Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:10 pm
I hear you on the history of it but I was curious about what Speedy said he was told during his tenure there. That appears to be a little more recent.
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:33 am
CoastieJohn wrote:I hear you on the history of it but I was curious about what Speedy said he was told during his tenure there. That appears to be a little more recent.
That was a decade or so ago, and the VP in question that made that quote was almost literally run out of town on a rail a couple years after I left. The docent corps (of which my dad is part of) eseentially threatened to quit en-masse because of her (and the organization as a whole's) attitude. The Museum is (or was, at least) made up of little fiefdom's, with each VP/Director/Manager trying to make 'their thing' the most important. The ones who made the most noise, won...and if they didn't like warplanes, than by-God, we weren't going to have warplanes, because it sent the wrong message. It was more just an attitude that the people running the museum 'knew better' what you wanted to see than what YOU did. As Inspector pointed out...they had a museum full of homebuilt and G.A. aircraft. And at the start, I can't even say they had a museum FULL of aircraft, because they had to erect partitians and framework on the floor to 'fill up' the empty spaces. Why pay money to see a J-3 Cub hanging from the ceiling when there are three others parked on the ramp adjacent the museum next to the hangars? People want to see things historically significant...and as the Museum evolves, it has gotten some really neat stuff.
People bitch about the DC-3 in the ceiling, but the reason it's there, and what makes it so striking is that it is right above the Boeing Model-80 (which in itself is cool--even if it's only about 60% complete). I always pointed out to guests that in less than six years we went from fabric-covered wings, wooden fuselage, wire & strut biplanes to a sleek, all-metal, monocoque streamlined design. That is why both planes are where they are...to showcase advances in design.
At the top level management are just cogs in the machine...swap one out for another...but the 'mission statement' is still the same, so you still have the same prevailing attitude.
Again, this is not to say that 1, it's not a very cool musuem (espeically the parts that were MINE), and 2, that there aren't some amazing people that work there...because there are.
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:17 pm
Wasn't this B-17 Flyable when she was delivered to the Museum?
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:28 pm
Yes. Bob Richardson's B-17 was very much flyable and a fixture around Boeing Field in the mid'80's when things were 'good' between him and the MoF. I still have one of the "B-17 Bonds" that the Museum sold to raise funds to buy/restore it...since that was the original plan for N17W. After a while loyalties changed for a variety of reasons, and it became a favorite around Geneseo. When Bob passed away there was some heated fighting over who actually was supposed to GET the plane.
When it was delivered to the MoF it was flyable, and after it was restored by Boeing in the late-'90's, it was still very much flyable. But part of the agreement was that there was a limitation of how many hours it could be flown before it had to be permanently 'grounded'....which is where it sits right now.
Still registered as N17W, though...so it could be flyable very easily.
When it was delivered to the MoF it was flyable, and after it was restored by Boeing in the late-'90's, it was still very much flyable. But part of the agreement was that there was a limitation of how many hours it could be flown before it had to be permanently 'grounded'....which is where it sits right now.
Still registered as N17W, though...so it could be flyable very easily.
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:48 pm
Speedy wrote:Still registered as N17W, though...so it could be flyable very easily.
Not, that I expect anyone to ask me...it would be great to have it flyable for special occasions and anniversarys. Plenty of current B-17 crews out there with other groups...it would be wonderful to have it fly over Seattle in 2035 and again in 2045 (if ity's not deemed politically incorrect to have a warplane fly in Seattle by then.
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:14 pm
JohnB wrote:Speedy wrote:Still registered as N17W, though...so it could be flyable very easily.
Not, that I expect anyone to ask me...it would be great to have it flyable for special occasions and anniversarys. Plenty of current B-17 crews out there with other groups...it would be wonderful to have it fly over Seattle in 2035 and again in 2045 (if ity's not deemed politically incorrect to have a warplane fly in Seattle by then.
Glad I'm not the only one wondering that!
Last edited by CoastieJohn on Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:03 pm
Go back a few posts to 'They're museum trained people and don't really understand airplanes or airplane people' 'RACK-RACKRACK-RACK...'
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:35 pm
I can't names names but I talked to a few museum people there yesterday when I was there to see the Super Guppy. They all confirmed that warbirds were never a primary focus of the museum and will continue to not be the main focus for many years to come.
"We're all about commerical and space aviation at this point," one said. Another went so far as to suggest they'd have sold the B-17 and B-29 if some people wouldn't raise a stink publically from such prominent Boeing products leaving the area.
"We're all about commerical and space aviation at this point," one said. Another went so far as to suggest they'd have sold the B-17 and B-29 if some people wouldn't raise a stink publically from such prominent Boeing products leaving the area.
Re: Museum of Flight's B-17
Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:21 am
p51 wrote:"We're all about commerical and space aviation at this point," one said. Another went so far as to suggest they'd have sold the B-17 and B-29 if some people wouldn't raise a stink publically from such prominent Boeing products leaving the area.
If that's the offical thinking of the museum and not just some anti-military zealots (there are a few still walking amoung us (even on this forum) who blame the military for Vietnam)...then, they're idiots.
What do they think allowed Boeing to survive, grow and prosper long enough to make the jet transports?
Following the (relative vs the DC-2/3) failure of the 247, it was military orders tat kept Boeing alive (I doubt if they made much money on the 314 flying boats and even then, they borrowed heavily on the wing of the XB-15).
And the famous gamble of $16 million to fund the 367-80 jet prototype probably came from B-47 and or KC-97 profits.
If they don't know their patron's history better than that, than the place is better of becoming a Nike shoe outlet mall.
Having said that, as I said before, they might as well leverage their assets and become the world's best air trasnport museum.
But I'd keep the warbirds they have..I bet more casual visitors spend their money to see the Personal Courage Wing than the space and civil artifacts (excluding the VC-137 and Concorde, etc).
Who knows, if the transport idea is a hit and they don't need the money from warbird fans, then cthey could sell the WWII warbirds to others who might appreciate them without the taint of revisionist history.