Warbird Information Exchange

A thought that came up again in my mind when reading over the Swamp Ghost thread.

Yes, it would be nice to save Swamp Ghost in a very original way, but how would that limit the amount of people who would see her and hear her story (and the aircrews story)? Is that bad or good? I don't know. But that is not the point of my thread. It is to pool ideas and get some information.

I reading a book about how the "upcoming" generation is very experience driven, while it is in the context of the church, but I see how this is potentially affecting museums also. The author using the example of Seattle's Experience Music Project, San Fran's Exploratorium and Silicon Valley's Tech Museum all being very interactive. I hear all the time how museums attendance is down and they struggle to bring people in. So I thought it would be interesting to hear how we might be able to bring museums alive to the visitors and allow them it interact on a very basic level. I don't mean long term volunteers, I mean a Saturday afternoon visit with the family or school group.

OK, I don't want to turn this into a battle, I'm curious about what peoples experience is with both sides of the coin. I know we have WIX members that tour aircraft to people, nontouring flying aircraft and those that work in static museums .

1) How is the attendance at museums, events or tour stops?

2) What is the trends you see with numbers and demographics of those who come? I guess I'm looking for ages and what the trends have been over the last several years or longer if you've seen this.

3) In what ways could a aviation or history museum give visitors a hands on experience that offer something different than the museum were everything is behind gates and has don't touch signs on the exhibits?

4) Do you think it would make a difference in drawing people?

Now being able to fly in a bomber or fighter offers a huge hands on experience, but at something like $400 a pop and up it also limits how many can do that. I would say that is the ultimate way to experience history. But there has to be cheap ways for the masses to get a valuable experience.

Tim

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

In the last year, the Air Zoo went to a free admission policy, while charging admission for the rides and other experiences. Guests can purchase unlimited ride passes or pay for them individually. As a result of this, attendance nearly doubled, approaching 200,000. I remember Bob Ellis saying in an article that the number of school-aged children that attended the museum had doubled.

The Air Zoo has obviously changed a lot over the years. Whereas once it was a small, flying museum, it is now an interactive based static museum. They have a 4-D theater that features a WWII B-17 mission, and a number of simulators, rides and other hands-on experiences.

I don't know how this compares to similar museums, but given the economy in the state, these seem to be pretty good numbers.

I like the idea of electronic signs in front of the aircraft. Visitors can look up technical specifications, watch video of the aircraft in action, or hear a history of the aircraft. One could argue that this doesn't provide the learning experience that seeing an aircraft in flight would, and I agree with that completely. The focus of the museum has obviously changed though, and in this environment it seems to be the best solution for them in terms of attendance. Some of the rides seem a little over-the-top to me, but if that's what brings in visitors, then I'm all for it.

It's obviously made a difference in attendance here, especially coupled with the new attendance policy. I don't know how this idea would work other places, especially those that have established flying programs. I do think that some of the concepts can be incorporated elsewhere, such as "touch screen" aircraft signs that allow visitors to explore different ideas related to the aircraft.

Whenever I go to the NMUSAF, there always seems to be a good crowd that spends time in front of the A-20 and C-46 exhibits because of the "diorama" setting they're in. I think having these kind of exhibits are popular with visitors because of the scenes they depict. Visitors can see what the uniforms looked like, what kinds of vehicles were used with them, even the setting the aircraft operated from. Personally, I'm more interested in the aircraft, but the average visitor seems to be drawn more to these types of displays.

I'm not here to say one way is "better" than another. I think that static museums and flying museums each offer their own unique experience, and there are a lot of options to consider with each so they can not only tell history in an accurate way, but also draw visitors. Just my $.02. Back to lurking.

_________________
Matt

The NMUSAF has seen the numbers going up. I think alot of it hs to do with the fact that families are looking for something to do that is cheap and yet memorable, and fun. Last year we saw 1.3 million people which is up from the million that we had been seeing. It also seems that it is still climbing. There have been lines recently waiting to get into the museum on days where this isn't anything out of the ordinary going on. It's great to see young faces and entire families joining the museum, and enjoying and learning about the historic aircraft on display there.
Displays are getting better and better, and more interactive. There is an entire wing of the museum at the Hall of Fame where kids can play with simulators, and displays. There are going to be more cockpit sections going on display so that people can climb into a cockpit portion of a jet and see what it is like.
The level of restoration at the museum is amazing. Attention to detail is hard to match, and new technologies and methods arae being developed all the time.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I didn't even think of the Cockpit section but the Naval Aviation museum has a huge section with cockpits and kids were going nut over them. That I think is a HUGE draw and experience factor!.

I think we've tossed a lot of stones at the USS Intrepid and Air Zoo for the "non-aviation" aspects but I'm sure they do attract people and get them an aviation experience if they want it or not. I think in many ways we need to change our mindset on what an aviation museum should look like and be open to what others are doing and learn from it.

Tim

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

Tim, I was at Fantasy of Flight a few weeks ago and it is obvious that Mr Weeks has been asking himself the same questions about interactive experiences that you are asking us. I have been slow in posting my general thoughts about the place and the pics I took, but will just note some of my observations here that are relevant to your question.

FOF is 30 miles down the highway from Disney World and it has clearly learned a few things from its neighbor. The first link to DW strikes you when you first walk in; you may be met by a "greeter" dressed in period aviation costume who calls himself Smilin' Jack. He is a very outgoing, avuncular sort of guy, and as he introduced me to the museum I was struck by two things about his personality, (1) how much he resembles a lot of the hosts at Disney, where he probably used to work, and (2) how little he resembles any real pilot I have known. Then again, the place is called Fantasy of Flight; I'd had about all the Reality of Flight I could stand that morning at LaGuardia.

Most of FOF is standard hangars full of nice planes, but there is an interactive immersion exhibit right off the front door which, again, bears an uncanny resemblance to certain attractions at Disney World and must have been built by folks who learned their trade down the road. It is a winding tunnel that drops you briefly in various environments such as about to jump out of a C-47, in the trenches in WWI, and at a bomber squadron briefing in WWII. It is well done and for a second you do get the sensory illusion of being in one of the environments. A real B-17 and Nieuport 28 replica are incorporated into the exhibit. My feeling is that Weeks would probably like to expand this concept into a whole theme park, but of course he has a lot of other things to throw money at also.

There is a room set up to look like a carrier hangar deck where there are a bunch of F4U Corsair computer flight simulators, set into mockups of a real Corsair cockpit that you get to climb into, with a real Corsair parked among them. I didn't have time to try one out, but they looked pretty cool.

Finally, at FOF they pull out a plane and fly it, weather permitting, every day around 1:00. Usually it's something tame like the L-4 but it really brings the place to life. It's prefaced by a nice little briefing about the plane. Basically a lot like the Planes of Fame monthly event, except daily, so every visitor gets to experience it.

This brings me to a more general point. I think you are asking a great question and that nothing brings the subject to life like hands on experience. Actual warbird rides are out of the question for all but a handful of visitors. Even just flying an aircraft for display would strain the budget of many museums. And of course many museums are static only. But there is something that even they could do that, I think, gets you 75% of the benefit of flying a plane:

PULL IT OUT AND START IT. In other countries, it is common for static museums to restore some planes to taxiing or ground-running condition and crank them up now and then. We hear about Lancasters and Shackletons being ground run in the UK, German stuff occasionally being run-up at Cosford; even Canada's national museum used to have ground running days where they'd, say, fire up the Kestrel in the Hawker Hart. This costs a lot less than flying and gives the public a large part of the sights, sounds, and smells associated with seeing the aircraft fly. You don't need airworthy restorations, qualified pilots, insurance, or even a runway. It's my understanding that in the UK, these events draw quite a crowd. There's no museum that I know of that does this on a daily basis, but if you could count on seeing something cool ticking over or taxiing around every time you visited, wouldn't you drop by your local air museum more often? And if even that is too much trouble, at least ...

JUST PULL IT OUT. Planes look completely different on the ramp than inside a hangar.
A museum can significantly enhance the visitor experience just by hauling a few planes out into the sun. This wouldn't give you a huge boost in immersiveness, but it also wouldn't cost much.

Some of this, I realize, is easier said than done. For the ground-running idea, I realize it's not a trivial matter to keep the engines and other relevant systems in safe ground-running condition. It might require rethinking the layout of the museum to keep the planes that are going to be run or pulled out most often in a position where you don't have to pull out 10 more planes to do it. A wingtip might even get scraped now and then. But just imagine if the NMUSAF posted a sign on its web site that said:

AIRCRAFT BEING RUN UP THIS WEEK
(1:00 daily, subject to change/cancellation due to weather or mechanical issues)
Monday: A-36 Invader
Tuesday: B-17 Shoo Shoo Baby
Wednesday: Macchi MC.200
Thursday: Boeing P-26
Friday: Mosquito

August

I am in favor of many different ways to make wabirds accessible to non-warbird fanatics, aka, the general public.
For example: The recent trend by some museums to stop displaying static a/c as "jewels" and place them in a visual environment helps to provide a historical context if done well. I imagine that most of us here on WIX go out of our way to see all types of a/c in all kinds of condition, but we are small numbers of museum goers and its a bit like "preaching to the choir" if all static musuems merely display their collections in hangars.
We have had MANY conversations about how younger generations don't understand history, how they don't teach it, etc. Many museums, as noted in this thread and in other WIX threads, make a sincere effort to teach history and bring their collections into a historical context. Bravo to all that do. A true visual context setting appropriate to the a/c of display, cpupled with easy access to more information from kiosks and guides...truly great education. Several examples of how various museums do this are given in this thread. All good ideas.
Some museums, like New England Air Museum (CT) and Castle Air Museum (CA) offer occasional "open cockpit" days (among other outreach activities). While all museums can't do that for various reasons, it seems a great way to get the more casual observer involved in warbirds. It also feeds my warbird addiction nicely, thank-you.
The Warbirds area at Oshkosh has evolved nicely, with everythig from re-enactors camping out and interacting with the a/c and people attending OSH, to their Warbird in Review sessions featuring veterans, a/c & their current owners, among other activities.
I think of Duxford and the combination of the IWM collection surrounded by private entities owning, flying & restoring a/c on the grounds, plus their flying display/airshow days...what a concept. A living "museum" in many ways.
There is room for all these types of museums and collections. My point is there are many ways to attract and engage the public. Like Tim, I want to lknow what works and this thread is terrific in giving us a peek into successes (like the Air Zoo attendance increase with a philosophy change).
John

Been toldby someone at canadian aviation museum in ottawa that starting this year they will begin running aircraft regularly and the long term goal is to fly some of the collection regularly hope this happens this decision supposed to have come about because there is a new director in charge

While the NMUSAF will never run their aircraft, they are doing a great deal to make these dioramas more common. I like them as they make a great way to display not only the aircraft, but also the ground equipment, vehicles, and uniforms and such.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

SpitfireMK912, that is good to hear about the Canadian collection. They used to fly some of their aircraft through the 1960s and early 1970s, including the Avro 504K, Camel, and Snipe, all of which are originals, and a Lysander. The 504K flew sporadically as late as the 1980s IIRC. It is widely known that most of their planes are restored to airworthy standards and that several, including Canso, Liberator, Spitfire IX, etc. were flown into the collection in the late 1960s with no obvious reason why they couldn't be flown again. That said, perhaps for a national collection with the country's "archival" representative example of each type, ground-running the aircraft might be the better compromise between interactivity, expense, and risk of loss. That museum has already rejuvenated itself to a great extent by the flying events that it hosts with the aid of local private owners, something that some of the other smarter static museums, like Seattle's MOF, also do.

Mustangdriver, I hear you, but "never" is a very long time. I personally think the dioramas just clutter up the place, and the reason the spectators spend more time looking at them is that they are trying to get a good look at the airplane in there.

August

You hit that one on the head, Tim. Last time the family was at Pensacola, my two teen boys were all over those cockpits--their favorite section of the museum by far. Heck, even I had to try on an A-7 for size.

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