NMUSAF's website update,F-82 now with photos

[mustangdriver]

The NASM also does many representative schemes.

[rreis]

The NASM also does many representative schemes.

Chris, I've based my post in my interpretation of the NASM policies after reading Mikesh's book. That said I must also add I look very much forward to go someday to the US and visit the NASM, the NMUSAF, a bunch of other museums, see the CAF and other flying museums and operators and just smell the land of the Wright brothers.

[mustangdriver]

Hey rreis, I agree with much of your post. I was just letting you know that the NASM does indeed do representative schemes as well. To be honest I don't know of any major museums that don't do it. I too hope you get to come and visit!

[Shay]

...........and just smell the land of the Wright brothers.

If you like, I can jar you up some and send it your way. Might even throw in some turf from Huffman Prairie in the bottom.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[Ken]

Accidental duplicate deleted.

Last edited by Ken on Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Ken]

rreis, thanks for one of the most thoughtful and well written posts I've read in a while. If I were King for a Day, I know how I'd arrange the musuems, but I realize that we live in the real world and compromises are a fact of life. Your interpretation of where we are and how we got there is probably spot-on. The nature of museums, dusty as they are, is constantly evolving, so we may see a shift in the future. Time will tell.

Thanks again for an insightful post.

Ken

[Taylor Stevenson]

Taylor "the authenticity nut", wait until Texas finds out that you gave out the secret to how the paint scheme was decided upon for the P-40.

"they can paint them pink, turquoise, or paint a T-6 like a B-52."

Not too sure what you're saying here, Chris. If by Texas, you mean Tex, he can't find out, he's dead. Other than that I don't know why you bring up Texas or quote me.

The only thing I can think of is you're rehashing the debate over the CAF paint scheme and its origins. That's only fair as I rehash the several things wrong with the NMUSAF from time to time.

The CAF P-40 was painted the way it is from personal paint chips chosen by Tex. This is a representative aircraft of Tex Hill, and was never meant to be an accurate representation of the AVG as a whole. Hence the various design features from different periods of Tex's service. It has been brought to light, as you well know that the colors aren't considered to be original to an AVG P-40. That's fine and well, but this aircraft is a tribute to Tex and therefore his design wishes and recommendations were priority.

Hypothetical here... If this aircraft belonged to the NMUSAF I would expect them to paint it as an N model aircraft. They are, and should be, held to a different standard than the CAF or other privately funded organizations/collections. Had the sponsors of our N-model (myself and my father included) not been great friends with Tex and not wanted to keep the airplane as a tribute to his service (the the US and CAF alike), a different scheme could have been chosen. A good second choice scheme would be for our N to wear the scheme it wore in combat in the Aleutians. It served as a Kittyhawk with the RCAF during WWII.

Another point is that a sponsor was willing to put up a LOT of money for the restoration of the P-40N, therefore he can paint the aircraft in whatever scheme he so chooses (after approval by the Maintenance Committee of the GS). It's only fair. On a similar note, the NMUSAF should not be able to pick a paint scheme that doesn't accurately represent the aircraft that wears it. The scheme is not up to the Gen at the top of the food chain, or the volunteers, it is up to the history of the aircraft itself. Your goal is to accurately portray the history of the Air Forces of the US and to preserve the artifacts in their original state. Your museum is not filled with aircraft, it is filled with artifacts. You wouldn’t expect the white house to restore a painting of George Washington as a painting of Thomas Jefferson now would you? You do the American people a disservice by portraying an artifact as something it is not. That is not preserving history that is altering history. Painting a P-51H as a WWII combat vet is inexcusable. Restoring a particular aircraft in a configuration that it never had (P-82B) is inexcusable. Painting a privately owned Mustang as a bag of jelly beans is excusable. Two different standards to which the entities are held.

Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone should restore their warbird to stock original. You just have to look at my L-5 to see how I think every aircraft should be done. However, non-government owned aircraft and collections have a excuse-by-ownership not to restore their aircraft accurately. The NMUSAF does NOT.

Last edited by Taylor Stevenson on Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Zachary]

Your goal is to accurately portray the history of the Air Forces of the US and to do so in accordance to AAM best practices, etc. (i.e. preserve the artifact in its original state).

Where in the AAM literature does it say to preserve artifacts in their original states? IF that were the case, every museum aircraft out there would not be carrying any unit markings and would look like it rolled right out of the factory, fresh off the production line. There are plenty of AAM-accredited institutions, the CAF and EAA included, that have aircraft marked in different colors than they wore during their service "careers." Whether you like it or not, it's common practice among aviation museums to display aircraft in markings that they never wore during their flying careers. This is based on various factors - did the airframe in question do something significant during its career? Was it flown by someone of note while it carried particular markings? Did it see combat? Did it particpate in some kind of testing? Was it used in a movie? Or is it perhaps just a "generic" version of that make and model that, while serving its intended purpose, did not participate in any event of note? Then you also have to factor in the purpose of the exhibit? What story are you trying to tell? What is the mission of your institution?

Museums are much much more than the lockboxes where old objects are kept in perpetuity. They are places of education, enlightment, and entertainment as well as history. Aircraft markings are just a small part of that puzzle.

Zack

[k5083]

Although other museums sometimes select representative paint schemes, the NMUSAF paints aircraft as the incorrect version and sometimes even modifies them into replicas of another version much more often than any other major government-affiliated museum. Also, the trend in major museums is away from tarting up aircraft to represent other examples/types/variants, everywhere except Dayton.

Rreis's thoughtful post is on target as to the reason why. The NMUSAF's goals include homage and furnishing emotional experiences for veterans. However, Rreis's point does not completely explain the NMUSAF's practices. Other military-run museums share the goals of honoring vets and making them cry. The RAFM is situated identically to the NMUSAF, yet its last surviving Typhoon, seen by Typhoon vets every day, wears its own original, generic, non-operational markings. This would not happen at NMUSAF. So there is a difference in approach.

Two further things explain the difference. First, the NMUSAF takes a literal-minded approach to its homage/emotional mission, apparently thinking that vets and war dead somehow are not adequately honored if the plane is not dressed up as a combat machine.

Second, the honoring/emotional aspect of the NMUSAF's mission takes precedence over its historical preservation mission, and wins out when the two are perceived to be in conflict, to a greater degree than in other museums.

August

[rreis]

Chris (or someone else), I've been at the NMUSAF website and couldn't find it. Is there an official document stating the mission and purpose of the NMUSAF?

ok... looking better

National Museum of the USAF Mission
The National Museum of the United States Air Force collects, researches, conserves, interprets and presents the Air Force's history, heritage and traditions, as well as today's mission to fly, fight and win ... in Air, Space and Cyberspace to a global audience through engaging exhibits, educational outreach, special programs, and the stewardship of the national historic collection. These statutory duties delegated by the Secretary of the Air Force are accomplished on behalf of the American People. We are the keepers of their stories.

Tell their stories... the artifacts, the aeroplanes, are a mean to convey these stories and not an end in themselves. This is my interpretation... now Taylor, I would ask you if the Korean war story is better put forward the public using a little misrepresentation with this F82 or keeping absolute adherence to the history of this particular specimen? I'm just trying to expose what I think is the motivation and logic behind NMUSAF administration options... in the same maner the private owner with the $$$ has freedom to follow his particular motivation, the NMUSAF has stakeholders to which he must abide... especially the USAF and it's need to keep enrolling people, to keep the ones in service proud and to cater to those who served. Question is, whats the best way to do it?

No Museum is "innocent" or "neutral"...

Last edited by rreis on Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[mustangdriver]

Taylor that is a mighty steep double standard you got there. I brought up the P-40 just to joke with you. As far as preserving relics you are wrong. You are comparing a complete rebuild of aircraft in a museum collection to a displaying a piece of art. They aren't the same. By your standards the NMUSAF should have just recovered the remains of Shoo Shoo Baby and never restored it. That double standard you spell out is a dangerous one. I think it's safe to say that both static and flying museums and organizations do their best to honor the vets, tell the stories, and preserve history. Telling me that a P-51 with jelly beans on it is just fine, but painting an aircraft to represent another is a crime doesn't sound any where near ok. The point of this is the P-82. And if the NMUSAF gold plated the thing, some still wouldn't be happy.

[rreis]

Two further things explain the difference. First, the NMUSAF takes a literal-minded approach to its homage/emotional mission, apparently thinking that vets and war dead somehow are not adequately honored if the plane is not dressed up as a combat machine.

Second, the honoring/emotional aspect of the NMUSAF's mission takes precedence over its historical preservation mission, and wins out when the two are perceived to be in conflict, to a greater degree than in other museums.

August

Thanks for pointing this August, I wasn't aware they took their "job" so "seriously"...

Last edited by rreis on Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Taylor Stevenson]

I brought up the P-40 just to joke with you.

I'm sorry, I don't get it.

You are comparing a complete rebuild of aircraft in a museum collection to a displaying a piece of art. They aren't the same. By your standards the NMUSAF should have just recovered the remains of Shoo Shoo Baby and never restored it.

I disagree. Even the Mona Lisa is 'restored'/'preserved' in an effort to prevent deterioration and help her remain in as close to original state as possible. Aircraft in a static museum are NOT 'aircraft' they are artifacts. Hunks of metal that were once aircraft. That is not to devalue their historic impact at all, just that they should be treated as what they are, America's history. For a government institution and I consider the NMUSAF as such, to not accurately represent some of the artifacts in their custody takes away from their credibility and ability to preserve the artifacts history. I don't know the background on Shoo Shoo Baby (I don't pride myself on knowing the background of all warbirds), if it was originally "Shoo Shoo Baby" during WWII she should be restored as such. Having her as a wreck, or having any of these Lake Michigan birds left as wrecks tells very little history of the aircraft. By that assumption, no aircraft should be restored to static or flying. That is not what I'm saying. Therefore, my analogy of restoring a G Washington portrait with a different face holds true. It's the same as painting an original P-51H with a different "face".

Telling me that a P-51 with jelly beans on it is just fine, but painting an aircraft to represent another is a crime doesn't sound any where near ok.

That is NOT what I am saying. Chris, you are missing the fundamental point of my argument of which I addressed several times. I'll bold it, underline it, and italicize it so there is no confusion. The NMUSAF should be held to a different standard than other privately funded organizations and collections. The NMUSAF is funded by the American people, therefore it should do all it can to represent our artifacts in a proper and authentic manner. That is not saying private warbird owners should not strive to preserve their piece of history as well as possible, just that they have a choice to paint their aircraft whatever they like (I gave the example of P-51d N151D http://mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51sur ... -72777.php) because it is their aircraft. On the flip side, the NMUSAF aircraft are the American people's aircraft so there should be little room for error in regards to authenticity. Therefore the inaccurate representation of the P-51H, P-82B, etc. is a blatant altering of the artifacts history and the story it can tell.

If you don't get my point now, I don't know how else to voice it.

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers; I just don't like what they've done to some of my history.

[k5083]

I just found this news item:

NEW DISPLAY TO FEATURE IMITATION AIRPLANES

6/10/2010 - DAYTON, Ohio -- The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force has announced a new exhibit entitled "Imitations of Airplanes We Really Have at Lackland." The blockbuster exhibit will feature aircraft modified or repainted to resemble more historically appropriate specimens that the NMUSAF actually owns, but chooses to display outdoors near the parade ground at Lackland AFB in Texas, where they cannot be seen by the public.

"We are very excited about this exhibit and especially with the litigation victory over the Commemorative Air Force that made it possible," said Ima Fakir, chief of the museum's Conversion and False Paint Scheme Division.

The new exhibit will include the recently acquired, Merlin-powered F-82B Twin Mustang, which has already been repainted in the markings of a Allison-powered F-82E night fighter variant -- an aircraft displayed at Lackland AFB. It was also feature the museum's P-63E, which is restored and painted in imitation of an RP-63 used in the "pinball" aerial target program -- a real example of which also is on display at Lackland. In addition, the NMUSAF's P-51D will be moved into the exhibit and repainted as an imitation P-51H, of which a real one also is displayed at Lackland (painted as a P-51D); while the museum's P-47D will be repainted as a rare P-47N, in imitation of the P-47N displayed at Lackland (painted as a P-47D).

The centerpiece of the new exhibit, however, will be a special display of the imitation B-17F Memphis Belle, on loan from the 1941 Historical Aircraft Group at Geneseo, NY. To complete the exhibit, the real Memphis Belle will be moved to Lackland and placed on outdoor display. For the occasion, the Geneseo aircraft's name will be changed from "The Movie Memphis Belle" to "The Museum Memphis Belle."

"This is a highly innovative approach to museum display which is ahead of its time," said Ms. Fakir. "It is very rare for museum visitors to get such a close look at imitations of these historically significant aircraft, particularly when the museum actually has the genuine items at its disposal."

The "Imitations" exhibit is widely regarded as a front-runner for next year's U.S. Air Force Heritage Award. The NMUSAF is, amazingly, a perennial winner of the USAF Heritage Award for its exhibits.

August

[Taylor Stevenson]

Wow and I thought I had free time! Made my day. I'm less serious now...