Warbird Information Exchange

Always interesting to read the "save these airframes" stuff, always more interesting to hear how and who pays to save these airframes.

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

Ah that makes much more sense. And I totally agree.

Our local museum engaged in some serious conversations about moving a B-47 to Tulsa few years ago, as a chunk of B-47E aircraft were built at Douglas-Tulsa. The problem with moving one is that, unless it flies or unless the wing is removed in a single piece and then moved with a helicopter, the wing has to be cut in half and then re-engineered back together. That plus just moving the airplane cost between $100-150,000 about 10 years ago. And after doing all that, we would be left with an airplane that is just on loan to the museum from NMUSAF and was just a shell to boot. After looking at that question, we instead spent the money to buy the last surviving Spartan NP-1. It is smaller, easier to care for, and is OURS. For the same money we could have butchered one of NMUSAF's airplanes and moved it, we got to just buy a different one that we now own.

That same problem is going to play out across the country over the next 20 years, with quite a few 50+ year old aircraft ultimately being scrapped. If NMUSAF were willing to sell its surplus aircraft, I think that a lot more would avoid being scrapped. At the end of the day, though, no one is going to operate a B-47, or a C-124, and so their value is sadly probably limited to being lawn ornaments. With the SAC B-47 and the NMUSAF B-47 nicely preserved in indoor displays, and the Castle Museum's being largely intact (and the last flyer) we do at least have examples safe for the future.

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

Fully respect your opinion here, but...all of Roscoe Turner's records in the RT-14 Meteor on display in the same building have been eclipsed too. That doesn't make it any less important a representation of air racing history...which is why Conquest 1 is there.

_________________
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I decline......

I agree that a B-17 should have been downtown when the museum was first opened in the 1970's. I think space was/is a major consideration for the downtown museum and getting to be an issue at UH. I disagree on the NASM needing a B-36, B-47, B-58 or a B-52 (as much as I like them all) today. While I agree that the B-52 has earned induction to the the NASM, I think available floorspace dictates otherwise. I think it just fine that the military museums concentrate on bombers and the NASM concentrate on what they are good at- truly historic airframes, record setters, one-offs and representative aircraft from all sorts of roles from all kinds of countries (military, civil, space, etc). Placing a B36, B47, B58 and B52 downtown (not that they would even really fit) or at UH would would greatly reduce space for other airframes. I would rather see 6-8 sole survivors, even if obscure, than a B-52 at UH. Those Axis survivors are true jems. Size is an issue.

I posted the link on the National Air Force Museum of Canada's Facebook page and got a response:

_________________

Nicely done Shane!

Let's hope this pans out

Andy Scott

Speedy, THe Roscoe Turner RT-14 represents history on a couple different levels. First, in the "Golden Age of Aviation" air racing was a big public draw like the NFL is today. It had it's personalities and Turner captured their imagination. He had beautiful cars, women and a pet lion he took with him. A media superstar, he was the Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan of his day.
2) Technology. Every inch of that aircraft was designed with a singular purpose using the latest technology of the day. It was light years ahead of what was being built on the civilian market. It was basically a beacon for the military manufacturers to look at and design towards. Closest comparison I can think of is the (Bf-109 and the Spitfire Mk. I.)
3) Performance. He broke and set records, like Jimmy Doolittle. The aircraft was a standard bearer to be copied and imitated, like the Hughes H-1. The aircraft was 5 years or so ahead of the U.S. military airplanes of the time.
None of this can be said of "Conquest I".

Can the neam reclaim it? What an addition it would be, again

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

i made a call to the canadian national airforce museum about this one they have been looking for a c119 and aparently that one is an old rcaf bird! so cool in polished aluminium with the red lightening bolt on the side!!! hope they get it

The C-119 at Hill was an old Hawkins and Powers airplane, it was part of the airplane trade deal with the Forest Service for a bunch of C-130's back in the day. I know that it flew in there, with that being said I don't know what it would take for it to fly out of there though.

Scott....

i think it has been there since 85 i can only imagine the amount of work to get it flying!

All good points. But none of those are the reason Conquest 1 is there. It's to represent a 'time capsule' of air racing in the 60's and 70's, when Conquest 1 represented 'modern' air racing. Just like Nemesis and Sorceress are there to represent 'their' classes in their specific time capsule of F-1 and bipe racing. That airplane brought the 3km speed record back from Germany after 30 years--the longest period of time anyone had held the record. The airplane (at the time it was donated to the Smithsonian) was the current 3 km holder as well as the winningest aircraft--6 wins in 7 years, and was the current qualifying record holder at Reno.

I'm sorry that it 'didn't do anything' for you. That's your opinion and yours alone and I respect that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a place there. I mean, I personally don't understand why Charles Blair's Excaliber/Stormy Petryl is there, given what it's own history is. But it's still a cool P-51C that holds a place in aviation history...regardless of how minute.

Like I said...sorry you don't agree. Personally one of my favorite planes of all time. I guess that just means I won't have to worry about you standing in the way the next time I go to look at it.

_________________
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I decline......

No one has mentioned that the genius of the design of the RT-14 belongs to Matty Laird who designed and built it only to have Turner basically steal it from Laird and claim it as his own design, I don't believe Turner ever completely paid Laird for the airplane.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Not really. Can't reclaim it. It's the Air Forces, so they own it. NEAM could ask for it, but it was given back a few years ago and I just don't see it in the plan for the future.
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."