Eighth Air Force Museum might lose their aircraft

[Warbirdnerd]

Local museum faces challenges, loss of airplanes

Hangar for older airplanes could cost $30 million or more

By John Andrew Prime
jprime@gannett.com

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Brett Dula was a mere colonel at Barksdale Air Force Base when he commanded the 2nd Bomb Wing.

However, those who know him remember that one of his proudest days was when he saw a derelict B-29 bomber emerge from the belly of a C-5 Galaxy transport, to rise like a phoenix from the ashes of neglect to blossom in the museum's air park.

That World War II bomber is an airplane a report from the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force says should stay at Barksdale, a scant counter to the possible loss of its B-17 and the B-24. Following an unsatisfactory inspection and failing to gain initial accreditation by its national parent museum, the 8th Air Force Museum at Barksdale is working to avoid losing its signature air park.

One day local visitors could awake to find more than half its airplanes gone. The valuable older airplanes taken to Ohio and others, such as the British Vulcan bomber the Royal Air Force specifically gave to the local base, scrapped.

The B-24 bomber is associated with the base's greatest glory of World War II, serving as training site for many B-24 crews that eventually flew one of World War II's greatest and deadliest missions, the August 1943 attack on Romanian oil refineries at Ploesti. More than 700 airmen lost their lives in that mission, and five Medals of Honor were awarded, the most ever for a single combat exploit. One Medal of Honor went to a Shreveporter, Col. John Riley "Killer" Kane, son of prominent local Baptist minister John Franklin Kane. The loss of the B-24 would sever one of the few remaining links between the base, Kane and the Ploesti mission that helped define long-range strategic bombing.

Dula almost seemed like a proud father as he watched his magnesium-alloy baby plop onto the Barksdale tarmac, but he recognizes the hurdles the local museum faces.

"I wish the wing well in their attempts to bolster the museum but the cumulative effects of 30-plus years of inattention and insufficient manpower are evident in the pretty graphic photos the inspection team took," said Dula, now retired to Austin, Texas. He occasionally visits the area for family reasons and keeps tabs on the museum and the museum's founding curator and current director, Harold D. "Buck" Rigg, an old friend.

The base museum here faces challenges from leaner, meaner competitors out to get patrons, visitors and collections.

"Visit Pensacola, Omaha, Wright-Patterson, Dallas, Seattle or any number of first-class aviation museums and you'll quickly surmise this: To have a decent aviation museum, the airplanes must be located inside climate-controlled buildings and the aircraft have to be restored, not just parked there," Dula said.

About a dozen members of the 8th Air Force Museum Association met at the museum on base Thursday to further plans to correct deficiencies noted in the report from the parent museum, which declined to grant accreditation, in a first round of such inspections by the museum system.

The local museum is not alone in being faulted by observers both inside and outside the Air Force Museum system.

An editorial in the current issue of the prestigious aviation magazine "Warbird Digest" takes the whole museum system to task for arbitrarily refusing to certify aircraft for restoration and refurbishment by the private Commemorative Air Force and other recognized air preservation groups, and for neglecting displays at museums under its review.

Noting the museum system's refusal to certify a rare F-82, a twin-fuselaged version of the famed Mustang fighter, editor Tim Savage wondered just what the system planned to do with the airplane once it had it.

"Park it outside alongside the similar example they have sitting exposed to the elements at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas?" he wondered. "Better yet, send it to the U.S. Air Force Armament Museum at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., where it can sit beside the B-25 and B-17 that are literally falling apart from corrosion?"

Savage also castigated the system for not providing adequate support and resources for its field museums.

"The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force should take care of the aircraft they already have in their fleet that are moldering outside, exposed to the elements and vandals," he wrote.

Backers of the local museum, which some day would like to move to acreage on the base near a planned interchange with I-20 near the future Cyber Innovation Center and National Cyber Research Park, estimate it would take at least 30 million to build a hangar and educational center that would protect its older airplanes and allow for adequate preservation efforts.

"Buck's plans have always included those notions, but the organization and, most notably, the money just hasn't arrived," said Dula, who also commanded 2nd Air Force in California, was a vice commander of the 8th Air Force here and ended his career as vice commander of Air Combat Command. "And in the present economic environment, it's not likely to. It took around $30 million in Omaha, and they've only just begun."

Found it here:
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/ ... 30327/1060

[Nathan]

wow.

[cozmo]

Dang, I always hear about how much money Shreveport and Bossier city brings in from the DFW area because of the casinos. You would think the casinos could help out. When I go to the museum, we also have to stop by one of the casinos so the wife can drop them more money then I leave for the museum fund.
Here they are from the mid-90's and last year. They are pretty rough.

Barksdale

[mtpopejoy]

No offense but I wouldnt mind seeing a fiberglass B-24 replica left outside and the Ford built B-24 transferred to Yankee Air Museum for restoration to flightworty.

[Holedigger]

Just what could ANY private museum do with 30 million!?! I know it is tough economic times for everyone, but the government NEVER has been frugal in their spending or common sense! Hopefully this will be carefully studied before this knee-jerk reaction occurs. If the powers that be have determined that not enough care has been taken of the AC where they are....they need to look at the AC in "storage" at the places they would be shipping them to! Take the money saved by NOT moving them and add it to the budget of those facilities!

[tulsaboy]

I think it would be fun to dive into the breakdown on that 30 million number. I know for a fact (based on recent experience) that you could build a hangar to house the bulk of those birds for much less than that. The number starts ramping up when you throw in goodies like a/c, heat, etc. Then tack on offices for your staff, a gift shop, archives, snack bar, etc. and it goes even higher. If they were interested in approaching it in phases, I'd bet the NMUSAF would listen. There are a lot of aircraft in far worse condition across the NMUSAF system; just building a hangar, even not climate controlled, would be a huge step in the right direction. Properly insulated, the hangar could later be plumbed for a/c and heat etc, and a gift shop and the other goodies could come later as well. You can always set up tables with stuff to sell. Lots of air museums have started with much less. Having an impressive collection of aircraft under one roof would be a huge jump on other museums.

kevin

[Forgotten Field]

Seems like the USAF and USN are on witch hunts to retrieve aircraft. That 30M number is not far off. When you get done paying all the local "taxes" of impact studies, community interventions, public meetings, contract review's, etc., you wind up with a very expensive endeavor. I say let the DOD have them, and choke on them, until they have too many and have to turn to private enterprise to control them and fly them.

[Jerry O'Neill]

No offense but I wouldnt mind seeing a fiberglass B-24 replica left outside and the Ford built B-24 transferred to Yankee Air Museum for restoration to flightworty.

Flightworthy or not, I think Willow Run would be a great place for it, if not, maybe even Savannah!
Jerry

[cozmo]

Well, here's what they have in mind:

Yes, there is a gift shop, probably air conditioned (it is Louisiana after all). I don't think this plan is anything new.

I would prefer it over a lot of other things money is spent on. Unlike Dyess or Lackland (the other Bases around here), a person can actually go see the aircraft.

Though I would like it better if the Vulcan got to go indoors.

[BHawthorne]

Another museum with hanger problems is the Kansas Aviation Museum. They're been after a hanger for awhile now. I don't see how lack of hanger = remove planes from a museum though. Frankly the article reads like scare tactics to generate local donations for a hanger. It's sort of rediculous when the article mentions that planes could be scrapped because they're not housed in a $30 million climate controlled building. One does not need a $30 million climate controlled hanger to maintain and properly present an aircraft collection for the public to enjoy. Why spend $30 million when they could spend several thousand a year instead on upkeep to maintain the physical appearance of the aircraft themselves? Certainly sounds a lot cheaper.

[APG85]

I think it would be fun to dive into the breakdown on that 30 million number. I know for a fact (based on recent experience) that you could build a hangar to house the bulk of those birds for much less than that. The number starts ramping up when you throw in goodies like a/c, heat, etc. Then tack on offices for your staff, a gift shop, archives, snack bar, etc. and it goes even higher. If they were interested in approaching it in phases, I'd bet the NMUSAF would listen. There are a lot of aircraft in far worse condition across the NMUSAF system; just building a hangar, even not climate controlled, would be a huge step in the right direction. Properly insulated, the hangar could later be plumbed for a/c and heat etc, and a gift shop and the other goodies could come later as well. You can always set up tables with stuff to sell. Lots of air museums have started with much less. Having an impressive collection of aircraft under one roof would be a huge jump on other museums.

kevin

Not that simple. You build a building, it has to have bathrooms, handicap access, insurance, etc., etc., etc. $$$$$$$$$

[groundpounder]

any way you slice it, we are lucky that these birds are still around at all considering the lack of attention they recieve. this goes for all aircraft that are stored outside, unprotected. the folks that attempt to maintain these aircraft should be saluted and congratulated for their efforts, but things left to the elements have a finite lifespan.

i'm not sure just how many of us realize that most, if not all of these aircraft are a mere shell of their former selves,most of them being nothing more than stripped out hulks with an ocasional paint job applied , which pacifies the general public for another few years. now, the time is coming to pay the piper.

these aircraft were designed to last a matter of months in service, not 60 years of elements and relative neglect. how long would your car last if parked in the driveway uattended?? i would say after 1 year it would be pretty rough, 2 years it would need a lot of work to run and be safe, 5 years and it would be junk without a major restoration.

now we are looking at aluminium that has been left to the elements for 60 years! what are we expecting?? water puddling in the belly year after year, corrosion left unchecked, parts raided and stripped, situational damage, unskilled attempts to repair things , resulting in making things worse than they were in the first place, the list goes on and on. one only has to look at the posting the other day of the ball turret in the B-17 that was basically intact, left to fend for itself with probably not too many people even aware of what they have right in front of their noses.

the custodians of these aircraft HAVE to get serious NOW about whether or not they really want these aircraft around in 10 years. it seems odd to me that an airforce that professes to have so much pride in their heritage and accomplishments over the years would literally ignore the very vehicles that got them there in the first place. the "its mine and i'll do with it as i please, even if its nothing " attitude is bringing on the very demise of their own past. when there are literally two dozen B-17's rotting away outdoors with absolutely minimal upkeep, and guys are spending millions of dollars to haul scrap from the bottom of lakes in the hope of cobbling something together that might one day fly, there is definately a lack of cohesive effort going on between people who have an interest in this type of thing.

ok, so i'm ranting! it just frustrates the hell out of me to see these aircraft rotting away outdoors, when the people who are charged with their care dont know which end of a wrench to use and are given no funds to work with. while the few people that bother to come by to look dont know the nose from the tail, let alone an original nearly complete turret from a replica. they do what they can but it is painfully obvious that this cycle of perpetual postponement cannot go on much longer. one of these days one of these static aircraft are just gonna break in half right were they sit, surely there must be some warehouses or something that could be utilized in the short term? i suggest that fibreglass replicas are the obvious solutions for these rare birds, and if you want to see the real thing, well you are just gonna have to buck up and go to a proper museum. but then you will see the real thing, not some stripped out piece of crap that used to be amazing. just my 2 cents.....

[Nathan]

ok, so i'm ranting! it just frustrates the heck out of me to see these aircraft rotting away outdoors, when the people who are charged with their care dont know which end of a wrench to use and are given no funds to work with. while the few people that bother to come by to look dont know the nose from the tail, let alone an original nearly complete turret from a replica. they do what they can but it is painfully obvious that this cycle of perpetual postponement cannot go on much longer. one of these days one of these static aircraft are just gonna brake in half right were they sit, surely there must be some warehouses or something that could be utilized in the short term? i suggest that fibreglass replicas are the obvious solutions for these rare birds, and if you want to see the real thing, well you are just gonna have to buck up and go to a proper museum. but then you will see the real thing, not some stripped out piece of crap that used to be amazing. just my 2 cents.....

I often wonder what will happen to these aircraft left out on poles and such. Either they are left to rot and eventually scrapped or pulled and put in a museum?

[Kos]

We had a lovingly restored TF-102 displayed in our air park. Shortly after our hangar fire, the NMUSAF came calling and repossessed it because "we couldn't provide protection from the elements and provide for an inside display". Where is this aircraft now? At some midwestern AFB, sitting OUTSIDE. Where would this aircraft have gotten better care? At an AFB where they are concerned with more current aircraft, or at a private museum where it is a big part of the collection?

There are several other museums that have had aircraft wrenched away from those that have put in a lot of time and money (and love and care) to restore the aircraft by the NMUSAF .

Personally, I question why anyone would put any amount of time into a NMUSAF aircraft these days.

[Dan Johnson II]

Think about all those birds out there slowly rotting away. I'm not sure who the bad guys are in this.

Seems to me that long term preservation and restoration is the key here, not short term leave em to rot.

If we're serious about preserving this history, it's going to cost a lot more then the occasional coat of paint.

I don't know the answer, but when see those 17s and 24s among others, left out in the cold, it doesn't take much imagination to see them as rusting mounds of metal sooner then later.