NASM anti-military bias?

[JBoyle]

The messages about the Memphis Belle going to the NMUSAF and the eventual freeing up of the Shoo Shoo Baby to PERHAPS head to the NASM prompts a question...Considering they have't touched the B-17 D Swoose, or the G ex-airtanker....do you think there might be an anti-military bias among the staff (at least the people who decide what gets restored) at the museum?

The only major US military project they seem to have undertaken in recent years seems to the the Enola Gay...and if you remember the controversy of a few years back, then they wanted to display it with a exhibit that was going to make the US to look bad for using the atomic bomb to end the war. Sure, they find time to restore the Japanese sub-based plane (admittedly a technological curiosity, but hardy a historic weapon) and farmed out the AR234 for restoration but they can't find the time to work on a B-17.

What do you think?

[RMAllnutt]

I must categorically state that there is definitely NOT an anti-military bias at NASM!

Any thoughts that those at NASM don't respect their military artifacts is utter BOLLOCKS!!!

For one; many, if not most of the people there have served in the military. Jack Daly, who runs the museum, is a former USMC general for goodness sakes.

The main reason that some of the big aircraft have not been fully restored has more to do with money than anything else. Finances have alwasy been tight, but now they have the enormous financial burden from the construction of Udvar-Hazy (which is still about $100M away from completion!). Also, the staff have been extremely busy with getting ready for the new museum too, and much of their time has been devoted to this very important cause. Many of the restoration staff have been tasked with getting aircraft cosmetically ready for display to fill out the new museum as well. These guys work extremely hard, with very small budgets (and salaries), so please, no more talk along these lines, it simply is not fair, or worthy of further discussion. They work for the love of it.... certainly not the paycheck.... give 'em a break, ok?!

Richard

PS. They didn't farm out the -234, I was there when they were working on it. Enola Gay was a pretty darn big project... how much bigger do you want them? What about the Hurricane, and the Fw-190, the SPAD XIII....? How much do you think they are supposed to accomplish with such limited resources?

[JBoyle]

[quote="RMAllnutt"] They didn't farm out the -234, I was there when they were working on it. Enola Gay was a pretty darn big project... how much bigger do you want them? What about the Hurricane, and the Fw-190, the SPAD XIII....?quote]

Richard....Please note I said recent "US military" aircraft. And you are correct, I confused the AR-234 with the Do 335...which was restored in Germany. They did a great job on the 234, and the Hurricane (which I saw a couple of times in their workshop).

I don't question the staff's dedication to historic aircraft...or the fact many have served in the military, rather I think their timetable for the restoration of US military planes is worthy of discussion.

I'm not zenophobic about foreign aircraft...far from it...but as the NATIONAL American museum, I think it's odd that an obscure Japanese plane is put ahead of the B-17, P-61, and others in the restoration line.
If they wanted the Swoose restored, why not have the Boeing volunteers do it instead of (or at the same time as...considering their similiar wings) as the Boeing 307?

Again, I think it's a very fair question.

[DaveM2]

I for one would rather see a rare and unique aircraft restored, rather than 'another' B-17 or similar of which there are quite a few already on display or flying. Despite the history of an aircraft, most people don't give a darn about that side of it...they want to see something different.


just my .02

Dave

[Raven]

I'm not zenophobic about foreign aircraft...far from it...but as the NATIONAL American museum, I think it's odd that an obscure Japanese plane is put ahead of the B-17, P-61, and others in the restoration line.

Again, I think it's a very fair question.

This is an old argument, often revivified like Dracula.

Perhaps they have a 'cunning plan' John, where they spend money now on unlikely items to mean that they'll have money to restore more expected - nay, obliged types in the future.

The 'obscure little Japanese plane' is the only submarine launched fixed-wing aircraft surviving, I believe - something popular with many nations as an idea from W.W.I to the end of W.W.II. As a type it's technically and historically 'significant'. More significant than the Swoose? Probably not, but it's smaller, and perhaps cheaper in restoration effort and cost. It's a rough measure, but you can usually restore three, maybe four single engine types for the cost / effort of one four engined type.

Given the list they've got (as you point out) they are going to be damned by some whatever they do.

If you think it's a reasonable question, why are you asking here, and not asking them?

[Pat Carry]

Its my understanding there will be no large restoration projects (ie: the Swoose, the P-61 or the B--26 "Flak Bait") undertaken until the new restoration shop is built at Dulles. That isnt going to happen anytime soon from what I hear. Sending the Swoose out to Boeing for restotation would be a good thing. Could that actually happen someday?

[JBoyle]

I for one would rather see a rare and unique aircraft restored, rather than 'another' B-17 or similar of which there are quite a few already on display or flying. just my .02

Dave

I think as a national museum funded with tax money, the preservation of American technology and airplanes that meant a lot in American History should have a priority....
Sure there are lots of B-17s out there....but none at the national musem.
I think the 17 should be represented by more than just Keith Ferris' great mural in the downtown WWII gallery.

[RMAllnutt]

Hi John, sorry if I came across too strongly. I just find it frustrating when people criticize NASM, unjustly, for what they should or shouldn't be doing. Your first sentence was "....do you think there might be an anti-military bias among the staff ...". It didn't indicate "US"military, just military in general.

If you look at the work that they have been doing over the life of the museum, you will realize that their primary focus has been on US, not foreign aircraft. All of the aircraft at the main museum downtown had to be restored before they were installed in the museum. The VAST majority of these aircraft are US designs, or those used by the US. They only really got around to working on foreign aircraft in the late seventies and early eighties. Almost none of the Japanese aircraft have been restored at NASM, in fact just two, the zero and the seiran. Just four German aircraft have been restored at NASM: the 109, 262, 190, and the -234. Just two British aircraft: the spit, and the hurri. Think of all the US types that have been restored that are already on display. The fact that they haven't done either B-17 is not a travesty. They will get to them. They worked for nearly twenty years on the B-29. It was an enormous task, and a very worthy one. The results are simply stunning!

Perhaps, as has been stated, some of the work could be done elsewhere. This has been done on occasion (a la George, Boeing 307), however, NASM has not had good luck with off-site restorations. Principally, NASM likes to conserve, rather than restore, and there is a very big difference between these two. Conservation means preserving as much original material as possible; including original bolts, wiring, plexiglass etc. Restorers often don't care about that sort of thing, simply replacing crazed plexiglass, or old bolts, fasteners etc. NASM have also had problems monitoring off-site restorers to make sure that their standards are adhered to. I know they had several problems with the George along those lines. And nobody needs reminding about what happened to the -307. A dunking in Pugeot Sound was exactly what she needed....!

Restoring an aircraft of the size of the B-17 requires enormous resources, time, and money. If you have the wish to see either B-17 restored, then why don't you see what you can do about starting a fund to do this? Someone already stepped up to the plate to do this for the P-61, and work will be happening to these ends very soon.

Anyway, I just find criticism of all the hard and tireless work of the employees and volunteers at NASM is highly unjustified. They are doing their best with what they have. Just because some pet aircraft or other isn't receiving attention is no justification for criticism.

Rant over.

Cheers,
Richard

[bdk]

Principally, NASM likes to conserve, rather than restore, and there is a very big difference between these two. Conservation means preserving as much original material as possible; including original bolts, wiring, plexiglass etc. Restorers often don't care about that sort of thing, simply replacing crazed plexiglass, or old bolts, fasteners etc. NASM have also had problems monitoring off-site restorers to make sure that their standards are adhered to. I know they had several problems with the George along those lines. And nobody needs reminding about what happened to the -307. A dunking in Pugeot Sound was exactly what she needed....!

I often wonder what the point of this conservation approach is. Why bother? Who will see it? Might as well be made of fiberglass. It isn't like anyone will be inspecting this stuff with a magnifying glass in the future to learn all the secrets of how they built these things. I could see your point maybe on the Spirit of STL or the Wright Flyer, but how many more aircraft could they restore and put on display if they didn't use the "conservation" approach?

And I don't see your point about the 307 either. Boeing restored it at their own expense- twice. Most of the original stuff was long gone when Boeing received the aircraft for restoration anyhow. How much truly original stuff was destroyed in the ditching? Seeing this aircraft flying at Oshkosh was a real treat though, well worth all the effort in my opinion. Nobody will ever have the opportunity to see that again.

Boeing is supporting the restoration of a B-29 to fly, they did the 307, and they are doing their B-17. Not sure how many more resources they will be wiling to commit to these kinds of activities.

Not trying to start the age-old argument again, just guess I got up on the wrong side of the bed.

[RickH]

Tom Crouch of NASM and I had a discussion along these lines many years ago. His comment was that while he wasn't against flying the historic aircraft, he didn't believe that any of NASM examples should be flown. His comment was that components, wiring, hoses, etc... render the aircraft or artifact if you will, of limited historical value in the scholarly sense of the word. Smithsonian approach was to retain ALL of the original parts if possible and to clearly mark any NASM manufactured or nonperiod replacement components as being supplied by NASM. They will take an old cracked hose and apply restoration techniques to preserve the originally installed hose. The idea is that they are not preserving these aircraft for us. They are preserving them intact for the next 10 generations. If you look at it from that perspective they are working on things on a much different timetable than we are used to. If I remember correctly, one reason the Seiran was done was because of its advanced state of deterioration. One wing had disolved and they had to remake it using the other one for a pattern. If they had waited much longer it would have been to far gone to do anything with it.

[RMAllnutt]

No offense taken.... I guess it's just a difference of perspective. The NASM is the national repository for our aviation heritage. A very big part of their mandate is to preserve the original technology from the time, exactly as it was made. I for one, feel that this is very important. Sure, you might never see all of the little details in the aircraft, but I believe that it is important that these details be preserved somewhere, as they are the most accurate record for future generations of how something truly was made. NASM is perhaps the best place to do this, and perhaps the only place that does. Just slapping an aircraft together, gutted inside, with fiberglass panels etc. to get it quickly on display doesn't truly record how it was made. That's fine for some museums, but not the national museum.

I also believe that preserving as much of the original material that made up an artifact is very important. Of course I understand that this is not possible, nor practical in a flying restoration, nor should it compromise safety. However, when you have the chance to preserve the original material, it should be done. The expedient route is not necessarily the best route.

Aircraft owners are free to do with their property what they wish of course. I am in no way saying this should be a universal mandate, but I do hope that some, particularly NASM, take this seriously.

As far as the -307 is concerned. Sure, Boeing had a lot of work to do to replicate the interior of the aircraft. They did an incredible job, and are to be commended for their efforts. While I loved to see her fly, I must admit I regret that they did so, as the accident caused a considerable amount of damage to her. She could have been lost for ever. She might have looked relatively unscathed, but beleive me, there was a lot of material replaced in her wing, and other areas, not to mention the long term threat to her, even now, with salt water corrosion.

I am sure that there will be differences with respect to the restoration standards that NASM should and should not take. That wasn't really part of the original debate I guess, but NASM is making great strides with getting more aircraft treated and prepared for display... more are going into Udvar Hazey each week. There is a tremendous amount of effort going towards this, and I can see it taking up most of restoration staff's time for some time to come. It will great though to see so many more aircraft on public display which have been hidden at Silver Hill for many decades.

Cheers,
Richard

[Pat Carry]

Richard, Can we get some additional details about the P-61's pending restoration?

[TimAPNY]

I think something that must be considered it the vast amount of aircraft they have, Where on earth do you start?

Everyone would start somewhere different!

Wasn't the Japanese Float plane somewhat funded or helped out by a Model company in Japan that wanted to produce models of that type aircraft? I think I recall reading that somewhere.

[RMAllnutt]

Pat.... thanks for the note. The details I have come from one of my friends who's working on it at the moment. From what I understand, they received a substantial amount of money from a donor to sponsor its restoration. What they are doing right now is cleaning it up, and getting it ready to take out to UH. Not sure exactly how much restoration will take place prior to the move, but I will try and find out more.

Tim... I agree, they do have an enormous work load of restorations, and I can't imagine how difficult it must be choosing which aircraft gets its turn next in the queue for conservation. Yes, you are correct with regards to the Seiran. The japanese model company, Tamiya, contributed to the restoration. I believe Tamiya provided the funds required to have her floats restored.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Richard

[Tom Farrell]

Its my understanding there will be no large restoration projects (ie: the Swoose, the P-61 or the B--26 "Flak Bait") undertaken until the new restoration shop is built at Dulles. That isnt going to happen anytime soon from what I hear. Sending the Swoose out to Boeing for restotation would be a good thing. Could that actually happen someday?

Its happening

http://www.airspacemag.com/airspacemag/ ... 62/?no-ist