Museum of Flight's B-17

[StangStung]

I'm curious. Aside from a Shuttle, did they opine about what does bring in the big donor bucks they're looking for?

Yeah, they thought it was anything that would lead to well-heeled donors, and they thought that would be better focused to spacerelated stuff. One of the primary space tourists who paid his way with the Russians gave a lot of money to the MoF for that shuttle building. They considered that, and people deep into the aerospace industry at the upper echelons to be where the bucks would come from. One said, "As much as I hate to say it, the veterans don't bring in the money we need."

What an odd thing to say. Is the presumption that the only people who care about seeing warbirds are veterans?

To some degree, this smacks of a (or a few) decisions makers wanting whatever it is that they were connected with (in this case, space related items) to be a focus of the museum. It seems to me there is more interest in WWII warbirds now than there may have ever been in the past. I mean two (or was it three?) luftwaffe birds and a vvs bird have been pulled from the depths in just the last month or so. That doesn't happen if people aren't interested.

So what are they going to do now that there's no Shuttle? Close up shop? They have two of the greatest airplanes America ever made in fine shape -- and hometown products to boot. And they're not going to display them because of some mythical need for space related stuff?

I'm not buying it. Something else is going on here.

[jmkendall]

I'm not too sure what to say.

Let me get this straight; Warbirds don't generate any money or interest with the people?

I know I am prejudiced, but someone remind me how many forums there are to the preservation of WW2 aircraft and/or warbirds. And how many similar forums there are to the preservation of spacecraft???

And lets be completely honest here; just how many space craft are available.....period?

So what they are saying is that the only large bucks available are for a very limited resource...that has already been allocated.....right?

And we are NOT building anymore. IF the larger interest is in Spacecraft then why isn't there a larger interest in BUILDING new spacecraft??

So if there are none available, the it really does not matter that the deep pockets like Spacecraft. Even if that was true.

BTW someone tell Paul Allen that Rich People don't like Warbirds....or Kermit Weeks...or..Msrs Fagen, Harada, et al

[Mike]

Sadly I suspect that WWII veterans were big donors 10 and 20 years ago, but we are now losing so many of them, so there's probably more than a grain of truth in what the museum folks are saying.

[jmkendall]

I realize that the WW2 vets are leaving us in increasing numbers. Without doubt the donations from that demographic has gone down.

But I would suspect that donations from their children and grandchildren have gone up as they achieve the time in their lives when they have more disposable income. Lets face it, people in their 50s and 60s have more money, or at least disposable money, than people in their 20s and 30s.

Don't get me wrong I love space! 20 years ago when I had to give up my career as a Detective I went back to school to get my Aerospace degree. I bet I am the only person on this forum.....maybe....whose day to day job involves space based platforms. I am extremely frustrated by our retreat from Icarus. Where everything is now or will soon be unmanned. Shuckens I am trying to figure out how they will make unmanned airline flight possible (joke......).

[p51]

Sadly I suspect that WWII veterans were big donors 10 and 20 years ago, but we are now losing so many of them, so there's probably more than a grain of truth in what the museum folks are saying.

They didn't tell me as such, but this is generally the vibe I got from them. They did tell me that generally, the veterans of wars later than WW2 are for the most part not big contributors to museums overall. Their focus from what I gathered was getting funds from very well-off, non-veteran air enthusiasts, and that specific crowd isn't warbird-driven like they were a couple of decades ago. One told me that he's watched a general shift from warplanes to space and civil aviation over the past few years. And if you know the social leanings of many people in the Puget Sound area, that should come as a surprise to very few people.
The bottom line I got was, "We like warplanes, but people aren't giving money for them or because of them like they used to."

[mustangdriver]

WHile that all may be true, the B-17 is one of the signature and hallmark aircraft of Boeing which produced them right there. That alone should atleast see the plane come indoors in the current building. There is nothing wrong with doing that wonderful restoration on the plane to be a great example in a static museum. There is something wrong with parking it out doors with no future timeline to move it indoors.

[The Inspector]

All it takes is someone to inject enought intaglio portraits of deceased Presidents and other patriots, therein lies the friction. Every worthy group (ands lots that aren't) are always hanging out in the foyer of Boeing, Microsquish, Amazon, and any place else that is big and located in Seattle so they've all seen more pitches than a major league umpire.

[p51]

They were simply telling me what their take on where the money was coming from. That was their job and I have no reason to doubt what they told me.
If someone wanted to come in and donate millions for another large building dedicated to the WW2 bombers and the other planes that are outside, I'm sure they'd take it with a smile...

[JohnB]

Unfortunately, the acquisition of a flown Shuttle would have generated enough revenue within a couple of years to build another addition to the museum to house the larger aircraft. Another missed opportunity...

I would have thought (I have no direct knowledge) the opposite...that getting a Shuttle would take money away from a new facility for their larger aircraft.
Any income from the Shuttle would have to go toward paying off the costs for the Shuttle itself. The Museum director is a former shuttle astronaut and shuttels would have been rare and "sexy"...so it would be getting a lot of money spent on it..

[StangStung]

I would have thought (I have no direct knowledge) the opposite...that getting a Shuttle would take money away from a new facility for their larger aircraft.
Any income from the Shuttle would have to go toward paying off the costs for the Shuttle itself. The Museum director is a former shuttle astronaut and shuttels would have been rare and "sexy"...so it would be getting a lot of money spent on it..

Ah. Now we get to the rub of things. "I want my contribution to aviation (er, space) history to be emphasized."

While I agree with the analysis that the WWII demographic isn't giving as much anymore, we can't deny that decision makers personal interests (and ego) often play a big part in how things go.

Also, I'm not buying the argument about the political leanings of Seattle making a difference. The military and Seattle have a long history together. And more to the point, every time I've been over to see the FHC, etc., they've had quite a few visitors. So lack of interest in warbirds ain't the answer.

[The Inspector]

I would have thought (I have no direct knowledge) the opposite...that getting a Shuttle would take money away from a new facility for their larger aircraft.
Any income from the Shuttle would have to go toward paying off the costs for the Shuttle itself. The Museum director is a former shuttle astronaut and shuttels would have been rare and "sexy"...so it would be getting a lot of money spent on it..

Ah. Now we get to the rub of things. "I want my contribution to aviation (er, space) history to be emphasized."

While I agree with the analysis that the WWII demographic isn't giving as much anymore, we can't deny that decision makers personal interests (and ego) often play a big part in how things go.

Also, I'm not buying the argument about the political leanings of Seattle making a difference. The military and Seattle have a long history together. And more to the point, every time I've been over to see the FHC, etc., they've had quite a few visitors. So lack of interest in warbirds ain't the answer.

Sponsors wishes is precisely how the 'Factory Fresh' B-17 wound up with BOEING BEE painted on the nose and how the FG-1 fished out of Lake Washington went from reserve overall glossy blue to three toned, sponsors wishes.

[StangStung]

I would have thought (I have no direct knowledge) the opposite...that getting a Shuttle would take money away from a new facility for their larger aircraft.
Any income from the Shuttle would have to go toward paying off the costs for the Shuttle itself. The Museum director is a former shuttle astronaut and shuttels would have been rare and "sexy"...so it would be getting a lot of money spent on it..

Ah. Now we get to the rub of things. "I want my contribution to aviation (er, space) history to be emphasized."

While I agree with the analysis that the WWII demographic isn't giving as much anymore, we can't deny that decision makers personal interests (and ego) often play a big part in how things go.

Also, I'm not buying the argument about the political leanings of Seattle making a difference. The military and Seattle have a long history together. And more to the point, every time I've been over to see the FHC, etc., they've had quite a few visitors. So lack of interest in warbirds ain't the answer.

Sponsors wishes is precisely how the 'Factory Fresh' B-17 wound up with BOEING BEE painted on the nose and how the FG-1 fished out of Lake Washington went from reserve overall glossy blue to three toned, sponsors wishes.

Precisely. I understand "he who has the gold rules." No big surprises there.

This just smacked to me of someone at the top -not a sponsor - being more interested in something besides warbirds. So while we may be talking peripherally about sponsorship, what we may really be talking about is a decision makers preferences.

[bdk]

Maybe they should just sell off all that low revenue generating WW2 stuff and ocus more on space? Maybe they could build that museum next to the Space Needle?

[StangStung]

Maybe they should just sell off all that low revenue generating WW2 stuff and ocus more on space? Maybe they could build that museum next to the Space Needle?

While they're at it, the WWI, interwar, Korean, Cold War, and Vietnam stuff as well. I mean, the "Personal Courage Wing" or whatever it's called is nothing but WWII fighters. As it sits, there are a helluva lot of warbirds in there. Why turn on the lights on that end if they aren't a draw?

This spaceflight pipe-dream aside (as it's been established above, that's all that is), are they wanting to focus more on Boeing civilian products?

My mind is truly blown.

[Mike]

I mean, the "Personal Courage Wing" or whatever it's called is nothing but WWII fighters. As it sits, there are a helluva lot of warbirds in there. Why turn on the lights on that end if they aren't a draw?

Good news that they've finally got around to turning the lights on, they certainly hadn't on the visits I've made there!