Extremely rare warbirds flying today

[CAPFlyer]

They do seem to be trying to fix some of these problems by taking planes like the Memphis Belle and the B-36 away from groups that can't care for them and moving them to places that can. But that requires finding groups that can afford to pay to transport the aircraft and are then willing to live by the terms of the loan agreements.

I agree with your points, but I have to take exception to the second example you used James. The B-36 was in the hands of an extremely capable group to care for the airplane, and they'd been doing a great job of it for almost 30 years. Their problem was they had nowhere to display it, and that was part of the agreement. When the City of Fort Worth renigged on their end of the deal, the NMUSAF and the group who restored the airplane BOTH took the step of finding the plane a new home. While the group that restored the plane wanted to keep it in Texas, they knew at the same time that there was no location that could take care of it and did all they could to make sure the aircraft made it to you guys at Pima in one piece and as good a shape as possible to minimize the amount of work y'all had to do to put it on display for the public.

[bdk]

Wouldn't a number of smaller museums improve access and encourage tourism across the country rather than just at Pensacola, DC and Dayton?

The idea BDK is stating would be great, but I can tell you from experience, it is really REALLY difficult for small museums to survive, and location is literally everything. Without being attached to the EAA and having the benefit of hosting one of the largest aviation conventions every year, the AirVenture Museum would not be financially viable, and I daresay we have one of the better and most diverse aircraft collections in the country. Oshkosh, Wisconsin is not a big draw for tourism, and that's what a good museum needs - a location that is going to be drawing people to it regardless of the museum itself.

Wow! Another poke in the eye to museums like Planes of Fame, Yanks, the Southampton Hall of Aviation, The Fighter Collection, the Tangmere Museum, the CAF, the Mid-America Air Museum, the Palm Springs Air Museum, the Cavanaugh Museum, etc. These museums aren't exactly in the middle of large population centers yet have survived for many years and for numerous reasons, the most important of which are good content and the volunteers the museums attract. Since when is life, let alone running a museum supposed to be easy?

I can name exactly four warbirds on display in the city of Chicago. Huge population center! Sounds like a great location, but no air museum. City of Los Angeles? Nope!

[rwdfresno]

Actually James if I recall correctly (not positive) the only mustang that was written off was an aircraft that was a complete new build. It wasn't even an original aircraft. How many Mustangs would be around if civilians didn't restore, rebuild, new build, and fly them? A handful in various museums. The only reason that there are hundreds around for you to see today is because of civilians that fly them so really the fact that they are flow is what has created so many examples today. So for that few we loose each year we have gained hundreds.

If people really want to get serious about making noise about aircraft preservation they should start complaining about the hundreds of historical aircraft that our all seeing, all knowing, all concerned government has sitting along side of freeways and in in front of air force bases begin beat by the elements, cars, trucks and vandals every day of the week. WE all want to complain about the Belle and how badly she was mistreated by the city of Memphis but nobody seems to notice it is still happening to dozens of aircraft today that are under the management of the NMUSAF.

Ryan

You are also correct that many of the aircraft that are on display around the country are not cared for very well. But it isn't the Air Force Museum you should be taking to task for it. It is all the groups that insist on having them and then ignore the terms of their loans and neglect the planes once they have them. If the NMUSAF has a problem it is that they let far too many people borrow their assets. They do seem to be trying to fix some of these problems by taking planes like the Memphis Belle and the B-36 away from groups that can't care for them and moving them to places that can. But that requires finding groups that can afford to pay to transport the aircraft and are then willing to live by the terms of the loan agreements. Often the only options are to leave poorly displayed planes where they are or scrap them.

James

There are plenty of aircraft sitting outside that could be better cared for that is on the property of the USAF. You say those are the only 2 options however you are leaving out another big option which is to sell the aircraft to people who will pay money for them. Most private entities that pay money for something are more likely to take care of it. I don't think there is a need for the Air Force to have more than a couple of each example in museums. There is no reason in my opinion to have 12 or more B-17s in the NMUSAF inventory. Save a few in your key national collections and get the rest in the hands of the civilians who will pay to own them.

[Zachary]

Wasn't a poke in the eye to those museums at all. You (BDK) are reading content into my post that isn't there. I am a huge supporter of aviation museums around the country, and am a member of quite a few of them. Just ask my wife, who always says, "Why are you spending $50 to become a member of a place you don't even visit??"

I am all for having more aviation museums around the country - I wish there were more. As a museum professional working in an aviation museum it would sure open up the job opportunities available. The reality is there are not more aviation museums around the country, at least not with the financial backing and/or experienced people necessary to properly take care of the various duplicate airplanes held at some of the national and/or military museums. Look at Chanute as an example - great collection, pretty well taken care of even if mostly outdoors, but can't get enough people through the doors to keep running financially. And I'm not knocking Chanute - I think it's a great place and have visited there three times now.

The point of my post was, for the average joe schmoe that decides to visit an aviation museum during a vacation/trip/whatever, they are more likely to go to a well-known, nationally recognized museum with a large collection in one locale than go visit a smaller place that might only have a dozen airplanes, as rare as those airplanes might be. Like it or not, museums are in direct competition with sporting events, Disneyland-type tourist traps, each other, etc. for consumers' money. A convenient location plays a big part in that. That is not a knock against any of the museums you mentioned. It's simple fact.

I've kind of gotten away from the real topic of discussion and am sorry for hijacking the post. If anyone wants to keep discussing this aspect of aviation museums/collections, I suggest we start a separate post.

Zack

[bdk]

Like it or not, museums are in direct competition with sporting events, Disneyland-type tourist traps, each other, etc. for consumers' money. A convenient location plays a big part in that. That is not a knock against any of the museums you mentioned. It's simple fact.

I disagree. Air museums are not and never were tourist destinations like Disneyland, Disney World, Las Vegas, etc. Who goes to DC with the family to see NASM or Udvar-Hazy as their primary destination, and then go see the Washington Monument as a side trip?

[rwdfresno]

[ Who goes to DC with the family to see NASM or Udvar-Hazy as their primary destination, and then go see the Washington Monument as a side trip?

Probably a lot of people. In fact I have been to DC many times and never hit any of the monuments. I spend my time in the museums.

[BTBackseater]

All I can say about this debate is I feel the same way about these planes as I do about some classic cars. Why park them when they were built to fly / drive! There is a guy who has a pretty extensive car collection some of which are the only one built and worth 6 figures ( not unlike some warbirds) and he drives it and sometimes hard. I know someone might say that is comparing apples to oranges but think about it both are non-replaceable but deserve to be shared by fans of the car / warbird. I do believe however it is ultimately up to the owner to decide as I drive my restored 1964 1/2 Mustang everywhere it goes. As far as museums go that is one reason I belong to the C.A.F. as they are a flying museum like some of the others around the country ( Cavanaugh, Lonestar Flight Museum, The Collings Foundation etc.) But if there had to be a choice between destruction versus static I would choose static.

Last edited by BTBackseater on Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[mustangdriver]

Like it or not, museums are in direct competition with sporting events, Disneyland-type tourist traps, each other, etc. for consumers' money. A convenient location plays a big part in that. That is not a knock against any of the museums you mentioned. It's simple fact.

I disagree. Air museums are not and never were tourist destinations like Disneyland, Disney World, Las Vegas, etc. Who goes to DC with the family to see NASM or Udvar-Hazy as their primary destination, and then go see the Washington Monument as a side trip?

Me and my friends.

[Zachary]

BDK, that's the old way of thinking - if there is one thing I have learned working in the museum world for the past 8 years, it's that in today's entertainment-driven society, museums HAVE to see themselves as being in a competitive environment in order to stay viable. 75% or more of the people that walk into a museum do not do so to learn, they do so for entertainment. Sad but true unfortunately.

Museums cannot see themselves as just the keepers of historical objects and artifacts anymore. They have to find new, innovative, exciting ways to get visitors through the door. In other words, there has to be some kind of entertainment value to the visitor. That's a fact, like it or not.

Zack

Last edited by Zachary on Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[mustangdriver]

YOu are kidding right? Why does there need to be a baseball hall of fame?

What? Does the US government run that museum too? You have a lot of nerve to insult individuals and museums that have preserved these aircraft, some of which ended up at your glorious national institutions.

What makes you suggest that access to historic aircraft is only readily available at government museums? Why centrally locate these artifacts where only a small segment of the population can have the means to view them? Wouldn't a number of smaller museums improve access and encourage tourism across the country rather than just at Pensacola, DC and Dayton?

Can you think of a less efficient use of money than provided by a government as opposed to the private sector? Do you pay taxes?

First off chill. I never insulted anyone by saying that there needs to be national collections. You laughed at one of my many examples of museums that are needed. But you said nothing in response to Art Galleries, an dother National collections besides air museuems. As far as where the national museums are located, they are where they are for a reason. There is history at places like Wright Field, Pensacola, and Quantico. I also don't think that breaking national museums collections apart is wise. Leave them be, and let people make the trip to see them. Hey I want to see the Petterson Car Collection, so does that mean they should break that up, and bring some to Pittsburgh, so I don't have to worry about getting there to see it. Going to these places is part of the magic. I am leaving for my first trip to Pensacola in a few days. I didn't expect the NMNA to bring their stuff to me.
I also don't think some one who lives in California can yell at someone who lives in Pittsburgh about making the warbirds more central. PSSSSTTTT. You have them all in California. SO no I don't feel bad that the National museums are on the East Coast.

[Robbie Roberts]

I can name exactly four warbirds on display in the city of Chicago. Huge population center! Sounds like a great location, but no air museum.

Good news there- I have NO plans EVER to go to the city of Chicago. Not that I don't like the people of the city, or there aren't things there I'd like to see, but until Daley II is in a grave I can piss on, I have no use for the place. I will NEVER forgive him for Meigs Field, among other insults to this country.

Robbie

[mustangdriver]

I can name exactly four warbirds on display in the city of Chicago. Huge population center! Sounds like a great location, but no air museum.

Good news there- I have NO plans EVER to go to the city of Chicago. Not that I don't like the people of the city, or there aren't things there I'd like to see, but until Daley II is in a grave I can piss on, I have no use for the place. I will NEVER forgive him for Meigs Field, among other insults to this country.

Robbie

I need to buy this man some beers. I like your style.

[bdk]

Good news there- I have NO plans EVER to go to the city of Chicago. Not that I don't like the people of the city, or there aren't things there I'd like to see, but until Daley II is in a grave I can piss on, I have no use for the place. I will NEVER forgive him for Meigs Field, among other insults to this country.

Robbie

I'm with you there buddy... Let's just say that if I was about 5 miles farther away from the city I grew up in, I would be in the ocean!

mustangdriver wrote:
First off chill. I never insulted anyone by saying that there needs to be national collections. You laughed at one of my many examples of museums that are needed. But you said nothing in response to Art Galleries, and other National collections besides air museums. As far as where the national museums are located, they are where they are for a reason. There is history at places like Wright Field, Pensacola, and Quantico. I also don't think that breaking national museums collections apart is wise. Leave them be, and let people make the trip to see them. Hey I want to see the Petterson Car Collection, so does that mean they should break that up, and bring some to Pittsburgh, so I don't have to worry about getting there to see it. Going to these places is part of the magic. I am leaving for my first trip to Pensacola in a few days. I didn't expect the NMNA to bring their stuff to me.
I also don't think some one who lives in California can yell at someone who lives in Pittsburgh about making the warbirds more central. PSSSSTTTT. You have them all in California. SO no I don't feel bad that the National museums are on the East Coast.

I'm well chilled dude! I'm not angry at you, this is only an internet discussion. I don't see the benefit of selling off or even flying the original Spirit of St. Louis, the Wright Flyer, or the Enola Gay as they have a special history to this country and probably belong in a national museum. Can that be said of the B-17 in Tulare?

I was able to see King Tut (twice, about 25 years apart and in different cities) because they took the display on tour. Never seen the Mona Lisa, and may not ever have the chance as long as it stays put.

I have no opinion on the baseball hall of fame, but it is not run by the government to the best of my knowledge, nor should it be.

Again, the Peterson collection is not static. They take the cars to various shows and concours, and I can guarantee you that you will not see all the same cars there twice if you go back 3 months later.

All warbirds are NOT in California, nor should they be. The most dynamic air museums in the state however are not the government owned ones. Some in fact even have operational cars and military vehicles on display.

I don't doubt that YOU and maybe 500 other folks would make a trip to DC specifically to see Udvar-Hazy. My wife went from LA on a tour of DC and the surrounding areas which did stop at the NASM. For exactly 45 minutes... She waited in the long line at the bathroom for 40 minutes, then looked around for 5 minutes and had to leave. NASM is a destination for a very few families, I suspect most just go in because they are passing by and are curious to see the Wright Flyer or the Spirit of St. Louis, not any warbirds. I have done no research on this subject other than reading WIX posts, so consider me as a non-authoratative source only expressing my less than informed opinion.

[mustangdriver]

Cool, some interesting points of view brought up BDK. I have to say though, that when I go to Europe, and see the Mona Lisa, it will be that much more special.

[warbird1]

Cool, some interesting points of view brought up BDK. I have to say though, that when I go to Europe, and see the Mona Lisa, it will be that much more special.

I've seen the Mona Lisa and you're not missing much. It's hidden behind several protective layers of plexiglass, so with the glare from the lighting you can't even see much of it. It's also really small, a lot more so than I thought.

I looked at it for about 5 seconds and thought, "what's the big deal with this painting"?

There are much better things to waste your time on. The other parts of the Louvre were much better, IMO.