Warbird Information Exchange

In restoring warbirds at what point do you just have to say NO and walk away??

What is better... a fleet of dirty , cracked and rusty warplanes or a fleet protected inside on display?

Many times people keep plugging money into a warbird (or train or anything old) and it just wont make a difference due to the costs.. and you have to give up.

But how does that point get known?

Technology cant be recreated is a non starter issue...as anything can be recreated these days.. its just the costs and donations that limit some warbirds from ever getting anywhere.

Many museums have warbird rotting away or half done outside due to no funding.. should these museums give up and give their planes to someone who can restore them long term if they have the money?

The last three static museums I went to were really nice and very informative (NASM Dulles, New England Aviation Museum and Virginia Aviation Museum) but it really demonstrated the fact that nothing replaces seeing these aircraft flying. Nothing.

Well, maybe the owner having a lot, lot, lot more money replaces seeing these aircraft flying. I guess it all depends on who is paying the bills.

_________________
Scott Thompson
Aero Vintage Books
http://www.aerovintage.com
WIX Subscriber Since July 2017

...we have enough NON FLYING aircraft. lets get at the bare minimum 1 of each example in the air doing what its designed to do.
(well--except for the B 36 of course)

Museums tend to operate in stages. In the first stage after forming they collect whatever they can without much thought to whether it is appropriate to their mission. Eventually they end up with an eclectic collection in which some examples are ignored since the staff and volunteers don't really care for them; or they might end up with more aircraft than they can really handle given budget, staff and volunteers.

A good operation will at that point make the decision to sell or trade examples that they don't really need or cannot hope to restore. Rationalizing the collection can be a controversial decision but it can have an upside.

The New England Air Museum went through that many years ago. Many of the old timers were upset when aircraft like the Macchi 200 and Shorts amphibian and the damaged B 17 were sold or traded but it made the museum better allowing other types to be restored or sourced.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

John;
You're right about NEAM's shift. But they've also continued to shift aircraft to other museums that can and want to take care of them. Since I got involved with NEAM in the mid-80's, everyone of the following were released and have been, or are being, restored by numerous organizations:
AM-1 Mauler
Lockheed 12
Lockheed L-14
SP-2V
XF15C
B-47
F-8
F6U
Regulus II
AD-4
Short Sealand
Hawker Tempest
Tomahawk (Piper)
Fokker Universal
Sikorsky H-5
F-86A
D-558-2 structural Test Aircraft
Macchi 200
B-17
and in storage at Weeks an SBD (A-24) and a PBY both of which hopefully will be restored one day.

At this time, only the B-17 is known to have been returned to the air that I know of, but I think the collection process done by the founders of the museum has done them well. Though those aircraft were "given" away,
others have been acquired:
F-14
F-4
F-86
AH-1
Pratt-Read LNE-1
VS-44A
Lockheed 10
Viking Kittyhawk Biplane
Sikorsky I-16
Hughes O-6A
Stinson 10A
Aeronca Chief #1
Republic SeaBee
A-10
Let alone the number of aircraft on display now that the museum had in the collection and have gone through restoration in a building financed by the sale of a couple of aircraft.
I like seeing them fly but there is a balance and I think some of the best museum's out there are the ones with a specific focus and mission.
Blue skies,
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

I have always taken aircraft restored to static as a vast group of aircraft that could later be returned to flight....if the right people or organizations come along in the aircraft's life.

People and organizations come and go, but the forethought to drag anything in out of the weather (or at least the middle of some lost field up close to your hanger...) at least gives the aircraft one last fighting chance to survive. Long ago, folks figured just dragging one into a hanger was a pretty good deal, but as those generations pass away, the next ones begin to wonder what it was about the aircraft that made them special; and perspective on their value and status changes. As time passes, how many aircraft that in the past would never be considered as subjects for flying status have been restored back to that?

Yes, I prefer to see them fly, but if the choice is between static and extinction...I'll choose static, with the hopes that someday somebody gets up one morning thinking, "The world NEEDS a flying example of XXXX! I gotta save one...NOW!"

Money can solve everything....