Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:56 am
Interesting posts.
I'd disagree with warbird1 calling the listed items 'flaws', although the points are well made, IMHO. This was a military aircraft designed to undertake a challenging job at the limits of technology and understanding of the time. All designs are best compromise (expecting perfection in all aspects is a failure of understanding) and its clear that the compromises, including an unknown performance shortfall were eliminated, making the type one of the better, more effective bombers of W.W.II; hence my preference for acknowledging them as compromises, not flaws. Fundamental flaws condemn a type to absolute failure - usually in the design's primary role. The B-26 was not a failure, and even in training, the accident rate was reasonable once the ballast, training, procedure and expectation of trainers and trainees was straightened out. Bad growing pains, but not a 'flawed' aircraft in real terms.
Human understanding and design revision requirement was more usual in the massive pace of W.W.II development than we realise, or allow for.
We do not expect a loss rate in warbird operations - although it is sadly a fact. The air forces always expect a loss rate through design compromises made to deliver a more effective combat aircraft than a 'safe' one can. Again, warbirds are ex- military aircraft, not intended to operate in civilian life or to civilian safety standards. The fact it's done is at all success of the warbird movement.
None of those properly documented issues should have been factors in the Carolyn accident, as anyone operating the type today has access to the data and lessons learned. This isn't a criticism of the Carolyn crew, but an observation of, I hope, changes in warbird operational culture and practice since that tragic accident.
I think it telling that two far more qualified posters than me can disagree about the factors is telling in how hard it is to get right, and in a sense how warbird operational standards still have a way to go. No accident need happen.
Broadening it out, as far as I know, every W.W.II era bomber twin has a marginal performance in case of engine loss within the take off regime - it's a factor of the period development, and must be a consideration in choosing to operate those aircraft today. That therefore should also be a factor in the pre-flight, maintenance and inspection process for a type to ensure that engine failure risk is mitigated as far as is humanly possible. (But note that the Carolyn accident didn't occur at that phase of flight.) Steve Nelson raised the question of mechanical failure being beyond the pilot's control, which is true to a degree. I don't know in the case of Carolyn if there were any advance warning signs, and I'm not going to speculate in that case. However we all know of examples of pilots chosing to go fly with engines or systems not performing properly, and the consequences of that decision. How carefully an aircraft is checked for future failure varies, sadly, and sometimes fatally.
Just a few observations.
I'd disagree with warbird1 calling the listed items 'flaws', although the points are well made, IMHO. This was a military aircraft designed to undertake a challenging job at the limits of technology and understanding of the time. All designs are best compromise (expecting perfection in all aspects is a failure of understanding) and its clear that the compromises, including an unknown performance shortfall were eliminated, making the type one of the better, more effective bombers of W.W.II; hence my preference for acknowledging them as compromises, not flaws. Fundamental flaws condemn a type to absolute failure - usually in the design's primary role. The B-26 was not a failure, and even in training, the accident rate was reasonable once the ballast, training, procedure and expectation of trainers and trainees was straightened out. Bad growing pains, but not a 'flawed' aircraft in real terms.
Human understanding and design revision requirement was more usual in the massive pace of W.W.II development than we realise, or allow for.
We do not expect a loss rate in warbird operations - although it is sadly a fact. The air forces always expect a loss rate through design compromises made to deliver a more effective combat aircraft than a 'safe' one can. Again, warbirds are ex- military aircraft, not intended to operate in civilian life or to civilian safety standards. The fact it's done is at all success of the warbird movement.
None of those properly documented issues should have been factors in the Carolyn accident, as anyone operating the type today has access to the data and lessons learned. This isn't a criticism of the Carolyn crew, but an observation of, I hope, changes in warbird operational culture and practice since that tragic accident.
I think it telling that two far more qualified posters than me can disagree about the factors is telling in how hard it is to get right, and in a sense how warbird operational standards still have a way to go. No accident need happen.
Broadening it out, as far as I know, every W.W.II era bomber twin has a marginal performance in case of engine loss within the take off regime - it's a factor of the period development, and must be a consideration in choosing to operate those aircraft today. That therefore should also be a factor in the pre-flight, maintenance and inspection process for a type to ensure that engine failure risk is mitigated as far as is humanly possible. (But note that the Carolyn accident didn't occur at that phase of flight.) Steve Nelson raised the question of mechanical failure being beyond the pilot's control, which is true to a degree. I don't know in the case of Carolyn if there were any advance warning signs, and I'm not going to speculate in that case. However we all know of examples of pilots chosing to go fly with engines or systems not performing properly, and the consequences of that decision. How carefully an aircraft is checked for future failure varies, sadly, and sometimes fatally.
Just a few observations.
Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:01 am
Warbird1,
Where is your reference about the early B-26s not having a dorsal turret installed ? I have never seen a photo of a early 26 without a turret since Martin designed the turret as well. the first 26, 40-1361, had a turret, as does Kermits plane, only 101 numbers later. The Hill AFB 26, 40-1370, ninth plane off the line was in Alaska, and in combat, and it had a turret.
40-1426 was in combat in the pacific, it had a turret as well.
On the CAF 26 nose gear failure, are you sure it was CG related, and not a hydraulic or part failure ? or even pilot error ? I have seen a number plane nose draggers that have had the nose gear ripped off by pilots trying to save a landing.
CG is not something you can make up and say it will fly, it's range is determined by the manufacturer, which on the B-26 is between 256 and 271 inches aft of the datum, and as long as the plane is kept within that range, it will fly correctly.
as far as the props being a single point failure and a design flaw, there were a great number of planes that have single point failures in the design, and they are not considered a flaw. The Curtiss Electric props were the cutting edge at the time, however, they were limited by the electrical systems at the time, which was 12 volts. When the B-26A was built, it used a 24 volt system, which made the Curtiss prop work the way it was intended to.
Where is your reference about the early B-26s not having a dorsal turret installed ? I have never seen a photo of a early 26 without a turret since Martin designed the turret as well. the first 26, 40-1361, had a turret, as does Kermits plane, only 101 numbers later. The Hill AFB 26, 40-1370, ninth plane off the line was in Alaska, and in combat, and it had a turret.
40-1426 was in combat in the pacific, it had a turret as well.
On the CAF 26 nose gear failure, are you sure it was CG related, and not a hydraulic or part failure ? or even pilot error ? I have seen a number plane nose draggers that have had the nose gear ripped off by pilots trying to save a landing.
CG is not something you can make up and say it will fly, it's range is determined by the manufacturer, which on the B-26 is between 256 and 271 inches aft of the datum, and as long as the plane is kept within that range, it will fly correctly.
as far as the props being a single point failure and a design flaw, there were a great number of planes that have single point failures in the design, and they are not considered a flaw. The Curtiss Electric props were the cutting edge at the time, however, they were limited by the electrical systems at the time, which was 12 volts. When the B-26A was built, it used a 24 volt system, which made the Curtiss prop work the way it was intended to.
Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:41 am
quote:
Am I reading this right? WIXers are advocating that other WIXers send flammable messages to congressmen that might potentially reduce funding of a national aviation museum???? Does this serve any constructive purpose other than to make the whole community of aviation history people look like whinners with too much time on their hands? Such conduct serves noone except those who would rather not see any honor given to past military history, and I assure you that these same congressmen get those kind of letters as well. Why give those people credibility by sniping at our own?
Yes, the Flak Bait display has been positioned so that a portion of the nose can be touched, and the original paint at that location has been worn to the metal as a consequence. But "vandalism" is not the right word, it is more an act of unthinking love - people touch it because they want to touch a object that moves them. I am sure that the touches are generally very light touches but they accumulate, much as the feet of a madonna statue at the Vatican is now worn from the touch of pilgrims.
The plexiglass shield should be extended (and I think this already has been done), but this is not something to get so upset about. The damage will ultimately be covered by paint carefully blended to match the original paint that covers the rest of the aircraft. There is much worse destruction out there to lament!
There have been messages on this thread and others that suggest the Smithsonian has destroyed a valuable artifact, when the reality is that an historical aircraft has been preserved indoors so well that it will be ultimately displayed in its original paint. How many times has that happened?? So, put these things into perspective.
In my opinion, WIXers that advocate noxious letters to those who have the ability to reduce appropriations, are little different than genuine hoodlums who scratch obsenities into display aircraft. They are being consciously destructive of the aircraft that most WIXers are trying to preserve.
I think the real background issue here is an animosity by a variety of people against the Smithsonian. This is from a variety of reasons - that their restoration schedule is slow, the Enola Gay, etc. - but I suspect that by and large those who vent their complaints on this issue do so because that is the kind of people they are. You can be sure that they are not just complaining about the Smithsonian, but about many other things as well. Complaining is an occupation that must pay very well for there are so many people doing it.
Rather than send nuclear posts to congressmen, do something useful and send some money for the NASM Phase II construction.
rreis wrote:
So, it would be out of place to send them an email/letter calling attention to such a situation which puts in check their own reputation of standard setters. Especially when the immediate solution seems so simple and cheap. Did anyone write to the NASM curator about this (which I assume is the person responsible)?
Not just NASM, but Members of Congress as well. Specifically members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior. They're the appropriators who write the Smithsonian's checks.
Am I reading this right? WIXers are advocating that other WIXers send flammable messages to congressmen that might potentially reduce funding of a national aviation museum???? Does this serve any constructive purpose other than to make the whole community of aviation history people look like whinners with too much time on their hands? Such conduct serves noone except those who would rather not see any honor given to past military history, and I assure you that these same congressmen get those kind of letters as well. Why give those people credibility by sniping at our own?
Yes, the Flak Bait display has been positioned so that a portion of the nose can be touched, and the original paint at that location has been worn to the metal as a consequence. But "vandalism" is not the right word, it is more an act of unthinking love - people touch it because they want to touch a object that moves them. I am sure that the touches are generally very light touches but they accumulate, much as the feet of a madonna statue at the Vatican is now worn from the touch of pilgrims.
The plexiglass shield should be extended (and I think this already has been done), but this is not something to get so upset about. The damage will ultimately be covered by paint carefully blended to match the original paint that covers the rest of the aircraft. There is much worse destruction out there to lament!
There have been messages on this thread and others that suggest the Smithsonian has destroyed a valuable artifact, when the reality is that an historical aircraft has been preserved indoors so well that it will be ultimately displayed in its original paint. How many times has that happened?? So, put these things into perspective.
In my opinion, WIXers that advocate noxious letters to those who have the ability to reduce appropriations, are little different than genuine hoodlums who scratch obsenities into display aircraft. They are being consciously destructive of the aircraft that most WIXers are trying to preserve.
I think the real background issue here is an animosity by a variety of people against the Smithsonian. This is from a variety of reasons - that their restoration schedule is slow, the Enola Gay, etc. - but I suspect that by and large those who vent their complaints on this issue do so because that is the kind of people they are. You can be sure that they are not just complaining about the Smithsonian, but about many other things as well. Complaining is an occupation that must pay very well for there are so many people doing it.
Rather than send nuclear posts to congressmen, do something useful and send some money for the NASM Phase II construction.
Last edited by old iron on Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:50 am
old iron wrote: I am sure that the touches are generally very light touches but they accumulate, much as the feet of a madonna statue at the Vatican is now worn from touch of pilgrims.
never remembered that analogy, point taken
Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:16 am
warbird1 wrote:cozmo wrote:In the case of Flack Bait, I cannot berate somebody wanting to touch it. They may have a connection to the plane that will last them a lifetime.
I doubt the average visitor to Flak Bait knows the historical significance of the airframe, let alone appreciates it enough to "have a connection to the plane that will last a lifetime." The vast majority of people touching it will be younger folks, plus parents who know nothing about history. The only ones likely to have such a connection, would probably not touch it in the first place since they likely know it's historical value and significance.
The touching, feeling part of having a "connection to the plane that will last them a lifetime" can easily be achieved at their local airshows. That's what living, breathing, flying warbirds are for - not National Museum centerpieces.
Not that I approve of the condition of "Flak Bait" but as a Historian, I do know better but yet I do want to touch it. Most of our "current warbirds" today do not have the history of seeing combat. Touching them would not do anything for me! I have been able to "touch" some historic aircraft over the years for a pat of a "Job well done".
Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:57 pm
Hi Kevin,
You make some good points, but if I may clarify some of your comments and questions.
Firstly, most WIX members speak for themselves - sometimes alone, sometimes in agreement, where stated usually, with others. To assume one post is 'the voice of WIX' is wrong.
The NASM is a publicly owned and publicly funded museum and as such, complaints should be directed to the staff in the first instance, and if the complainant, in their view is not satisfied, they are entitled to complain to their congressman. The NASM is entitled to defend their decisions or actions, and the congressman or congress to act or decide upon it if they decide it important enough. In this case that's unlikely, but it is the due process.
For the record, I don't agree that we should be grateful and silent because someone 'honors ... past military history'. If they are not doing it properly, then reasonable, documented concerns should be aired, not shut up.
Secondly the NASM is not a museum to honour military achievement, but has a much wider social mandate than that. It is an important distinction.
The NASM, as a museum, is in dereliction of its responsibility to protect the artefact for the future. That is a simple, basic fact of one of the primary mandates of any top museum. It is not arguable, and in this case, some simple precautions would stop the problem dead.
If an artefact has paint worn away in the period of display, that is a rate of degradation that is not acceptable.
The issue is not the people touching it (as they can, and others have, they will - it is an accelerated wear process) but that NASM is failing to protect it.
The analogy is wrong, if understandable. This is not an object of pilgrimage in a religious institution where physical contact is part of the religious ritual, but an artefact in a scientific institution used to document and illustrate human achievement and technology.
I'm sure some would like to propose that Flack Bait is an object of pilgrimage - certainly I'd travel halfway around the world to see it,
but it's a metaphor that, if perused, implies an irrational faith based worship of a false idol. Don't go there, it looks silly in a secular environment.
You might be surprised to learn how many objects of faith that are touched and worn by the faithful have been replaced with replicas or protected. It is one of the challenges that museums and churches face together - but their jobs, and the access they provide are different.
There are more important things to worry about I agree. However losing any original material part of an artefact after it has entered the museum's care when it is easily preventable is not acceptable. Replacing original material - particularly in a machine which is as original as this - should be minimised as far as possible. Modern replacement material, one area where NASM scores highly in its work, by acknowledging that, is a degradation of the originality of the artefact, and, as I've said, in this case shouldn't even be necessary.
You seem to have lost the sense of proportion you were displaying so well in the paragraph above. Public institutions answer to the public, and if they fail in their mandate, should be corrected, through due process.
I'd only point out this issue, as a contrast to the other high standards attained by the Smithsonian that I pointed out elsewhere, here, yesterday. I'm not an unthinking fan or critic.
Sort of the kind of person I am. It's my job as an aviation journalist to comment on the performance of institutions. Prase where due, accurate, quantified and hopefully constructive criticism where not. Sometimes it has resulted (with many others' work) in rectifying problems. My conscience is clear.
And you are doing what, here, right now? And where's the benefit? Just a little fun, but...
No one should be sending 'nuclear' posts to their congressmen, I'm sure they get filed in the round file. However it would be perfectly appropriate to expect the NASM to act on concerns over wear to an artefact. It would be nice if more people put their money where their mouths are, I agree, but discussion highlights the more deserving and less deserving institutions for that cash.
Regards,
You make some good points, but if I may clarify some of your comments and questions.
Firstly, most WIX members speak for themselves - sometimes alone, sometimes in agreement, where stated usually, with others. To assume one post is 'the voice of WIX' is wrong.
old iron wrote:Am I reading this right? WIXers are advocating that other WIXers send flammable messages to congressmen that might potentially reduce funding of a national aviation museum???? Does this serve any constructive purpose other than to make the whole community of aviation history people look like whinners with too much time on their hands? Such conduct serves noone except those who would rather not see any honor given to past military history, and I assure you that these same congressmen get those kind of letters as well. Why give those people credibility by sniping at our own?
The NASM is a publicly owned and publicly funded museum and as such, complaints should be directed to the staff in the first instance, and if the complainant, in their view is not satisfied, they are entitled to complain to their congressman. The NASM is entitled to defend their decisions or actions, and the congressman or congress to act or decide upon it if they decide it important enough. In this case that's unlikely, but it is the due process.
For the record, I don't agree that we should be grateful and silent because someone 'honors ... past military history'. If they are not doing it properly, then reasonable, documented concerns should be aired, not shut up.
Secondly the NASM is not a museum to honour military achievement, but has a much wider social mandate than that. It is an important distinction.
Yes, the Flak Bait display has been positioned so that a portion of the nose can be touched, and the original paint at that location has been worn to the metal as a consequence. But "vandalism" is not the right word, it is more an act of unthinking love - people touch it because they want to touch a object that moves them.
The NASM, as a museum, is in dereliction of its responsibility to protect the artefact for the future. That is a simple, basic fact of one of the primary mandates of any top museum. It is not arguable, and in this case, some simple precautions would stop the problem dead.
If an artefact has paint worn away in the period of display, that is a rate of degradation that is not acceptable.
The issue is not the people touching it (as they can, and others have, they will - it is an accelerated wear process) but that NASM is failing to protect it.
I am sure that the touches are generally very light touches but they accumulate, much as the feet of a madonna statue at the Vatican is now worn from the touch of pilgrims.
The analogy is wrong, if understandable. This is not an object of pilgrimage in a religious institution where physical contact is part of the religious ritual, but an artefact in a scientific institution used to document and illustrate human achievement and technology.
I'm sure some would like to propose that Flack Bait is an object of pilgrimage - certainly I'd travel halfway around the world to see it,
but it's a metaphor that, if perused, implies an irrational faith based worship of a false idol. Don't go there, it looks silly in a secular environment.You might be surprised to learn how many objects of faith that are touched and worn by the faithful have been replaced with replicas or protected. It is one of the challenges that museums and churches face together - but their jobs, and the access they provide are different.
The plexiglass shield should be extended (and I think this already has been done), but this is not something to get so upset about. The damage will ultimately be covered by paint carefully blended to match the original paint that covers the rest of the aircraft. There is much worse destruction out there to lament!
There are more important things to worry about I agree. However losing any original material part of an artefact after it has entered the museum's care when it is easily preventable is not acceptable. Replacing original material - particularly in a machine which is as original as this - should be minimised as far as possible. Modern replacement material, one area where NASM scores highly in its work, by acknowledging that, is a degradation of the originality of the artefact, and, as I've said, in this case shouldn't even be necessary.
In my opinion, WIXers that advocate noxious letters to those who have the ability to reduce appropriations, are little different than genuine hoodlums who scratch obsenities into display aircraft. They are being consciously destructive of the aircraft that most WIXers are trying to preserve.
You seem to have lost the sense of proportion you were displaying so well in the paragraph above. Public institutions answer to the public, and if they fail in their mandate, should be corrected, through due process.
I think the real background issue here is an animosity by a variety of people against the Smithsonian.
I'd only point out this issue, as a contrast to the other high standards attained by the Smithsonian that I pointed out elsewhere, here, yesterday. I'm not an unthinking fan or critic.
This is from a variety of reasons - that their restoration schedule is slow, the Enola Gay, etc. - but I suspect that by and large those who vent their complaints on this issue do so because that is the kind of people they are.
Sort of the kind of person I am. It's my job as an aviation journalist to comment on the performance of institutions. Prase where due, accurate, quantified and hopefully constructive criticism where not. Sometimes it has resulted (with many others' work) in rectifying problems. My conscience is clear.
You can be sure that they are not just complaining about the Smithsonian, but about many other things as well. Complaining is an occupation that must pay very well for there are so many people doing it.
And you are doing what, here, right now? And where's the benefit? Just a little fun, but...
old iron wrote:Rather than send nuclear posts to congressmen, do something useful and send some money for the NASM Phase II construction.
No one should be sending 'nuclear' posts to their congressmen, I'm sure they get filed in the round file. However it would be perfectly appropriate to expect the NASM to act on concerns over wear to an artefact. It would be nice if more people put their money where their mouths are, I agree, but discussion highlights the more deserving and less deserving institutions for that cash.
Regards,
Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:30 pm
I feel that JDK is 100% correct. The B-26 went to them just as she was retired. From that point it was their duty to preserve her as is. Now I have not always sounded like the biggest supporter of the NASM, but they are a top notch museum, no one can take that away from them. The aircraft that they have in their collection are awesome. But on the B-26 they are wrong. Just that little bit of paint work that will need to be done is an issue. Why, when it has been pointed out time and time again that this was taking place. The motto of putting out what is easiest does not cut it. Flack bait needs to be placed in one piece and sooner than later. I can only hope that the other pieces of the aircraft have been given proper care.
Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:42 pm
Hey Kevin and others...
Just for clarity, the photos that I posted at the beginning of this thread were taken on Thursday, August 27 (so one week ago today). The cocpit section on display has its right side pushed up against a wall. A 6 foot high or so plexiglass wall extends from the wall around the nose of the airplane, wrapping around to the left side. It stops just aft of the cockpit windows, and picks up about 4-5 feet to the right and extends down to the break where the front section was separated from the rest of the fuselage. The wall stops (weirdly) just before it would otherwise meet up with the solid piece of plexiglass that completely closes off the aft end of the section. This leaves a 1 foot gap or so in the protection, where the OD paint is essentially gone (you can see that in the first photo I posted.) The second photo I posted shows the large gap in the plexi, and how much of the original paint is exposed to tourist touches. Two or three posts after mine, Steve Nelson posted a photo that illustrates the entire setup in one shot. That is how it was one week ago. Nothing has changed.
I am not trying to unfairly throw stones, or to suggest that anyone "go nuclear" on NASM. I'm thrilled that such an incredible airframe still exists, when so many significant airframes do not. Its preservation is a miracle, and I am grateful. That being said, JDK is right in that any artifact given to a museum should be conserved in as careful a manner as possible, and that steps should be taken not to let the artifact deteriorate more than is unavoidable due to natural process (and those are sometimes halted artifically.)
I just hope that those of us who do care about this type of issue can encourage NASM to take some small reasonable steps to remedy the situation. From what I saw in person, for a few hundred dollars and a couple of hours of work the problem could be solved. If NASM would do it, I'd bet that we here on WIX could come up with that.
kevin
Just for clarity, the photos that I posted at the beginning of this thread were taken on Thursday, August 27 (so one week ago today). The cocpit section on display has its right side pushed up against a wall. A 6 foot high or so plexiglass wall extends from the wall around the nose of the airplane, wrapping around to the left side. It stops just aft of the cockpit windows, and picks up about 4-5 feet to the right and extends down to the break where the front section was separated from the rest of the fuselage. The wall stops (weirdly) just before it would otherwise meet up with the solid piece of plexiglass that completely closes off the aft end of the section. This leaves a 1 foot gap or so in the protection, where the OD paint is essentially gone (you can see that in the first photo I posted.) The second photo I posted shows the large gap in the plexi, and how much of the original paint is exposed to tourist touches. Two or three posts after mine, Steve Nelson posted a photo that illustrates the entire setup in one shot. That is how it was one week ago. Nothing has changed.
I am not trying to unfairly throw stones, or to suggest that anyone "go nuclear" on NASM. I'm thrilled that such an incredible airframe still exists, when so many significant airframes do not. Its preservation is a miracle, and I am grateful. That being said, JDK is right in that any artifact given to a museum should be conserved in as careful a manner as possible, and that steps should be taken not to let the artifact deteriorate more than is unavoidable due to natural process (and those are sometimes halted artifically.)
I just hope that those of us who do care about this type of issue can encourage NASM to take some small reasonable steps to remedy the situation. From what I saw in person, for a few hundred dollars and a couple of hours of work the problem could be solved. If NASM would do it, I'd bet that we here on WIX could come up with that.
kevin
Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:04 pm
old iron wrote:quote:
Am I reading this right? WIXers are advocating that other WIXers send flammable messages to congressmen that might potentially reduce funding of a national aviation museum???? Does this serve any constructive purpose other than to make the whole community of aviation history people look like whinners with too much time on their hands? Such conduct serves noone except those who would rather not see any honor given to past military history, and I assure you that these same congressmen get those kind of letters as well. Why give those people credibility by sniping at our own?
With all due respect, I am *not* suggesting that anyone send "flammable" messages to members of Congress, or anyone else.
I *AM* suggesting that folks who are concerned with the situation send respectful letters to their Congressmen describing the problem and with evidence (particularly the pictures posted here of the kids touching the artifact) to back it up. I'm a US taxpayer, as I believe most other's on WIX are as well. It's OUR money that helps fund NASM, and we have every right in the world to contact those responsible for appropriating that money (our Members of Congress, since spending bills start in the House of Representatives) when we see an issue with how it is or isn't being spent.
Some years ago, during a visit to the Williamsburg VA area I took a side trip to the Yorktown Battlefield. During the visit I photographically documented the desecration of a mass grave of French soldiers/sailors who had died during the battle. The gravestone/marker had been carved with Satanic symbols and the area was littered with trash and burned material. I posted those pictures on another military-related discussion group of which I'm a regular participant, which generated a LOT of letters to various Congressmen. The result was that the National Park Service took steps to fix the problem.
The Smithsonian is the largest museum in the world, and the two NASM facilities are the most-visited. I'm willing to bet that, with the number of WWII vets I regularly see at both, the issue with Flak Bait has been brought to the attention of staff on multiple occasions. I see zero reason why the situation shouldn't be brought to the attention of those in the US Government with oversight authority over the Smithsonian. Especially since the "fix" to the problem is going to be a few hundred dollars spent to push out the barriers around the display to prevent those with ITT from acting on their impulses.
Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:15 pm
old iron wrote:quote:
I think the real background issue here is an animosity by a variety of people against the Smithsonian.
I want to address this bit separately. I am a member of the National Air & Space Society and have been so for almost five years. I'm a holder of an annual parking permit at Udvar-Hazy, having applied for it on the day U-H opened in December 2003. My car has a Virginia "NASM-Dulles Center" special license plate (the one with the SR-71 on it). For three of the last four years I've volunteered at the Museum, specifically as part of my local IPMS club's display during their "Become a Pilot Day" open house.
Saying that I'm trying to stir something up against the Smithsonian because I have some kind of "animosity" towards it doesn't pass the laugh test. If I really wanted to do that, I'd post the picture I have of a NASM U-H security guard asleep in a chair (I call that picture "Guard, Asleep: Protecting Our National Aviation Treasures One Nap At A Time) ...
Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:55 pm
Matt Gunsch wrote:Warbird1,
Where is your reference about the early B-26s not having a dorsal turret installed ? I have never seen a photo of a early 26 without a turret since Martin designed the turret as well.
I've seen several photos from the 22nd Bomb Group in the spring and summer of 1941 showing Marauders without turrets. Here is a link to one of 40-1363 taken at Patterson Field in March 1941. http://www.redraiders22bg.com/html/Hall.html
They were supposed to have them but as Warbird1 stated they weren't ready yet. Most if not all of them later had their turrets installed.
Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:19 am
I think when Flak Bait was originally put on display (1976) the techniques for restoration at the Garber facility were much different than they are today. Back then, planes were stripped and restored "like new". I can only guess that the concern about damaging the original paint on the plane was not something that was worried about because they intended to re-paint the plane eventually anyway.
Now, lack of funds might be the reason no action has been taken to correct the situation. Museums aren"t perfect and they make sometime irreversible mistakes.
The Gemini IV Space suits worn by Ed White and James McDivitt that were on display in the Milestones of Flight gallery yellowed in the sun over the years (why wouldn't they) so the NASM sent the suits to be recovered with new outter layers (horrible historical mistake). Fortunately, the original outter layers were kept. The bad thing is the outter layers were never marked so the museum doesn't know which one is which. Ed White suit was used during the first American spacewalk which makes it particularly historical...and disturbing that it has been taken apart...
Now, lack of funds might be the reason no action has been taken to correct the situation. Museums aren"t perfect and they make sometime irreversible mistakes.
The Gemini IV Space suits worn by Ed White and James McDivitt that were on display in the Milestones of Flight gallery yellowed in the sun over the years (why wouldn't they) so the NASM sent the suits to be recovered with new outter layers (horrible historical mistake). Fortunately, the original outter layers were kept. The bad thing is the outter layers were never marked so the museum doesn't know which one is which. Ed White suit was used during the first American spacewalk which makes it particularly historical...and disturbing that it has been taken apart...
Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:28 am
you would think that there would be a clear protective coating out their that would preserve the unique flak bait paint scheme & style. surely some product must exist with those attributes!! and no...... not saran wrap!! re-doing the art work is like putting the mona lisa in a bikini!!!