Warbird Information Exchange

I know that this is a long dispute that I will not solve, but I have got to get something out threre. Why is it that when an aircraft is restored to static display for a museum, some people make it out like we drug it out back and cut it up. The aircraft in question has been preserved for future generations. If an aircraft is the sole surviving type, or a very historic version such as the Enola Gay, Memphis Belle, or Spirit of St. Louis it should be restored for static display, if it was an aircraft that has many left, and can be saftely restored to flight status, then do it. Hey I know, why don't we go get babe Ruth's bat out of the Hall of Fame and blay some ball with it. It is the same thing. It is not that hard. What are you going to do if we flew everything, and eventually started wrecking stuff that can't be replaced? Someone would say, "Gee we should have saved that." Now I am a volunteer at the NMUSAF, and the CAF. I just don't see where this is this hard. THE AIRCRAFT AT THE NMUSAF ARE NOT WITHERING AWAY. These aircraft have been restored and preserved for future generations. We need both types of museums. They both are essential. Somewhere on this forum someone mentioned the fact that NMUSAF is wanting to take back the CAF P-82. Well I don't support that decision becasue we have P-82 betty joe in the collection in Dyton, OH. But I think that the NMUSAF is catching some flack on that one that might not be just. No one complains that when you get an aircraft form the NASM that you can't fly it either. You are talking about the museum talking about taking back an airplane that has been wrecked! Now once again, I say let it stay with the CAF, but guys and gals enough of this "Oh this aircraft is in a museum, you might as well just burned it." I love to see warbirds fly, I am also a member of the EAA and Warbirds of America, but if an aircraft is restored to static condition, and it is well preserved, then I can't see why it is such a bad thing. I love to see them fly too, but we need to preserve some as well.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Gee, every aircraft I have been involved in restoring to fly was preserved.

I don't expect to see any aircraft at the USAF Museum fly and no Mustang, regardless of the lack of any specific historical value can really be replaced. It is all just a comparative equation of risk vs. reward. How many folks can go to the museum in Dayton vs. their local airshow to learn the history? I can take my family to an airshow and everyone has fun looking at all the flea market items I can't stand- something for everyone! Go to an air musem and I get about half an hour before the nagging starts, "When can we go home? Are you done yet?" At the airshow my family might even accidentally learn something about planes...

Sorry, but I would rather see the stuff fly until it crashes or can't be flown again. The reason so many are being parked today is because it is EXTREMELY difficult to maintain a 60+ year old aircraft in flying status. It doesn't take much more to do it than it did 25 or 35 years ago. Why is this happening? Simple, loss of market drive. Why are we fascinated by this stuff? Because of the dynamics involved in fighters, bombers, warbirds etc. When that dynamic goes away, the pressure to even maintain STATIC aircraft will fade. Does anybody remember how many steam locomotives were parked around the country during the 50's through the 70's? What happened to all of them? A lot of them were scrapped. There was a huge movement to preserve them, active live steam organizations which spent loads of dollars to preserve a way of life that was rapidly disappearing. When did they start going away? When the live steam excursions got too expensive to operate, and when the generation which appreciated them went away. That is happening today in the warbird community. The more of these exciting aircraft we park, the less that exhilarating dynamic is going to play in the public eye, and the static display museum's will be competing with Disney and losing because Disney has the money (and the business forte) to not EVER lose the DYNAMIC of their organization.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Market drive? is that double speak for ridiculous insurance costs?
It has been discussed many times before here and on other forums, usually hand in hand with what is original and what isn't.
There is room for both, and there are several museums that have both static and resident flying aircraft.
Substantially original, sole surviviors and proven historic machines should be preserved for future generations, NASM and NMUSAF do a great job in that respect.
There are plenty of flying warbirds and many being rebuilt from a pile of junk or data plate, not to mention reproductions being manufactured of rare types. We are well served in both regards ( especially in a country like the U.S.). There will always be bitching, especially from the selfish crowd who want everything and want it yesterday.

Dave

p.s. Chris....How are those photos coming

I'm with John.

I've felt this way, but, wasn't totally sure why. Until I went over to the Hiller Museum. They have a Waco 10 hanging from the roof. It is beautiful! It now, is starting to get really screwed up from hanging on the roof. Bad cloth, stuff doing pointy things in the wing fabric, ect. That is a bummer to me. I understand the monetary costs involved with a museum flying a plane, and I'm cool with that, but I will never call anyone on flying a plane, ever, now. I don't care what it is.

The best case I can think of is "THE D-13". I would fly that bird until the wings fell off, plywood flaps and all. That is as rare as they get in my book. It's still a civilian plane. Fly it. Saving things is what UDVAR-HAZY and the Smithsonian is for.

I actually have one or two other loves, besides Warbirds. And it allways bums me out, when a collection of those kind of things are donated to a museum. What that means to me is, I will never get to see those things again. Unless I have a PHD in whateverology, those things are locked away from the public, and me specifically.

The same goes with warbirds. If I were to walk across the barrier in Udvar-Hazy, or elsewhere, I'd be arrested. I will never get permission to do that, EVER. Me not be writer dude or somebodys super good buddy. It will never happen. But, at the airshow, I usually get to see it for real. POF is a great example of that. When I actually met Steve Hinton, I asked about the SBD. He said go on over and sit down in it.

Fly them! That's it. Thinking they were "pristine" in the first place is total BS. They all have different engines, different everything, if they have been used for any amount of time. They are not like a Motion SS Camaro with 50 miles on it. The numbers don't have to match on the plane, they never did.

So, until someone builds a D-13, or D-9, I want to see it fly. If something bad happens, well, sh1t happens, we all know that. If it ain't cool, donate it to the Smithsonian. I'm cool with that.

_________________
DEEP THOUGHTS BY KIDS:
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started. Age 15 "


Deep Thoughts,
Jack Handy

D-9s are already being built, 3 so far.

Dave

Hi Dave!

I know of the one Flugwerks has almost put together , and it ain't flying. And I've heard about the allison engine thing. There are three now? Thats pretty cool! But, seeing how the one D-9 has seemed to change hands every couple of years, I'm not going to hold my breath.

There's a D-13 up in Seattle waiting for a test drive baby! YeeeHaaa

Heeehee

_________________
DEEP THOUGHTS BY KIDS:
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started. Age 15 "


Deep Thoughts,
Jack Handy

Just so we are all on the same page, I am not for grounding warbirdss or anything. I mean that we need both types of museums. There are people out there that think museums like the NMUSAF NASM are equal to destroying the aircraft. All I mean to say is that there IS room for both types of museums.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I have always had the idea that they should all be flown unless it is the last example of the type...then park it and give it the proper care to ensure it survives for the future...

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

I agree..

_________________
"Everyone wants to live here (New Jersey), evidenced by the fact that it has the highest population per capita in the U.S..."

both types of museums are needed,the raaf museum has a policy of not flying any airframe that they only have one of because like the nmusaf they are set up to preserve the history of the service.
temora museum on the other hand is set up as a flying museum and both have a place and both are great.
whilst i'd like to see in an ideal world as much flying as possible some airframes are to valuable to risk.
paul

Hi;

I think several folks are missing the whole idea here. #1 - Most museums lack the funding to keep all of thier flyers in annual, how many of them have been down for ten years or more does that make them statics?

# 2- Many many a/c on display will never fly again do to lack of parts, many parts have a shelf life once thats gone who has the funds to reproduce them? Many of the post WW2 a/c are much more complicated systems wise that keeping many of them airworthy is short of impossible.

#3- yes it would be wonderful to see a B-36 flying ,or a Globe Master , several of the early jets would be fantastic but the reality is many air frames have exscaped the scrappers torch but all of the support equipment, parts ,rotables ect. that are needed to keep them flying are long gone.

#4- National museums would never risk the chance of loosing any of their collection. We all hear the out cry of a a/c that will be restored to static condition but in reality is too far gone or a lack of parts is a major factor of them being ground hogs. Would you be happier to see a ultra rare a/c left out to rot , scrapped, or destroyed as a target because of a lack of parts or funds to make it airworthy again?

#5- Everyone would love to see them all fly but the truth is most of us can't pay for the fuel cost let alone the cost of a airworthy restoration. If you are so distrested that you would rather see them destroyed than displayed as a static, pony up dig deep in those pockets and support that museum, join their board of directors, fund raise but don't bad mouth those with the foresight to restore and display those rare and forgotten types.

#6 How much of your own time and money do you want to sacrafice to keep all warbirds airworthy? Would you give up your sunday football? The many hours spent on the wix board? Those special moments with the wife, kids, and friends? Your night out with the guys? Your new oversized S.U.V. with all of the fancy G.P.S. that gets 10 M.P.G.s? The big house on the hill?ect. ect. ect.

#7 Every a/c that survives is thanks to someone that has made these and many more sacrafices in order that you can come along and run down their efforts. Be happy that all ex military a/c arent cut up the minute the military is though with them. Yes it would be great if they all flew but be realistic if you can. I see few of the fortune 500 out stripping paint, drilling rivets,ect that would save every air frame out there.

#8 there are so many a/c rotting away in the jungles, oceans, and other crash sites that will never be recovered or restored due to a lack of money, intresrt ,greed , politics[ can you say swamp ghost? I knew you could.] that the whole concept of every a/c being a flyer is rediculous at best.

Thanks Mike

_________________
IF YOU CAN FIND IT WE CAN FIX IT

Hmmmmmmm....museums vs flying . Hmmmmm,let me see.......yep, there are plenty for each. Put me down as supporting both ideas.

I am glad some see it that way. Now I didn't mean to start a fight or hard feelings, I jsut mean that both museums are needed. I love the Planes of Fame , CAF, EAA, Warbirds of America. but we also need static aircraft. I am also a member of the national Museum of Naval Aviation, and a member and volunteer at the NMUSAF. Now I do not always support everything they say, but same with the flying museums. We need both. I don't agree with the NMUSAF taking an example of an aircraft that someonewants to fly, and that there are several examples in static display left (two at Wright Pat alone, and cutting engine mounts. Any way I feel better. Thanks for listening.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

It's sad to me to walk into a place like Museum of flight and see all those fighters sitting in a dark room never to be flown again. If you want static, I say build the molds and make them out of plastic. You are not appreciating them for what they are and what they represent if they are just sitting there on the ground becoming less airworthy everyday....and that's exactly what happens to them over time. Is stuffing a whale and sticking it on a wall the same as seeing one swim at sea world? I think not.