Kyushu Shinden and Kikka on display at Udvar Hazy

[Jerry O'Neill]

StangStang is correct. It’s much better to display aircraft that have traditionally been in storage and out of sight if they can be reassembled with a minimum of effort and little restoration. It’s much better than leaving them at Garber.

Museums need attendance to justify their existence. Granted, NASM doesn’t charge, but they do make money from gift shop sales, films, simulators, parking, etc. Offering “new” aircraft on display gets the public to return for another visit to see the “new” items on display…and spend some cash. So from a “marketing” perspective, constantly adding aircraft to the display, whether restored, unrestored, significant or insignificant, one-off aircraft or one of many, it just doesn’t matter. Getting people to come back over and over is what matters.

As far as historical significance, a B-17 is historically significant, but there are many on display and flying around the country, so it doesn’t necessarily make sense to spend cash on an item that people have the ability to see somewhere else. NASM’s B-17 may not be on display in the DC area, but it is being restored and on display in Savannah. Some of the more fragile and historic aircraft may need more attention and go through a complete restoration, but there is only so much room in the restoration shop.

Let’s face it, the B-25 is an important aircraft, and they have John Marshall’s old Mitchell in storage, which I’ve actually flown next to in formation back in the 80’s, but I’ve seen so many B-25's that it wouldn’t make me return just to see it. As a hypothetical, if it was the actual B-25 that Gen. Doolittle flew off the Hornet that was going on display, then I’m there ASAP!

One aircraft that is finally getting its time in the shop is “Flak-Bait”. In my opinion, she’s the most significant aircraft in their collection that hadn’t been scheduled for conservation and repair. Now she’s getting her due and I will be going to see her.

As a former associate curator at a rather large air museum, I can say that it comes down to marketing, historic needs, ease of restoration, approaching historical anniversary and sometimes, a donor giving a gift of cash to have a particular aircraft move “up the queue” so to speak.

It all comes into play and I think NASM is doing a fine job.
Jerry

[JohnB]

Your points are fair, but you overlooked my main point.
Many people visiting it Wil be tourists doing the typical "DC tour".
Just a guess that there not like those of us who frequent by his forum. For many, probably the majority the NASM will be the only aviation museum they'll ever visit. I don't expect them to hit the road and make a special trip to a museum just to see a B-17 or whatever.
To me a place with the word "National" in the title implies American history and achievements...after all its not the "International Air and Space Museum".As such, I think the lack of a B-17 is particularly egregious... considering the mountainside in y first post, the numbers of Americans who built, Cleveland died in the things.

As such, I find it hard to overlook their rather large omissions...like the B-17 while finding time and space to restore oddities that have no real historic significance as a type and the only reason they're displayed because they are odd.

Leave the weird stuff (and be honest, did the aircraft named in the title of t his thread make real contributions to aeronautics...They're not exactly the DH Comet, Boeing Dash 80 or the 262) at places were serious buff and Axis fanboys can go, or a family-friendly tourist stop where they can go to a water slide and see the something akin to the Hughes flying boat (the ultimate oddity of little historic value..but no doubt a big draw at the gift shop).

[JohnB]

Your points are fair, but you overlooked my main point.
Many people visiting it Wil be tourists doing the typical "DC tour".
Just a guess that there not like those of us who frequent by his forum. For many, probably the majority the NASM will be the only aviation museum they'll ever visit. I don't expect them to hit the road and make a special trip to a museum just to see a B-17 or whatever.
To me a place with the word "National" in the title implies American history and achievements...after all its not the "International Air and Space Museum".As such, I think the lack of a B-17 is particularly egregious... considering the mountainside in y first post, the numbers of Americans who built, Cleveland died in the things.

As such, I find it hard to overlook their rather large omissions...like the B-17 while finding time and space to restore oddities that have no real historic significance as a type and the only reason they're displayed because they are odd.

Leave the weird stuff (and be honest, did the aircraft named in the title of t his thread make real contributions to aeronautics...They're not exactly the DH Comet, Boeing Dash 80 or the 262) at places were serious buff and Axis fanboys can go, or a family-friendly tourist stop where they can go to a water slide and see the something akin to the Hughes flying boat (the ultimate oddity of little historic value..but no doubt a big draw at the gift shop).

[StangStung]

Your points are fair, but you overlooked my main point.
Many people visiting it Wil be tourists doing the typical "DC tour".
Just a guess that there not like those of us who frequent by his forum. For many, probably the majority the NASM will be the only aviation museum they'll ever visit. I don't expect them to hit the road and make a special trip to a museum just to see a B-17 or whatever.
To me a place with the word "National" in the title implies American history and achievements...after all its not the "International Air and Space Museum".As such, I think the lack of a B-17 is particularly egregious... considering the mountainside in y first post, the numbers of Americans who built, Cleveland died in the things.

As such, I find it hard to overlook their rather large omissions...like the B-17 while finding time and space to restore oddities that have no real historic significance as a type and the only reason they're displayed because they are odd.

Leave the weird stuff (and be honest, did the aircraft named in the title of t his thread make real contributions to aeronautics...They're not exactly the DH Comet, Boeing Dash 80 or the 262) at places were serious buff and Axis fanboys can go, or a family-friendly tourist stop where they can go to a water slide and see the something akin to the Hughes flying boat (the ultimate oddity of little historic value..but no doubt a big draw at the gift shop).

I think you're focusing on a B-17, which no one here is arguing isn't a worthy part of a national collection. And they have one, and it's being restored, AND it isn't taking away from the B-26, Sikorsky, etc. that ARE being actively preserved/restored.

Did you have a chance to see the Shinden pics posted? If so, you'd see it's an interesting piece of aviation trivia that is on display now - NOT being restored actively to the detriment of whatever your pet cause is. It's simply moved from "out of view" to "in view." How is this a problem?

Also, I agree with you that when people go to DC, they're most likely to visit the NASM -- but on the Mall. Not at UH. I'm here to tell you, and if you've been you know already, it ain't easy to get to UH unless you're intending specifically to go to UH. The point being that UH is exactly the kind of place you describe where a serious "Axis fanboy" might go. And the Mall is where someone who might prefer to see mainly those aircraft significant to the U.S. might go (not that there aren't plenty of nationally significant objects at UH or foreign objects on the Mall).

But let's set aside the fact that regardless of what you consider a "National" museum should focus on, I quoted the dang statute that set it up. It provides for both preserving nationally significant artifacts and historically interesting artifacts. Both the B-17 and the Shinden fall within those mandates.

You've mentioned the B-24 as well. I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on one. But once again, how is that incongruous with pulling some artifacts in storage out of storage?

So what is really the beef here? That the Japanese/German stuff should be put away (even if not being actively restored) until all the American stuff on your wishlist is found/restored/displayed? That they should stop restoring Flak-Bait and put the B-17 in line in DC rather than somewhere else?

Apart from "'Murica. Hell Yeah!" I'm not seeing what the issue is with trotting out some Japanese bits from storage at the SAME TIME restoration on nationally significant planes is ongoing.

It's not like the moved the Wright Flyer to display bits of the Horten 229. In fact, it looks to me like they didn't displace any aircraft of national significant to move these objects onto display.

[Cubs2jets]

Clarify my thinking, here.

The Garber facility does/did serve as a storage facility for the Smithsonian (including the NASM) that also housed the NASM restoration facility. The Garber facility is 60+ years old, small, in disrepair and at least a few of the buildings were at one point severly weather damaged (remember the heavy snow a few years back?). Plus, even in the best of times public access was SEVERLY restricted.

Didn't Udvar-Hazy get built as a replacement for Garber? A modern storage and restoration facility to better meet the needs of the NASM with the extra added bonus of allowing the general public easy access to the rest of the collection that can't fit downtown. I personally think my tax dollars are well spent (along with some pretty massive donations) bringing the collection "out into the sunlight". Just look at how many planes in the Smithsonians collection can now bee seen!

As was pointed out, apparently the Smithsonian does have a B-17 that is under restoration. Wanna guess where it will end up? (Hint - it's NOT downtown.)

So, if Udvar-Hazy is really a storage and restoration facility for the aircraft collection of the Smithsonian NASM with GREAT public access, aren't we barking up the wrong tree?

C2j

[Chris Brame]

NASM’s B-17 may not be on display in the DC area, but it is being restored and on display in Savannah.

As was pointed out, apparently the Smithsonian does have a B-17 that is under restoration. Wanna guess where it will end up? (Hint - it's NOT downtown.)

Isn't the Smithsonian getting Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby from the NMUSAF as soon as Memphis Belle is finished?

[old iron]

The NASM had two B-17s:

- a B-17G (44-83814) that was stored at a hanger at Dulles until a few years ago being transferred to the Mighty-8th Air Force Museum
http://www.mightyeighth.org/b-17-exhibit/, and

- the B-17D Swoose (Wasn't a Swan, Wasn't a Goose) that was in storage at Garber has been more recently transferred to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Pat. It is my understanding that the title for the Shoo-shoo-shoo Baby has been essentially transferred to NASM and the B-17 will be moved there in about 2018, after the present museum location at the Air Force Museum can be filled by the restored original Memphis Belle. However, it appears that the Memphis-Belle restoration has slowed.

NASM has long desired a B-24, but did not have storage space to take on one of the Indian Air Force specimens when these were retired in the late 1960s (the Indian Air Force provided several B-24s to major museums, including the specimen at Pima). I understand that NASM assisted in the transfer of the Lackland B-24 to the American Air Museum in England, but has never been able to find one for itself. They had a fuselage at one time, but I think this was contributed to the American Air Museum restoration. I know the B-24 at Barksdale was looked at for possible accession but was considered to not be in complete enough condition.

[Pat Carry]

The NASM had two B-17s:

- a B-17G (44-83814) that was stored at a hanger at Dulles until a few years ago being transferred to the Mighty-8th Air Force Museum
http://www.mightyeighth.org/b-17-exhibit/, and

- the B-17D Swoose (Wasn't a Swan, Wasn't a Goose) that was in storage at Garber has been more recently transferred to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Pat. It is my understanding that the title for the Shoo-shoo-shoo Baby has been essentially transferred to NASM and the B-17 will be moved there in about 2018, after the present museum location at the Air Force Museum can be filled by the restored original Memphis Belle. However, it appears that the Memphis-Belle restoration has slowed.

NASM has long desired a B-24, but did not have storage space to take on one of the Indian Air Force specimens when these were retired in the late 1960s (the Indian Air Force provided several B-24s to major museums, including the specimen at Pima). I understand that NASM assisted in the transfer of the Lackland B-24 to the American Air Museum in England, but has never been able to find one for itself. They had a fuselage at one time, but I think this was contributed to the American Air Museum restoration. I know the B-24 at Barksdale was looked at for possible accession but was considered to not be in complete enough condition.

There has been minimal work done on the Belle for the past several years now. Its my understanding it will be a few more years at least before its finished.

[Pat Carry]

With the NASM having so little money to work with, who pays for transporting Shoo Shoo Shoo Bay from Dayton to Virginia when that time comes?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

Well, that gets back to my original post: if the NASM has so little money to work with, why is the "National" museum spending what they have restoring oddball German and Japanese one-offs? What about the U. S. (obviously) Convair Pogo, which as far as I know is still corroding away at Silver Hill? It doesn't even need true restoration, since it's intact. (I sat in it some years ago while working on an article for Air & Space Smithsonian, though it took all sorts of clearance and the wearing of a radiation dosimeter because of the radium-faced instruments. My friend Skeets Coleman flew it, so admittedly I'm partial to that boat anchor.)

[DaveM2]

Well, that gets back to my original post: if the NASM has so little money to work with, why is the "National" museum spending what they have restoring oddball German and Japanese one-offs? What about the U. S. (obviously) Convair Pogo, which as far as I know is still corroding away at Silver Hill? It doesn't even need true restoration, since it's intact. (I sat in it some years ago while working on an article for Air & Space Smithsonian, though it took all sorts of clearance and the wearing of a radiation dosimeter because of the radium-faced instruments. My friend Skeets Coleman flew it, so admittedly I'm partial to that boat anchor.)

The partial Shinden and Kikka haven't been 'restored,' they have been moved from Garber and placed on display.

I would have thought the cost of trucking Shoo Shoo would have been incorporated into the Belle deal with Dayton

[StangStung]

Well, that gets back to my original post: if the NASM has so little money to work with, why is the "National" museum spending what they have restoring oddball German and Japanese one-offs?

This has been answered a number of times, in a number of ways. The facts remain:

(a) the mission of the museum by its' own enacting statute is much more broad than just topics of "national" interest - no matter what definition you may want to attribute to "national" these planes fit within that mission;

(b) the airplanes that are the topic of the thread aren't being restored, they're simply being displayed;

(c) it's probably something that has to do with money driving visits (this should probably be (a)); and/or

(d) this hasn't been brought up yet, but maybe it could be something as mundane as it's easier to get a couple bits of Shinden and Nikka on display quickly rather than a whole airplane? Or the Pogo hasn't made it to the front of the line for whatever reason? Or any of a number of reasons I can think of off-hand.

What about the U. S. (obviously) Convair Pogo, which as far as I know is still corroding away at Silver Hill? It doesn't even need true restoration, since it's intact. (I sat in it some years ago while working on an article for Air & Space Smithsonian, though it took all sorts of clearance and the wearing of a radiation dosimeter because of the radium-faced instruments. My friend Skeets Coleman flew it, so admittedly I'm partial to that boat anchor.)

This post, however, fairly screams "Why aren't they trotting out the oddball I want to see, rather than the ones someone else may want to see?"

Since you have a connection to them via the Pogo article, maybe you should ask them? I know they already put the P-38 and P-61 on display in this condition and they're two of my favorites at UH. I'd make a visit to UH to see the Pogo, for sure.

I'd love to see the article btw. Link?

[StangStung]

Clarify my thinking, here.

The Garber facility does/did serve as a storage facility for the Smithsonian (including the NASM) that also housed the NASM restoration facility. The Garber facility is 60+ years old, small, in disrepair and at least a few of the buildings were at one point severly weather damaged (remember the heavy snow a few years back?). Plus, even in the best of times public access was SEVERLY restricted.

Didn't Udvar-Hazy get built as a replacement for Garber? A modern storage and restoration facility to better meet the needs of the NASM with the extra added bonus of allowing the general public easy access to the rest of the collection that can't fit downtown. I personally think my tax dollars are well spent (along with some pretty massive donations) bringing the collection "out into the sunlight". Just look at how many planes in the Smithsonians collection can now bee seen!

As was pointed out, apparently the Smithsonian does have a B-17 that is under restoration. Wanna guess where it will end up? (Hint - it's NOT downtown.)

So, if Udvar-Hazy is really a storage and restoration facility for the aircraft collection of the Smithsonian NASM with GREAT public access, aren't we barking up the wrong tree?

C2j

So much this.

[Stephan Wilkinson]

I'd love to see the article btw. Link?

Air & Space Magazine doesn't seem to have an archive that goes back nearly far enough to cover this article, though there is some kind of archive behind a paywall, for the use of librarians. But if you want to PM me your email, I'll scan some tearsheets of it that I have in my files and send them to you. Or just contact me at stephwilkinson@verizon.net

[StangStung]

I'd love to see the article btw. Link?

Air & Space Magazine doesn't seem to have an archive that goes back nearly far enough to cover this article, though there is some kind of archive behind a paywall, for the use of librarians. But if you want to PM me your email, I'll scan some tearsheets of it that I have in my files and send them to you. Or just contact me at stephwilkinson@verizon.net

PM sent! Thank in advance.