Editorial about Army Aviation History

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

I have been involved in the restoration of military aircraft for many years and have always enjoyed exceptional cooperation and assistance from the USAF, Air Force Museums and AF Military Installations like Maxwell and PAFB in pursuit of historical information about WW II AAF aircraft or post WW II Air Force aircraft. We are also blessed with dozens of sites hosted by groups and individuals providing serial number information, accident history and other details about WW II AAF aircraft and post war Air Force aircraft.

However, there is virtually no interest in making publicly available any historical information concerning Army aircraft and none of the Army bases have any idea or interest how to provide this information to the public. Considering how proud the Air Force is of it's heritage it is puzzling why no one cares about the Army aircraft and crews who flew during the Korean and Vietnam wars.

I realize that the number of Army aircraft being restored is miniscule compared to those AAF and Air Force aircraft but they are no less important and their history should be preserved and made readily available to historians, and aircraft restorers.

I write this after six weeks of effort with zero results after contacts with Ft. Rucker Museum, Ft. Rucker Army Base, Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville among others. A friend, the owner of another restored T-41B knew someone who worked at the Arsenal who pulled the information for him but has now retired and no one there now knows how.

This is a very sad commentary on the preservation of the history of Army Aviation.

Steve Dunn

Ken · **Posted:** Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:42 am

One group determined to to do this right is the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation in Hampton, GA. They recently added a detachment in Ozark, AL and are planning to add more features to their GA hangar to permit more of a museum feel for visitors. This is a great organization with some really great folks. Their ultra-low annual dues make this an easy organization to join and support even if you are miles away.

Check out their site: http://www.armyav.org/

Ken

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

Ken wrote:

One group determined to to do this right is the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation in Hampton, GA. They recently added a detachment in Ozark, AL and are planning to add more features to their GA hangar to permit more of a museum feel for visitors. This is a great organization with some really great folks. Their ultra-low annual dues make this an easy organization to join and support even if you are miles away.

Check out their site: http://www.armyav.org/

Ken

Ken, I am a life member of Friends Of Army Aviation Ozark, that you mentioned.

You are right Ken, they are a great organization and perhaps they eventually will be able to provide the information needed for historical research. What is badly needed is a repository of facts and information about Army Aviation aircraft similar to the information that can be retrieved at most AF Bases. At this point no one provides accurate paint code, serial number history, accident history, or any other detailed facts about these aircraft.

If this information is this difficult to find today, right now think about where we will be in twenty or thirty years, some of it will be lost forever.

Right now I can tell you everything about the WW II O-58A (built 11/15/1941) we are restoring, the day it was built, the day it was accepted by the Army, the history of every base it was stationed, each unit it flew with, accident history, flight reports, Bios of pilots who flew the aircraft, factory and military serial numbers and more, yet I know nothing about the Cessna T-41B built in 1966.

JohnB · **Posted:** Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:35 pm

Just to give credit where credit is due...years ago I had a very good experience with the Ft. Rucker museum.
They loaned me a military POH for the various H-13 helicopters.

I copied it at Kinkos and returned it.
Now they may have trusted me because I was a (USAF) Major serving at an Army installation, but I just wanted to point out that I had a good experience with them.

Often results vary with who answers the phone.

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

JohnB wrote:

Just to give credit where credit is due...years ago I had a very good experience with the Ft. Rucker museum.
They loaned me a military POH for the various H-13 helicopters.

I copied it at Kinkos and returned it.
Now they may have trusted me because I was a (USAF) Major serving at an Army installation, but I just wanted to point out that I had a good experience with them.

Often results vary with who answers the phone.

John, I have also never had a bad experience with the museum and am a member, they just don't have the staff, knowledge or resources to do provide any research, assistance.

The point of the post was that you should not have to be an active duty Army officer in order to retrieve historical information. Unlike the Air Force the Army does not have a formal structure to assist the public in research. You can contact the historian at almost any Air Force Base and they know how to access the archives to retrieve the information. No one I have encountered at any Army Installation knows where the records are and how to access them.

If this T-41 were an A or C model the Air Force records would be readily available. Part of the problem is how the Army keeps aircraft records. I am not sure that the Army even maintains the records to the degree that the Air Force does and I have never even seen an aircraft card on a post WW II Army aircraft..

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:57 am

Army installations cut their historical staffs to the bone back in the A-86 BRAC. My understanding is they have not come back in any serious kind of way. I called Rucker to ask some aircraft information and the person I spoke with was not the accommodating type and did not return several emails. I have known some Army museum types from a few different installations and I completely agree that the USAF has it down better than the Army does as for supporting outside inquiries.

That said, the Army museum's function is not to entertain the non-service connected public. While that may surprise most, their mission statement puts that far down the list. With a scarce staff, that will always put off outside contacts to bare minimum and ineffective due to the lack of time to answer them. Also, most of the Army support foundations (if they have one) surrounding a museum seem to be less capable and energetic than the Air Force ones.

I really believe that there is much room for an officially-sanctioned Army Historical Foundation which has the task of being a fundraiser/supplemental staff/parallel functioning group to help out the various US Army museums and related collections. But I am also not aware of any such organization or plans for same.

Ken · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:40 am

Sounds like you identified a problem. My assumption is that either a General or Congress is required to fix it.

Who in government is ultimately above the National Museums and Smithsonian? Maybe if they realized that cuts had forced a program to fall short of its goals, they might assist and direct a renewed focus? Possibly Rep Tammy Duckworth could be an ally?

Ken

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

Forgotten Field wrote:

Army installations cut their historical staffs to the bone back in the A-86 BRAC. My understanding is they have not come back in any serious kind of way. I called Rucker to ask some aircraft information and the person I spoke with was not the accommodating type and did not return several emails. I have known some Army museum types from a few different installations and I completely agree that the USAF has it down better than the Army does as for supporting outside inquiries.

That said, the Army museum's function is not to entertain the non-service connected public. While that may surprise most, their mission statement puts that far down the list. With a scarce staff, that will always put off outside contacts to bare minimum and ineffective due to the lack of time to answer them. Also, most of the Army support foundations (if they have one) surrounding a museum seem to be less capable and energetic than the Air Force ones.

I really believe that there is much room for an officially-sanctioned Army Historical Foundation which has the task of being a fundraiser/supplemental staff/parallel functioning group to help out the various US Army museums and related collections. But I am also not aware of any such organization or plans for same.

That pretty well sums it up, thanks for sharing.

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

Ken wrote:

Sounds like you identified a problem. My assumption is that either a General or Congress is required to fix it.

Who in government is ultimately above the National Museums and Smithsonian? Maybe if they realized that cuts had forced a program to fall short of its goals, they might assist and direct a renewed focus? Possibly Rep Tammy Duckworth could be an ally?

Ken

Ken, I have not experienced this problem with any Air Force Facilities, museums or personnel, it has been strictly limited to contact with U.S. Army installations and Personnel.

One thing that would help is if the Army would at least offer up where the records are kept and invite/allow individuals and organizations to visit the facility in person to do research like at Maxwell AFB. I do not mind at all doing my own research and paying plane fare to get there. I am afraid it might be more than just funding but some level of indifference. Unfortunately we will pay the price well down the road for what is happening today and we will lose a lot of important documents and reference material.

Another consideration is that few if any Army aircraft have been restored by the Army and most likely going forward no funding will be directed to this effort. The Legacy of Army Aviation will most likely be preserved by organizations like the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation and private individuals who put a lot of time, effort and money into the preservation of these aircraft.

Rotary wing aircraft are extremely expensive to restore and maintain and very few individuals will do it. The fixed wing aircraft are pretty much stepchildren in the modern Army and get even less attention than the rotary wing. Here again the cost to restore even a T-41B is great and can easily reach $75,000 to $100,000. These aircraft deserve to be preserved and the stories of the crews who flew them told, all we need is some level of non monetary assistance from the Army to get the job done.

Ken · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:20 pm

Ken wrote:

Sounds like you identified a problem. My assumption is that either a General or Congress is required to fix it.

Who in government is ultimately above the National Museums and Smithsonian? Maybe if they realized that cuts had forced a program to fall short of its goals, they might assist and direct a renewed focus? Possibly Rep Tammy Duckworth could be an ally?

Ken

That's why I said "a program", not "all programs". If one of the programs, i.e. Army Aviation, is falling short of reasonable expectations for a historical facility, then someone needs to know and hopefully affect a change. Bringing this to the attention of whomever is over the National Museums might get the desired result. Working from the bottom up is not likely to change the situation you describe.

Ken

SIDSIKO · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:44 pm

Hi Steve,

Finding out historical data on fairly modern US Army aircraft can prove quite a problem. Reels of aircraft histories on USAF and USN/USMC aircraft and helicopters can be bought relatively cheaply from the parent agencies. Not so with the US Army. Your best plan of attack is to use the FOIA and contact AMCOM at http://amcomdmz.redstone.army.mil/foia/foia.html

The information which details each aircraft use is know as the "Goldbook Data" or the "1352 Flying Hour Report"

It does exist, it's just that you have to hope the correct person gets your e-mail. The people employed at AMCOM are not Aviation Historians and as such may not fully understand what we the historians require.

Let me know if you have any joy,

Regards

Sid

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

SIDSIKO wrote:

Hi Steve,

Finding out historical data on fairly modern US Army aircraft can prove quite a problem. Reels of aircraft histories on USAF and USN/USMC aircraft and helicopters can be bought relatively cheaply from the parent agencies. Not so with the US Army. Your best plan of attack is to use the FOIA and contact AMCOM at http://amcomdmz.redstone.army.mil/foia/foia.html

The information which details each aircraft use is know as the "Goldbook Data" or the "1352 Flying Hour Report"

It does exist, it's just that you have to hope the correct person gets your e-mail. The people employed at AMCOM are not Aviation Historians and as such may not fully understand what we the historians require.

Let me know if you have any joy,

Regards

Sid

Thanks Sid,

I have had multiple contacts with Redstone as I was referred by Bill James who used them to provide the history on his aircraft. Unfortunately the individual who helped Bill has now retired and no one else knows how to retrieve the information. They suggested that I buy the book T-41 Mescalero by Shiel, Forsgren and Little. I already have the book and while good is of little value for research.

I have decided after nearly two months of this that it it is not worth anymore of my time and effort as I have two other WW II aircraft one near completion and another waiting. At this point I think the best route to go is to paint it in civilian XP colors and move on.

Enemy Ace · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:22 pm

Regarding the T-41, have you considered that it maybe was not maintained by the Army but by a private company contracted to do the work? Cessna may be a good place to start for contacts because the army fixed wing office would have worked closely with them while the plane was in service.
As someone who makes a living maintaining Army Aircraft, I can tell you that there seems to be very little interest in preserving historical maintenance records and copies of DFL's (Daily flight logs). Anything not pertinent to current airworthiness seems to get tossed after 90 days to a year with summarized entries made in aircraft master logs, very similar to civilian logbooks. Once an aircraft is retired I doubt Fixed Wing even keeps the records.
There does not seem to be very strong unit identification in Army Aviation unlike USN/USAF squadrons. I personally think this is because most unit tours are 3 years, with type training and other branch schooling occurring during the tour. By the time a Warrant or Officer starts to get up to speed they can be sent elsewhere.... It is very frustrating to see and I won't even go into what a waste of money it is to train someone to fly something like a AH-64, by the time they start to get halfway proficient they move to another type.... Millions and millions wasted. Contrast this to a F-18 or F-16 pilot who will likely spend the majority of their career on that type and within that community...An exception is the 160th SOAR but that is the big time in Army Aviation.
All the above is just my opinion, good luck with your search.

SaxMan · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:38 pm

Sounds to me like you may have found your calling. If no one has done this subject justice, maybe you are the person to do so. You'd be amazed at what one person can accomplish just be doing the research, asking the right questions, and pursuing leads until you've exhausted that particular direction.

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

Enemy Ace wrote:

Regarding the T-41, have you considered that it maybe was not maintained by the Army but by a private company contracted to do the work? Cessna may be a good place to start for contacts because the army fixed wing office would have worked closely with them while the plane was in service.
As someone who makes a living maintaining Army Aircraft, I can tell you that there seems to be very little interest in preserving historical maintenance records and copies of DFL's (Daily flight logs). Anything not pertinent to current airworthiness seems to get tossed after 90 days to a year with summarized entries made in aircraft master logs, very similar to civilian logbooks. Once an aircraft is retired I doubt Fixed Wing even keeps the records.
There does not seem to be very strong unit identification in Army Aviation unlike USN/USAF squadrons. I personally think this is because most unit tours are 3 years, with type training and other branch schooling occurring during the tour. By the time a Warrant or Officer starts to get up to speed they can be sent elsewhere.... It is very frustrating to see and I won't even go into what a waste of money it is to train someone to fly something like a AH-64, by the time they start to get halfway proficient they move to another type.... Millions and millions wasted. Contrast this to a F-18 or F-16 pilot who will likely spend the majority of their career on that type and within that community...An exception is the 160th SOAR but that is the big time in Army Aviation.
All the above is just my opinion, good luck with your search.

Those are interesting comments, thanks for sharing.

Warbird Information Exchange

Editorial about Army Aviation History

Who is online