Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:03 am
APG85 wrote:6trn4brn wrote:
...why put so many resources into aircraft from foreign nations and not into the -17s that they have/had? Or, would they not be better served by working some sort of trade for the beautifully restored Axis aircraft that they have for a more significant aircraft that fits in with the idea of a National Air and Space Museum?
The NASM has (at least in the past) a very liberal bias and put much of it's resources into restoring Axis aircraft. It was only through great public outcry that the Enola Gay finally got rotated into the restoration lineup. Once complete, it's initial proposal for partial display in the downtown museum became a platform for "our brutality against the peace loving Japanese". The Air Force Association was furious as was Paul Tibbets (and a great number of Vets) and the display was scrapped and re-tooled. I believe the head of the Smithsonian quit, but he was representative of the leadership of the time...
I'm sorry but that's a pretty uninformed position. Yes, the leader at the time of the first Enola Gay exhibit was a twit, but to say the museum had a liberal bias which made it put its resources into restoring Axis aircraft is just silly. Very few Axis aircraft were on display at the time (an Me-109, a zero, and the Macchi Folgore). Two other axis aircraft had been restored, but were in storage (Fw-190 and Ar-234) and one further was under restoration (Seiran). I hardly see that as being a bias towards Axis aircraft though.
At the same time Enola Gay was being restored, many others were too which had relevance to the US such as a Hawker Hurricane, and a SPAD XIII (which had been flown in WWI by an American ace).
No, it was not a great public outcry which made them restore Enola Gay; again, very mis-informed. The aircraft had been under restoration for at least a decade before this (I remember seeing her being worked on in 1984, and a lot had already been accomplished by that point). The public outcry was over the way the initial down-town display was originally planned, which apparently ignored the Japanese attrocities in the war, and focused on their casualties instead. The display was changed as a result of the Air Force Associations strong disapproval (thankfully), before the exhibit was ever opened to the public, and the director resigned (again, thankfully).
On another note, it was always the intention to have Enola Gay fully restored. The restoration took so long because they literally preserved almost every part of her; every bolt, wiring harnesses, etc... rather than simply replace them with new old stock. This was essential in preserving (rather than restoring) what is a truly historic airframe. Yes, it did take a long time, but I can see no problem with that considering the end result: a magnificent, complete and original aircraft of enormous historical importance, preserved for generations to come.
Yes NASM is flawed, but I can't think of another museum in the world which has worked so hard to preserve our aviation history as fully, or as professionally. The aircraft there are as wholly original as possible and, almost without exception, complete down to the last detail. You won't find that level of preservation, on that scale, anywhere else. It is the best aviation museum in the world without any doubt in my mind.
Richard
Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:40 am
I have no problems with restoring the axis aircraft for dislay. I think they are very historic. But I think it is wrong that an aircraft as historical and rare as the Swoose, was left in the condition it was for so long.
Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:34 pm
so who''s got some pics ?? 
Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:07 pm
I don't yet. As for the NASM, O think that overall they do an amazing job. I am not always a faan of the poilitics, but that can be said about any museum, organization or work place for that matter.
Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:34 pm
RMAllnutt wrote:
I'm sorry but that's a pretty uninformed position. Yes, the leader at the time of the first Enola Gay exhibit was a twit, but to say the museum had a liberal bias which made it put its resources into restoring Axis aircraft is just silly.
Yes NASM is flawed, but I can't think of another museum in the world which has worked so hard to preserve our aviation history as fully, or as professionally. The aircraft there are as wholly original as possible and, almost without exception, complete down to the last detail. You won't find that level of preservation, on that scale, anywhere else. It is the best aviation museum in the world without any doubt in my mind.
Hate to disagree with you, but I think it's a pretty informed opinion. Several articles over the years have documented the liberal bias at the Smithsonian specifically fingering Martin Harwit (former NASM director), Michael Neufeild (curator) and Tom Crouch. Articles have appeared in Air Force Magazine, Popular Mechanics and VFW to name a few. I have been told (I have no proof) that a letter writing campaign went on for years asking the Smithsonian to place the Enola Gay into the restoration line-up (I wrote one myself in the early 1980's). This would lend some credibilty to the public outcry over it's condition and storage. It was also mentioned in the book Enola Gay, published in the late 70's, that the aircraft was in a "sad state of disarray" as quoted by Paul Tibbets. I can't imagine that this would not have had an effect or put pressure on the Smithsonian to enter that aircraft into the restoration cycle.
I absolutely agree with you about the restorations they do. They do the finest restorations in the industry. I've been to Garber several times and the work is amazing!
Last edited by APG85 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:01 pm
In one of our volunteer meetings prior to the moving of the Enola Gay, it was stated that the NASM was planning on placing just the fuselage on display once again. This time I was told that the NMUSAF told the NASM that Enola Gay was to be placed fully assembled on disaplay or it would be moved. There is some discussion abou tthis, but according to the NMUSAF they still own both the Enola Gay and Flack bait. All it says on the NASM webiste is "Transferred from the USAF", that is also what on every aircraft onloan from the USAFM.
Meeting
Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:12 pm
Chris, that is a meeting I would have paid good money
to sit in on.
to sit in on.
Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:23 pm
Yeah the meeting wasn't a negative meeting, it was talking more about aircraft that the NMUSAF had all over the place. It also dealt with the Enola Gay restoration.
Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:42 pm
When it comes to the American combat types, the Smithsonian desires examples that have a combat history. For example, I exchanged some correspondence with the NASM about 10 years ago regarding Liberator AL557 (It was a former LB-30, later N92MK), which remains were (and apparently still are) sitting out, exposed to the elements at Ft. Collins, Colorado. Seeing that the Smithsonian does not have an example of the Liberator, the most produced WWII aircraft, is an unbelievable oversight. However, because this particular LB-30 did not have a combat record, they weren't interested.
The Smithsonian had interest in a crashed B-24 in Newfoundland that had a combat record and apparently sunk one (or two?) U-boats. However, negotiations broke down over who had jurisdiction over the wreckage. I don't know if that bird was recovered. Unfortunately, the individual who was leading the charge to get a B-24 passed away. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian still doesn't have a Liberator and the LB-30 is still in Colorado.
It would be a shame if the Smithsonian's B-17G was sent someplace else, leaving the NASM without any Fortresses. It would be a bigger shame if the only reason it was being sent away was because it didn't have the pedigree of a combat veteran. There's only so many B-17s left in this world, why the snobbery to have a combat veteran, of which only a handful exist?
Also, unfortuntately, people just aren't going to Udvar-Hazy. It's out in the middle of nowhere and, while admission is free, you have to pay $12 to park. There's been talk of rolling back the parking fees, but that hasn't happened yet.
The Smithsonian had interest in a crashed B-24 in Newfoundland that had a combat record and apparently sunk one (or two?) U-boats. However, negotiations broke down over who had jurisdiction over the wreckage. I don't know if that bird was recovered. Unfortunately, the individual who was leading the charge to get a B-24 passed away. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian still doesn't have a Liberator and the LB-30 is still in Colorado.
It would be a shame if the Smithsonian's B-17G was sent someplace else, leaving the NASM without any Fortresses. It would be a bigger shame if the only reason it was being sent away was because it didn't have the pedigree of a combat veteran. There's only so many B-17s left in this world, why the snobbery to have a combat veteran, of which only a handful exist?
Also, unfortuntately, people just aren't going to Udvar-Hazy. It's out in the middle of nowhere and, while admission is free, you have to pay $12 to park. There's been talk of rolling back the parking fees, but that hasn't happened yet.
Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:12 pm
First, I'm not even twenty yet. Don't expect me to be some super mature adult or anything; just expect me to try. Second, I've been out of the loop for quite some time these past two years due to college and the like; I might be wrong. Thirdly, Kevin/Old Iron, please don't take offense at what I have to say, since I don't mean to offend.
This thread seemed pretty cool at first, but I stopped reading the thread when I got to this statement.
Well, NASM's done a great job of that, haven't they? Last time I was there, a woman walked right up to Flak Bait and said "Oh, look, you can touch it!" and actually touched Flak Bait right on the markings. I myself, upon seeing it right at the start, almost did the same thing. Of course, when I heard the woman say that, I whirled around, composed myself, and politely asked her not to. She asked me why, and I asked her if she'd touch the Mona Lisa. Flak Bait's nose art is the original nose art--and everyone can touch it.
You can actually see where the paint's worn off after people have touched it. Furthermore, the plexiglass nose and the rear of the cockpit are protected so that you cannot get inside it or touch the glass, but the nose art is right out there in the open.
When I went to the desk and complained ("Um, sir, I can't help but notice people have tried to touch Flak Bait's nose art and this doesn't seem like a good thing, may I fill out a complaint form?"), I got one of those "I'm an old person and I know a lot about airplanes; I volunteer for the Smithsonian and you're just a kid, so sure, here's a form, but nobody cares what you have to say," responses.
I can't say I'm a fan of the NASM at all, not after that experience and a few others involving trying to speak with their staff.
Okay, so I was seventeen at the time, and maybe seventeen year-old's don't know squat about airplanes, but I would think that a museum which tries very hard to preserve its artifacts would do a much better job with something as precious as Flak Bait. Due to their incompetence, the paint is being destroyed, not preserved.
(Incident took place in early 2006; if FB's situation has changed, I'd be glad to know.)
If you recall, most of the Smithsonian's airplanes were set to be destroyed back in the 50s as well...
Less people get out to the Udvar-Hazy center than you'd think. Not only that, but the NMUSAF's attendance has grown very well.
No, unless I'm mistaken, the Air Corps preserved the Swoose. The planes didn't go to the Smithsonian until plans were made to scrap them.
Don't know if I'd call it generosity; the Smithsonian doesn't have the storage place for airplanes/space craft and loans quite a bit of their aircraft to museums all over the country. Not only that, but some of the aircraft they gave to the NMUSAF were given because "they were surplus to the needs of the [NASM] collection." (This statement was made in regards to the CG-4 Hadrian)
To make this claim, you'd have to act as if no one else was scrapping their museums back then. Also, the Berlin Air Museum was generally considered the best collection of aircraft, military and civilian, in the world even as late as the 1940s when it was destroyed.
From everything I've seen, most people didn't care about aviation museums/preserving aviation history until around the sixties or so. Though I'm not going to pretend I hate the NASM (fine collection and they do a great job with a number of their artifacts) or claim to love the NMUSAF (They've made some pretty suspect decisions in the past), I don't think it's right to really go after a museum because of decisions made during a time when people really didn't care about aircraft preservation.
Worse yet, I can't stand to see people making arguments that I understand to be faulty.
--
[quote=RMAllnutt]On another note, it was always the intention to have Enola Gay fully restored. The restoration took so long because they literally preserved almost every part of her; every bolt, wiring harnesses, etc... rather than simply replace them with new old stock. This was essential in preserving (rather than restoring) what is a truly historic airframe. Yes, it did take a long time, but I can see no problem with that considering the end result: a magnificent, complete and original aircraft of enormous historical importance, preserved for generations to come. [/quote]
Well, I've been following Doc's restoration for quite some time, and back when I joined the forums a few years ago I was an active participant in their restoration crew... Restoring a B-29 takes a long time. So I totally agree with you.
As a side thought, the daunting task of restoring an aircraft as large as a B-17, as well as an apparent lack of space in the facilities might have been a reason why several smaller, equally rare aircraft were restored. I say apparent because, when I spoke with one of the curators while inquiring about gaining access to the Garber Facility, he said one of the reasons they didn't permit just anyone in there was due to a lack of space.
Restoring a B-17 isn't something you can just do in your garage, you know.
This thread seemed pretty cool at first, but I stopped reading the thread when I got to this statement.
...has criticized NASM for displaying only a protion of Flak-Bait with reflecting on the fact that NASM has preserved such an aircraft in its original markings.
Well, NASM's done a great job of that, haven't they? Last time I was there, a woman walked right up to Flak Bait and said "Oh, look, you can touch it!" and actually touched Flak Bait right on the markings. I myself, upon seeing it right at the start, almost did the same thing. Of course, when I heard the woman say that, I whirled around, composed myself, and politely asked her not to. She asked me why, and I asked her if she'd touch the Mona Lisa. Flak Bait's nose art is the original nose art--and everyone can touch it.
You can actually see where the paint's worn off after people have touched it. Furthermore, the plexiglass nose and the rear of the cockpit are protected so that you cannot get inside it or touch the glass, but the nose art is right out there in the open.
When I went to the desk and complained ("Um, sir, I can't help but notice people have tried to touch Flak Bait's nose art and this doesn't seem like a good thing, may I fill out a complaint form?"), I got one of those "I'm an old person and I know a lot about airplanes; I volunteer for the Smithsonian and you're just a kid, so sure, here's a form, but nobody cares what you have to say," responses.
I can't say I'm a fan of the NASM at all, not after that experience and a few others involving trying to speak with their staff.
Okay, so I was seventeen at the time, and maybe seventeen year-old's don't know squat about airplanes, but I would think that a museum which tries very hard to preserve its artifacts would do a much better job with something as precious as Flak Bait. Due to their incompetence, the paint is being destroyed, not preserved.
(Incident took place in early 2006; if FB's situation has changed, I'd be glad to know.)
The present air force museum has its own stories, some of which has been discussed on this forum. I remember a tour of the storage areas many years ago when I found the Ryan X-13 outside with the cockpit open. The museum has regularly displayed aircraft and then rotated them to the scrapheap. My favorite example of this was the Korean Yak displayed in the Air Force Museum through the 1950s -- where is it now?
If you recall, most of the Smithsonian's airplanes were set to be destroyed back in the 50s as well...
A combat B-17 at Udvar Hazy will I think be seen by more people that at NMUSAF, and as it will not be among too many other WWII types might get more reflection from its visiters and serve greater educational purpose.
Less people get out to the Udvar-Hazy center than you'd think. Not only that, but the NMUSAF's attendance has grown very well.
The Smithsonian deserves a combat history B-17. They preserved a B-17D when no one else did, and if NMUSAF wants it, the Shoo Shoo is a fair trade.
No, unless I'm mistaken, the Air Corps preserved the Swoose. The planes didn't go to the Smithsonian until plans were made to scrap them.
...loaning restored aircraft such as the Loening seaplane and Sperry Messenger for decades and giving without asking for anything in return very rare aircraft like the Avro saucer and the P-75.
Don't know if I'd call it generosity; the Smithsonian doesn't have the storage place for airplanes/space craft and loans quite a bit of their aircraft to museums all over the country. Not only that, but some of the aircraft they gave to the NMUSAF were given because "they were surplus to the needs of the [NASM] collection." (This statement was made in regards to the CG-4 Hadrian)
That museum has a long and terrible history - the worst history of any aviation museum in the world - for which it is only now beginning to make amends. The present air force museum is the third on that site. The first museum was scrapped in the late 1920s; that collection if preserved would have been by far the best collection of early military aircraft in the world. The second museum was scrapped at the beginning of WWII;
To make this claim, you'd have to act as if no one else was scrapping their museums back then. Also, the Berlin Air Museum was generally considered the best collection of aircraft, military and civilian, in the world even as late as the 1940s when it was destroyed.
From everything I've seen, most people didn't care about aviation museums/preserving aviation history until around the sixties or so. Though I'm not going to pretend I hate the NASM (fine collection and they do a great job with a number of their artifacts) or claim to love the NMUSAF (They've made some pretty suspect decisions in the past), I don't think it's right to really go after a museum because of decisions made during a time when people really didn't care about aircraft preservation.
Worse yet, I can't stand to see people making arguments that I understand to be faulty.
--
[quote=RMAllnutt]On another note, it was always the intention to have Enola Gay fully restored. The restoration took so long because they literally preserved almost every part of her; every bolt, wiring harnesses, etc... rather than simply replace them with new old stock. This was essential in preserving (rather than restoring) what is a truly historic airframe. Yes, it did take a long time, but I can see no problem with that considering the end result: a magnificent, complete and original aircraft of enormous historical importance, preserved for generations to come. [/quote]
Well, I've been following Doc's restoration for quite some time, and back when I joined the forums a few years ago I was an active participant in their restoration crew... Restoring a B-29 takes a long time. So I totally agree with you.
As a side thought, the daunting task of restoring an aircraft as large as a B-17, as well as an apparent lack of space in the facilities might have been a reason why several smaller, equally rare aircraft were restored. I say apparent because, when I spoke with one of the curators while inquiring about gaining access to the Garber Facility, he said one of the reasons they didn't permit just anyone in there was due to a lack of space.
Restoring a B-17 isn't something you can just do in your garage, you know.
NASM
Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:51 pm
I am sure that NASM being so closely connected to Washington DC there is no way that politics didnt play a major part in the decisions regading display of Enola Gay.How does one become curator would be a start.I remember the out cry over the wording in regards to Enola Gay display.About the same time as political correctness started.I'm sure its Bushes fault./s 
Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:03 pm
All,
Here are some move pics that my contact at NASM was nice enough to send to me and now to you:
Brian
Here are some move pics that my contact at NASM was nice enough to send to me and now to you:
Brian
Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:31 pm
bfowlernj...thank you very much for sharing those.
I've been itching to see some pics since this thread started.
I hope I get to see her in Dayton soon.
I've been itching to see some pics since this thread started.
I hope I get to see her in Dayton soon.
Swoose
Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:33 pm
Beautiful.Wonder how long its been since she has seen the light of day?Does anyone know how the wings were transported?
Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:01 pm
I'd love to know what her route is...she's gotta be coming across I71 right through Columbus. I'd love to get a shot of her.