Best and Worst Aviation Museum Websites

[Noha307]

In your opinion, what are the best and worst aviation museum websites?

My picks are:

• Best: Air Mobility Command Museum
• Worst: Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum

I spend a lot of time looking at aviation museums online, so this is something I've given a good amount of thought. I've seen a number of them update their websites - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. In the latter category, some of them have decided to sacrifice content for design, but luckily we still have archived copies of the old sites for reference. The AMCM site above is a good example of one that does both well.

What does everyone think?

[quemerford]

No specific 'worst', but for me the bad ones are those which list their aircraft holdings but with no other detail (no subtype, no s/n etc).

And those which never get updated.

[sandiego89]

I think it important to remember that many museums rely on skeleton staff and volunteers, and many might not be tech savvy enough to build and refresh a website. What's most important, keeping the lights on, keeping the mice and corrosion at bay, or running a website?

Of course ideally everyone in 2018 has a great website, but I'm not sure it is appropriate to shame hard working folks with a "worst" moniker.

I will comment with what I generally like about a website:
- A full list of all the main air frames at the museum
- Accurate info on the particular airframes in the collection. Serial numbers, full model number, brief service history, any special notes on a special paint job/commemoration, where it came from etc.
- A few pictures of the airframes. Cockpit interior photos a plus. LOVE the 360 photos at Dayton that you can mouse around.
- Web cam for active museums is neat, but not a requirement.
- Restoration hanger- what's in the que/next projects

Neutral for me:
- "Artifacts" or special displays in the collection. I'm much more into the airframes.
- Merchandise.

[k5083]

I would add to sandiego's list, if it is a flying museum, an up-to-date list of what events they will be attending, and (where possible, and subject to change), with what aircraft. I don't blame them if they can't specify all the details, but there seem to be a lot of museum sites where I can only find out what events they were planning to attend in 2015. Even if the museum has limited resources, this should be a no-brainer. Museums are supposed to help drive airshow revenues through their participation, and airshows are supposed to showcase the museums so people will visit and see the rest of the collection. A key function of a museum web site should be to cross-promote with airshows to serve these goals.

Might I suggest that rather than a single best and single worst, we might give letter grades to the sites, with explanations?

August

[hbtcoveralls]

The Mid Atlantic Air Museum has a great website with links to all of the museum functions, details of the aircraft and current restorations

It's also the portal to all thins WWII weekend and access to items for sale at the museum store.

Lots of good visitor information etc.

I've seen a lot of aviation museum websites with little more than open hours so this is probably my favorite

http://www.maam.org/

Tom Bowers

[JohnB]

It seems some museums don't provide details of histories of their aircraft because they're afraid if people know too much they won't bother going.

The NMUSAF has a good site...as you would expect...as does Pima.

I think every aircraft should have a web page with known history, C/Ns and specs. If for no other reason than to help researchers build a good list is of survivors.

[kalamazookid]

The most important thing any museum can have on their website is current information - hours, admission, events, location and what's on exhibit. How extensive anything else is communicated is secondary to those basics.

I don't expect smaller museums to have as extensive a catalog as NMUSAF or the national collections do. A simple list of what's on exhibit, with a few teaser photos and current information should suffice. Not every museum is meant to serve as a clearinghouse of information for internet-based research. The museums have to attract people to stay open. As such, I don't believe that everything has to be documented extensively on the web. Think about it - if a potential visitor can learn everything they want, see what everything looks like, etc., why would they spend money to go to the museum? We shouldn't expect to see the entire collection without setting foot in the door.

I absolutely know I'm in the minority on the above opinion. One photo with the basic information (serial #, whether it's on display and a paragraph) is enough for me. Then again, I'm not writing books or compiling lists. If you're that into it, you can always pick up the phone and call for information or send an email.

For museums that don't have the money or technical know-how to maintain an extensive website, current information on social media can serve similar purposes. I've personally observed this with EAA Chapters and several smaller museums. If your resources are limited, why bother paying for a domain, CMS, etc. if you can use social media to communicate/list events, hours, phone numbers, etc.? Work smarter, not harder. I'd rather see web resources repurposed for maintaining and preserving history.

With the way people gather information nowadays, multiple digital outlets can also interact to communicate information. Not everyone is going to go to a website for the latest information. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. can also be resources for basic information. Want to show off photos from the collection or events without having to pay for the bandwidth to host them yourself? Link to a Flickr, Facebook, or other gallery on a photo-hosting website. I will never understand museums that don't take advantage of these resources. They're free and unbelievably easy. If a museum can't maintain a decent website, there are plenty of other options to put together a web presence.

Again, I know I'm in the minority with all of these opinions. It just seems to me that there are so many FREE tools available that it's counterproductive to put extensive hours and financial commitments into a website that may only have a marginal payoff.

[k5083]

I cannot believe that the posting of complete information, serials, history etc. would ever deter a visitor from visiting a museum. I don't even understand the argument. Nobody goes to the museum to find out that information. Heck, usually you can't find it our even if you go. People go to the museum to experience the plane. Nothing on the web can ever be a substitute for that. Anything you put on the web can only entice them and make them more likely to visit, not less.

I do agree that museums should make use of "free" social media. It's especially good for promoting current and upcoming events, and several collections are already good at it. I'd highlight Flying Heritage Collection, the CAF Socal Wing, and the American Airpower Museum in Farmingdale as three solid performers in this vein. But they all have a web site anyway, you really can't not, so they are paying for the hosting already. If they can't find a fanboy willing to build and maintain a detailed page on each plane, and update their calendar entries, they really can't be trying.

August

[JohnB]

The logic of "if we post it, they won't come" is lost on me.
If that were the case, everyone would just buy a book and look at photos.
Why bother going to museums or airshows?

Agreed, not every entry needs to be the chapter and verse of a ship's history.
But it certainly doesn't hurt telling people what they'll see before they get there.
After all, art museums advertise they recent acquisitions and special exhibits.

If I know a museum has a B-17/P-51, I'd likely stop and look...as opposed to just being a collection of Stearmans and Cubs.

I was going to commend a museum's website, but didn't after seeing that their recent acquisitions (including the sole flying example of a rare...one of three...type).
That's pretty silly.
Come on, updating an existing website isn't rocket science.

[airnutz]

Another thing to consider is many museums...if not most throughout the world, are beyond access to the average person. They are the holders of the artifacts, so they shouldn't be surprised about folks curiosity for details. If they web post it they are leaving curators free to curate rather than answering mail or calls for more info...sometime repeating themselves.

[p51]

Two things often missing from any museum's site:
1. Merchandise in the gift shop
2. Overall view of the museum by gallery, with a basic layout of what's in it
The first should be a no-brainer. Wouldn't you love to have a cap or t-shirt from a museum you know you'll never get to? How about the one you went to and you know you'll probably never be back but you now wish you'd bought that one thing there? How many museum websites do you see that have a photo of the gift shop itself with an invite to come there in person? They're missing a potentially massive revenue stream!
As for the second, have you ever been to a big museum and after you get home, you find there was a portion of the museum you didn't even know was there? It's happened to me a couple of times, so when I go to one, if they give a brochure of the layout, I always stop and look it over.
I was walking out of the 8th AF museum in GA last year and a guy was griping to his wife that he'd heard there was a B-17 but it wasn't there. Not true, I told him, and I spun him and his wife around (she probably hates me to this day for that) and walked them back to where it was. They'd almost missed the biggest portion of the museum itself!

[sandiego89]

.....If I know a museum has a B-17/P-51, I'd likely stop and look...as opposed to just being a collection of Stearmans and Cubs......

Amen, and if they have something I have never seen before, especially a sole survivor or rather rare or unique (like an Axis or UK aircraft that is rare in the USA), they should make that very clear and prominent. I will go out of my way to see something that I have not seen before, even it is a lessor type, prototype etc. I have a very soft spot for sole survivors like the Serian, Ar-234 etc. at NASM Dulles, several at Chino like the Fireball and limited run aircraft or "failed" prototypes that never made it to production like the Sea Dart, Thunderceptor...

[Misterg97]

At 86, and having flown in the following, c-46, c-47, C-54, C-119 and C-124 I find this quite interesting … Also having a ten year tenure volunteering at the AF Museum adds another prospective.

What I hope to get from this listing is name of Museums that I have never heard of … For those in the far west, the Museum at Malmstrom (Great Falls AFB when stationed there) is quite impressive, I believe, as it pertains in part to the Air Defense Command in its.

However, to each it's own … I had the distinct honor of meeting and chatting with Col. Bud Day, Misty1, during their reunion. On another occasion I was asked to take a gentleman's photo with the Return to Honor display and while chatting found out he was also a POW in Vietnam. While doing so, a visitor overheard our discussion and asked to take our picture. I looked at the former POW and he agreed. I now have the picture with compliments of the visitor who took it.

I guess finally I would like to add .. There is much to be enjoyed at any museum be it the airplanes, displays and especially those of historical nature and the gift shop as well.

To each and all … visit any of our museums you can and get the most out of each one, large or small.

[p51]

At 86, and having flown in the following, c-46, c-47, C-54, C-119 and C-124 I find this quite interesting …

It's funny, you don't have to be a senior citizen to see planes in a museum that you remember flying.
Heck, I recently saw F-117 on display and some kids were looking it over, one commenting he'd have given anything to have seen one in the air. I got to thinking about all the stuff no longer flying that I got to see. C-141s, 117s, F-4s, F-14s, F-106s, F-104s (NATO) among others.
And I'm not even 50 years old yet.