Memphis Belle / ShooShooShoo Baby
Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:53 pm
Good conversation, but beginning to stray off the issue of the Memphis Belle/Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby.
It is clear the USAFM doesn't have enough room for 2 B-17's. A recent visit to the WWII hangar proves this. The section is all but completely full and they haven't yet found a place for the C-39, B-23 Dragon, He-111 and the Ju-52. Are these plane simply going to be left outside or located out of place in the "Modern Flight Gallery?"
I only wish that General Metcalf would have given consideration to the obvious question: "What will become of the Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby?" and addressed this in the press release.
It is clear the USAFM doesn't have enough room for 2 B-17's. A recent visit to the WWII hangar proves this. The section is all but completely full and they haven't yet found a place for the C-39, B-23 Dragon, He-111 and the Ju-52. Are these plane simply going to be left outside or located out of place in the "Modern Flight Gallery?"
I only wish that General Metcalf would have given consideration to the obvious question: "What will become of the Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby?" and addressed this in the press release.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:10 pm
Jeffrey wrote:aerovin wrote:Regarding the NASM, if so much money and time were not spent on the restoration of foreign airplanes at the expense of valuable aircraft from U.S. history it wouldn't be a problem. The B-17D is but one example, but probably the best of how badly a historic aircraft can be treated by a "national" museum. All it takes is money and time, but the NASM has had both for other less significant (for the U.S. anyways) airplanes.
so you are against the NASM restoring a spitfire or a Bf109 I gather?
My biggest issue with the NASM is their fascination with the obscure Axis types. When we were there on a restoration facility tour with a bunch of warbird owners the tour guide babled on for twenty minutes about the restoration of the Serain, but spent 30 seconds discussing the Hurricane. Now, in the overall history of aviation, the Hurricane has a much more important place than the oddball, barely produced Serain. In my opinion the rare American type should be given attnetion first, after all, isn't the National Air and Space Museum, not the International Air and Space Museum. If they are worried about the deterioration fo the Axis types then give themm back to those countries for their national museums and concentrate on those that are more important to US history. Only my opinion of course...
Re: Memphis Belle / ShooShooShoo Baby
Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:34 pm
Guest wrote:I only wish that General Metcalf would have given consideration to the obvious question: "What will become of the Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby?" and addressed this in the press release.
I think that the restoration of the "Memphis Belle" will take 5-10 years. So this may not be a priority.
As for the other birds sitting outside, its all about the Benjamins. Get more money into the museum and more buildings can be built because there are quite a few planes waiting to get into the museum that are in the restoration shop, loaned out and coming in.
Matt
Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:37 pm
Excessively long and and money/staff hungry restorations of obscure foreign types over historically-important one-of-a-kind American aircraft....yes, I think the NASM needs a reality check.
As for room for two B-17s at Dayton....it sounds from the letter the USAF sent to the Memphis group that further expansion plans are in the works for the USAF Museum. Whether or not they plan to display two B-17s still awaits revealing. It can be assumed that the "Memphis Belle" is several years away from being ready to display anyway.
As for room for two B-17s at Dayton....it sounds from the letter the USAF sent to the Memphis group that further expansion plans are in the works for the USAF Museum. Whether or not they plan to display two B-17s still awaits revealing. It can be assumed that the "Memphis Belle" is several years away from being ready to display anyway.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:44 pm
I was under the impression that Memphis was working on the Belle. Is there a story as to what was really going on? Or what was the straw that broke the USAFM's back?
Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:56 pm
Points well taken as to the time-frame for restoring the Memphis Belle to display condition. Until that time, the G model will stay just where she is. However, the concern for the USAFM's intentions as to the Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby should not be ignored by the museum.
We all are wondering. They, i'm sure, know what they plan to do. They may not yet know where she is going, but I'm sure they know if she is going!
I would rather have one combat vet B-17 on display and save room for the He-111 that they have in storage (pending the retro-fitting of a set of original German engines in place of the Merlins) than display two B-17's and not have the He-111 in the WWII gallery.
The past conversations about the NASM's obsession with the Axis powers not withstanding, wouldn't you all agree?
[/quote]
We all are wondering. They, i'm sure, know what they plan to do. They may not yet know where she is going, but I'm sure they know if she is going!
I would rather have one combat vet B-17 on display and save room for the He-111 that they have in storage (pending the retro-fitting of a set of original German engines in place of the Merlins) than display two B-17's and not have the He-111 in the WWII gallery.
The past conversations about the NASM's obsession with the Axis powers not withstanding, wouldn't you all agree?
[/quote]
Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:36 pm
For me, if it were a B-17D and a B-17F, that would be preferred. Otherwise, spread the wealth a bit.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:05 pm
Hi Aerovin,
If I may (politely
) differ in some points from your views? The later history of the Swoose is no less its history than it's original configuration - less important, but not less its history. Responsible museums can't just 'undo' those changes.
Mike's point about 'representative' reconfigurations is a good one but a different point. I would direct people thinking about this issue to the SS Great Britain (http://www.ss-great-britain.com/) as to the issue of the difficulties of later mods and history.
I broadly agree with you over the Serian and the Hurricane, fair point. In 'history' terms you are quite right. But, on the other hand, the Serian is technologically much more important than the relatively common and technically conservitave Hurricane. Nice to have it, but it's not an important airframe itself - it's a historical marker.
As regards the concept of a 'National' museum having 'foreign' aircraft. To elabourate on my previous point - as you say it's your opinion (which I respect) but on the basis of the brief for the collection (the Museum's policy) you'll find you are simply wrong. No, I haven't checked, but I'd bet a dollar to a plug nickel (funny money, this?!) that their brief is to collect representative and important types and examples of aviation history and aviation technology - without any element of exclusivity to US types, though there may be a bias or preference for them. In other words, it's an international collection, weither you or I like the fact. For what it's worth, offhand, I can't think of any public owned aviation museum of front rank worldwide with an exclusively national collection... I do accept your concerns over their bias towards obscure types - but I'm afraid obscure types are my preference.
A digression, and the question of what happens with two B-17s remains.
Cheers!
If I may (politely
) differ in some points from your views? The later history of the Swoose is no less its history than it's original configuration - less important, but not less its history. Responsible museums can't just 'undo' those changes.
Mike's point about 'representative' reconfigurations is a good one but a different point. I would direct people thinking about this issue to the SS Great Britain (http://www.ss-great-britain.com/) as to the issue of the difficulties of later mods and history.
I broadly agree with you over the Serian and the Hurricane, fair point. In 'history' terms you are quite right. But, on the other hand, the Serian is technologically much more important than the relatively common and technically conservitave Hurricane. Nice to have it, but it's not an important airframe itself - it's a historical marker.
As regards the concept of a 'National' museum having 'foreign' aircraft. To elabourate on my previous point - as you say it's your opinion (which I respect) but on the basis of the brief for the collection (the Museum's policy) you'll find you are simply wrong. No, I haven't checked, but I'd bet a dollar to a plug nickel (funny money, this?!) that their brief is to collect representative and important types and examples of aviation history and aviation technology - without any element of exclusivity to US types, though there may be a bias or preference for them. In other words, it's an international collection, weither you or I like the fact. For what it's worth, offhand, I can't think of any public owned aviation museum of front rank worldwide with an exclusively national collection... I do accept your concerns over their bias towards obscure types - but I'm afraid obscure types are my preference.
A digression, and the question of what happens with two B-17s remains.
Cheers!
Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:30 pm
JDK wrote:.
A digression, and the question of what happens with two B-17s remains.
"Memphis Belle" is going to be restored properly in the future, something the city of Memphis hasn't done in forty years despite many warnings from the Air Force Museum. When she is finished, one of the two B-17's stays in Dayton and the other goes to one of the many other Air Force Museums around the country, or even one of the better private museums. I have it on good authority that the "Belle" will end up at the Mighty 8th Museum in Savanna, Georgia. I think that is a fitting place for her.
As for the Swoose and the other B-17G at the NASM, I'm not looking for anything to be done to either of them in my lifetime.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:34 pm
The mystery has been solved! For all who are wondering what the fate of the Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby will be, may I quote the response I received from the USAFM this afternoon (10/07):
"At the end of an anticipated five to seven year restoration period for the Memphis Belle, Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby will be transfered to another federal museum which can provide the aircraft an equally high level of exhibit and conservation standards as it has been afforded by us."
Terry Aitken
Senior Curator
"At the end of an anticipated five to seven year restoration period for the Memphis Belle, Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby will be transfered to another federal museum which can provide the aircraft an equally high level of exhibit and conservation standards as it has been afforded by us."
Terry Aitken
Senior Curator
Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:16 pm
"At the end of an anticipated five to seven year restoration period for the Memphis Belle, Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby will be transfered to another federal museum which can provide the aircraft an equally high level of exhibit and conservation standards as it has been afforded by us."
That makes it sound like it's going to end up at the NASM. It meets all the criteria specified by Mr. Aitken.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 6:43 pm
Hey James K.
It's not that I think it should be exclusively U.S. and I fully understand the international scope of good aviation collections. The problem I have is the priority afforded admittedly rare and obscure foreign types over equally rare U.S. types in a U.S. collection.
The B-17D has been on the NASM back burner for 56 years. The usual comment is that the NASM does not have the money or space to do the restoration. After a few decades that excuse begins to wear thin. There are several excellent museums, the Air Force Museum and the Museum of Flight among them, that would do that airplane justice. If the NASM doesn't want to do anything with it, the airplane should go elsewhere. Instead, it sits in dead storage with some date in the future when it might be reassembled. That's the best they offer...no restoration is scheduled as far as I can determine.
It's not that I think it should be exclusively U.S. and I fully understand the international scope of good aviation collections. The problem I have is the priority afforded admittedly rare and obscure foreign types over equally rare U.S. types in a U.S. collection.
The B-17D has been on the NASM back burner for 56 years. The usual comment is that the NASM does not have the money or space to do the restoration. After a few decades that excuse begins to wear thin. There are several excellent museums, the Air Force Museum and the Museum of Flight among them, that would do that airplane justice. If the NASM doesn't want to do anything with it, the airplane should go elsewhere. Instead, it sits in dead storage with some date in the future when it might be reassembled. That's the best they offer...no restoration is scheduled as far as I can determine.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:08 pm
I'm assuming you are aerovin again and forgot to log in. at least you seem to share similar sentiments.
as for the serain, oddball? yes, barely produced? yes, ultrarare and only remaining example of a type designed to strike at AMERICA at a time when even the layman in the home islands of japan must have known that the war was lost and a last ditch desperate attempt at some form of victory? yes.
agreed the hurricane did play a larger role. agreed if achieved more. but by denying the serain it's place in the light, and the other foreign types, you are basically deny americans a view of the other side of the conflict these aircraft were made for.
sorry but this is the attitude exactly, to my mind, that made up the americanisation thread from before. in a nutshell you have said " stuff the rest, we just want america. " sorry, but america did not stand alone and it did not fight itself that time so to me you have to show all sides, allies and adversaries, to get a full picture.
sorry if it was long and confusing with the quotes but I needed the bits to made it stick together. and sorry scott if it has made the thread a bit "personal" or controversial.
Guest wrote:Jeffrey wrote:aerovin wrote:Regarding the NASM, if so much money and time were not spent on the restoration of foreign airplanes at the expense of valuable aircraft from U.S. history it wouldn't be a problem. The B-17D is but one example, but probably the best of how badly a historic aircraft can be treated by a "national" museum. All it takes is money and time, but the NASM has had both for other less significant (for the U.S. anyways) airplanes.
In this you say nothing at all about axis aircraft only foreign. the spitfire is foreign, does that mean you'd deny recognition to the eagle squadrons? or even the US squadrons that flew spitfires?Jeffrey wrote:so you are against the NASM restoring a spitfire or a Bf109 I gather?
My biggest issue with the NASM is their fascination with the obscure Axis types. When we were there on a restoration facility tour with a bunch of warbird owners the tour guide babled on for twenty minutes about the restoration of the Serain, but spent 30 seconds discussing the Hurricane. Now, in the overall history of aviation, the Hurricane has a much more important place than the oddball, barely produced Serain. In my opinion the rare American type should be given attnetion first, after all, isn't the National Air and Space Museum, not the International Air and Space Museum. If they are worried about the deterioration fo the Axis types then give themm back to those countries for their national museums and concentrate on those that are more important to US history. Only my opinion of course...
as for the serain, oddball? yes, barely produced? yes, ultrarare and only remaining example of a type designed to strike at AMERICA at a time when even the layman in the home islands of japan must have known that the war was lost and a last ditch desperate attempt at some form of victory? yes.
agreed the hurricane did play a larger role. agreed if achieved more. but by denying the serain it's place in the light, and the other foreign types, you are basically deny americans a view of the other side of the conflict these aircraft were made for.
sorry but this is the attitude exactly, to my mind, that made up the americanisation thread from before. in a nutshell you have said " stuff the rest, we just want america. " sorry, but america did not stand alone and it did not fight itself that time so to me you have to show all sides, allies and adversaries, to get a full picture.
sorry if it was long and confusing with the quotes but I needed the bits to made it stick together. and sorry scott if it has made the thread a bit "personal" or controversial.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:24 pm
aerovin wrote:Excessively long and and money/staff hungry restorations of obscure foreign types over historically-important one-of-a-kind American aircraft....yes, I think the NASM needs a reality check.
As for room for two B-17s at Dayton....it sounds from the letter the USAF sent to the Memphis group that further expansion plans are in the works for the USAF Museum. Whether or not they plan to display two B-17s still awaits revealing. It can be assumed that the "Memphis Belle" is several years away from being ready to display anyway.
hmmm oops I seem to have replied to the wrong person, same sort of reply from you though so I guess a similar reply from me is warranted. I suggest you read what I wrote to guest.
I do agree that one of a kind american airframes deserve a similar importance to one of a kind japanese or german ones though but there are plenty of american museums with expertise in american manufacture. why not loan them to them for a while to get them in the public eye and restored by competant people and restore the historically as important but airframes where it is harder to find skilled labour that knowns the construction methods, like the serain used as an example before, should, to me, be done by people who have had to deal with those techniques before and as such should be done by the NASM who have the experience.
or would you rather they have perfect american airframes and the rest of the possibley botched jobs by people who are learning from almost scratch as they go? I believe there was comment of a P40 or something at pensacola or somewwhere that was restored out of house and was not done to very good standards. would you like to see the serain have been treated similarly?
sorry but I firmly believe in displaying the ENTIRE history of a conflict. the allies and the adversaries as without either of those there are gaps in it and we get such things as how WW2 history is shown in the movie peral harbour. do you honestly believe that without accurate displays that kids in 40 years will not believe that there were 2 fighter pilots from pearl harbour who fought the japanese attack and then repaid the japanese by taking part in Doolittle's raid on tokyo?
as for returning an airframe to how it was at a certain time in it's existance that's great except for one thing, you are either destroying or refusing to recognise anything else it might have done or become after that date. It is like saying "you are a 20 year old and we will treat you as such despite the fact you married at 22 and had kids when 24 and 25 and served with distinction as various things from 26 to 35. we want to show you as you were when you went to ( insert place name here )." surely you have more respect for the item than that and/or the history of it after that one point in time? if it were a person then you'd have just insulted every single returned serviceman anywhere and told them that their lives after that one point in their service is nothing.
of course only my view and take on things but hey, it is a discussion where opinions get aired.
Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:29 pm
Jeffrey,
I don't see how you get all that from the posts. On a simple level, I think the NASM should devote resources to restore or at least display the B-17D. They have chosen instead to devote alot of their resources on a small number of foreign aircraft, primarily Axis power types captured at the end of the war and put in the collection. I don't think it's a particularly "American-only" attitude to advocate the restoration of this aircraft. Frankly, I'd like to see it out of the collection and go elsewhere as there are few groups that could treat it worse and many that would at least put it on display. The total neglect of the "Swoose" almost seems purposeful, though I would not suggest that it is.
Trade it to a museum that wants it.
I don't see how you get all that from the posts. On a simple level, I think the NASM should devote resources to restore or at least display the B-17D. They have chosen instead to devote alot of their resources on a small number of foreign aircraft, primarily Axis power types captured at the end of the war and put in the collection. I don't think it's a particularly "American-only" attitude to advocate the restoration of this aircraft. Frankly, I'd like to see it out of the collection and go elsewhere as there are few groups that could treat it worse and many that would at least put it on display. The total neglect of the "Swoose" almost seems purposeful, though I would not suggest that it is.
Trade it to a museum that wants it.