Warbird Information Exchange

I've always been curious as to why there is a lack on naval (specific) aircraft on display at the NMUSAF. I'm not referring to planes such as the SBD and PBY, that while primarily used in USN service are displayed in USAAF markings. I also realize that the main focus IS the USAF, but British, French, Canadian, Italian, German, and Russian aircraft are also on display.

Surely it can't be that hard to get an A-6 for the Vietnam section, or an F-14 in the Cold War Gallery (ok, maybe the F-14 is a bad example... ).

Is there anything in the collecting policy about this?

Thoughts?

Well, I think that they leave that to Pensacola, and try to focus on the USAF aircraft for each era. Remember that we use each aircraft as a memorial for those who flew, serviced, and crewed the aircraft.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Agreed, but why not an aircraft or two that represents the USN? You could make the argument that the F-14 has more relevance to the USAF than the Mig-29 or Tornado does.



Is this JUST as a memorial to the USAF crews or to foreign crews as well? Just curious.

I think it is a memorial to the crews of the other countries as well that flew as our allies, and enemies. We were honored to have the allies and respect the bravery of the enemies. The Navy aircraft would be cool. I would love to see a Tomcat and Corsair and stuff, but I really think that they are just trying to make sure that all veterans of the USAF are represented in the museum. If the NMUSAF doesn't honor some of the obscure people in the history, then no one may.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

NMUSAF already catches heck for lots of things.

Imagine what the Navy folks would say if they started collecting Navy stuff.

Where else would foreign stuff go? A special museum for foreign stuff only?

AFAIK, the British aircraft are presented in US colours, rather than their (own) original schemes. It is the museum for the USAF and predecessors, and doesn't significantly focus on anything but the service and its enemies.

(To say it 'honours' America's allies, IMHO, seems a bit of a stretch as I'm not aware of any allied aircraft presented in the colours of an allied service?)

The US Naval aviation is more than adequately covered by the NMUSNA at Pensacola.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

THere used to be a Lysander, but it is now in the NASM. There are a few aircraft in the allied colors, but if the USAF flew the type then they want to try to tell the American story.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

One of the reasons that we need science and technology museums is that aviation and technology aren't the province of any one country or military service. Hence the best collection in the USA is the Smithsonian, because it covers all bases to some degree.

Military museums also tend to duck the hard questions about the shortcomings of their service. Nobody's history is all glory, and ignoring the dubious stuff isn't healthy.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Agreed

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Post WW1, the Hurricane (painted as 71 Sqn, so point taken) and Tornado are in British colors, while the Spitfires, Mosquito, and Beaufighter are in US colors.

I think the focus is great. One of the things I really like about the museum is having types most commonly associated with foreign nations but saw little service with the USAAF painted in US colors.




Agreed. I'm not suggesting that the NMUSAF start collecting US Navy types en masse, merely that a representative type would fit in well with the collection.

Oh really.....??







also when TE330 was at the museum

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

I know! I know! They should go recover an extinct torpedo plane as a representative of Naval aviation!

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

I don't know about museums ducking hard questions, its hasn't seemed that way to me.

I don't agree that they should be in science and technology museums. The one's I have been to schizophrenic (maybe to harsh of a word but I couldn't think of one that fits better) in their displays. People go to aircraft museums to see aircraft.

Last time I was there, other countries were well represented. They were contemporaries of the USAF displays. But to start displaying Naval aircraft would be seen as a slight. Unless they want to give the XB-70 to Pensacola.

If foreign aircraft should be made to go to a special museum, there already is one. Send them all to the CWAM. I wouldn't complain.

Military museums almost always present the current orthodoxy of that service, rather than honestly exploring the wider methods of the defence of the state and people. It is rare they will address the failures of the service. History is never all good news. Air Force museums usually gloss the problems of inter-service co-operation, the failures of the independent air force doctrines and so forth. Subtle stuff perhaps.

Not sure I follow you. As I said, the Smithsonian has a more significant, historic and important collection (it would be difficult to argue otherwise with the majority of the Smithonian's collection being historic aircraft in their own right, rather than representative types, and mostly in their own colours, rather than 'ringers') of aircraft than any single armed-service aircraft museum can have.

If I had to chose only one museum to save from the Martians, from the Smithsonian, NMUSAF NMUSN and a selection of the other military aircraft museums, it's a no-brainer.

That's not to say they don't all have a role to fill.

I have no idea what you are talking about.


Well, that's pretty comprehensive. Thanks Shay.

If I didn't know when to quit, I might mention Eagle Squadron colours are, of course, completely RAF and have no connection with any US airmen or future USAAF units... and mention of a 1970s Spitfire rather than two in USAAF colours is digging a bit... The other types are presumably donations that never served with any US Air Force, hence being unable to be placed in US 'colors'? Personally (and just my view) I do have a problem with combat veteran types in false colours, such as the Mk.V Spitfire and Beaufighter.

But again, the superiority of a Smithsonian level collection is also illustrated above. Other than the enemy's, only 'our' technology and a smattering of allies' technology is illustrated, giving the impression only 'our stuff' and the enemy's stuff is of technical significance. Anyone suffering from a surfeit of patriotic belief that 'our stuff' really is always better needs to get out more, and maybe pay attention to what we were so desperately after in 1941 and 1945. (Examples of enemy technology.)

Again, a non service museum has a wider, more historical and technically accurate mandate. They are also less prone to dressing up aircraft in false colours.

Just some thoughts, and thanks for the correction, Shay.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

That sounds right to me. When AFM got Bernie Fisher's A-1E I gave them virtually all my Skyraider photo collection to support the display. They advised me later that they had culled all the Navy photos - the bulk of the collection - and sent them to Pensacola.

_________________
www.B17BlackJack.com