Is the Smithsonian Correct?

[Bodhi]

After watching the actions of the director of the Smithsonian, and the actions of board of directors for the past few months, I am a bit discoraged over their selfish attittude when it concerns the display of aircraft only in the facilities in DC.  It would seem to me to be a bit more available to have multiple sites for such a large collection of aircraft, that currently has over 300 pieces languishing in storage due to lack of space.  Before you get your panties in a wad though, I am not advocating the removal of the DC facility, I still think it should be the center piece.  BUT, the sheer size of the collection would easily allow a display location to be set up on the other side of the Mississippi so others could share in our aviation heritage without traveling to DC.  Unfortunately the DC staff is extremely selfish about the though of sharing "their" collection with proposed other sites.  Sadly, we will probably not see this idea come to fruition with the current administration at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.  They fear too much the loss of the DC power belt, and thus will be content in depriving the American public the ability to all share in this public treasure.  That, and the turn down of donations for proposed new sites is a reason why we the public should push to revamp the Smithsonian's procedures and display policy.  Adding this problem to the recent attempts at revisionist history as pertained to the Enola Gay, it is time for change.

What are your thoughts?

[Cougar68]

I would love to see some branches open up to allow the aircraft stuck in the vaults to be viewed by the public.  It's a shame to have that many historic aircraft gathering dust.  Make them more accessible to the public so more people can learn about the accomplishments of those that came before us.

[FUNKED1]

Just go to the USAF Museum in Dayton OH.  Much better museum.  More planes and none of the BS.

[Halo]

Since art museums allow some of their paintings and sculptures to be displayed in traveling or loan exhibitions elsewhere, that is a precedent.  And I think some aviation museums may already do that with some of their aircraft.

However, it may be a tougher thing to do emotionally and financially since many museum aircraft require substantial restoration, which usually is why they are not on exhibit anywhere.  

The new Dullex annex should provide enough space to display most of the Smithsonian's collection.  It just opened and already is planning to add many more aircraft to the many already being exhibited.

[pugg666]

they are openly turning down donations for new sites? how are they justifying their refusal?

[Hajo]

The FW190 D9 at WPAFBM is I believe a loner from the Smithsonian.

[Rino]

Just a quick FYI, but the Smithsonian does lend out alot of it's
aircraft to other museums.  There is a spot on their website that
tells you what birds are where.

     That being said, I was one of the mondo pissed when they
tried to turn the Enola Gay display into PC Central.

     Rino

[Mathman]

The Naval Aviation Museum at Pensacola is my favorite.

[Bodhi]

Rino,

The Smithsonian does lend some aircraft out, BUT, that is happening less and less.  The reason being is the push by the board to keep everything, "In house" and thus promote their own little world.  I personally think that is wrong.  Even with the annex at Dulles, they (the Smithsonian) do not have anywhere near the room they need to display their entire collection.  Lastly, the thought on prolonged restorations is kinda of moot now too, seeings that theyr has been a new genre of display, exactly as it looked during thew war (which I agree with) but is much easier than the past ideas of complete restoration.  To me, they should expand to allow outside restoration shops to compete for the work, and not just relying on Garber.  We, in the restoration field, are more than capable, and in some casesa are better suited to do the work.  Archeologically, we are light years ahead of them in documenting the work, and providing ACCURATE historical data on the aircraft we restore.  In some cases, we are even requested by the Smithsonian to aid in some of the restorations, and are treated as though we are interlopers.  I am at a loss to describe my feelings on this.  I want the SMithsonian's mission to continue, but not at a self serving pace that it seems to be developing.  More museums is better, and in that, spread out idea, more could enjoy the history, because let's face it, not everyone can afford to make a trip to DC.

Pug, I know of over 30 million that was turned away because the stipulation was for a facility on the west of the Mississippi....  disgusts me to think of it.

Funked, the AF Museum is ok, but I find that the aircraft displayed there (not all) are sadly lacking in their condition, and feel that the man in charge of said, is more interested in personal achievment than the long term stability of his charges.

[Nefarious]

I live about 6 hours away from DC, And I made the trip to the Dulles Annex, It was definatley worth it.

Although they still have a lot of work to do, getting all the aircraft up and on display, They have a huge collection. I would reccomend any airplane lover to make a sojourn to the Annex.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Rino,

The Smithsonian does lend some aircraft out, BUT, that is happening less and less.  The reason being is the push by the board to keep everything, "In house" and thus promote their own little world.  I personally think that is wrong.  Even with the annex at Dulles, they (the Smithsonian) do not have anywhere near the room they need to display their entire collection.  Lastly, the thought on prolonged restorations is kinda of moot now too, seeings that theyr has been a new genre of display, exactly as it looked during thew war (which I agree with) but is much easier than the past ideas of complete restoration.  To me, they should expand to allow outside restoration shops to compete for the work, and not just relying on Garber.  We, in the restoration field, are more than capable, and in some casesa are better suited to do the work.  Archeologically, we are light years ahead of them in documenting the work, and providing ACCURATE historical data on the aircraft we restore.  In some cases, we are even requested by the Smithsonian to aid in some of the restorations, and are treated as though we are interlopers.  I am at a loss to describe my feelings on this.  I want the SMithsonian's mission to continue, but not at a self serving pace that it seems to be developing.  More museums is better, and in that, spread out idea, more could enjoy the history, because let's face it, not everyone can afford to make a trip to DC.

Pug, I know of over 30 million that was turned away because the stipulation was for a facility on the west of the Mississippi....  disgusts me to think of it.

Funked, the AF Museum is ok, but I find that the aircraft displayed there (not all) are sadly lacking in their condition, and feel that the man in charge of said, is more interested in personal achievment than the long term stability of his charges.

     It sure is an idea about the restoration work, but wouldn't you
need some form of "board" to stamp final approval on the end
results?

     Not saying that outside vendors couldn't do a fantastic job,
but isn't most of their work trying to restore aircraft to
flightworthy status rather than strictly historical accuracy?

     I kind of like the new emphasis on leaving the aircraft in
"used" condition, as the F-4s I worked were plain filthy most of
the time

     Rino

[United]

The absolute best place to view aircraft is Wrigh-Patterson Airbase in Ohio.  They've got just about every combat aircraft ever flown.  Wonderful place.

[Rino]

I checked out the NASM's site and found this little tidbit
concerning the status of exhibits and displays

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/

     Almost 20% are loaned out..that's a pretty fair number.