U-H Smithsonian visit 4/6/15

[Ken]

Here is a sampling of photos I took Monday during a visit to U-H. Follow the link & enjoy. Ken

https://plus.google.com/photos/10907938 ... 8b-UotDHIw

[APG85]

Wow...fantastic photo's!!
The P-61...I don't really get the exterior marking preservation. I think I would have gone ahead and either picked a particular marking set that the aircraft wore i.e. NACA and repainted it fully that way...or at least continued the markings onto the rudders...or gone ahead and restored the aircraft to represent a wartime configuration. Just my opinion...

[Ken]

I get what you're saying about the P-61 but it doesn't bother me much. I guess I value the originality in its jumbled state more than I would like a fresh repaint of only one scheme. Something like the He11diver needed an entire repaint, so in that case, I get it. And I was particularly impressed with the quality of the paint job - specifically the number of stencils all done in period font. I'm not a He11diver buff so I can't speak to the technical accuracy, but, assuming it's Smithsonian correct, the quality is amazing.

Ken

[APG85]

I get what you're saying about the P-61 but it doesn't bother me much. I guess I value the originality in its jumbled state more than I would like a fresh repaint of only one scheme. Something like the He11diver needed an entire repaint, so in that case, I get it. And I was particularly impressed with the quality of the paint job - specifically the number of stencils all done in period font. I'm not a He11diver buff so I can't speak to the technical accuracy, but, assuming it's Smithsonian correct, the quality is amazing.

Ken

Yes, I agree with you about the 'Diver'...amazing restoration and paint job.
As far as the P-61, I don't think the original paint and the use of the aircraft was of extreme historical significance (I could be wrong) so why not repaint it? I can understand not repainting Flak Bait, but the P-61...?

[Pat Carry]

Very nice pics! They have so many more aircraft in there than when I was there in '03

[C VEICH]

If memory serves a benefactor paid to have the P-61 reassembled for display and I don't think any restoration was done. That does not mean that a full restoration won't be done at some point in the future but was not part of the current plan to see the airplane back in once piece and on display. Personally I like it, and the P-38, just the way they are.

[APG85]

If memory serves a benefactor paid to have the P-61 reassembled for display and I don't think any restoration was done. That does not mean that a full restoration won't be done at some point in the future but was not part of the current plan to see the airplane back in once piece and on display. Personally I like it, and the P-38, just the way they are.

That sounds familiar...I think you are correct. I believe some restoration was done on the interior/cockpit area.

Some info about it here:

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-f ... st=&page=1

[Pat Carry]

If memory serves a benefactor paid to have the P-61 reassembled for display and I don't think any restoration was done. That does not mean that a full restoration won't be done at some point in the future but was not part of the current plan to see the airplane back in once piece and on display. Personally I like it, and the P-38, just the way they are.

I think other planes like the B-25, the P-39 and the P-63 should go on display now in whatever condition they are in.

[APG85]

If memory serves a benefactor paid to have the P-61 reassembled for display and I don't think any restoration was done. That does not mean that a full restoration won't be done at some point in the future but was not part of the current plan to see the airplane back in once piece and on display. Personally I like it, and the P-38, just the way they are.

I think other planes like the B-25, the P-39 and the P-63 should go on display now in whatever condition they are in.

That would be nice...store them on display regardless of condition. A simple plaque could describe their unrestored condition and why a particular aircraft looks the way it does. I'm particularly interested in the B-25 as I remember it at airshows in New Jersey when I was a teenager.

[JohnB]

There is a fine line on leaving something unrestored...which then becomes the reverse of an educational object because it is then atypical of the type in service.

Example...displaying a rusty rife doesn't say much about the design and workmanship of the period.
Same with aircraft.

I have old cars. In the old car hobby, this is a hot topic. Unrestored cars...however tatty...are bringing a price premium. It's gotten so bad that a magazine article had a story about a guy with a pre-1920 Buick. he's so determined to preserve it, he won't wash it or polish the radiator. That's just stupid.

Other guys hate to reupholster seats that have been chewed by generations of God knows what in barns. Well, a horse blanket isn't helping the car's lesson in history ..unless it was a period horse blanket put on by the first owner in 1923 when a raccoon got in the car while it was parked at a speakeasy.
Sometimes, fabric or paint is too far gone to keep. It makes a historic artifact look like rubbish. It's especially bad if, like the P-61, its very rare.(In other words, no harm, if someone wants their T-6 or PT-13 look bad, because there are hundreds out there).
.