Should NASM get a Yak?

[k5083]

Some of the negative comments about the NASM in recent threads got me thinking about the institution, and recalling one of my very few beefs about their collection. It has to do with their WW2 fighter room in the downtown building. You know the one, most of us have been there; it has the Spitfire, Zero, Gustav, and Mc.202, and has been essentially untouched for 30 years. Sometimes it is characterized as having the most important fighter type from each of the four largest fighting powers.

But of course it doesn't. The USSR, which would rank #1, #2, or #3 as a fighting power depending on how you reckon it, is not represented. There should be a Soviet fighter there -- probably a Yak-3 or -9, in keeping with the existing theme of having a key fighter from roughly 1944 for each nation.

It's understandable that there was no Yak when the museum opened in 1976. First off, there wasn't one handy. Second, it was the middle of the cold war, and recognizing the USSR's contribution to WWII was unfashionable. So, my question: After 30 years, have those two factors changed enough to reconsider the exhibit?

1. Getting a Yak. Still not so easy! The NASM, unlike the NMUSAF, has a policy not to display replicas, airplanes disguised to look like different types, or other "fake" exhibits. So it would have to be a real Yak, not one of those new-build thingies. Does the Russian government have a restorable airframe it could trade? Does NASM have anything attractive that it would be willing to exchange? Maybe Russia needs to get its own house in order a bit more before a trade is contemplated? Might there be some other source?

2. Is the US ready to recognize the USSR's contribution even today? Are there still too many cold warriors around who would resent that? Would some construe recognizing the USSR's contribution as diminishing our own?

Yet another question: Are we now so sentimentally attached to the 30-year-old WWII exhibit with the Ferris mural that there would be resistance to changing it? Has it become so ossified that the museum exhibit itself is now a museum piece to be preserved? Personally, I think it's about time to freshen it up, turn on the lights (too darn dark in there!) and get the 109 out of the corner where it can be seen and photographed more easily.

Thoughts?

August

[Mudge]

To be as succinct as I normally am, ( ) I think they should display anything they can get their hands on.

Mudge the brief

[mennie]

Everyone should have a Yak!
Especially the -3 or -9.

I think some Yak's have very interesting things to see, like cowl shutters or the pneumatic system.

[Jerry O'Neill]

The have had at least one replica on display. Bill Turner's Gee Bee Model Z was displayed for a few years, though it was noted in the display text as a replica.
Also, the Lunar Module on display was reconfigured to replicate Apollo 11's LM, Eagle. Is that considered a replica now?
Jerry

[k5083]

The have had at least one replica on display. Bill Turner's Gee Bee Model Z was displayed for a few years, though it was noted in the display text as a replica.
Also, the Lunar Module on display was reconfigured to replicate Apollo 11's LM, Eagle. Is that considered a replica now?
Jerry

Yes, the policy is not always rigidly followed. I recall once I saw an X-29 on display there that was really a mock-up. But I still don't think they would accept a pseudo Yak if they contemplated my hypothetical exhibit.

August

[DaveM2]

Theres the stolen original Yak-3 at Camarrillo, flown by a top Russian ace- perhaps they could work out something and do a trade by giving it back

Dave

[old iron]

It's understandable that there was no Yak when the museum opened in 1976. First off, there wasn't one handy. Second, it was the middle of the cold war, and recognizing the USSR's contribution to WWII was unfashionable. So, my question: After 30 years, have those two factors changed enough to reconsider the exhibit?


August[/quote]

First of all, I don't think the lack of a Russian a/c on display was due to any reluctance of the part of NASM to recognise the Soviet Union's very significant contribution to the war. As far as I know, NASM did not have any WWII USSR aircraft to select from during the immediate postwar years. THere was a Yak (9?) acquired during the Korean Conflict by the USAFM (now NMUSAF) that was on display at Wright-Pat for a couple of years before being rotated to the scrapman, but as far as I know there have been no other Soviet WWII a/c available in the US until the last decade or so. NASM did acquire a Yak 18 during the Korean time. In the 1980s and early 90s they acquired a Shturmovik, Antonov 2 and MiGs 15 and 21, and more recently they have acquired a Sukoi 26 acrobatic airplane, for six Russian a/c altogether.

There are now Yaks at the Champlin Museum (now at the Seattle Museum of Flight), and American Heritage has one that I assume is original. There is a Tupulov-2 in New Mexico, a Shturmovik at Pima and a couple or more early a/c (I-16 Rata and Po-153) at American Heritage and elsewhere acquired from New Zealand. Frankly, I would like to see NASM offer their B-17 firebomber to New Mexico in exchange for the Tu-2, although that would have to be displayed at Udvar-Hazy due to it size.

As to a late-war fighter, the problem is that there are so few available, and NASM cannot offer hard cash. There was a time when they could trade surplus military a/c, as I believe they did for the Shturmovik, but those rules have now changed.

My guess is that NASM would love dearly to have a late war Soviet fighter, for the Mall display, but you are correct: they would not settle for less than the real thing. But those are very rare - even the Russian museums have very few from that periods (and I have been to Monino). I don't think a Russian museum would trade one that was substantially original.

I would also like to see NASM acquire a Fairey Swordfish, as there are a couple in the US, and a four-engined seaplane, perhaps a civilian Sandinham (sic?) as a Sunderland is probab ly not available.

Kevin

[JBoyle]

I'm sure they'll get one...it will give them another excuse to push back the eventual restoration of "The Swoose".

Their policy seems to be "Why honor American (technology, workers, combat crews) when you can showcase someone else's (Ar234, Do335, Japanese sub based floatplane, etc, etc.)

[JDK]

Their policy seems to be "Why honor American (technology, workers, combat crews) when you can showcase someone else's (Ar234, Do335, Japanese sub based floatplane, etc, etc.)

Interesting point.

Facetiously, perhaps that's to provide a counterpoint to some other US museums (the NMUSAF, US Naval Aviation Museum)? Hmmm. No I don't buy that either.

More seriously, it's worth noting that the IWM Duxford has The American Air Museum, which has been a major achievement, enabling significant development at Duxford. Are we expecting a reciprocal museum in the US of 'Our Gallant Allies' museum?

Regading the original question, the sad thing to me seems that between Stalin's bull, the effects of the Cold War and destruction of records, artefacts and murder of many people we will find it difficult to ever get any meaningful or reliable details or analysis of what actually really happened on the Eastern Front. Given it's central importance in the defeat of Nazi Germany, that's a loss for us all in a balanced understanding of W.W.II. So, yes, they need a Yak, perhaps before the restoration of the (very important) Swoose. At least the Swoose is in safe hands, and will be on show one day.

[SaxMan]

...It's understandable that there was no Yak when the museum opened in 1976. First off, there wasn't one handy. Second, it was the middle of the cold war, and recognizing the USSR's contribution to WWII was unfashionable....

Not true on two counts. First off, the mid-70s was an era of "detente", (remember the Apollo-Soyuz mission?). On the second count, when the museum opened, one of the exhibits was the Apollo-Soyuz. The Soyuz spacecraft was not a replica, but an actual Soyuz spacecraft. (I believe it was eventually returned to the USSR). That's hardly turning a blind eye to the USSR.

I think that the USSR's contribution to victory in World War II was not being played down, but being played up as a "Hey, look, once we were friends...why can't we be friends again?"

With that being said, I'm sure the Smithsonian would love to have a Yak, but they wouldn't take just any Yak, they would want one with some historical significance (i.e., the new production Yak-3s wouldn't be worth it). Also, they do have a limited budget and with so many projects to complete (such as the Swoose and the B-17G, for example). I'm sure the Smithsonian has their hands full. If someone wanted to give them a Yak, though, I'm sure they would take one.

The same can be said with the B-24. It was the most produced American bomber of World War II, yet the NASM has no example of this bomber. They could have very easily acquired the very rough LB-30 in Ft. Collins, but declined because the airplane did not have a "significant" historical record. There was some talk of acquiring a B-24 in Newfoundland that had a combat record, but I believe those negotiations broke down over who owned the aircraft (Canada or Newfoundland, which was independent of Canada at the time) and how much the aircraft was worth.

[DaveM2]

I'm sure they'll get one...it will give them another excuse to push back the eventual restoration of "The Swoose".

Their policy seems to be "Why honor American (technology, workers, combat crews) when you can showcase someone else's (Ar234, Do335, Japanese sub based floatplane, etc, etc.)

Possibly because they are one of a kind and not 'another' B-17. (even if it is historic). One of the great things about the NASM is the varied amount of unique exhibits from all countries and all periods. You're lucky that you have the opportunity to see such exhibits, and that they have all been saved from scrapping to begin with.
The US is full of museums that 'honour American technology, workers, combat crews'. Giving people the chance to look at an Ar234 educates 'joe public' to recognise that other countries had even better technology (shock-horror) at the time
Also, the Do-335 was restored by Dornier, not NASM.
For me, the Horten Ho 229 needs to be next, then you guys can see where the B-2 idea came from ( but really- its wings are wood, so haven't lasted too well)

Dave

[bdk]

For me, the Horten Ho 229 needs to be next, then you guys can see where the B-2 idea came from ( but really- its wings are wood, so haven't lasted too well)

I agree with the first part of your statement, not the second!

BTW, the POF N9MB has wooden wings too.

[DaveM2]

BK

When I want you to agree, I'll ask

[Brett]

The NASM, unlike the NMUSAF, has a policy not to display replicas, airplanes disguised to look like different types, or other "fake" exhibits.

My understanding was that the NASM is prepared to display replicas, but that their internal policies prevent them from purchasing replicas.

I know they wanted Delmar Benjamin's GeeBee replica, but they wanted someone else to buy it and then donate it to them.

Cheers,

Brett

[mustangdriver]

I'm sure they'll get one...it will give them another excuse to push back the eventual restoration of "The Swoose".

Their policy seems to be "Why honor American (technology, workers, combat crews) when you can showcase someone else's (Ar234, Do335, Japanese sub based floatplane, etc, etc.)

I hear you on the swoose. I can't believe they still have not touched it. They are also supposed to put Flak bait back together.