Drone Footage inside USAFM Storage Hangar

[sandiego89]

My sense is that they have more planes than space/money to display/restore them.

With the WWII generation passing, and their progeny aging as well, it seems as referenced above that the interest in that ear of aviation may be waning if it hasn't already peaked. That's a shame, as the airframes referenced above are worthy of recognition/preservation.

Plus, it's hard to do a fundraising campaign on the back of these interwar-era types. The B-23 for example, was a remarkable leap forward that showed the way to the future. But they just didn't make or use that many of them. The Lockheed Ventura/Hudson/Lodestar family was significant and I think it's underrepresented in our museums. To have a a relatively original version just sitting gathering dust seems a shame.

But I think the museum has found its formula with the flashier types. Memphis Belle is probably peak NMUSAF fund gathering. That's a dragon they're going to be chasing for a while.

None of this is to diminish what the NMUSAF has accomplished over the last few decades. They're doing great work and have improved the collection and facilities leaps and bounds from when I first visited back in the early 80s.

Still, you hate to hear even rumors of deaccessions or selling off significant types. Sure, the A-25 was not a big one on the NNMUSAF stage, and while Spanish versions of old adversaries are kind of nice and I see why they would go if you're limited on space and funds. But the B-23 or B-34? Seems like those kinds of things should stick around.

Agree on some of your observation on space and hard decisions.

I see several retiring heavies that should go to the USAF Museum in the coming years, but space will be at a premium. VC-25 (Air Force one, 200 series 747), E-8JSTARS, and KC-10 are all nearing retirement, and several other heavies in the next decade: E-3 AWACS, various R/C/E/K-135's some more significant, some less glamorous, Global Hawk, a "real" B-2. C-17 #1 is on site but outside. C-5 will likely wait until the C-5M's are retired, so kicked that can down the road a few decades. I could see the KC-10, E-8 and several marks of 135's not making the cut, never really loved/appreciated, but could have places at other museums (Dover just got a KC-10, JSTARS to its home museum at Warner Robins, PIMA getting a few....). A KC-135 surely must go to Dayton, but would be great to have 1-2 others there to represent the other sub-types (Looking Glass, RIVET Joint, Constant Phoenix, etc)

Agree the Ventura/Hudson/Lodestars are under represented at museums. Perhaps suffering from a less glamourous/ugly stigma (standing by for incoming!. The B-23 might have a similar problem. I can see the museum passing these on to others.

I know the XC-99 gets brought up in these threads form time to time. I had the pleasure of seeing her in pieces on the ramp at Dayton, and even that was interesting. As much as I like the B-36/XC-99 and yes I would love to see her restored in one piece, I understand the complexities and resources required to do so, and I am at peace that she may never be restored. I do wish an early C-5 had been delivered there, but again I understand the reasoning.

Yes the Museum has done a tremendous job. Can't make everyone happy, but they have done very well.

[Noha307]

A KC-135 surely must go to Dayton

They already have one, a KC-135R, 60-0329, that was acquired back in April.

On that subject, since space is at such a premium there, one idea I toyed with if I was in charge there would have been to add only the fuselage - or even just the rear end - of a KC-135 to the collection. They already have a C-137, EC-135 and an NKC-135, and - since they're all Boeing 707 variants - the only significant difference aside from the engines would be in the fuselage. However, it was just a thought experiment and I would hate to have to resort to it.

Last edited by Noha307 on Mon Oct 10, 2022 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[sandiego89]

A KC-135 surely must go to Dayton

They already have one, a KC-135R, 60-0329, that was acquired back in April.

On that subject, since space is at such a premium there, one idea I toyed with if I was in charge there would have been to add only the fuselage - or even just the rear end - of a KC-135 to the collection. They already have a C-137, EC-135 and an NKC-135, and - since they're all Boeing 707 variants - the only significant difference aside from the engines would be in the fuselage. However, it was just a thought experiment I would hate to have to resort to it.

Thanks for the the information on 60-0329, had not realized she had been recently acquired. Looks like they chose a good airframe being a McKay award winner for its 1967 flight. Long overdue to have a KC-135 at the museum.

I too have thought about space limitations, and I wonder if removing one wing outside the landing gear would help in certain museums. Might be a way to stagger more aircraft into space limited museums. Would need offset the weight loss, but might help a bit.

[Scott Rose]

A KC-135 surely must go to Dayton

They already have one, a KC-135R, 60-0329, that was acquired back in April.

On that subject, since space is at such a premium there, one idea I toyed with if I was in charge there would have been to add only the fuselage - or even just the rear end - of a KC-135 to the collection. They already have a C-137, EC-135 and an NKC-135, and - since they're all Boeing 707 variants - the only significant difference aside from the engines would be in the fuselage. However, it was just a thought experiment I would hate to have to resort to it.

Thanks for the the information on 60-0329, had not realized she had been recently acquired. Looks like they chose a good airframe being a McKay award winner for its 1967 flight. Long overdue to have a KC-135 at the museum.

I too have thought about space limitations, and I wonder if removing one wing outside the landing gear would help in certain museums. Might be a way to stagger more aircraft into space limited museums. Would need offset the weight loss, but might help a bit.

I could see a boom operator simulator being an interesting exhibit.

[StangStung]

I could see a boom operator simulator being an interesting exhibit.

This is a great idea that seems simple and great way to engage the public. Reminds me of the B-52 tail gunner exhibit they have. It's not like there's a shortage of KC-135s out in the boneyard to draw from.