JohnB wrote:
Yes, but it is the National Air and Space Museum, not the International Museum of Warplanes, or the "Museum of Neat German types".
Yes, it may be the National Air and Space Museum, but that does not mean it does not represent aviation and space assets outside of the United States. Foreign types represent a significant portion of the collection. I'm just guessing, but perhaps, 1/4 to 1/3 of the assets there are foreign in nature? If the Board of Directors thought that foreign types did not represent the charter of NASM, they would have long ago either traded, sold, or lent those assets to other museums. Except for a few isolated examples, that has not happened. That tells me that the BOD/Leadership at NASM considers foreign representation an important part of the mission of the NASM.
JohnB wrote:
My point is the Smithsonian is the national storehouse of artifacts.
Shouldn't some of the greatest American aircraft of the war be included?
Agreed, and nobody has disputed that. The greatest and most important American aircraft in all of history are displayed there. That does not mean other foreign types can't be represented as well.
JohnB wrote:
I would suggest the B-17/24 need to be there most as much for the airframe, but to recognize theses types were designed, built, paid for and flown by Americans in a huge industrial effort.
To me, THAT'S the significance of displaying the types.
Although those are important types, they are somewhat common and are represented at many other collections. To spend money on acquiring those types, restoring them and displaying them to the detriment of restoring one-of-a-kind other examples is inexcusuable.
JohnB wrote:
Simply saying "If you want to see a B-17 or 24, go to Dayton" is inexcusable.
No, it's not. Museums have to utilize scare resources and money to make the best judgements on preserving, and displaying aircraft it deems worthy of such attention. As an example, why should NASM waste $10 Million U.S.D. on acquiring and restoring a B-24, when the money can be better spent on restoring 4 or 5 single engine, sole surviving Axis types?
JohnB wrote:
The museum's priorities are seriously skewed.
Apparently the NASM BOD and leadership disagree with you. And I disagree with both you and the BOD/Leadership at NASM. I believe that any sole surviving and/or historical types that were "firsts" in their field should take priority over all modern and/or common types of aircraft that seem to be the trend at NASM lately.
JohnB wrote:
Too many resources have been squandered on obscure Nazi-era designs (Do-335, Horton, etc.) that while interesting in a technical sense and fun to look at, played no real part in the war.
I've felt that they should be sent to Germany because they are legitimately part of that nation's aviation heritage.
Actually, just the opposite is the case. They should be emphasizing restoring all rare/sole-surviving types, Allied or Axis, prior to restoring more modern or "common types". Sole surviving types of these have almost always spent much longer in the "restoration cue", rather than more modern common types which have been restored and displayed recently.
The Do-335 was restored in Germany, by Germans, and paid for by the Dornier corporation. It was also displayed in Germany for some 13 years prior to being returned to Washington D.C. So, no NASM resources were "squandered", as you say, on the Do-335, since Dornier financed the entire restoration.
The Horten has not been restored. It has only had extremely minimal conservation work accomplished on it to preserve what exists and to put it on public display. Last I heard, they were not planning on restoring that aircraft.
So, virtually no NASM resources have been "squandered", as you say, on the Do-335 or Horten.
JohnB wrote:
A precedent exits: We did repatriate the sole surviving Emily flying boat back to Japan.
That was not a precedent. The U.S. Navy owned the Emily and returned her to Japan based on a multitude of factors, none of which involved the NASM.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
