Pearl Harbour photos

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47751/me ... arl+Harbor

[Django]

Pearl Harbor MUSEUM photos.

Looks like it's shaping up to be a nice museum. I really like dioramas. Especially the zero.

[tulsaboy]

Django,

Can you post some more shots like that last one? I am working with our museum on developing one or two diaramas, and those really help "sell" the concept.

Thanks!

kevin

[Django]

Sure, but all I did was go to the link.

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

Shame They can't come up with a correct prop for that Wildcat!

[tulsaboy]

Django,

Now don't I feel a little stupid?

kevin

[Jack Cook]

Shame They can't come up with a correct prop for that Wildcat!

I felt bad when John made the deal for the Wildcat with the museum because so much effort went in to restore it to flyable condition. I think it if you're going to do that the airworthy components should be traded out. Anyone notice the modern disc brakes?

[Warbird Kid]

I saw an SBD that i havent seen before in one of those backgrounds.

Is there a pic of that one!

[Tailspin]

All inconsistencies aside, I found the photo depicting the Japanese aerial torpedo with the wooden extension to the stabilizing fins quite interesting. I knew they added these to keep the torpedoes from diving too deep in the shallow harbor after release. However, I had not seen a picture of them before. Thanks for the photo.
H

[mustangdriver]

Shame They can't come up with a correct prop for that Wildcat!

I felt bad when John made the deal for the Wildcat with the museum because so much effort went in to restore it to flyable condition. I think it if you're going to do that the airworthy components should be traded out. Anyone notice the modern disc brakes?

I can see what you mean, but the point of a restoration is to restore the aircraft, not put a bunch of timed out stuff.

[Jack Cook]

Restoration to display standard to me isn't the same has restoration to airworthy with the intention of being flown. What's the purpose of letting airworthy components rot??? The public sure wouldn't know the difference would they????

[mustangdriver]

Rot, where does this come from? Do you guys think that museums are busting their asses to restore, and preserve aircraft, and that after the long restoration process, they just let them rot? They all rotting if they are not flown? It depends on what part you are talking about. The NMUSAF restores the aircraft to "as close to flight ready as can be done". I would much rather see a restoration to that standard, then, a patched up one. I believe the NASM is the same. There is no rotting in most air museums. Sorry to break up that beloved thought here of static=rotting. In the words of Fred Sanford, "Yo killing me, this is the big one"

[Jack Cook]

The supply of airworthy parts is finite. If you use them up on a non flying static display a/c it's a complete waste. If the Belle was equipted with non airworthy props, engines or components...Would the aircraft suffer? NO! Would the public be less educated? NO! Would vets be less honored? NO! Thant's my point
I know of a number of a/c restored to beautiful flying condition that are in museums and never have flown or only have ferry time on them. That's sad

[mustangdriver]

Jack it is the point of the restoration. You don't restore a a corvette for the Corvette museum and say here it is, but it haas a busted motor in it. A restoration is a restoration. I would much rather see a complete restoration to make the aircraft as accurate as possible.

[Jack Cook]

Wouldn't it be a waste if Chuckie or Nine-O-Nine were grounded for
lack of spares and they were airworthy parts being wasted of the Belle?