Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:34 pm
Hello all,
There is some recent discussion on this thread about NASM resources spent to restore Axis aircraft.
Just as some argue that there should be a place where three B-17 types can be viewed together, it can also be argued that there should be a place where a large assemblage on enemy combatant aircraft can be seen. NASM is the national collection that strives to present a large-scale balance - commercial and civil and military and home-builts, and laso have a balance within each of these and other categories. It is the place to expect a good representative military collection of US, and German, and Japanese, as well as notable nonmilitary aircraft from other countries.
I don't see how the American veterans would be "insulted" by this. They are interested in the a/c that they flew in, but also in those that they flew against. Many have memories of seeing these aircraft in flight during the war and want to finally seeing one close up. These are also captured aircraft that serve as reminders of who won the war. There is no good reason that I can think of to disperse these, other than the long timescale that it takes to get them all restored.
I have followed and deconstructed the restoration priorities at NASM for about 30 years. There are many factors that influence the choice for next a/c on the restoration schedule. These include the deteoration rate of the artifact, the relevance to an upcoming display, the amount of resources that the restoration would take, and maintaining a balance among the restored aircraft in the collection.
Some of the messages on this thread imply that NASM should restore all US aircraft before turning any attention to enemy aircraft. Why? There are many places where the American types can be seen, but many of the enemy survivors in the NASM are one-of-a-kind survivors of especially historic types. The Arado 234 is the first operational jet bomber type anywhere, the Heinkel 219 is arguably the best nightfighter of the war, the Serian is the only survivng manned aircraft, that I know of at least, that flew from a submarine. There are very good reasons to want these restored and on display, even while some US aircraft remain in storage.
It is true that these restorations take a long time, and many important aircraft remain in storage as they await their turn in the restoration schedule. Patience was once presented as a virtue, only to now be replaced by the demand of immediate gratification, apparently from the older as well as the young. Many of us might die during the long wait, but the Smithsonian goal is to preserve for the long timescale of history; it has been working towards a magnificent display that is still perhaps decades away. Our children will have this to view even if we may not. Some things take a while.
Those who wish to see the NASM restorations quicker should donate to the new ambitious restoration facility, for while fundraising appears to be proceeding slowly.
Kevin
Kevin,
.
There is some recent discussion on this thread about NASM resources spent to restore Axis aircraft.
Just as some argue that there should be a place where three B-17 types can be viewed together, it can also be argued that there should be a place where a large assemblage on enemy combatant aircraft can be seen. NASM is the national collection that strives to present a large-scale balance - commercial and civil and military and home-builts, and laso have a balance within each of these and other categories. It is the place to expect a good representative military collection of US, and German, and Japanese, as well as notable nonmilitary aircraft from other countries.
I don't see how the American veterans would be "insulted" by this. They are interested in the a/c that they flew in, but also in those that they flew against. Many have memories of seeing these aircraft in flight during the war and want to finally seeing one close up. These are also captured aircraft that serve as reminders of who won the war. There is no good reason that I can think of to disperse these, other than the long timescale that it takes to get them all restored.
I have followed and deconstructed the restoration priorities at NASM for about 30 years. There are many factors that influence the choice for next a/c on the restoration schedule. These include the deteoration rate of the artifact, the relevance to an upcoming display, the amount of resources that the restoration would take, and maintaining a balance among the restored aircraft in the collection.
Some of the messages on this thread imply that NASM should restore all US aircraft before turning any attention to enemy aircraft. Why? There are many places where the American types can be seen, but many of the enemy survivors in the NASM are one-of-a-kind survivors of especially historic types. The Arado 234 is the first operational jet bomber type anywhere, the Heinkel 219 is arguably the best nightfighter of the war, the Serian is the only survivng manned aircraft, that I know of at least, that flew from a submarine. There are very good reasons to want these restored and on display, even while some US aircraft remain in storage.
It is true that these restorations take a long time, and many important aircraft remain in storage as they await their turn in the restoration schedule. Patience was once presented as a virtue, only to now be replaced by the demand of immediate gratification, apparently from the older as well as the young. Many of us might die during the long wait, but the Smithsonian goal is to preserve for the long timescale of history; it has been working towards a magnificent display that is still perhaps decades away. Our children will have this to view even if we may not. Some things take a while.
Those who wish to see the NASM restorations quicker should donate to the new ambitious restoration facility, for while fundraising appears to be proceeding slowly.
Kevin
Kevin,
.
Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:03 pm
The NASM is an American museum and has a collection of historic aircraft from WWII (among other wars and civilain aircraft). In my opinion, the priority need to be given to the US planes so that the remaining US vets can see these planes before it's too late. It's a shame that the Enola Gay sat for decades before being restored. This was an aircraft that was delivered to the Smithsonian in flyable condition incidentally. I understand it takes buckets of money and all of the planes are important, but if I were director for a day, Flak Bait would be at the head of the line...
Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:40 pm
APG85 wrote:... but if I were director for a day, Flak Bait would be at the head of the line...
According to what I've been told by people at NASM, Flak Bait will be the first aircraft processed through the Phase II preservation/restoration center. See last para in the post immediately above yours on how you can help make this happen.
Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:18 pm
cott wrote:Hmm.
Seems to me that the airplane should be portrayed as she was when she made her most significant contribution to the war effort. Sure, she made a couple of bombing runs, but the basic reason for her current existence is that her pilot when she was a transport got LA to save her. Not some random B-17D but this *particular* B-17D, which was named the Swoose. I would propose that had this aircraft *not* been converted to a transport, that she would have been scrap metal like the rest of the early B-17's, and thus this airplane should be presented as the transport version.
One could also make the argument that since this aircraft is cobbled together from two airframes, that restoring it to the configuration the aircraft had prior to being reassembled during the war would be glossing over a very significant part of this particular aircraft's history.
In essence, put her back as a transport, and make a nice display about the history of both airframes involved. She's famous *because she was a transport,* not because of the month of bombing missions.
My 2 cents.
Chris
Grafted on tail section and all, she was much more of a singular airframe
and bomber before she went to Panama and underwent progessive surgury. Sort of an aero sex change. F model nose piece, E model wheels,
B model wing spars, bathtub gone, waist windows changed. If you can change her from a bomber to a mixed breed transport, why can't you change her back to the bomber configuration she started off as?
swoose
Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:20 pm
Yeah, I know. Surgery.
Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:27 pm
Garth wrote:
According to what I've been told by people at NASM, Flak Bait will be the first aircraft processed through the Phase II preservation/restoration center. See last para in the post immediately above yours on how you can help make this happen.
It could have happened decades ago. Airplanes were not the Smithsonian's priority. This is why the collection sat in a Maryland forest for several years...
Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:36 pm
It could have happened decades ago. Airplanes were not the Smithsonian's priority. This is why the collection sat in a Maryland forest for several years...
The Smithsonian is much more than an Aviation Museum, although that is what most of us consider it to be, without the effort to collect and store those aircraft in the Maryland forest, they would not exist anywhere, let alone on display or in storage for future restoration.
The Smithsonian Institution was created by Congress in 1846 as “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.”
Given its charter to be a museum of knowledge, social history and science, the US and the world is very lucky such a large "aircraft" collection was permitted to be assembled and stored in those early days after WW2, when most other countries were recovering economically, and most people, including the veterans, wanted to put the war behind them.
It is even more surprising that the Management of the Smithonian took on this burden given that the USAF Museum was being permitted to collect and store a similarly large amount of WW2 aircraft, including enemy examples, it is indeed surprising the Smithonian was'nt forced to focus only on civil airframes.
The US is certainly fortunate that these two institutions had the foresight and resources to do so.
In Australia, our own Australian War Memorial, whose charter was to preserve wartime artifacts, scrapped the first Australian made Wirraway, a combat veteran Beaufort, a captured Japanese Sally and a European theatre Hampton Bomber, losses not only to Australia, but long term to Australian and indeed world aviation heritage.
In England, the focus was on rebuilding the Nation, and without the return of an ex French, and a couple of Canadian Lancasters in the 1960's onwards, England would be down to only two surviving Lancasters.
Even then, only one of the original Bomber Command combat Lancaster's was intentionally put away for museum preservation, and even then, only in the 1960's after surviving as a long period as gate guardian rather than in safe storage from the war onwards, and similarly no Halifax's, Stirlings or Sunderlands were purposely retained for preservation and posterity.
The UK's Imperial War Museum effectively only preserving a single Spitfire, Hurricane and later a Mosquito, along with the cockpits of a Lancaster and Halifax.
Both being a poor effort as compared to the aircraft salted away for future display after WW2 in the USA!, and a significant catchup effort has been required in both the UK and Australia to save, acquire, restore, or even salvage examples of what were commonly available and scrapped without a second thought at the end of the war.
Rather than admonishing the Smithonian for its delays or prioritys in display, we should all be thankful for those who had the foresight to argue for these airframes to be collected and stored, (and most likely defended them at various times from beancounter attempts to rationalise the collection).
Museums are there to preserve and display these objects for posterity, not just the current generation who used the artifacts, or the timelines of enthusiasts in later generations, the priority etc needs to be balanced against funding, workshop space and manpower resources, display space and duplicate displays available for viewing elsewhere.
Again the US is the envy of other countries in having a display facility such as the Udvar Hazy Centre, and until its completion in 2003 the Smithonian couldn't have possibly restored and placed on display all of its collection.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:29 pm
[quote=Grafted on tail section and all, she was much more of a singular airframe and bomber before she went to Panama and underwent progessive surgury. Sort of an aero sex change. F model nose piece, E model wheels, B model wing spars, bathtub gone, waist windows changed. If you can change her from a bomber to a mixed breed transport, why can't you change her back to the bomber configuration she started off as?[/quote]
My argument (in the most non-argumentative tone possible) is that Swoose was changed into her transport configuration as a part of her war-time service. The configuration she is in now is how she served most of her life. Therefore, keeping the transport configuration is the most representative of how this aircraft contributed to the war. MacArthur's transport? That tells a story that a "normal" B-17D doesn't.
I know that this analogy won't necessarily hold for some folks, but would you take the names off of the Enola Gay or the Flak Bait and display them solely as examples of the type? Or would you display them as what they are because of what they did, regardless of any modifications that may or may not have happened during the course of their service? Swoose is modified from original, sure. But that's what makes her unique. People would be horrified if a factory-fresh Flak Bait rolled out of the restoration hangar, especially if her identity had been erased. I'd love to see an original shark fin B-17 as it came off of the line. Who on here wouldn't? I only promote keeping Swoose as Swoose because that's where she made her most important mark, and, consequently, provided the only reason that she was saved in the first place.
Guess I'm up to 4 cents now
Chris
My argument (in the most non-argumentative tone possible) is that Swoose was changed into her transport configuration as a part of her war-time service. The configuration she is in now is how she served most of her life. Therefore, keeping the transport configuration is the most representative of how this aircraft contributed to the war. MacArthur's transport? That tells a story that a "normal" B-17D doesn't.
I know that this analogy won't necessarily hold for some folks, but would you take the names off of the Enola Gay or the Flak Bait and display them solely as examples of the type? Or would you display them as what they are because of what they did, regardless of any modifications that may or may not have happened during the course of their service? Swoose is modified from original, sure. But that's what makes her unique. People would be horrified if a factory-fresh Flak Bait rolled out of the restoration hangar, especially if her identity had been erased. I'd love to see an original shark fin B-17 as it came off of the line. Who on here wouldn't? I only promote keeping Swoose as Swoose because that's where she made her most important mark, and, consequently, provided the only reason that she was saved in the first place.
Guess I'm up to 4 cents now
Chris
Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:57 pm
With regards to deciding to what condition she should be displayed. I would think this would apply to any aircraft with a long career. You should ask yourself (since the is a WW2 aircraft),......
"What contribution did B-17D Ser.40-3097 make to the World War Two timeline that was the most significant?"
Whatever answer you decide to the above question should answer for youself in what manner she should be portrayed.
Maybe not, everyone is different.
On a side note I was able to contact the grandson of Lt. General George Brett and asked him to join and contribute to the discussion. He replied and agreed to join but was having trouble with account activation. I PM'd Scott but Iknow he's real busy. Can any of the other Moderators help?? His username is ghbrett.
Thanks
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
"What contribution did B-17D Ser.40-3097 make to the World War Two timeline that was the most significant?"
Whatever answer you decide to the above question should answer for youself in what manner she should be portrayed.
Maybe not, everyone is different.
On a side note I was able to contact the grandson of Lt. General George Brett and asked him to join and contribute to the discussion. He replied and agreed to join but was having trouble with account activation. I PM'd Scott but Iknow he's real busy. Can any of the other Moderators help?? His username is ghbrett.
Thanks
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:04 pm
Shay wrote:With regards to deciding to what condition she should be displayed. I would think this would apply to any aircraft with a long career. You should ask yourself (since the is a WW2 aircraft),......
"What contribution did B-17D Ser.40-3097 make to the World War Two timeline that was the most significant?"
Whatever answer you decide to the above question should answer for youself in what manner she should be portrayed.
Maybe not, everyone is different.
On a side note I was able to contact the grandson of Lt. General George Brett and asked him to join and contribute to the discussion. He replied and agreed to join but was having trouble with account activation. I PM'd Scott but Iknow he's real busy. Can any of the other Moderators help?? His username is ghbrett.
Thanks
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
Umm well that is just cool. When you get on here sir, welcome aboard. I can't wait to hear what he thinks.
Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:22 am
APG85 wrote:It could have happened decades ago. Airplanes were not the Smithsonian's priority. This is why the collection sat in a Maryland forest for several years...
Yes ... and no. NASM's restoration space at Silver Hill is incredibly tight, as anyone who has been there can tell you. Enola Gay took well over 10 years to restore there, and that involved disassembling her into components and tackling one at a time (in contrast the new Phase II facility will have enough space to house three 727-sized aircraft).
Even if restoration was possible, there was still the matter of where to display the aircraft. Until the mid-1970s, NASM was limited to space in the A&I Building (per my earlier, a tight fit for Spirit of St. Louis) and some of the other facilities around town ... and to loaning its aircraft out to other museums (the NC-4 is at NMNA, for instance).
In the mid-70s NASM got the Mall museum. Which is a great museum, but still limited by space constraints dictated by having built it on the National Mall. A B-17 sized aircraft *might* just be able to fit in one of the three large 1st Floor galleries, but to the exclusion of lots of other things that could go there.
Udvar-Hazy didn't open until 2003, and that was after YEARS of uncertainty and false starts due to fundraising issues (it's a common misconception that the Smithsonian can just go get Congress to write blank checks). Making the 2003 goal so that the new facility opened for the centennial of manned powered flight took a generous benefactor who was able to drop a $65 MILLION check. As it is, the museum opened incomplete. It took another two years for the food court to open (this should be seen as a revenue-generator for the museum, demonstrating that their focus was on getting aircraft on public display), and substantial portions of the museum are still unfinished (revenue-generating reception halls) or unbuilt (Phase II) due to lack of funding.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that museums (everywhere) get things wrong, make mistakes and do things that turn out to be very controversial or which make certain segments of the public bitter. NASM is no exception, and I could readily point out recent and current problems with other aviation museums.
But look at what they are doing NOW, under their CURRENT leadership ... which seems to be making phenominal progress towards meeting/exceeding expectations, and making amends based on learning from their past issues.
Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:19 am
Garth wrote:
I don't think anyone is going to argue that museums (everywhere) get things wrong, make mistakes and do things that turn out to be very controversial or which make certain segments of the public bitter. NASM is no exception, and I could readily point out recent and current problems with other aviation museums.
But look at what they are doing NOW, under their CURRENT leadership ... which seems to be making phenominal progress towards meeting/exceeding expectations, and making amends based on learning from their past issues.
Well said and I agree.
Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:39 am
My two cents here, although I admit my opinions may be worth even less than that.
I agree with Mustang Driver - I'd like to see her displayed as The Swoose, but as close to her combat condition as is historically accurate. As The Swoose, she's a tribute to some overlooked men - the mechanics who kept 'em flying in the early days of the war. Those guys almost always found SOME way to fix the aircraft, come Hades or high water. It didn't matter if they had to ransack scrap heaps for the parts and components they needed, and then work for 48 hours straight in the heat and mud/dust and bugs. The Swoose shows what the mechanics could accomplish under dreadful circumstances. They established an unmatched legacy of resourcefulness and dedication to duty.
This would be a much easier debate if there were at least one more Sharkfin. I keep thinking of a photo in Pete Bowers' book, showing a D model lying in a scrap heap at Kelly before the war ended. Maybe it's 20-20 hindsight, but doggone it, why didn’t someone from either the Air Force or Boeing have the foresight to preserve at least one Sharkfin?
The best bet would be to display some sort of graphic illustration next to the aircraft that explains her entire service history, combat and all.
I agree with Mustang Driver - I'd like to see her displayed as The Swoose, but as close to her combat condition as is historically accurate. As The Swoose, she's a tribute to some overlooked men - the mechanics who kept 'em flying in the early days of the war. Those guys almost always found SOME way to fix the aircraft, come Hades or high water. It didn't matter if they had to ransack scrap heaps for the parts and components they needed, and then work for 48 hours straight in the heat and mud/dust and bugs. The Swoose shows what the mechanics could accomplish under dreadful circumstances. They established an unmatched legacy of resourcefulness and dedication to duty.
This would be a much easier debate if there were at least one more Sharkfin. I keep thinking of a photo in Pete Bowers' book, showing a D model lying in a scrap heap at Kelly before the war ended. Maybe it's 20-20 hindsight, but doggone it, why didn’t someone from either the Air Force or Boeing have the foresight to preserve at least one Sharkfin?
The best bet would be to display some sort of graphic illustration next to the aircraft that explains her entire service history, combat and all.
Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:33 pm
AviaS199 wrote: Maybe it's 20-20 hindsight, but doggone it, why didn’t someone from either the Air Force or Boeing have the foresight to preserve at least one Sharkfin?
And just think of all the other historically significant (or somewhat unique) aircraft that could be dropped into that sentance. USN setting aside a TBD or two. Or a B-32 being saved. Or a Boeing 314. Or the B-15 and B-19.
IMHO one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated against the preservation of US history (regardless of military or not), is how TPTB allowed the Enterprise to go for scrap in the late 1950s.
At the time people were either interested in getting home and getting on with their lives, or in looking ahead to the next conflict. Looking back and realizing the value of the tools that were used as artifacts/gifts to future generations is a much more recent phenomenon. Personally, I think we are exceptionally lucky to have what we've got - and the fact that we do is a real tribute to a handful of people like Paul Garber who had the foresight and drive to do so.
WRT the Swoose, SSSB, Memphis Belle, Flak Bait, etc, everyone should keep in mind that it's much better to be fighting over where and how a surviving and priceless piece of history should be displayed than lamenting that it somehow slipped through our fingers and no longer exists.
Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:48 pm
Garth wrote: Personally, I think we are exceptionally lucky to have what we've got - and the fact that we do is a real tribute to a handful of people like Paul Garber who had the foresight and drive to do so.
I really hope the new restoration facility at the Hazy Center carries the name Paul Garber. I think it would be fitting...