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.
Quote:
...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.)
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
...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)
Quote:
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.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
