Warbird Information Exchange

No matter what I think we can all agree that the Memphis Belle is where it belongs.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I think it can be at least as well argued that "Memphis Belle" belongs in the Smithsonian. It would not be restored there as quickly, but to put two big-tail 17s with combat records on display in the same museum seems greedy - it would be the equivalent of the NASM having two Space Shuttles.

NASM does have a B-17 but it is a much modified fire bomber with, I understand, some mostly superficial word done at Pima to give it a military appearance. I think that B-17 could be traded or given to NMUSAF to go with the one - how many - they have already.

The poijnt is that there should be some limit to how many redundant aircraft are included in the national military museums. To judge by the collection listings of the Air Force and Navy museums - not to mention the Navy claim that every crashed or sunken aircraft is also part of their collection - you might think that they were trying to possess every aircraft that they ever commissioned.

Perhaps a majority of these aircraft are outdoors, and will ultimately be in the condition that "Memphis Belle" came to, with the resources and energy that is bringing the MB back from the brink. We love these aircarft, but 50 years from now, after our generations are gone, a large portion of them might be in the condition of the B-25 that was given up by the museum in Hawaii as not even good enough for static display.

If NMUSAF wants the Memphis Belle, then it should give up the Shoo Shoo (Shoo) Baby either to some other museum that can give covered accomodation.

Let me give an example from my own field of expertise - geology. Up until WWII there were two specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex, both at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Because there were concerns that a single bombing attack on NY might destroy both specimens, AMNH voluntarily gave one of the two specimens to the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh. What goes for T. rex should go as well for the combat big-tail B-17s. Those two bombers simply should not be on display 200 meters from one another.

Kevin

_________________
Kevin McCartney

The NASM has two B-17's as well. The CAF has two B-17's. Are you going to tell Planes of FAme that they need to get rid of one of their P-51's? I fell that the Belle and Shoo Shoo Baby belong in the NMUSAF. They are different models of the B-17, and tell different stories of different parts of the war. I think that Dayton has the right idea. I don't feel that they should go to the NASM museum so that they could let three B-17's get dusty in storage.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Okay...I'll go out on a limb here.
The CIA funded the A-12. CIA employed pilots flew it.
The Minn ANG are, I'm sure, a great group of people. But they never flew the A-12...and in all probability an A-12 very set down in Minnesota until this one went to the museum. It has NO history there..except maybe some Honeyweel made systems.

Thus, I have no problem with the A-12 going to Virginia.

If the Minn folks want Al Franken to take up their case...maybe he can get the one from the Intrepid.

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

the nmusaf is a accredited museum but I think a case can easily be made that it is not doing a good enough job caring for the long term preservation of airframes in its collection [planes spread throughout the us, not dayton] It should be planing for the preservation of ALL of its aircraft the WWII aircraft in its collection are getting to a age where they are going to start to be lost [tulare b-17 is a good example] they should store or preserve them or do what the british did years ago with their spitfires trade them to someone who can take care of them.

I'd love to see the THREE P-51s displayed OUTSIDE by the NMUSAF within a four hour drive from here (MSP, Fargo, Volk Field ) be traded for a fiberglass or other full size replica, or brought indoors before it is too late...

OK, but according to your logic, what connection does Alabama have that warrants them having THREE A-12's?

I don't understand your point. You still can't blame the current USAF for what happened in another time -- the current members of the USAF weren't even a glimmer in their parents' eyes when the demilling and scrapping after WW2 happened. It's like blaming the current US government for slavery.

And...what of the current efforts to de-mil military aircraft before they are sold to the public? Is there some kind of inherent "right" that the public has to obtain private ownership of these items that I'm missing? I agree that it's a shame, but it is what it is.

I think that the WWII and other aging aricraft do need to be looked after better. The NMUSAF is doing the best they can, but remember hom many aircraft they actually have (not just the Dayton Collection) but allover the U.S. and the world for that matter. Planes like the P-51's and B-17's should be under a roof. But the museum faces another challenge. Anytime they want to move an aircraft due to it's not being taken care of, or going to a better home, they are bashed. The mseum in MSP is great, but it is not open all year round, has no connection to the A-12, and the aircraft is outdoors. Going to the CIA it is going to be indoors eventually, they have history to it. The only down side is that there are not a ton of public allowed in there.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

The point is that they still do it to this very day. The DOD is still sinking historic ships to the bottom of the ocean such as the the USS Oriskany in 2006, ok so you say they can't save em all I suppose. Well how about the USS Hornet, the most decorated Aircraft Carrier in American history which was sold off for scrap and only when it was eventually saved by my father's friend who was a Navy captain who saw the ship at Hunter's point. This was in the 1990's. Look also at what they do with the tactical vehicles that come from DRMO. They crush or cut in half M151A2s, nobody but the Marine Corps will release HMMWVs without crushing or cutting them. They are still doing this so how can you say that today's government has no responsibility.

Is there a "right" to own them? I never said there was a right to do anything. There doesn't have to be a right, we are talking about doing what is right not what is owed. The American private citizen paid for every single aircraft, ship, uniform, etc that was produced so it seems to me that there shouldn't be any reason why they should make a certain amount available for private ownership. You don't have to save every one but out of the thousands of F-4s, A-4s etc that are sitting, waiting to be eventually reclaimed they could sell back say 50 or 100 of each type to private citizens without destroying parts of the aircraft.



I think that a better argument could be made for the reverse. I think as long as the museum is actively displaying to the public, actively restoring, and ultimately taking care of the pieces there is no issue with the museum having 2 of one type aircraft, especially ones of different models and different combat history. The Smithsonian has 2 B-27s that it is doing nothing with and will be in storage indefinitely. I would actually like to see the NMUSAF and Smithsonian make a swap once the Belle is done. Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby for the Swoose. Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby can go on display at Udvar Hazy and the Swoose can finally be restored.

As for the rest of the aircraft sitting around in USAF Museums outside etc. I think that the USAF should make another nice NMUSAF out in the west at Castle AFB that is enclosed. Then the rest of the aircraft that they can't have put indoors should be sold off to civies. Keep at least 2 of each type and the rest should go if they can't stay inside. The B-17G in Tulare has been hit by cars and trucks 3 times and is not taken care of. Many of the other aircraft are not well taken care of either. It is all fine and good to have some examples preserved in a nice museum but it was civies who paid for these and I think that as it stands right now there are plenty in the hands of world class static museums that the rest that are outside as of today should be sold to the civies. It will never happen, but it should.

I think this is an unpleasant fact that we are going to ahve to face. I feel as weapons get stronger and more advanced, that there is going to be trouble getting them into a surplus market afterward. In 2008 the USAF is going to start getting rid of the F-117. Do you really think that the F-117's should be sold off to people to fly around. I don't. Let's face it the aviators that fly the F-117 go through training that most of us can't imagine compared to the flight training that we have done. You also have to look at the chance of it falling into wrong hands. I think it depends on what we are talking about. A P-51, no problem, but an F-117 or F-15? I just don't feel that they should be sold off in flyable shape.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

As for a museum in the west. I don't think so. Here is the deal. When you go to the Baseball Hall of Fame, Football Hall of Fame, Hollywood, Planes of Fame, grand Canyon, this stuff is all about making the journey to see it. The NMUSAF is at Wright Patt for reasons, and it should be the only main museum for the USAF. It is the National museum for that branch just as Pennsacola is for the navy as it should be. I am not sure how I would feel about Shoo Shoo Baby going to the NASM, but it would be sweet to see the Swoose pulled out of moth balls. They way it sounds from the top, SSB and memphis Belle are in Dayton to stay. I think that static museums are very important, so I feel that there should be many of them. I feel that a good number of remaining warbirds should be kept on static to educate. Once that spark is placed, then they will appreciate the sounds, smells, and sights of a flying warbird.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I personally don't have any problems letting any of that be owned by civilians. There's nothing magical about them -- they're no more dangerous than anything else. I can roll a bomb out the door of a Cessna much cheaper than buying a surplus fighter jet, getting all the systems working, and training myself to drop it. I think it would be pretty neat to have some civil-owned jets.

I don't, however, demonize the US military for destroying the equipment rather than selling it off to be used by the public. The "hey, it was paid for with taxpayer money" argument doesn't fly with me -- I object to it philisophically as well as pragmatically. Just because tax funds bought it doesn't imply any sort of ownership right. The taxes were paid to the government for ALL of the services that government provides.

You can't go stake a claim to live in the Capitol Building because your taxpayer dollars help light, heat, and maintain it. You can't go cut down trees from a National Forest because your taxpayer funds helped buy it. You don't see your local Police department distributing surplus firearms to the neighborhood when they're done with them because they were purchased with community tax funds.

Now, I DO NOT believe that the government has any special rights or priveleges that the average citizen does not...but I do believe that they have the need to discharge the duties they have been given by the American Public.

The military has reasons for what they do -- sometimes they're haphazard and stupid, and sometimes they're well thought out and highly calculated. Unfortunately, the taxpayers don't get a say on that level. The taxpayer doesn't get to decide what tactic I'm going to fly, or what ordnance I'm going to use on an attack, simply because he is footing 1/1,000,000,000,000 of the bill. His/her decisionmaking power lies with their elected representation.

Static museums are great and all, but my spark didn't come from a dead airframe. It came from seeing one live and in person...

As to the ownership of F-15s or other high performance jets. Why not? If they are gifted to the right organization, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. We already have had an F-4 come back from the dead and without the weapons systems, she is just a much faster P-51. The F-4 has ZERO ability to drop. As Randy said, he could do more damage in a Cessna if he were so inclined.

Take the British for example. They don't scrap everything. They actually hold public auctions and sell to the private individuals. They recently did this with the last 3 FLYABLE Canbera PR.9s. Would this ever happen overhere? Absolutely not; but it should. The only reason a Lightning isn't flying in the UK, is because of the accident rate the airplane had in service. The CAA is nervous about this issue. They also have a Vulcan on the mend to fly again. This is a B-52 generation jet bomber we are talking about. They are capable of being operated safely in the civilian world.

It seems there is quite a bit of passion coming out in this subject. It is cool to see that so many people are interested. I work at the Guard base at MSP full time and have been watching this whole thing progress. In fact, I see the A-12 on the way to my shop each morning. The disassembly is still going on. I don't have much time to make it over by the A-12 during the day, but when I have I didn't notice anyone cutting it apart. I had a chance to talk to one of the guys in the "moving" crew a few weeks ago and they didn't seem too happy to be in the middle of all of the politics of this mess. He actually seemed a little timid at first; I am assuming they are trying to keep to themselves since they are on "hostile" territory. They are just doing their job. Anyway, it is a sad situation and although the airplanes are outside, they are cared for as well as can be expected from a group of people who are constantly being deployed on top of keeping the unit's operational aircraft flying. Having grown up in the area, my main exposure to warbird aircraft came from the CAF and the Air Guard Museum. Hopefully something will be worked out to make these airplanes more accessable to the public in the future. Unfortunately it looks like it will be without the A-12.