Warbird Information Exchange

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!

THAT IS AN AIRPLANE AND IT SHOULD BE FLYING!

THE NMUSAF SUCKS!

THE CAF SUCKS!

BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Cool pics, thanks for posting the link!

Matt the cynic

_________________
Matt

Why didn't they mark it as an F-82B? Just curious...

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

To quote....
"The aircraft on display is an F-82B, modified and marked as the F-82G crewed by ..."

Anyone else here a bit bothered by their continuing policy of mis-marking aircraft?

Phoney serials like the F-89 (F-89J s/n 52-1911 the last F-89 in service, a fairly historic plane in its own right, displayed as "53-2509") , calling a "B" an "A" (as in the H-19 on display), a P-51 "H" a "D" at Lackland, A B-57A (side by side variant) painted in Vietnam-style camo (also at Lackland), a UH-1B purporting to be a "F" (Lackland again)...

Don't get me wrong, this is a minor beef since only a few people can tell the difference between models, but as a world-class museum, they really should know better.
Here's a possible (albeit extreme) example: If they didn't have "Bock's Car" would they have taken another B-29 and painted it as "Enola Gay"?

I'd guess they do it in the name of education...taking a non-famous example and painting in the marking of one that achieved some fame, but still it reeks of too much "show business". At least they're fairly open about it...

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

I still don't like the way the museum displays some of it's aircraft. From the picture of the F-82 it looks like it will be difficult to get a good look at the aircraft, apart from the front. Some aircraft are hung from the ceiling and others are crammed together due to lack of space. I much prefer museums where you can get up and close to the exhibits and can get a view right the way around, even if it means that the museum has to have less exhibits to achieve this.

Look on the bright side, at least the "Tramp Stamp" is gone.

Pat,

Thanks for the posting .. unfortunately it brings out controversy ... perhaps I should put in my 2 cents and really tick some people ...

First an introduction if I may ... in August, I will turn 78 ... at age 19, before I could vote in my first presidential election, (and not complaining) I was drafted and joined the AF and became a Radio Operator ... I would also spend 15 months in Korea, Japan and back to Korea.

Presently I am probably the most active museum volunteer on this site spending every Friday morning in the MFG.

I would imagine that many members on WIX where yet to be born in August of '53 when the Korean War came to an end.

The newly refurnished Korean gallery is a remarkable tribute to the Korean Veterans. The official dedication will take place next Friday evening with a dinner in the MFG open area.

Let's take a quick look at a number of so called discrepancies.

Since none of the 16 Doolittle Raiders B-25's survived ... is it wrong for the musuem to have a different one restored to look like one and have it's goblets on display? I don't think so.

Part of my Korea duty was spent (7 months) at an outpost ... Kooni ... on a few occasions I had to fly in a "Chickasaw" .. do I remember what model .. no ... the storyboard in front of the museums "Hopalong" tells what model it is and what it is painted to represent and why ..

The same holds true for other aircraft througout the museum including the f-82. Read it's storyboard and the model, story, etc. is there.

I could go on and on and yes sticking up for the museum as it is a museum.

Last Friday, I saw a vet with his Vietnam pin .. I shook his hand and said "Welcome Home" .. he said Thanks .. I later saw him by the 123 and crying .. and that is a common occurence to see vets with handkerchiefs in their hands in both the Vietnam and Korea side.

A few Fridays ago, I chatted with both Gen. Mecalf adn Gen. Hudson on separate occasions in the gallery. I personally thanked Gen. Metcalf for transfoming hangers with airplanes and a few exhibits into a Museum that is telling the history behind the Army Air Force as well as the United States Air Force.

The vet is proud and honored to spend time volunteering in the MFG of the NMUSAF ... It was partly the greatest generation as well as my generation that served in "The Forgotten War"

Our history must live on .... and in my opinion it is doing so within these hallowed walls ....

By the way, the F-82 will get it's pod in due course ... I'll let Chris tell you the rest.

_________________
Jerry
S/Sgt. - USAF Radio Operator '52-'56
C-119 "Flying Boxcar" - Korea & Japan

Volunteer: National Museum of the US Air Force (2007-2016)
LTM 381st Bomb Group Memorial Association

Let's not gripe too hard about NMUSAF (or any other museum) mis-marking their aircraft. It's done with flying warbirds all the time, and usually with NO apologies or storyboards to explain what and why. If the intention is to honor a specific person or a specific airplane, which it usually is, then I really don't see anything wrong with it. I'm just glad that ANY of them are still around, static or flying! Remember, the government could just as easily have scrapped every one of them.

Dean the opinionated.

That’s a good point, HOWEVER personal aircraft are the property of the individuals who own them, therefore they can paint them pink, turquoise, or paint a T-6 like a B-52. It is their choice. Where the NMUSAF differs, is that the collection is owned by the people of America. Therefore historical integrity of the aircraft should be above all else. You should restore (and that doesn’t mean sand, prime, paint, and stick a radar pod on it) all aircraft to their original state OR the original state of an aircraft of their type. I'm not saying that painting a F-82B like an F-82G is deplorable, however it is an incorrect representation in an institution that should strive to have none. It kind of irks me when people say "lay off the NMUSAF" etc. As an American citizen, I have the right to critique the museum that I OWN AND PAY FOR.

Speaking of Mustangs, the 352nd FG painted P-51H at Lackland is disgusting in my opinion. I have half a mind to raise the necessary funds to at least paint it right, even if it's going to have to sit and deteriorate outside. WIX fund maybe?



Taylor "the authenticity nut" (People seem to be adding these tag lines, so there's mine)

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Uh oh!! Here I go agreeing with Taylor again. Getting allfully cold in he!! now days. I see that Taylor also agrees with my assumption the P-82 paint job was a scratch and blob, as hurriedly as it was applied. Probably looks like it too, thats why the fence, probably a good 50 footer.

Jerry first off thank you very much for your service and your wilingness to teach others about Korea. Thank you for giving up your Friday's to come in and volunteer at the Museum. The volunteers at the NMUSAF really make the place special. It is always great to see you, and love the fact that you can do something that so few people can do. Explain from a first hand account of what Korea waas for you. Very cool.
As for Museum aircraft here is what is basically done. The museum either picks an aircraft from AMARC (in which case they try and pick a historic aircraft that will also tell the story of the type), or they get an airframe from another source. This other source may be a rare example, or several different aircraft that are incomplete and will be used to make one complete example. So then a paint scheme needs to be decided on. If the aircraft did something historic, then it is restored in it's own paint scheme. Work at that point would go into researching this aircraft at different times in it's career, and then a time period of where to capture the aircraft is decided upon. If the aircraft did nothing note worthy or if the restoration used several aircraft in major portions, then a representative scheme is chosen. When a representative scheme is chosen several variables come into play. Is there another one painted this way? Is there a story to be told? Can we honor a veteran or group of veterans that have never had their story told? For example there isn't a single Doolittle Raider B-25 left. However the NMUSAF's B-25 is a D or F-10 taken by North American and reworked into B configuration, and then flown to the museum by the crew of plane #1 on the Doolittle Raid. Doolittle, Cole, and the others are the last ones to fly that B-25. So is that wrong? Do I always like representative schemes? No. But I think the ones that are chosen by the NMUSAF, NASM, NMNA, PIMA, and alot of the others are good representations of the aircraft type.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Taylor "the authenticity nut", wait until Texas finds out that you gave out the secret to how the paint scheme was decided upon for the P-40.

"they can paint them pink, turquoise, or paint a T-6 like a B-52."

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

For the most part I agree with depicting airframes with unspectacular career histories as examples that tell the story. It would seem to me that in doing that is not only important to keeping history alive but would be an important hallmark for the airframe's history. All of these aircraft's days of glory are behind them. So the only things left are either recreational flying or story telling. But then again there are some examples I do not agree with. Mainly the Luftwaffe aircraft, but this has been discussed before.

But more importantly if you can make a Veteran feel that his sacrifice and that of his comrades that did not return is recognized and appreciated, just by displaying an aircraft as something it's not then it's more than worth it.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

I knew someonw would bring up the Doolittle B-25 when I wrote my post...
That's a different case...with 50+ years of heritage behind it, it's relic in its own right.

Like I said, none of these issues are crimes against nature...but come on, how hard would it be to have a H-19A represent an H-19A? I'm sure someone in Arizona has one...or to be thrifty, put a "A" tailboom on the "B". Likewise the Lackland examples noted.

I love the NMUSAF...I've spent a lot of time and money there over the years.
However just to be taken seriously, they need to ask themselves before marking an airplane..."Would the Smithsonian do this?"

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

If a foreign view (non-US) is allowed... it seems to me that Military Museums, managed by Military Forces fullfill diferent purposes/objectives than, for instance, Technological Museums. That would account, for instance, for the differences between the strategy of the NASM and the NMUSAF. The first focuses on aviation history and it's technology, the last on the history of the USAF and making homage to it's members and former members. There is a "mythological" aspect of re-telling and keeping history that needs to be fullfilled and, for that, some historical accuracy (paint schemes, etc) is sacrificed to it. I'am happy to read that at least there are explanation warnings and descriptions near the airplanes.

The metaphorical dimension of the aeroplanes at NMUSAF, or their metaphorical value, is more important in the frame of what I perceive the "core business" of such institution inside the Military (remember those who sacrificed, keep the links to the tradition and the past of men and their deeds, especially the USAAF/USAF men/women) than the historical relevance of the exact scheme for a particular machine.

I think before criticising the NMUSAF options one has to weight what is this museum main purpose. Is it to preserve the history of technology and aviation, like NASM, or to keep alive the memory of those who fought in the ranks of the USAAF/USAF? And what are the better options to achieve that purpose?

cheerio!

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr