Pooner wrote:NASM could not have been the buyer, as they do not purchase aircraft additions. There have been almost no exceptions to this rule.
The most significant US type that the NASM doesn't have probably is the B-24.
I've heard this mentioned as such before, and to me therein lies a major part of the problem with NASM and its acquisitions. Is this part of official policy, and, if so, why? I'm all for the private sector stepping up to the plate and helping out museums and assist collections for posterity (this is NOT a anti-museum rant, by any stretch of the imagination), but at what point does a body such as NASM say "it's a necessary piece for the national collection, so do what it takes to acquire it."
Do what it takes? With what? The NASM is fed a shoestring diet by Congress. For major building projects and acquisitions it would have to rely on private or corporate gifts. It is not one of those museums that is part of a $140 billion per year air force that supposedly doesn't support it. It used to be able to acquire needed aircraft by trading from its own collection, but I don't think it has many disposable aircraft left.
There is a different story behind each Lib you mentioned. Of them, I imagine NASM would probably agree, if it were being candid, that not getting an Indian Lib in the 1960s was a big missed opportunity. Canada got one by trading a Lysander, and the NASM surely had a spare warbird or two that it could have traded. But that's ancient history now isn't it?
So, what gives? Without sounding a little guarded at my opinions on NASM - does policy really get in the way of acquisitions? Am I to believe there is no funding arm whatsoever to pursue particular aircraft purchases or restorations? Or is it really just a priority thing?
Economics gets in the way of acquisitions. Policy keeps the museum afloat with limited resources. The first goal for any museum is to preserve safely what it already has, and for most of its history NASM has had to scramble for resources just to keep a sound roof over its assets. At one time in the 1950s it could not even do that, and had to dispose of several last-of-their-kind aircraft that today it would love to have back. If you ever visited the Garber facility you had to shake your head at such precious assets being kept in such dump, yet securing that dump saved much of the collection.
Today things look different with the shiny new Dulles facility and some great old planes being brought out of hiding but they may not be quite as different as they appear. Or perhaps the NASM does have a few more resources now, and needs to shake off its culture of poverty and relax its no-purchase policy somewhat. But that is a recent development, and it is a fair point that in 2008, the B-24s are all spoken for, and for the price that a museum-worthy one would command, more bang for the buck could be obtained by hunting for different types of aircraft.
I do not think that putting together a B-24 from scoured parts like Hill AFB's would be a real option for NASM. NASM generally prefers that its exhibits have better provenance than that.
August