Hanging aircraft National WW II Museum

[JohnB]

Kyleb

As far as I know, the "National" title gained prominence after the "Air Force Museum" was renamed in the '90s following a major shakeup driven by unhappiness with the way it was run. IIRC, it was placed under the control of the vice commander of AFMC, headquartered at Wright-Patterson.

It received the title "National Museum of the U.S. Air Force" to differentiate if from the many base museums, not that I heard of anyone getting confused between the various base aircraft collections and the museum at W-P.

Last edited by JohnB on Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Warbirdnerd]

Should a National Museum not be held to a higher standard than “95% of the visitors won’t care or know the difference”?

It doesn't receive Federal funding.

It is a "National" museum in the sense that it is the only one designated "The National WWII Museum" by Congress. Not that it isn't a worthy cause and an outstanding museum, but anything you can think of can be designated the "National whatever" if you have the right connections in DC.

Like the National Museum of Military Vehicles, that opened recently in the tourist Mecca of Dubois, WY.
Great spot to stop if you are headed to the Tetons, but not many other reasons to be there....
https://www.nmmv.org/

[p51]

Should a National Museum not be held to a higher standard than “95% of the visitors won’t care or know the difference”?

After being there in 2012, I would say, apparently not for the way they see themselves.
There are a lot of replicas in there, but in some cases for things they couldn't get.
But I was very disappointed by seeing replica small personal soldier items that any collector has originals for, on display. I saw a replica GI canteen there on my one visit. Those are frighteningly easy to find even these days! It was like looking at a so-so quality book on WW2, blown up on walls. It's fine for the public (I kept waiting for my wife to catch up when we went through), but anyone seriously into WW2 it would a huge letdown. I can't believe I spent that much for admission and would only go back to see that B-17.
That museum has a very rabid fanbase which won't allow for any smack talking, and I'm shocked I don't see much of that here (but expect it any moment).

[JohnB]

Somewhat...no, make that very cynically...
I've always assumed the museum (being in a tourist-centric town no more involved in the war than many other cities) was there as a tourist attraction...give visitors something else to do besides partying on Bourbon Street.

No disrespect is meant, just how I perceived it.

[Steve Nelson]

My wife and I visited the museum last year, and I concur with many of the previous comments. It's more of an "experience" type attraction than a serious museum, geared towards those who don't really have any deep knowledge of the war..kind of a WWII theme park. Seen from that perspective, it does its job well and I have no real complaints. But as others have mentioned, hardcore enthusiasts like us will likely find it kitschy and rather shallow. I enjoyed it for what it was..I think the "generic book on WWII blown up to full-size" comment was a very apt description. It was really nice seeing "My Gal Sal" again. My wife and I were fortunate enough to get a personal tour of her by Bob Ready when she was still disassembled in his hangar in Blue Ash back in 2005.

As for Bourbon Street, we're rather timid middle-age types, so we checked it out during the day. We only made it a couple of blocks before turning around..they hadn't quite finished hosing the (literal) s**t off the sidewalk from the night before.

SN