 at the BC Aviation Museum, the planes you mention in Sault Ste. Marie, and now the Firecat at the Canadian Museum of Flight. I just think it is a major hole in the collection at Rockcliffe.

I agree Rockcliffe should at the very least have a CL-215..I just wanted to note that Waterbombers haven't been completely ignored. I also wanted to give a bit of a shout-out to the Bushplane Museum. Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a few Waterbombers preserved in American museums.

SN

[mrp]

The NMUSAF and the NMNA Pensacola are both missing examples of the Hudson (A-29/28,PBO- 1) The aircraft were responsible for both Forces first U-Boat kills.
There are only 2 complete Hudson's in North America, both of which are located in Canada.T9422 in Gander Nfld and FK466 under restoration at Trenton Ont.

The Hudson was also responsible for a number of other firsts as well. A very significant aircraft which is poorly represented in North America.


Mrp

[StangStung]

The NMUSAF and the NMNA Pensacola are both missing examples of the Hudson (A-29/28,PBO- 1) The aircraft were responsible for both Forces first U-Boat kills.
There are only 2 complete Hudson's in North America, both of which are located in Canada.T9422 in Gander Nfld and FK466 under restoration at Trenton Ont.

The Hudson was also responsible for a number of other firsts as well. A very significant aircraft which is poorly represented in North America.


Mrp

Good point. I'd not thought of that one.

NMNA could do with a Ventura as well.

[Steve Nelson]

NMNA does have a Harpoon, although I agree a Ventura and/or Hudson would also be nice (I've always thought the Ventura's classic signature Lockheed empenage looked a bit more elegant than the Harpoon's barn-door tail feathers.)

Are we limitiing our comments to aircraft that are known to still exist, but not in national collections? If we get into hypotheticals, I wish the NMUSAF or NASM had managed to save the XB-19, as well as examples of the B-32, XB-35/49 and Republic XR-12..but of course none of those have survived. It also would have been nice if the NMNA had been able to preserve one of the Lockheed Constitutions.

SN

[cooper9411]

NMNA does have a Harpoon, although I agree a Ventura and/or Hudson would also be nice (I've always thought the Ventura's classic signature Lockheed empenage looked a bit more elegant than the Harpoon's barn-door tail feathers.)

Are we limitiing our comments to aircraft that are known to still exist, but not in national collections? If we get into hypotheticals, I wish the NMUSAF or NASM had managed to save the XB-19, as well as examples of the B-32, XB-35/49 and Republic XR-12..but of course none of those have survived. It also would have been nice if the NMNA had been able to preserve one of the Lockheed Constitutions.

SN

I agree 100%. Whats the old saying about hindsight?

[kalamazookid]

This is just picking nits/being greedy, but I think the NMUSAF could use a late-model B-25 in Air Apaches markings. Other than that, they pretty much have everything that exists. An A-35 Vengeance would be cool if one could be located for display.

NMNA needs to invest in Dan's TBY Sea Wolf replica...

[Noha307]

I think what these museums (NMUSAF, NASM can't speak for NMNA) have in storage right now should be their biggest focus. These aircraft are the real unspoken jewels of their respective museums. With that being said, I definitely agree with what Ken said:

I think we are also finally seeing the value in conservation vs restoration.

I'm more than happy to wait for these aircraft to be displayed if it means the preservation is done correctly. My personal favorite "lady in waiting" is the Shinden in the Garber facility. If I were them, I would make that my top priority - it would be a real show stopper like the 219 or 335.

I wonder if they would be willing to take a page from the 8th Museum in GA and accomplish much of the B-24 work in the direct view of visitors - just an idea.

I thought NASM already had plans to build another facility at Udvar just for that purpose?

[StangStung]

^^U-H does have a "watch while we restore" section. I think they just opened it last year.

At this point, except for the B-24 the NASM needs, it looks like we're talking about one-offs and outliers for the US museums. Which means their collections are pretty well represented.

A point was made earlier that the 20-30s era isn't particularly well represented in some respects. I think that may be true for the NMUSAF (No Keystone bomber?), but I seem to recall the NMNA and the NASM having a substantial interwar collection. Expound please?

[k5083]

The NMUSAF, NMNA and NASM all do have interwar collections that I would agree are "substantial," but they are not comprehensive in the way that their WWII, postwar, and even WWI collections are.

The fighters of the 1930s are perhaps the best represented but if you think about the long chains of fighters Boeing, Curtiss and Grumman made for the Army and Navy, each museum has a few representative links from these chains (many of them replicas) but even put together, they do not have the whole chains.

The situation is far worse if you consider single- and multi-engined observation and bomber types. Just to name an example, one of the reasons the Douglas World Cruisers are so historically valuable is that without them we would lack examples of the whole class of scout/torpedo bombers on which they were based. Look through any comprehensive list of the military aircraft by any of the major 20s-30s manufacturers and you'll be shaking your head at the number that no longer exist. Many of them were only produced to the extent of several or a few dozen copies, but such types make up the bulk of what passed for airpower in those decades.

Many important 1920s and 1930s civil types are missing from the NASM, especially transports and flying boats. Some key types are fortunately on view elsewhere, such as the Boeing 40 in Chicago or the Sikorsky VS-44 in Connecticut, but others like the Monomail or any of the Boeing or Martin clippers are gone.

August

[tulsaboy]

The NMNA doesn't have a Spartan NP-1. Though a relatively minor type, there were 201 produced plus a prototype, and it served throughout the early years of WWII as a naval biplane trainer. Former President George H.W. Bush trained on one, and did his first solo flight in one. A small but significant omission in the NMNA collection. The only intact one is in Tulsa at our museum, and we're not letting it go...

NMNA could have purchased it on the open market had they wanted to, for the going price for a nice Stearman, but they chose not to.

kevin

[StangStung]

The NMUSAF, NMNA and NASM all do have interwar collections that I would agree are "substantial," but they are not comprehensive in the way that their WWII, postwar, and even WWI collections are.

The fighters of the 1930s are perhaps the best represented but if you think about the long chains of fighters Boeing, Curtiss and Grumman made for the Army and Navy, each museum has a few representative links from these chains (many of them replicas) but even put together, they do not have the whole chains.

The situation is far worse if you consider single- and multi-engined observation and bomber types. Just to name an example, one of the reasons the Douglas World Cruisers are so historically valuable is that without them we would lack examples of the whole class of scout/torpedo bombers on which they were based. Look through any comprehensive list of the military aircraft by any of the major 20s-30s manufacturers and you'll be shaking your head at the number that no longer exist. Many of them were only produced to the extent of several or a few dozen copies, but such types make up the bulk of what passed for airpower in those decades.

Many important 1920s and 1930s civil types are missing from the NASM, especially transports and flying boats. Some key types are fortunately on view elsewhere, such as the Boeing 40 in Chicago or the Sikorsky VS-44 in Connecticut, but others like the Monomail or any of the Boeing or Martin clippers are gone.

August

Yes, I believe you're right on this one. But those examples are gone forever I suppose. Or until the next generation of warbirders turn their eyes to fill that gap by making them from scratch. Though I have a hard time seeing that age group of aircraft ever becoming very popular. I thought it was a big deal when the NMUSAF got their MB-2. Huge deal actually, when one thinks of the context (and the size of that thing!).

[Pat Carry]

^^U-H does have a "watch while we restore" section. I think they just opened it last year.

At this point, except for the B-24 the NASM needs, it looks like we're talking about one-offs and outliers for the US museums. Which means their collections are pretty well represented.

A point was made earlier that the 20-30s era isn't particularly well represented in some respects. I think that may be true for the NMUSAF (No Keystone bomber?), but I seem to recall the NMNA and the NASM having a substantial interwar collection. Expound please?

Is there any restoration work actually taking place at Udvar Hazy? There are 4 aircraft sitting in the new restoration area awaiting work but the last I heard barely a wrench has been turned on any of these aircraft.

Last edited by Pat Carry on Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.