Barksdale B-29 photos

[Ken]

Andrew, you're right. You should convince the NMUSAF to go ahead with the crane & crew and take the B-24 as well and ship it to Dayton as long as they're out there working with you on the B-17. Truth is, where there's a will there's a way when it comes to the Pentagon. When money was flowing, they didn't want to bother with these birds ... and now that it's not, they really don't want to bother. But, as you said, the USAF has the equipment and manpower. Each day C-5s and C-17s fly stateside missions empty. The crews are logging valuable time, don't get me wrong, but they could be fragged to go to KBAD and move these historic airplanes in concert with what they're already doing with minimal impact - I used to do that and I know firsthand. The crews also enjoy working with unusual cargo and knowing they're helping a larger cause - it's all in how you spin the situation.

Those airlifters will fly out their hours right down to the wire on Sep 30 whether they're empty or not - might as well do some good while they're at it. Brad, if you're here, how about a load plan?

Ken

[tulsaboy]

Mustangdriver,

I don't mean to be contrary, but tell me where I'm wrong- I thought that NMUSAF has a list of folks who would like examples from the collection as they become available, and that the lists for things like the B-17, B-24 and B-29 are pretty long. It was my understanding that there was little chance of those aircraft ever being reassigned. The other issue is ownership. My understanding is that the NMUSAF would only put them on loan with the museums that might take them. That is a difficult sell to memberships of museums and to the boards/funders of museums, as they would rather put their money into something they own than something that is on loan. It's not just as easy as calling NMUSAF up and saying, "Can I have that B-24 at Barksdale? Please?"

I think that as we approach 70+ years after any combat in WWII, having 4 engined bombers still out in the weather in the national collection is a shame. There are some museums (I'm not going to say lots, because it's just not true) that would happily take ownership of any of the B-17s, B-29s and the two B-24s that are owned by the NMUSAF and are still outside. It sure seems to me that NMUSAF would be well-served to start organizing either trades or an auction for those aircraft, with the traders/bidders coming from a pre-approved list of 501(c)(3) organizations. That would ensure that they would go to educational institutions and not merely to the highest bidder, thus keeping with NMUSAF's educational mission. The NMUSAF could even inculde a "right of first refusal" in the contract that would allow NMUSAF to repurchase the aircraft if the 501(c)(3) sought to transfer its ownership to another 501 or to a private owner. NMUSAF could also include a provision in the contract that the purchasers had to provide indoor storage for the aircraft, as a "put up or shut up" element of the contract. The number of bidders would be smaller than most think, but the aircraft would ultimately end up with good homes.

This arrangement would also allow for museums to make an easier sell to their funders- the promise that the aircraft will never leave, and that the organization has ownership of it and can do with it as it wishes- everything from static display, to engine run-ups, to flight. Spending money on the aircraft would be easier to do, and it would be easier to convince volunteers to participate in restoration activities on an aircraft that "they" owned.

Our museum, for instance, is looking at building a large second hangar for additional display area. If we knew a B-17/B-24 was on its way, that would be included in the planning. We sent a crew of volunteers 1000 miles from our location to dismantle a DC-3, load it onto trucks, and a local trucking company brought it back to us free of charge in 24 hours. That process only took a week. I have no doubt that we could do the same with the B-17 or B-24 at Barksdale- we might just give ourselves an extra week! It can be done, and several places like ours have the expertise. We just need the incentive to make it happen, and an arrangement like I've suggested would (I think) ensure that the treasures that NMUSAF just can't afford to care for any more would be in the hands of people who love them.

So, Mustangdriver, whaddya think? Can you convince the powers that be to do something like this? The money that NMUSAF gets from the sales could be pumped right into the restoration of the Belle, the Swoose and other favorite projects.

kevin

[Django]

I think any plan that involves the NMUSAF selling off an airframe is not going to be taken seriously by them.

[CrewDawg]

I have first hand experience with the airplanes at Barksdale. I was a young 18 year old B-52 Crew Chief that volunteered with the 8th Air Force Musuem from '88 to '92. I was the volunteer Director of Maintenance for them during that time. Mainly we tried to keep the bird poop and nests to a minimum and put some paint on them once in a while. We never had much luck getting much support from the local area, which was surprising since there is a large number of retirees in Shreveport/Bossier. The base itself never seemed to care much about us unless there was an inspection of some sort or during the air show.

The B-17 did fly into Barksdale in 1984 (I think), it was once known as Tanker 19. I have a picture on my wall that was given to me that was taken from the tower of it sitting on the ramp next to a B-52. The B-29 was recovered from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and is pretty much a shell. It was badly corroded when we re-assembled it in '88-'89. The B-24 is the last Ford built J model left. I had the pleasure of changing the tube in the left main tire one time when it went flat. Turns out there's a tractor out there with the same size tube! I agree with popular opinion, it should be at Willow Run with the Yankee Air Museum. It came to Barksdale via sky crane helicopter from the Spartan School of Aeronautics in Tulsa.

During my years at the 8th AFM, we would have killed to get enough money to put a roof over all of the aircraft. Getting money from anyone and support from the government is not as easy as it sounds. Some museum's are lucky and have some very talented people who are great at getting donations and support. Not everyone has that talent available.

[mh53eflyguy]

I wanted to throw in my two cents into the mix somewhat defending the reason these birds are not better cared for while serving on their gate guard duties, or twilight tour(s). There is just no money to house these aircraft indoors, nor is there money to build a structure to house these under, and priority wise it would be very low on the totem pole considering some of the barracks I was staying in were subpar and in dire need of remodeling and/or being raised due to asbestos or other health concerns. Then, some of these are historic places that all they can due is gut them and remodel the insides. The infrastructure of the base cost a lot to maintain and upkeep, and there is just no money to do much more than mow the grass in front of these birds. Regarding moving them, it's literally an act of Congress to get anything like this loaded onto an aircraft and ship them out. It's one of those unfortunate "easier said than done" statements. With the current budget cuts, manning already becoming at a premium, I think the best bet would be for a group of volunteers to assemble a committee to petition to go on base and with their own funds revive and rejuvenate these aircraft.
While I agree that it's a shame that these big old birds cannot receive better treatment, there simply isn't the manning nor money to do much more than they already are doing to upkeep these birds. I don't think folks understand how stretched for money the military is, especially this year.
The logistics of a "logistic" run in a C-5 is a nightmare. While I'm less familiar with the USAF way of operations, I know that on the blue and gold side of things, there's a lot of red tape and a lot of people that would say no to that sort of operation to move a bird due to the manpower and operating cost of the manpower, the cranes, trucks, and aircraft to move something like this. That being said, you never know until you try. The sad truth is that it is likely that these birds will be scrapped over preserved unless an party can get together enough money to remove them. I don't know what happened to the gate guard birds at Pease AFB in Portsmouth, NH when it closed in the early 90's, but I'm pretty sure they were all (unfortunately) scrapped.

Trust me, we are not seeing much of the billions of dollars that the administration says we are getting, and they are cutting umpteen billion from our budget. It's only going to get worse for these gate guards.

[tulsaboy]

Django,

I agree that the NMUSAF is unlikely to take seriously a proposal that has them selling an airframe. That being said, there has to be a tipping point eventually where the USAF is not interested in having these maintenance-intensive liabilities sitting in front of their bases. Especially if we go through another round of BRAC, which will most likely see some shuffling of aircraft again, just like last time. My thought is simple- in cases where the NMUSAF has redundant examples in their collection, redistribute them to caring organizations in a way that preserves the aircraft while also bringing in additional resources for NMUSAF to keep doing what they do best in Dayton- preserving key representative examples of the aircraft used by the USAF throughout its history. It's a win-win; just takes a change in philosophy.

kevin

[mustangdriver]

Kevin,
I think you are right with alot of this. I think in order to see some of these types survive the NMUSAF and museums that want them are going to have to work together, and be creative.

[wendovertom]

A lot of this argument comes down to funding funding funding. But, I may happen to know where a B-29 hangar is just about ready for a bomber to call home :

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... tored.html

Tom P.

[Pat Carry]

After reading all the great ideas in this thread, I'm all for getting these aircraft to any museum willing to place it inside. Unfortunately this means dealing with much goverment red tape and personalities who just dont want to let go of said aircarft. There might be alot of this going on "oh heck, things have always been this way or we have always done it this way so why change" A very archaic way of thinking in my opinion. However if these planes continue to sit outside, in about 15 years there will be another mass scrapping of WW2 aircraft!

[mustangdriver]

I think we are going to be in for a surprise.

[Pat Carry]

I think we are going to be in for a surprise.

Ok Chris, you have our full attention.

[tulsaboy]

Agreed. I'm waiting with baited breath... if it's anything like I hope it is, the next 10 years or so could be great for warbirds...

kevin

[mustangdriver]

Well I can say this. I think you are going to see museums that are having trouble with ther collection streamlined or closed all together. Selling the aircraft would not fix the problem in my opinion. For example The F-105. I know it's a heated subject here, but let's look at that. Let's say the NMUSAF says they will sell the F-105's to folks. How many museums can operate an F-105? How many airframes will be saved? THen it has to be the right variant. The Collings Foundation only wants a two seater. And I can see why, makes sense. I am going to give a high number and say 6 F-105's would be saved to fly. so how many does that still leave out in the cold?
The truth is WIX is very much like the real relationships out there. On WIX you can easily hate someone or bash them making them the enemy(not that this is the case here). However when you meet folks in person you find out that you are very much alike. I think if more people had a chance to sit down and talk with SOME of the NMUSAF folks things would make more sense. On the other side of the coin the NMUSAF folks need to sit down and talk with SOME of the warbird folks. I hope that is something that I have been helping while I volunteered at the NMUSAF and continue to do from Grissom.
I can say this, I know that there is a major plan in the works to see the rare aircraft outdoors moved to either indoor displays, or safe storage. We are going to see some big changes down the road. This will affect some museums that won't be happy(the one I am at included).
As far as the aircraft discussed here, There is a plan.

[Pat Carry]

Sounds good Chris. Keep us posted please.

[tulsaboy]

Chris-

I'm excited to know that there is a plan, or at least that one is in the works for the WWII aircraft that are still out in the cold. That being said, I guess my question is exactly how many of a particular model does the NMUSAF need to maintain control over? Kinda like the NMNA with SBDs. Seriously, how many do they really need to keep in their collection? NMUSAF has the same situation with B-17s. There is an abundance, and after they take the cream for their collection (like maybe adding another G model to go with the Belle and the Swoose) why do they need to maintain ownership of the rest? I will disagree with you that selling them is not a good idea. I'd be willing to bet that any of the B-17s currently sitting outdoors on static display would bring a minimum of 100k each. If NMUSAF restricted the sales to 501(c)(3) organizations that have an emphasis on aviation and military history, and who can put the aircraft indoors as a condition of the sale, how is that not good for the aircraft AND good for NMUSAF? NMUSAF doesn't have to worry about them any more or maintain them, and some additional financial resources come into the museum that otherwise would not. I still maintain that it is a good idea, and a win-win.

kevin