NASM He 219 is reassembled!!

[Michel Lemieux]

NASM He 219 is reassembled!!

https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/81487-nasm-he-219-is-reassembled/

[Scott Rose]

Nice. Another reason for a road trip.

[Jesse C.]

Imagine if Paul Allen would have owned it? The possibilities

But still, great job by the fine resto crews at the NASM!

[JohnB]

And they still don't have a B-17 or 24 on display.

[OD/NG]

I've got to go to DC next week so I'll stop by and get some photos

Thanks Col! I would like to see what it looks like now. Those pictures are nearly a month old and I've read that it should be virtually complete now, with everything on it.

[OD/NG]

And they still don't have a B-17 or 24 on display.

I would much rather see a one-of-a-kind former Luftwaffe aircraft on display there. This is the only complete He-219 in the world. Do we really need another B-17 or B-24 when we have many on display in National Collections around the world?

[DaveM2]

And they still don't have a B-17 or 24 on display.

I would much rather see a one-of-a-kind former Luftwaffe aircraft on display there. This is the only complete He-219 in the world. Do we really need another B-17 or B-24 when we have many on display in National Collections around the world?

For sure B-17s/ 24s are a dime a dozen comparatively. Took 16 years to get it to this point and it still isn't fully assembled. No slight on the NASM, the staff have a huge workload, especially with the Downtown refurbishment.
There is a reason NASM is the most visited museum in the world- you can see aircraft you cannot see anywhere else.

[6trn4brn]

NASM has a combat veteran B-17 "on the way". Story was that they acquired Shoo Shoo Baby from Dayton in trade for Swoose. I am certainly not as up to date on the comings and goings with regard to aviation acquisitions and hope someone in the know would speak up if they know for sure what is going on with that deal. Last I heard was that Shoo Shoo Baby would be put in storage until NASM can figure out where to display her.

[Pat Carry]

NASM has a combat veteran B-17 "on the way". Story was that they acquired Shoo Shoo Baby from Dayton in trade for Swoose. I am certainly not as up to date on the comings and goings with regard to aviation acquisitions and hope someone in the know would speak up if they know for sure what is going on with that deal. Last I heard was that Shoo Shoo Baby would be put in storage until NASM can figure out where to display her.

The ShooShooBaby is many years away from being displayed by the NASM. Reasons I have heard include no money to transport the plane from Ohio to Virginia, no where to display it to the manpower needed to place the plane on display in Virginia is being used on the mall building. Having a combat veteran B-17 locked up for 10 years or more is just not right. It should go on display in another museum until such a time it does go to the NASM.

[JohnB]

And they still don't have a B-17 or 24 on display.

I would much rather see a one-of-a-kind former Luftwaffe aircraft on display there. This is the only complete He-219 in the world. Do we really need another B-17 or B-24 when we have many on display in National Collections around the world?

Yes, but it is the National Air and Space Museum, not the International Museum of Warplanes, or the "Museum of Neat German types".

My point is the Smithsonian is the national storehouse of artifacts.
Shouldn't some of the greatest American aircraft of the war be included?

I would suggest the B-17/24 need to be there most as much for the airframe, but to recognize theses types were designed, built, paid for and flown by Americans in a huge industrial effort.
To me, THAT'S the significance of displaying the types.
Simply saying "If you want to see a B-17 or 24, go to Dayton" is inexcusable.

The museum's priorities are seriously skewed.
Too many resources have been squandered on obscure Nazi-era designs (Do-335, Horton, etc.) that while interesting in a technical sense and fun to look at, played no real part in the war.

I've felt that they should be sent to Germany because they are legitimately part of that nation's aviation heritage.

A precedent exits: We did repatriate the sole surviving Emily flying boat back to Japan.

[OD/NG]

Yes, but it is the National Air and Space Museum, not the International Museum of Warplanes, or the "Museum of Neat German types".

Yes, it may be the National Air and Space Museum, but that does not mean it does not represent aviation and space assets outside of the United States. Foreign types represent a significant portion of the collection. I'm just guessing, but perhaps, 1/4 to 1/3 of the assets there are foreign in nature? If the Board of Directors thought that foreign types did not represent the charter of NASM, they would have long ago either traded, sold, or lent those assets to other museums. Except for a few isolated examples, that has not happened. That tells me that the BOD/Leadership at NASM considers foreign representation an important part of the mission of the NASM.

My point is the Smithsonian is the national storehouse of artifacts.
Shouldn't some of the greatest American aircraft of the war be included?

Agreed, and nobody has disputed that. The greatest and most important American aircraft in all of history are displayed there. That does not mean other foreign types can't be represented as well.

I would suggest the B-17/24 need to be there most as much for the airframe, but to recognize theses types were designed, built, paid for and flown by Americans in a huge industrial effort.
To me, THAT'S the significance of displaying the types.

Although those are important types, they are somewhat common and are represented at many other collections. To spend money on acquiring those types, restoring them and displaying them to the detriment of restoring one-of-a-kind other examples is inexcusuable.

Simply saying "If you want to see a B-17 or 24, go to Dayton" is inexcusable.

No, it's not. Museums have to utilize scare resources and money to make the best judgements on preserving, and displaying aircraft it deems worthy of such attention. As an example, why should NASM waste $10 Million U.S.D. on acquiring and restoring a B-24, when the money can be better spent on restoring 4 or 5 single engine, sole surviving Axis types?

The museum's priorities are seriously skewed.

Apparently the NASM BOD and leadership disagree with you. And I disagree with both you and the BOD/Leadership at NASM. I believe that any sole surviving and/or historical types that were "firsts" in their field should take priority over all modern and/or common types of aircraft that seem to be the trend at NASM lately.

Too many resources have been squandered on obscure Nazi-era designs (Do-335, Horton, etc.) that while interesting in a technical sense and fun to look at, played no real part in the war.
I've felt that they should be sent to Germany because they are legitimately part of that nation's aviation heritage.

Actually, just the opposite is the case. They should be emphasizing restoring all rare/sole-surviving types, Allied or Axis, prior to restoring more modern or "common types". Sole surviving types of these have almost always spent much longer in the "restoration cue", rather than more modern common types which have been restored and displayed recently.

The Do-335 was restored in Germany, by Germans, and paid for by the Dornier corporation. It was also displayed in Germany for some 13 years prior to being returned to Washington D.C. So, no NASM resources were "squandered", as you say, on the Do-335, since Dornier financed the entire restoration.

The Horten has not been restored. It has only had extremely minimal conservation work accomplished on it to preserve what exists and to put it on public display. Last I heard, they were not planning on restoring that aircraft.

So, virtually no NASM resources have been "squandered", as you say, on the Do-335 or Horten.

A precedent exits: We did repatriate the sole surviving Emily flying boat back to Japan.

That was not a precedent. The U.S. Navy owned the Emily and returned her to Japan based on a multitude of factors, none of which involved the NASM.

[DaveM2]

My take on 'National' Air & Space Museum, is that 'National' means the main repository of the country. The collection is artifacts related to 'Air & Space'
There is no mention of what country of origin these artifacts should be from- it is irrelevant.

Artifacts which are 'fun to look at" is exactly what any museum needs to be successful (and has proven to be so for NASM). These artifacts are the drawcard for the majority of museum visitors - who are in the main not aviation anoraks (like us). They want to see something cool and different, which can only be provided by displaying rare and one of machines. NASM is the only place where a number of these can be seen.

Of course that certainly doesn't mean that the 'common' types shouldn't be displayed, common types survive (mostly) in good numbers (comparatively) because they are 'famous' and therefore 'popular.' NASM has a good spread of those types as well across both its locations.

Sure it would be nice to see a B-17/24 on display a UHC, but personally I would rather see that 'space' taken by other one of a kind types currently in storage - not necessarily restored, but assembled and displayed 'as is' - no matter what their country of origin.

Agree or disagree - My 02 cents.

[Ken]

Save the Barksdale B-24 before it turns to powder, storage or display at this point, either is better than continuing to sit outdoors. Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby is at least safe for future generations.

Ken

[wendovertom]

IMHO the Barksdale B-24 should come to the Wendover museum. We have a HUGE hangar and could keep her inside out of the weather and it would be a real opportunity for the 2 million people who drive by on Interstate 80 to see a super rare plane!

Tom P.

[Richard W.]

I had just about given up on seeing the Uhu assembled in my lifetime.

Fantastic news. Thank you for letting me know.