So here's a few questions: flying and static logic

[Franklin]

So private air museum's such as Pima, McMinnville, Yanks, etc. have several very nice warbirds that are static only and I would assume are feeling the pinch of the poor economy. I wonder if these museums have or would be willing to part with a few of their aircraft to private owners such as Paul Allen, Rod Lewis etc. who seem to want to collect airworthy examples. Does it sound unreasonable for a static museum in financial trouble to part with an airplane that would require much less money to return to flight by, for example, the FHC? I would think it would be much cheaper for Paul Allen to acquire a P-39 from Yanks than to dig one up in the South Pacific. Not saying this as an exact example but just a theoretical example. If you had a museum full of rare static warbirds could you part with say your P-39 and use the revenue of that sale for better use on your other airplanes? How about if you have great resources and if it would cost you 1/2 the amount to go after a static P-39 instead of digging one up would you pursue that avenue? And for those of you who may know, does this sometimes happen?

What private museum warbird today would you like to acquire and return to flight? Counting in all the usual realistic issues such as type, rarety, location, condition etc. I think most if not all of Yanks and Pima's single engine aircraft would be possible to return to flight. Evergreen's warbirds would be another good selection.

Last question would be, in your opinion, is it better to have more types of static warbirds that are in fair condition or fewer types of static warbirds in good or great condition? If they are static would it be important to you to have interiors in good condition or would you forfit interior detail if you could have more types on display. These questions could apply to flying examples as well. More flying that are in good flying condition or fewer flying in excellent condition?

Last edited by Franklin on Wed May 11, 2011 12:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

[Steve Nelson]

The Kalamazoo Air Zoo has already sold a couple of their aircraft to private owners who returned them to flying status (the Tigercat and Bearcat.) Of course, both of these were already fully restored, and only required some maintenance to return them to flying status.

SN

[Franklin]

And to add an additional question: What would mean more to you as a warbird enthusiast, a public static warbird in a museum you have access to see anytime or if that warbird were sold to a private collector (i.e. Rod Lewis) who could restore it to flying condition and you would rarely see it. What means more to you?

[Xrayist]

Franklin:
I consider your question hard to answer. I like seeing warbirds, flying or non flying. When it comes to someone like Paul Allen, I understand that whatever he has is his property and he is free to do with it as he will. There seems to be some posters on this forum who take great offense to the fact that people like Paul Allen have these great planes and don't show them often enough or let people have free access to his collection. I would have to ask, if you had say, a firearm, that belonged to someone very famous would you make sure to let everyone who wanted to see it, hold it, possibly see you shoot it, or even shoot it themselves, would you allow this to happen? I know I wouldn't. This type of attitude, which I have posted on several times before, seems to also apply to paint jobs on aircraft. I have read many posts pointing out the "wrongness" of a paint job for reasons such as, wrong shade of color, wrong markings, that aircraft was never flown by a certain squardron, no aircraft with that name, wrong aircraft, etc. etc. etc.
So if the question was along the lines of do I prefer aircraft flying or static in museums, I would pick flying, but once you bring in the private ownership angle, then I will go with in a museum as I believe in people's right to do with their proper what they want.
I would really like the chance to see Mr. Allen's collection someday....but I guess that would be up to him.

[51fixer]

So private air museum's such as Pima, McMinnville, Yanks, etc. have several very nice warbirds that are static only and I would assume are feeling the pinch of the poor economy. I wonder if these museums have or would be willing to part with a few of their aircraft to private owners such as Paul Allen, Rod Lewis etc. who seem to want to collect airworthy examples. Does it sound unreasonable for a static museum in financial trouble to part with an airplane that would require much less money to return to flight by, for example, the FHC? I would think it would be much cheaper for Paul Allen to acquire a P-39 from Yanks than to dig one up in the South Pacific. Not saying this as an exact example but just a theoretical example. If you had a museum full of rare static warbirds could you part with say your P-39 and use the revenue of that sale for better use on your other airplanes? How about of you have great resources and if it would cost you 1/2 the amount to go after a static P-39 instead of digging one up would you pursue that avenue? And for those of you who may know, does this sometimes happen?

What private museum warbird today would you like to acquire and return to flight? Counting in all the usual realistic issues such as type, rarety, location, condition etc. I think most if not all of Yanks and Pima's single engine aircraft would be possible to return to flight. Evergreen's warbirds would be another good selection.

Last question would be, in your opinion, is it better to have more types of static warbirds that are in fair condition or fewer types of static warbirds in good or great condition? If they are static would it be important to you to have interiors in good condition or would you forfit interior detail if you could have more types on display. These questions could apply to flying examples as well. More flying that are in good flying condition or fewer flying in excellent condition?

A major number of those displayed at Pima are Gov't owned. So in their case they wouldn't be able to be traded by Pima.
Many of those collections are probably funded by trusts and the like that we won't know of as outsiders.
There are few museums that can rely on gate admissions alone to fund all operations even in a good economy.
This has been done, most recently a Tigercat and Bearcat were sold out of a collection in Kalamazoo. They were flyable in the past, were sitting static for a few years and were flown away.
Your premise involves many variables, with people in charge of things it isn't so easy to set this type of thing up. The human condition involves Pride and egos. Those with the desire to have a flying XYZ often will bother those that do, hoping to be able to get one. I've seen this take place where those with the XYZ don't want to part with theirs, maybe even particularly to the person that wants one as maybe they don't like that person. So this desiree heads around to world to find the XYZ sitting in a swamp/lake/tundra/crash site and recovers it. 6 months later the collection with an XYZ finds it needs to raise some funds so sells their XYZ. The guy who recovered the XYZ from the hinterlands now is knee deep into his, no longer then has funds to get the better example on sale, even if they would sell to him. So some times it is a bit of luck and perseverance to get what you want under your scenario.
Usually I've seen it be accomplished more with trades rather than a sale.
I used to work for Evergreen on their warbirds. They were flyers in the past and might return to the air if it becomes something they want to do. Even without selling them off.
Management, directions of collections, economies, costs all are things that change. Now, 1 year, 5 years, 20 years ahead no one can really predict. Todays grounded airframes may fly, todays flying aircraft may sit. Who really knows.

[bdk]

You seem to suggest that Yanks doesn't fly their aircraft because of the cost. Some of the aircraft do in fact fly there. I think that the mission of the museum is to obtain, restore and display aircraft though, not to fly to airshows and keep a bunch of fly-boys current. That is why you don't see many of them fly. Yanks' aircraft are generally restored to airworthy standards with freshly overhauled engines, so if their goals were all cost related, the aircraft would only be restored to static display standards. I've not seen Yanks really sell or trade anything unless they have duplicates. I'm not a spokesman for Yanks however, so I suggest you look at their website or pay them a visit (or join!).

Most museums don't let you inside or on top of airplanes to look inside. Generally you are behind ropes some distance away when viewing. Whether a static display is restored to the quality of NASM or just nicely painted on the outside probably isn't discernible to 98% of the viewing public. I'd rather have more statics (or even unrestored aircraft) on display than fewer thoroughly restored static displays.

All just my opinion- in fact I'd be surprised if anyone reads this...

[Franklin]

Franklin:
I consider your question hard to answer. I like seeing warbirds, flying or non flying. When it comes to someone like Paul Allen, I understand that whatever he has is his property and he is free to do with it as he will. There seems to be some posters on this forum who take great offense to the fact that people like Paul Allen have these great planes and don't show them often enough or let people have free access to his collection. I would have to ask, if you had say, a firearm, that belonged to someone very famous would you make sure to let everyone who wanted to see it, hold it, possibly see you shoot it, or even shoot it themselves, would you allow this to happen? I know I wouldn't. This type of attitude, which I have posted on several times before, seems to also apply to paint jobs on aircraft. I have read many posts pointing out the "wrongness" of a paint job for reasons such as, wrong shade of color, wrong markings, that aircraft was never flown by a certain squardron, no aircraft with that name, wrong aircraft, etc. etc. etc.
So if the question was along the lines of do I prefer aircraft flying or static in museums, I would pick flying, but once you bring in the private ownership angle, then I will go with in a museum as I believe in people's right to do with their proper what they want.
I would really like the chance to see Mr. Allen's collection someday....but I guess that would be up to him.

My thinking was stated in as simplistic a scenario as I could explain. Per 51fixer's response we all can see just how convoluted this theoretical scenario can become. I understood this in the original post but I also like to hear the reality of questions such as I stated as well as one's opinions of a theoretical situation. As for owners like Paul Allen, yes he can do what he wants and he does do what he wants, to our delight I might add, and you are welcome to see his collection everyday if you like, unlike Rod Lewis's collection which seems to be very private, but IMHO I would rather know a particular warbird is flying in a private collection with very little public access to it than it sitting static in a public museum, but that's just me.

As for the long winded owners and whatever they want to do with their toys debate here on WIX over the years. My only response would be that WIX is a public forum which allows such folks as us the luxury of debating anything and everything about anyone's warbird, whether the owners like it or not. I've said it before, if your an owner of anything that appeals to the masses, you should be able to stand a bit of both criticism and praise. If you can't accept that, simply keep your warbird at home locked in a hangar and don't allow anyone but you to see it. Not likely. BTW if I were a warbird owner I would be happy for opinions from others who may know more than I about my own airplane, history, markings etc. but again, that's just me

[bdk]

I think the Paul Allen collection just recently became viewable within the last few years. Everything was a big secret collection (that everyone new about) until the museum opened. Everyone on WIX was complaining about it too!

[Franklin]

You seem to suggest that Yanks doesn't fly their aircraft because of the cost.

Nope never suggested that ... It was an assumption not a suggestion. Big difference!

so I suggest you look at their website or pay them a visit (or join!).

I have both many times and (I may!) ... got nothing to do with what I was attempting to ask. Just simple questions that's all. Yanks was a theoritical example. Re-read my original post.

[RyanShort1]

And to add an additional question: What would mean more to you as a warbird enthusiast, a public static warbird in a museum you have access to see anytime or if that warbird were sold to a private collector (i.e. Rod Lewis) who could restore it to flying condition and you would rarely see it. What means more to you?

You've got to be kidding me... Rod's planes see a LOT of daylight when they have events and crews. You just don't live in the right part of the country . Museums have to pay the bills, too, and there are plenty of 'em that aren't doing super well right now, and the planes aren't in great condition. We need a balance of good museums and well-preserved artifacts as well as flying examples.

Ryan

[Franklin]

And to add an additional question: What would mean more to you as a warbird enthusiast, a public static warbird in a museum you have access to see anytime or if that warbird were sold to a private collector (i.e. Rod Lewis) who could restore it to flying condition and you would rarely see it. What means more to you?

You've got to be kidding me... Rod's planes see a LOT of daylight when they have events and crews. You just don't live in the right part of the country . Museums have to pay the bills, too, and there are plenty of 'em that aren't doing super well right now, and the planes aren't in great condition. We need a balance of good museums and well-preserved artifacts as well as flying examples.

Ryan

Nope not kidding you, my point being, Paul Allen's collection is viewable to the public in a museum, Lewis's are not, at least not as of today, hopefully that may change someday. The only time you see his planes are, as you state, at events.

[51fixer]

Franklin,
There is a problem with your premise. Not all collections are a museum, not all museums display there own artifacts, museums can have different purposes, ect.
Your treating them all as the same. Rod Lewis doesn't have a museum at the moment. He may never have one. Some museums exist but you will never have public access to them.
I would rephrase your whole question to change the focus of this discussion.

What grounded or static aircraft would you want to see someone restore to fly?

Leave the hard times, better to restore a complete airframe scenario and names of museums out of it.
It will help to clarify what I think your main point is.

As far as the supposed finances of any museum I would leave that to those organizations. When they need help they'll ask.

[Franklin]

51fixer you are not understanding my whole series of questions and I guess I can see that now. I'm trying to create a hypothetical scenario using museums and owners that I'm aware of in my series of questions. I guess I failed and in the process accused certain organizations of being in financial difficulty. I do get what you are stating and for that I have to excuse the fact that it's a keyboard trying to explain what it is I'm trying to convey. Sorry your having difficulty here as I'm sure others are as well. Maybe a little more understanding and a little less criticism would be appreciated, that way maybe many here wouldn't get turned off and say to hell with trying to post anything worthwhile. And I'm sure whomever needs help will ask. I'm sure you nor I need worry about that.

I'm trying NOT to insult anyone or any museum and I'm certainly NOT trying to insinuate that any particular owner or museum is having any sort of financial difficulty, to the contrary. I'm just trying to use examples of what I'm aware of in my series of questions. I'm sure anyone or any museum I use as an example will not be offended. If they are sorry. I would kindly suggest that possibly you re-read my original post. Seems to be quite clear to me as to what I was trying to convey. But then again I'm not you and I guess I could see it differently if I were. Sorry for the confusion. Guess I'll take the advice of many others here and simply not post anymore for fear of offending or confusing others.

Leave the hard times, better to restore a complete airframe scenario and names of museums out of it.
It will help to clarify what I think your main point is.

As far as the supposed finances of any museum I would leave that to those organizations. When they need help they'll ask.

Waiting for your next post

[Jollygreenslugg]

G'day folks,

Very interesting discussion. It seems that much of it is dependant upon the idea that it's inherently better that warbirds be flyers rather than static.

I disagree with that idea, and it does seem to be a bit of a hot potato. I think it's important that there be a good number of static aircraft in museums, especially ones with historical significance.

I can't imagine that anyone would argue that "Flak Bait" (for example) should fly. It is far more important that this 'time capsule' be conserved.

Cheers,
Matt

[warbird2]

Yanks museum is far from being in financial trouble. Most of their planes are fully restored and flyable, they just are not flown. Pima can not fly most of their airplanes no matter who pays for what because a lot of them belong to the air force.
Most of evergreens collection is flyable as well, they are far from financial trouble, but they do have some planes on loan from the military.