Warbird Information Exchange

In Leiu of a Pink Pony, I'll accept a performance of "Hot Potato, Hot Potato"



I knew about the Beaufighter, but what was the extent of the it's and Mk. V's combat experience??

I think that most would have to agree with the progressive trend that the NMUSAF Cadre have shown that eventually the Museum, with regards to the USAF only mandate, will (one day in the future) reach a saturation point where it has collected and displayed every possible USAF type. Then what?? Keep the dust off the aircraft and await present types to retire?

I don't see why at some point in time the NMUSAF wouldn't collect other services and allied nation types when it's goals have been acheived.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

I think some are over thinking what the NMUSAF is trying to do. It isn't about politics, and how things worked. It is, but not the main focus. THe main focus is honoring our nations heroes. That is it. To learn about those brave souls that fought so that we can enjoy freedom. It is to honor those men that jumped into aircraft held together by fabric and thread to venture into this new way to fight, for the men that left home, to become a B-17 tail gunner, for the women that went to work with the WASPS proving that "Yes, we can do it", for the crews that flew long raids in the B-36 to keep the peace, the man(Bernie Ficsher) that landed a skyraider in the middle of combat to pick up his buddy that was shot down, to the A-10 pilot that flew his A-10(the one on display) over a downed American pilot, and refused to leave until he was airlifted out. In the process using almost all of his fuel and ordanance keeping the enemy at bay. I know to some this sounds cheesy, but this is why I take what I do and what these aircraft represent very serious. The goal of these aircraft are to teach the younger generations where we have been and what others have died for. And they give veterans a place to come, find peace, have reunions(in many ways), and bring back memories to tell others about. I am a nobody, but in my own humble little way, this is what I do to pay back the debt that will never be complete. This is why I get defensive about the place, I guess.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

A brief summary of both from the ADF-serials.com.au website.



RAAF SPITFIRE VC >>> A58-246 F.VC MA863 SS Horoata 21/10/43 DL-A/"K" Delivered 10/43. Previously MA863 and coded DL-A with 54 Sqn (RAF) where it was flown by SqnLdr E M Gibbs.Flown by Sqn Ldr R B Newton 54Sqn RAF 18/04/44 on Babar Island Rhubarb Mission. Served with 452 Sqn. Served with Central Gunnery School at Cressy Vic, coded K. Was at Ballarat Under Restoration.1998 Ian Whitney, Melbourne, Australia (A58-246) To Duxford, UK.February 2000 Restoration completed at Duxford for the USAF Museum Dayton, Ohio


RAAF BEAUFIGHTER 1C >> A19-43, T5049, Mk.1c, 07/06/43 1 AD. 02/11/42 5 OTU 20/06/43 31 Sqn. 16/09/43 Ran out of fuel and bellylanded at Skirmish Point near Millingimbi NT when returning from a raid on Taberfane. Crew: Pilot Ogden & Nav West (Parnell p.45). 18/09/43 Flown out and returned to 31 Sqn. 29/10/43 4 RSU for repairs. 01/02/44 31 Sqn. 07/06/44 5 OTU 31/08/44 Aircraft ran off airstrip on landing following brake failure. 10/09/43 2 CRD for repair. 20/10/44 Instructional Airframe No3 Air Armament Gunnery School Nhill Vic. 09/10/47 Disposed of to K Oldfiled Nhill 01/01/71 Aircraft Restoration Group. Aircraft extant in the USAF Museum under restoration for eventual display.

Both are RAAF Pacific War combat veterans, I assume neither have their real identities and RAAF combat histories presented next to them in their ficticious colour schemes?


Regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

The NMUSAF also seems to be taking on a collection of civilian aircraft that as far as I can tell have no military connections. Examples that I have seen photos of include a Corbin Ace and Pitcairn autogyro. Just because some military person might have flown one of these in his off-time should not justify inclusion in a museum whose mission should reflect military history.

Why are such aircraft being included in the collection? It is almost as if the NMUSAF is striving to be as big a colelction as possible irregardless of what is being displayed.

_________________
Kevin McCartney

In 1931 the Kellett brothers, Wallace and Rod, manufactured 12 K-2 autogiros. Based on existing Cierva and Pitcairn autogiro designs, the K-2 incorporated a much larger blade area, a simplified landing gear and a wider fuselage to accommodate side-by-side seating. Equipped with a 165-hp Continental A-70 engine, the K-2 could carry a useful load of 609 pounds at a top speed of 100 mph, a cruise speed of 80 mph and a stall speed of 24 mph.

In 1932 Kellett produced an improved model, the K-3. Powered by a 210-hp Kinner C-5 engine, it had a top speed of 110 mph, a cruise speed of 90 mph and a stall speed of only 15 mph. Kellett produced six of these aircraft, with two of them being modified K-2s.

To observe enemy forces and to control artillery fire, the U.S. Army needed an aircraft capable of flying very slowly, and the autogiro seemed to be a perfect solution. Therefore, the U.S. Army Air Corps tested both versions of the Kellett at Wright Field, but these aircraft lacked the performance necessary for military applications.

Later versions of the Kellett autogiro proved more successful, and the Army Air Corps purchased a small number of Kellett YG-1s, the first practical rotorcraft procured by the Army Air Corps, at the end of the 1930s. The Kelletts sold two K-3s to the Japanese War Office in 1932, but the most famous Kellett was the K-3 that Admiral Richard E. Byrd used on his Antarctic Expedition of 1933-1934.

The aircraft on display, a modified K-2, was the first autogiro tested by the Army Air Corps at Wright Field in 1931.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

As for a few civilian aircraft that we have in storage, they were donated to the museum.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Mustangdriver, I generally agree with your support of the NMUSAF, but I think you may be under-thinking it. If its primary purpose is to honor the nation's heroes then it is not a museum, it is a shrine, and should change its name to the NSUSAF.

In any event, honoring the nation's heroes in some respects is a rephrasing of JDK's "present[ing] the current orthodoxy of that service." Another way to say it is that the shrine/museum serves primarily a propaganda function. Although there is truth to that, I prefer to think that the NMUSAF actually does have a preservation mission with a coherent curatorial direction and support for scholarship, that is to say it really does deserve to be called a museum.

And if we assume that to be the case, then I'd say that JDK has nailed the deficiencies associated with it. And other posters are correct about the benefits; it is nice to see an olive drab Dauntless and (soon!) Helldiver for a change, as well as US-marked foreign types, although I agree with JDK and Mark that it is a shame when actual combat vet aircraft from other countries are tarted up as USAAF machines without even a nod to the true significance of the artifact.

August

But why is NMUSAF accepting civilian aircraft? There is a word out there that is the opposite of 'yes.'

Large museums must look to to the longterm concerning what they can responsibly take care of. Civilian aircraft that are outside the museum's mission take resources away from aircraft that are in the museum's mission.

And the Kellett still is a civilian aircraft, displayed in civilian markings. Should NMUSAF display every plane that influenced military design? Early racecars influenced aircraft streamlining - should NMUSAF display early race cars?

_________________
Kevin McCartney

You hum it, I'll join in when I remember the words.

Old iron, I reckon the actual 'first example of the rotary wing tested by the service' is a pretty good shoo in.

If you want a real 'what are they thinking?!' have a look at the RAF Museum's recently abandoned attempt to claim it is 'the' aeronautical collection for the UK, and the lopsided collection of oddities called 'Milestones of Flight'. The NMUSAF isn't anywhere approaching that - if anything, IMHO, is too narrow in it's focus - but that's a minor quibble.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

The Kellet is a military aircraft. It was evaluated at Wright Pat, and a historic aircraft. Should the museum have just said, no, we don't want it, scrap it"? I think it is fitting to have it in the museum, and am glad that they saved it.

Why say no? Why would a museum do that when maybe they can use the aircraft that they are accepting. There may be plans on where to display these civilian aircraft, and they may not be Dayton, but somewhere that these aircraft have other connections.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Lets try not to make the NMUSAF out to look like a "All Generous and Powerful OZ",...... cuz it ain't.

No forward thinking history preserving organization Scraps out 3 RF-84s to restore 1 RF-84K. I've got no problem with using the 3 for parts to save one but there was no need to scrap the 3 "substantial" airframes. Thank goodness an individual saved them (even though they had been pushed around with a bulldozer). And lets not forget the perfectly good B-47 forward fuselage they decided to scrap as well.

There have been other questionable decisions, such as the sale of Spitfire TE330, a gift from the RAF. Just like a Bride and Groom, if the Bride calls off the wedding she should give back the ring.

And lastly and most recently the proposed sale of the museum's Casa built Ju-52 sans data plate.

All this falls under the catagory, atleast in my book, of questionable practices. Now don't get me I love the museum and always have. I just have reservations about those who are in position to make policies.


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Hey Shay, I know those F-84's more than you know man. THey were VERY rough, and bashed around before the museum even had them. Very incomplete. I really don't think a ton could have been done with them. I see one of them every day.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

As for the JU-52 , I agree I hate the idea of selling it, and I don't think it is going to happen.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

As a general observation, donations can be a real headache for museums.

With the Mk.XVI having peripheral relevance and dating to the era of 'any Spitfire will do', it's no surprise it was disposed of. After all there's a PR.XI and Mk.V in the collection, both much more relevant. Otherwise the XVI would be just sitting in store. Personally I've no problem with that moving on, and AFAIK, gifts like that have to be owned by the museum and that includes the option of disposal.

Bit of an interesting one that...

I'd agree that some of your examples certainly bear better public explanation and scrutiny.

What's the directorial oversight of the museum? Is it one man's command, or is there a board? What public accountability does the museum have? I'm interested - but not in rants...

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com