Warbird Information Exchange

What makes some people here think that there is some sort of public mandate to even have a national museum? And what makes those same people think that the government is better equipped to preserve these aircraft than the private sector? Just curious.

If the museum should happen to burn to the ground (taking the lovingly preserved Mosquito with it) we're once again stuck with the photos, videos, and recorded memories.



The amount of planes lost in museum fires and those that fly are pretty close. The biggest difference is flying planes get lost one at a time, museum fires lose a large number at one time. Look at the fires in San Diego, Canadian Warplanes, Yankee, Paris. The tornados at the New England museum, hurricanes in Florida, and the gulf coast . Just because a plane is in a museum, does not mean it is safe.

True. But how many Mustangs were destroyed last year while flying, 4? How many were lost in museum fires? Oh yeah, none. Warbirds crash every year, museum fires come along once a decade or less. There is no comparable level of risk. If you don't beleve me ask the insurance industry.

James

When you saw the aircraft on Mud Island it had already been repainted multiple times. This wasn't the original paint job that you saw. There was a picture posted by I think Jack cook some time back that showed the Belle in the late 40s or 50s at a "Memphis Belle" crew reunion and the aircraft already had signs that it had been repainted including a horrible rendition of the nose art.

I think saying that an aircrafts paint is it's soul is somewhat overkill. aircraft are painted over and over even in combat, aircraft have engines replaced over and over in combat, aircraft have system replaced over and over in combat. The engineering, the purpose, their historical significance and what they symbolize is their soul. The paint is just another component (very minor component) of the aircraft that is replaced over and over during the lifetime of an aircraft.

I completely agree that in cases where you have a time capsule of the era that is one of the rare examples of an unmolested airframe ("Flack Bait" style) it is a tragedy to destroy that history. In the case of the Belle that history was lost long ago when the aircraft was stripped of it's equipment, the interior and exterior painted many times of the years. The smartest thing to do is restore it to pristine condition while at the same time making it as accurate as possible and incorporating as many original components as possible.

ryan

I agree, we are comparing disaster that happen to museums over the past 30 years to stuff that happened last year. More warbirds are lost flying than in museum accidents. I will go one farther and say that more aircraft are lost while flying than while in a hangar. That goes for airliners, GA Aircraft, and warbirds. Now I do not believe in grounding all of the warbirds, but have a balance. I for one think there are museums around the U.S. that if a school wants to get their kids there, they will. I don't know of any schools that bring their kids on a field trip to the airport when the Collings Birds are in town. They just don't do it. But every year my high school would take a trip to the NASM in D.C. And they still do.
Why does there need to be a National Museum? YOu are kidding right? Why does there need to be a baseball hall of fame? Why have an art Gallery, Why have the NASM let's just through the Spirit of St. Louis in a T-Hangar at a randomn airport. There needs to be National Museums, and the branch museums of the military, to provide main areas of for collections to be viewed. There needs to be a level of care ensured in these artifacts. They need to be viewed by the public on a regular basis.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

James,

Of these four Mustangs, were all "destroyed" or were some damaged and are being rebuilt?

Fire is, of course, only one risk to static aircraft. Storm damage is another. How about dropping a Stuka from a ceiling? Anyone else remember the Air Zoo's grounded P-39 being damaged by an out-of-control car that crashed through the museum walls? How does one prevent damage or loss of an aircraft? Bury it, maybe?

Truth is flyable aircraft are lost/damaged. Static aircraft are lost/damaged. We need to stop worrying about events which are beyond reasonable control and recognize that what we already have--some flyable and others static--isn't such a terrible thing.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

I personally don't have a problem with National collections I think it is one of the few things the government does right. Preserving history is important and often times the private citizens (and until even recently the government) doesn't realize something is important enough to save until they have to dig it out of a junk yard and restore it. I hope that the military continues to place important examples of modern day aircraft in collections. The nice thing about saving something before it is destroyed is that you can just preserve rather than have to restore which keeps much of its' history intact.

On the other side of things I believe that all of the national collections that include aircraft sitting outside at an Air Force Base with the windshields painted blue is a huge waste. I think the government should release those aircraft into the civilian market and the funding could support the further restoration and preservation of the aircraft they will hold onto. I think having a few National Museums is really all they should have.

Maybe consolidate the aircraft on the West Coast to Castle Air Force Base and turn that into an indoor collection. keep the National Marine and Naval Air Museum and then sell off all the duplicates to the civies.

Ryan

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?

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.

Same thing with the AT-6. How many of these would be around if nobody flew them? Lets face it they aren't that interesting unless you are flying in them, or seeing them fly. When they are in museums they are hung from the rafters because nobody really cares to even see them in a museum.

If it wasn;t for the flying aircraft we wouldn't nearly the amount of restored examples today.

Glacier girl would never have been pulled from the ice if the people involved would have been restricted to seeing it tucked away in a hangar for the rest of it's life. Glacier girl is certainly no sacred airframe there are several P-38 fliers and several tucked away pristinely restored in museums to be saved for the foreseeable future. If it wasn't for the ability to fly it nobody would have resurrected it from the hundreds of feet of ice that was stacked on top of it.

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

A little off topic but in the same genre... What is your opinion about the FW-189 that was being restored for flight? I followed that restoration for years and was very excited at the prospect of it flying. It is the only survivor. (now with Mr. Allen IIRC) It'd be amazing to see that thing fly in the future, and with a collection like FHC, I wouldn't be surprised if we do...eventually. On a side note, I applaud the folks in England for getting Vulcan XH558 back in the air and believe that other extremely rare aircraft should be flown in a similar fashion (limited). That aircraft is not "rare" so to speak, but it'll prove more inspiring flying (mostly on noise according to my Dad!) than it ever will sitting on the ground in a museum. just my 2 pennies for the day.

_________________
I'm looking for that buried Corsair(s) that I can dig up, pressure wash, and fly!

So we are spanning the views from if it doesn't have the original paint that it sucks, to it's the same to just build a whole new one? Wow! [/quote]
No, that is not what I am saying...
I am saying that with the technology we have today, a "warbird" that no longer exsists....can be recreated, and painted as a Flying Replica down to the last nut and bolt of something we have lost....that was all. I have see several comments in the WIX about old warbirds flying in civie colors...I really don't give a tinkers darn what the color...I just want to see it, touch it, smell it, hear it - Loud...have a nice day

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

So we are spanning the views from if it doesn't have the original paint that it sucks, to it's the same to just build a whole new one? Wow! [/quote]
mustangdriver


No, that is not what I am saying...
I am saying that with the technology we have today, a "warbird" that no longer exsists....can be recreated, and painted as a Flying Replica down to the last nut and bolt of something we have lost....that was all. I have see several comments in the WIX about old warbirds flying in civie colors...I really don't give a tinkers darn what the color...I just want to see it, touch it, smell it, hear it - Loud...have a nice day

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

I'm getting a little off the subject here, but I want to address the above. 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.

Dayton is right off of one of the major east-west interstates, and gets an awful lot of traffic. DC gets millions of visitors and tourists every year. It makes sense to have national collections located there. The historical aspect of Dayton to Air Force history and aviation history in general is a pretty good argument for having such a large collection located there. Historically Pensacola is the same way for the Navy.

As a frequent visitor to many aviation/aerospace museums each year, I appreciate being able to travel to one or two locations to see a huge collection of aircraft in one place. You argue that more people would be able to see the aircraft if they were spread out about the country - I disagree. I think more people (not just aviation nuts like us) are willing to travel the distance to a major museum collection than to travel about to many smaller ones, even if they might be closer to home.

As for the preserve it/fly it/stick it in a museum debate - I'm for a well-rounded helping of both flying and static. There's definitely room for both.

Zack

_________________
Volunteer Coordinator/Curator - Military Aviation Museum - Virginia Beach, VA
"America's Flying Museum"
http://www.militaryaviationmuseum.org

From what I understand, 50 years of torture and abuse by being basically abandoned to the elements (and vandals & teenagers) in an open park took their toll on Memphis Belle, so the restoration is pretty much required to keep her from falling apart completely... From the condition I imagine she was in(bad enough for the USAF to reassert possession form the city of Memphis) I guess she needed it. I just hope(and believe) they will do a darn good job of replicating her markings...

Robbie

What is the definition of "written off?" You can almost always pry a couple of parts out of the wreckage and cobble them into a new airplane and call it a "restoration." But that is not really my point. All I'm saying is that on the whole the risk to a flying plane is greater than that to one that stays static. You are right that if people didn't want to fly them there wouldn't be nearly as many WW II planes around now. I am most certainly not in favor of grounding everything. That is just as silly as saying everything has to fly.

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