Warbird Information Exchange

Kalamazoo Kid and others,

For those who don't know me, I'm a docent at the Airzoo. Not a former, disgruntled docent, but one who's actively volunteering. Nevertheless, the sale of the aircraft took me (and all the rest of us, both staff and volunteers) by surprise. I can't say that I agree with the decision, but at a business level I understand it. I work for Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, and I see "business decisions" made all the time...and this was definetely a business decision. I'd also like to clear up a few points that Kalamazoo Kid only half-explained.

The reasons for the Airzoo stopping flight operations has been stated repeatedly. It had nothing to do with saving money for the new museum...it had to do with insurance costs. Pure and simple...nothing more, nothing less.

LOF was indeed supposed to happen, and it was planned for right here in Portage, MI. The City Cousel nixed the project for all sorts of stupid reasons; the same City Counsel that tried to play hardball with Pharmacia/Pfizer and got their collective butt handed to them (among others, the City Manager no longer lives/works in Portage, or anywhere in MI for that matter). LOF was then supposed to be build down south someplace, but the deal fell through when Bob Ellis REFUSED to use the Zoo's aircraft as collateral. It was at that point that the current version of the Airzoo was hatched, and this time Portage City Government welcomed it with open arms.

I've stated this before, and I'll say it again. I know that many of you think that a static warbird is a huge waste, but I don't agree with you. In spite of the fact that the Zoo hasn't had the number of visitors it was projected to have, we still have many, many more than the old, flying Airzoo had. In my opinion, and I realize that it's only my opinion, that counts for something. More people are seeing the aircraft, and learning about them, than ever before.

I know Bob Ellis...not as well as some do, but I know him. This decision was hard for him, and while I don't completely agree with it I respect that he feels he's done the right thing for the Zoo, long-term. Those that disagree can stop patronizing the Zoo, as some have already done and alluded to on this forum. For myself, and others like me, I'll give Bob the benefit of the doubt and see what happens next.

Regards,

John

Hello,

I was just at the museum last week. I too was very saddened to see these once-airworthy warbirds grounded. I remember when they flew and were simply awesome.

However, the reality is that visitors have declined over the years. My guess is that a lot of the "core" interested people such as vets have passed away, etc. So, they had to do something to keep the public interested and grow - hence, your rides, 4-d experience, etc.

Sadly, when I visited on a Saturday, there were very few visitors in the "old" building with most of these awesome warbirds.
My guess is that being located in Kalamazoo (compared to say Chicago, etc.) doesn't help.

BTW - I did hear talk of the possibility of at least one warbird such as their F4U flying again but can't confirm.

Ron W.

Ron,

Yes, being in Kalamazoo, or anywhere in Michigan, isn't helping...many people refer to Michigan is a "one-state recession" due to the condition of the auto manufacturers.

Don't mis-understand me...many of us were saddened when the Airzoo stopped flying. We miss Warbirds (and High on Kalamazo, even though that event was not an Airzoo event) as much as everyone else does. But, as I've stated, insurance costs suddenly went through the roof, and the Airzoo could not afford to pay them any longer. That is why the Airzoo stopped flying.

The "new Airzoo" is a concept that was designed to reach out to a broader audience. As the Airzoo's principal backers continue to age (which is certainly better than the alternative!), the Airzoo had to do something to ensure it's long-term viability...which meant reaching a larger audience. Hence, the new Airzoo, with it's rides and other things. And, the concept has worked...the Airzoo gets many, many more visitors then it did previously. These people aren't all coming for rides, etc, either. There are still many patrons coming to look exclusively at the aircraft; they just aren't the only customers we have now. As docents, we've had to adapt to the different mix of customers.

Unfortunately due to the economy, and perhaps our location too, we've not gotten the number of new customers that we need. This has led to our current situation. No one associated wit the Airzoo wants to see these aircraft leave, including Bob.

The last I heard, and I heard it directly from Bob Ellis, the Airzoo will have a flight program in place this summer. I do not remember the details at the moment, other than to say the aircraft are being provided by "friends of the Airzoo". They are not the Airzoo's aircraft. That isn't to say that the Airzoo will never fly it's own planes again; I know that Bob would love to do that if the Airzoo could finanically support the flight program. But at present, it can't. That is the simple reality.

John

A lot of us ain't going to believe that no matter how many times it's said, John! But the Zoo gets credit for sticking to its story. As you probably know, the main objections are (1) insurance doesn't seem to be prohibitive for other flying collections and (2) "insurance" is really only a code word for the real monetary risk associated with flying the aircraft, unless you think the insurance company is gouging you.



With respect, the last sentence is absolutely wrong. When the aircraft went to Oshkosh, 200,000 people saw and learned about them every day, and tens of thousands more at other shows; the fact that more people may now visit the hangar is rather beside the point. I agree with you that there are good reasons to keep some aircraft on static display, but exposing them to larger numbers of people isn't one of them.

August

August, whether you or anyone else believes it is immaterial, I guess. You are all entitled to your opinion. I can't speak to how other establishments finance their flight operations (insurance, fuel costs, etc). I know that we were told that our insurance costs went up astronomcially...I have no reason to believe that Bob lied to us. He's never lied about anything else.



I respectfully disagree. Seeing an aircraft at OshKosh or at another airshow doesn't "teach" you anything about it. You see it fly, and you're impressed, but if you didn't already know the aircraft's history you aren't going to learn about it by seeing the aircraft at an airshow. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't share it. I've been to plenty of airshows, and what you "learn" is nothing compared to what you can learn by visiting a museum that has a well-trained staff. In fact, I've at times shaken my head in disbelief at some of the "history" I've heard airshow announcers spout at airshows.

John

John I agree with you. Most of the aircraft at airshows are just parked there. No signs, or anything. So if you don't know what you are seeing, you may not understand it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Fair enough. I somewhat share your view of the low educational value of warbird appearances at airshows. I was focused on "see" rather than "learn about." Some on this board might take exception to your position, but they can pipe up if they want to.

August

It is nice to see them out and flying, and it is fun to go up in them, but most of the time they are just parked with no info around about what it is, or why it is special, or the history of this airframe. So yeah, sometimes you have to know what you are looking at before you can enjoy it. Static museums are far more educational to the point where they tell the story of all of the airmen that flew them, what the aircraft is and is most famous for and so on. You can go to the NASM, not know anyhitng about aircraft, and come out understanding what you saw. That is not the case with a P-51 parked on a ramp all by itself. You might know it is cool, but not why it is cool. That is why static aircraft and museums are so important. Now that being said, it is also important to hear and smell what these aircraft are all about. If you get a chance to fly in one, fell the power that they have. Keep in mind most of the general public can't shell out $400. to fly for an hour at an airshow.
Why do I wish the AirZoo would keep the Cat collection together? Where are you going to go to see all of the cats together? NMNA. THAT IS IT No other place. The AirZoo was a chance for those more central and northern to see them.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Yeah, but NMNA gives us Norsemen an excuse to go someplace warm!

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Well, I didn't bother to reply to this the first time, but since you've repeated it:

1. Palm Springs, today.

2. Chino, today, if you don't mind a rather distressed F7F.

3. Chino on airshow day, usually.

4. Possibly some other collection very soon, depending who buys the Zoo's airplanes. I can think of a couple that need only the F7F to complete the straight.

5. Maybe more airshows, if the Zoo's birds get around some.

August

I'm not sure what the significance of seeing them all in one place is other than it is sort of neat and convenient. I'm not sure that it adds that much to the education of the Kiddies to see all the Grumman Cats in one place. Sure there may be a small bit of educational value in actually seeing every step in Grummans development of Naval aircraft but let's face it that is more interesting to the warbird nerds like us. For their mission they probably are doing the right thing. I think letting go of less historically significant aircraft to have money to concentrate on more historically significant aircraft makes a lot of sense. It is basically a win-win. They get money to concentrate on their mission and some birds get free to fly again.

Close but not exact. THe POF's F-11 is at the Grand Canyon. Not Chino. So we have Pond's museum, and the NMNA

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I and some of my buddies went every year to High on Kalamazoo to see the airshow and especially the Cat Formation. I have video tape of several of those Cat Formations which were awsome back in the late 80's.
In regards to the the Bearcat at one time that Bearcat was owned by Dick Schreader who lived here in Bryan, Oh where I live. Dick owned it back in the mid 60's. I remember seeing it tucked back in the corner of his hangar and it was painted sort of a Reddish Color your typical Civilan scheme back then. About 1968 or so Dick got an offer to sell the Bearcat for $25,000 and thought wow that is a lot of money for a old fighter plane so I think that might be the time frame that Gunther Balz bought it who then lived in the Kalamazoo Area who would have thought fast forward 40 years now this airplane is worth over 1 million. Dick has passed away, but I did get to fly witrh him once.

First up, a bit thanks for all those with 'local knowledge' chipping (politely) in here. It's eddicational, and we are watching to see what will happen. Despite some of the noise, clearly mostly people want mostly the same things...


I'd also politely disagree. A museum has three mandates; preservation firstly, presentation and demonstration. How you carry those out is where the argument lies, but a flying demonstration is a vital way of hooking people in to learn more. At Oshkosh, I saw lots of aircraft I'd never seen before, and talked to a lot of passionate people about them. It's as good any museum on the planet, and because it's an event, everyone's fresh and excited about it. As to 'labels' basic museum theory shows people spend over 50% of the time reading the label and less than that looking at the aircraft. No label, they might start to look and think...

I'm lucky to volunteer at a museum (The RAAF Museum) which flies a handful of its aircraft to demonstrate flight, and the public's reaction to these interactives (as we call them) is great, and compliments the rest of the displays. (And they aren't dusty museum auircraft, because I'm one of the guys who cleans them.)

It's a foolish assumption that one visit to Oshkosh or a museum will tell anyone all they need to know; what we do is to strike a spark for the person to try and find out more themselves. We need static museums, flying collections, and shows. Aren't we lucky we have all three. Missing any one would make us all poorer and more ignorant.

I agree about the garbage pumped out by some airshow announcers. It sits right alongside the garbage put out by various museum guides I've heard over the years, or (less common) read on museum placards. Quality in both areas is worth striving for, and the majority of the guys do an adequate job. Some are exceptional.

Cheers,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I really agree with that last paragraph. I have heard some amazing trash from both.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director