Mystery at the Museum. Warbird ID question.

[Craig59]

I've got a curious question for the WIX brain trust for a possible storyline.

Through the help of an equally inquisitive curator at a National museum, we recently discovered that a warbird in their collection, acquired in the mid 1980's, is neither the type nor the serial number they believed it to be.

I won't go into details but, based upon the original correspondence between the "donator" (who traded for a surplus military aircraft) and the curator at the time, I believe the museum was intentionally "mislead." The curator(s) at the time are not without fault as there were obvious things they should have caught.

What's done is done and all the players at the time are deceased.

My question is this. Does anyone know of other situations where a museum or even a private collector was - and I'll state this gently as I did above - "mislead" on the acquisition of a warbird in their collection?

Feel free to PM me if you'd prefer to not go public and I'll treat your reply with strict confidence.

[gary1954]

well , it would help if we could also read the correspondence as well

[Craig59]

well , it would help if we could also read the correspondence as well

Gary,

Help with what? I'm not ready to go public and what I know has nothing to do with the question I pose.

[GARY HILTON]

Just ignore it, it will go away.....no really, this thing happens more oft than what you'd think....not just in the warbird arena.
Sometimes it was intentional other times an innocent mistake that has snowballed thru the years. Best answer is in a situation like this is either to announce the mistake and properly identify your subject, or do what politicians do, keep on lying about it.

[Xrayist]

I am a bit puzzled...I can understand the serial number part, but type? How does a curator of a museum, with hundreds, if not thousands, of books on aircraft being available, not be able to verify if it is the correct type? Not trying to be nasty here, but it sounds as if someone didn't do their homework before the deal was done.
As for being mislead, it still comes down to doing research, more research, and finally more research before you make a decision.

[Kyleb]

I am a bit puzzled...I can understand the serial number part, but type? How does a curator of a museum, with hundreds, if not thousands, of books on aircraft being available, not be able to verify if it is the correct type? Not trying to be nasty here, but it sounds as if someone didn't do their homework before the deal was done.
As for being mislead, it still comes down to doing research, more research, and finally more research before you make a decision.

An AT-6 looks like an SNJ. An SBD looks like an A-24. A Buchon (other than FWF) looks like a Me-109. Structurally the different but "almost the same" aircraft are almost identical, so all you'd need to do to fool someone is change out the bits and pieces that differentiate the types. Assuming the data plate is what you expect, and the big bits are correct, you might get a nasty surprise 30 years later when you find a *different* dataplate in a wheel well or maybe you notice a line of rivets that was filled and sanded to make them disappear.

Last edited by Kyleb on Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

[bombadier29]

Of course with the new trend of naming everything "The National Museum of________" it could be anyplace. But does this happen to involve a trade with someone in California that once had a very large collection?

[Craig59]

I am a bit puzzled...I can understand the serial number part, but type? How does a curator of a museum, with hundreds, if not thousands, of books on aircraft being available, not be able to verify if it is the correct type? Not trying to be nasty here, but it sounds as if someone didn't do their homework before the deal was done.
As for being mislead, it still comes down to doing research, more research, and finally more research before you make a decision.

An AT-6 looks like an SNJ. An SBD looks like a A-24. A Buchon (other than FWF) looks like a Me-109. Structurally the different but "almost the same" aircraft are almost identical, so all you'd need to do to fool someone is change out the bits and pieces that differentiate the types.[color=#8040BF][/color] Assuming the data plate is what you expect, and the big bits are correct, you might get a nasty surprise 30 years later when you find a *different* dataplate in a wheel well or maybe you notice a line of rivets that was filled and sanded to make them disappear.

Spot on, Kyle.

Of course with the new trend of naming everything "The National Museum of________" it could be anyplace. But does this happen to involve a trade with someone in California that once had a very large collection?

Negative.

[The Inspector]

A dichotomy, Folks go all anal making SURE all the 'numbers match' when they buy a $90,000.00 CORVETTE but take a 'yeah, well it looks about right' attitude when it comes to multi million dollar airplanes.
More than a few folks/collections/museums have swallowed the hook thinking they got 'X' when it was really an 'M'.

[Garth]

An AT-6 looks like an SNJ. An SBD looks like an A-24. A Buchon (other than FWF) looks like a Me-109. Structurally the different but "almost the same" aircraft are almost identical, so all you'd need to do to fool someone is change out the bits and pieces that differentiate the types. Assuming the data plate is what you expect, and the big bits are correct, you might get a nasty surprise 30 years later when you find a *different* dataplate in a wheel well or maybe you notice a line of rivets that was filled and sanded to make them disappear.

Very true. Consider, for instance, the differences between a B-25 and a PBJ Mitchell.

Not many, right (depending on the mods, I know ... I know)?

But if you're a curator of a museum with a USN/USMC emphasis a PBJ (with a dataplate stating such) is going to be a heck of a lot more attractive to have in your collection than a B-25 that happens to be painted up as a PBJ, right?

[old iron]

Can we be more specific about the specific museum and aircraft involved - we are after all grown ups here (well, at least in terms of physical ages). Is this is reference to a B-25 cum PBJ at NMUSNA?

[Craig59]

Can we be more specific about the specific museum and aircraft involved - we are after all grown ups here (well, at least in terms of physical ages). Is this is reference to a B-25 cum PBJ at NMUSNA?

Kevin,

Asked and answered. The specific museum and aircraft are not pertinent to my question given as how I'm trying to determine how much meat there might be on the bone for an article along these lines. And as the son of a PBJ pilot, I would hope the NMUSNA knows that only one of those exists (and it ain,t theirs) but, if you're saying they were duped into believeing otherwise, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks.

[Mark Allen M]

While I agree that most of us, most of us, are grown up adults, I would not be at all surprised if I were you by some folks wishing to know more details concerning your specific museum and aircraft that you state is not pertinent to your question. I would have left that part out of the original post if I had not wanted people to ask the questions such as you are receiving, of which I do find to be valid. But that's just me, and nothing wrong with you deciding to include that information, or lack there of, to your original post. That's your valid choice as well.

That being said, I do find it an interesting question you are asking and one that I have experience with in other areas such as property development, and of all things ... horses. There are certainly a good share of shady and crafty people who will go to extremes to withhold, overlook, sugarcoat, alter and outright lie to conceal the truth about anything that requires a transfer of items and/or money. Not surprising it happens within the aircraft museum arena as well.

It's no secret that investors, collectors and financial institutions use mark-up tactics of all kinds to acquire an upper edge and advantage when dealing in trades and acquisitions. The gray areas are usually when hovering near the line of legally and morally right or wrong to alter the truth.

I do find it somewhat, shall I dare say, nieve for a museum to acquire an artifact such as a vintage airplane of considerable value and not have the capability or will to decipher exactly what type it is. As I'm not sure the situation as it occurred in your example, I would have to assume there is more to it than a "misleading" acquisition.

[Jerry O'Neill]

I remember back in the 1980's one of the tour guides at The Garber Facliity sad they had a crate come in from some where with what they thought was one thing they had been told was coming, but when they opened it, it was a Sam Missile and launcher. It was a welcomed addition to the collection but not the item they were planning on. I don't think anything shifty in this one, just something that happened.

[flightsimer]

Of course with the new trend of naming everything "The National Museum of________" it could be anyplace. But does this happen to involve a trade with someone in California that once had a very large collection?

Would you be referring of the b-25 at NNAM dressed as a PBJ?