Warbird Information Exchange

It appears that the museum will be getting the Swoose from the Smithsonian and are trading Shoo Shoo Baby since they now have the Belle.

Anybody else hear this ?

That is news to me. I don't know how I fell about that. The Swoose is pretty darned cool, but so is Shoo Shoo baby!

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I am one of those guys who figures you can never have too many
airplanes. That is exciting news; imagine the possibility of seeing
the Swooze restored in our lifetime! Wow! How great is that??!!

That's a rumor that I haven't heard as well. I wouldn't hold my breath with the workload at the restoration as the Belle alone is forecast for some 8 to 10 years. In addition, the cost involved.

I'll be satisfied if I can see the Belle finished in my lifetime.

_________________
Jerry
S/Sgt. - USAF Radio Operator '52-'56
C-119 "Flying Boxcar" - Korea & Japan

Volunteer: National Museum of the US Air Force (2007-2016)
LTM 381st Bomb Group Memorial Association

Do they still do that? I was under the impression that Metcalf had put the kibosh on open cockpits. I was lucky enough to get into a few of them back in the early '90s at IPMS events.


SN

Yeah it is still done, but only certain aircraft. The used to open the B-36, but one day some one got stuck in the tube, so no more.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

WOW! The Swoose at the museum would be quite the coup! I think I agree with mustangdriver (again ) in that not sure how fair or even of a trade that would be. If the NASM were to sweeten the pot by maybe trading Bockscar for Enola along with some of the other obscure Nazi aircraft they have in storage, that might be a little more fair. From the pix I have seen of Swoose, she is pretty rough and incomplete while Shoo Shoo Shoo is spectactular! How about Swamp Ghost and Swoose for Shoo Shoo

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.

Actually, I think the Enola Gay and Bock's Car are exactly where they should be. The Smithsonian is a historical museum, and the EG is more historically important, having delivered the first nuclear weapon. The NMUSAF is a military museum, and BC is more militarilly important, having administered the coup de grace in WWII.

I don't know if we'll see any Smithsonian/NMUSAF trades anyway. I'm sure Mustangdriver has more inside info than I do, but a docent at Dayton once told me that the NMUSAF cut ties with the NASM, after they abruptly reposessed a loaner that the NMUSAF had recently finished restoring. But that was some years back, and relations may have thawed by now.

SN

I think the policy at Smithsonian is that if you restore an aircraft that they loaned to their standards you can display it for at least 5 years.

Steve...doesn't the long-nose FW-190 at the NMUSAF belong to the NASM? IIRC, I think I remember seeing it the last time I was there in August. Beautiful aircraft!

My thinking was that if the NASM were to trade the Enola Gay for Bockscar it might make the General a little more receptive to the idea of trading the derelict Swoose for the immaculate Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby. I also think that there would be many more people seeing EG at Dayton than where it is now there at Dulles.

Just my three cents worth

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.

RE: NMUSAF "Lighting", etc.
Pleas excuse this rather long post, but it is a topic worthy of serious discussion.
As a l-o-n-g time member of the NMUSAF "Friends", I have followed the several new building construction projects closely since they started at their current location. As a working lighting designer (primarily broadcast television now) I have followed the various lighting schemes of the aircraft at the museum...and have followed everyone's comment's on this forum & others.
Overall, I believe the NMUSAF is on the correct track in their attempts to display their a/c in some visual and historical context (a/c set in dioramas with scenery & artifacts displayed as part of the exhibit, etc.) rather than what I call the art museum approach: "here's a jewel" with the a/c merely as some object. This current "immersive" design approach is more instructive for the less "knowledgeable" visitor and a more compelling experience for many visitors.
If any of you have visited the relatively new Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, VA, then you have visited a brand new "immersive experience" museum first hand. To my taste, the Marine Corps museum might have gone a bit too far as I often felt "assaulted", or at least overwhelmed, by the (apparently) intentional sensory overload of sight & sound & form as I walked through all their spaces. It is a terrific museum filled with important objects well displayed. We can quibble about "well displayed" (some of their a/c are jammed into some of the spaces, but the a/c in that tall lobby literally soar overhead, rather nicely - so much space!) Lots of good information throughout the museum. It is the visual context combined with the audio and lighting in some of their galleries that was a bit over the top in some instances to my taste.
Back to the NMUSAF. A/c are on the huge end of museum displays and require huge buildings which are expensive to construct, operate & maintain, to say nothing about the cost of acquiring, restoring & maintaining the a/c and other artifacts. To create an immersive and instructive experience with such large objects that are viewed from so many different angles by the museum visitor with real world budget constraints is a huge challenge.
NASM (I am a long time member there also) went in another direction at the Udvar-Hazy Center - a huge volume of space to house a whole lot of a/c with several different vantage points for the museum visitors to see the a/c from. I like it, but it is a different experience than what the NMUSAF & the Marine Corps Museum are trying to achieve.
I like the NMUSAF attempt in this "visual context" direction and hope they will continue to improve it and expand it.
BUT...riddle me this one Batman...suspending dark a/c up near a black ceiling and trying to light them so someone standing below can see them through all the other bloody theatrical spotlights shining in your eyes - this makes sense? I wonder how many visitors have never even spotted the very dark U2 flying somewhere above (relatively near) the B36?
Personally, I HATE the black ceilings. (Are they in mourning for the dead birds? OK, sarcasm off now.) There are a lot of "brighter" choices between the black in some hangers and the white in the others.
I will continue to support and enjoy the NMUSAF. What a treasure trove. And, when I am made "King", we will repaint the ceilings and add more lighting.
...thanks for reading...
John

I'm going to go off topic with the lighting and question the FW-190D restoration.
I believe the history of the a/c was it served with JG26 and has a known Werk number, but they display it as a totally different a/c that served with JG3.
If they have the history on this a/c why display at as something it wasn't? Either way it was still a combat vet.

Edit: The more I read about this a/c the more confusing it gets. Different webpages and books refer to it as WNr. 601088 of JG 3 or WNr. 601392 of JG 26.

Edit: The new Jerry Crandall book arrived yesterday "The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Dora Vol. 1", shows it as WNr. 601088 of IV./JG 51. This is probably the most accurate.

Regards,
Mike