Seems like "Enola Gay" was caught in a revisionist storm... AGAIN!!

[Vicente Vazquez]

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51

Quoting what was posted in another forum:

"History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
particular political agenda of a certain organization... "

Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...

[Gene Storey]

"Nuke Em till they glow" is not only a good policy, it is
cost effective.


"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote
>
> Quoting what was posted in another forum:
>
> "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
> particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
>
> Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...

[Dudley Henriques]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
>
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
> >
> > Quoting what was posted in another forum:
> >
> > "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
> > particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
> >
> > Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
>
> I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
> that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
> bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
> surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
> and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.
> To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
> misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
> organisation!
>
> An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
> find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
> aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
> -- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
> comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
> noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
> Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
> it) will help a little bit to correct that.
>
> I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
> involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
> communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
> with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
> find a way to deal with something like this.
>
> The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
> will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
> this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
> is worth trying.

I totally agree with this, and I believe that is also a possible solution
being discussed at the highest levels.
The aircraft should and probably will be displayed with absolutely no
attempt to project agenda or conclusion . The effect will be as one viewing
a fine painting in a gallery; reflection. The controversy is just too
intense...too divisive to do it any other way.
The Enola Gay is part of American history. It should be presented in that
context alone, with a simple notation that defines the part of history to
which the aircraft belongs. The final thoughts on the matter should be
silently left to the viewer.
I believe this is how it will be done.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[David Bromage]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific.

That's what NASM wanted to do in 1995. The Smithsonian argued at the
time that it presented the context in which the decision to drop the
bomb was made and the historical significance of its use. Anyone who has
been to the Smithsonian will know it is a serious research institution
which presents facts rather than opinions.

Various groups accused them of revisionism. A lot of things were claimed
to be part of the exhibition. It was one of those stories that fed of
itself and the media reports didn't checks the story before repeating it.

Not was there a political decision to cancel the exhibition, they
ordered that all the research notes and proofs of the accompanying book
be destoyed. So it's now effectively impossible to dispute the decision
or the claims that influenced it.

I have no doubt that the debate over both 1945 and 1995 will continue
for a long time and various people will continue to make various claims
about what should and shouldn't be said. I have no doubt that somebody
will follow up this post with claims about what the exhibition was
supposed to have said, but it will be impossible to prove either way
because the evidence was ordered to be destroyed.

Benjamin Franklin once said something about a country learning from its
history and not ignoring the unpalatable bits. When a nation ignores
part of its history, no matter how unpalatable it is, it ceases to be
civilised. (If anybody has the exact quote, please let me know.)

Cheers
David

[Kevin Brooks]

David Bromage > wrote in message >...
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> > The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> > of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific.
>
> That's what NASM wanted to do in 1995. The Smithsonian argued at the
> time that it presented the context in which the decision to drop the
> bomb was made and the historical significance of its use. Anyone who has
> been to the Smithsonian will know it is a serious research institution
> which presents facts rather than opinions.
>
> Various groups accused them of revisionism. A lot of things were claimed
> to be part of the exhibition. It was one of those stories that fed of
> itself and the media reports didn't checks the story before repeating it.

If you want to see what the original exhibition focused upon, the
info is available at www.afa.org/media/enolagay/chrono.asp. From
reading the rather well documented chronology, and supporting memos
and meeting records, that the AFA includes in their site, it is
apparent that Harwit's (Museum director) claims that the concerns
raised "were not true" is itself an incorrect (at best) or downright
dishonest (at worst) assertion; maybe you are looking in the wrong
direction for these "claims" as to what was, and was not, to be part
of the exhibition. As the AFA notes (and proves with a copy of an
internal Museum memo), "In an internal memo, the Director of the Air &
Space Museum agrees with critics that the exhibit lacks balance, says
"much of the criticism that has been levied against us is
understandable." Publicly, museum officials disparage criticism as
unfair and inaccurate." So even NASM came to the belated conclusion
that their exhibit was not well balanced--they just could not bring
themselves to publicly admit it.

Ironically, NASM went to great lengths to obtain editorial review from
japanese officials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for their "revised"
script (overnight mailing the drafts to them), but were reluctant to
provide the AFA with a copy. Is that *balance*? It is apparent from
the nature of the concerns raised by the AFA during their
communications with NASM that all they really wanted was a *balanced*
exhibit--mainly through the *addition* of material, not the deletion.
This was supposed to be an exhibit that used the Enola Gay as a
backdrop to explaining the end of the war; instead, it was hopelessly
skewed in favor of portraying the Japanese as mere victims, it
lowballed casualty estimates for the invasion and conquest of the home
islands, and it portrayed the bombing as an atrocity while largely
ignoring *real* Japanese atrocities. That the *entire* US Senate
expressed its dismay, without regard to party lines, should point out
the underlying truth that the exhibit was fatally flawed; rarely does
that body unanimously agree on much of *anything*.


The following is from a letter from the AFA to the Smithsonian after
reviewing their first few concept papers on the exhibit (this from
1993):

"The paper says the Smithsonian is non-partisan, taking no position on
the "difficult moral and political questions" but the full text does
not bear out that statement. Similarly, you assure me that the
exhibition will "honor the bravery of the veterans," but that theme is
virtually nonexistent in the proposal as drafted...Furthermore, the
concept paper treats Japan and United States in the war as if their
participation in the war were morally equivalent. If anything,
incredibly, it gives the benefit of opinion to Japan, which was the
aggressor. The revised concept plans for flashback segments, including
a major one on the firebombing of Japan – emphasizing the casualties –
but there is little mention of Pearl Harbor, except to characterize
the American response as "vengeance." Japanese aggression and
atrocities have no significant place in this account. Artifacts seem
to have been selected for emotional value (the schoolgirl's lunchbox,
for example) in hammering home a rather hard-line point of view. In
this presentation, the Japanese "felt compelled to make the ultimate
sacrifice to defend the Emperor and the nation," victims in the
defense of their islands. I wonder if the Japanese survivors and
spokesmen describing the horrors will give equal attention to the fact
that the reason Japan needed defending was that it had begun a war of
aggression a long way from home. How much emphasis will there be on
the refusal of the Japanese to surrender, even after the first atomic
bomb had been delivered?"

From the notes of a later meeting (November 93) between AFA leaders
and the Museum staff:

"We also said the concept goes out of its way to spotlight Japanese
suffering, with major focus on death and destruction as seen from the
ground. Harwit said the exhibit would show GIs suffering as well.
Correll asked if it would show GIs dead. Harwit seemed taken aback,
did not answer. We made an issue of the emotional impact of the school
child's lunch box and pointed out that there was nothing on the other
side for balance. Harwit asked what we had in mind. We mentioned
several possibilities of Japanese behavior. Harwit dismissed those
suggestions, saying the exhibit should not show Japanese atrocities
because that would make Enola Gay mission appear to be one of revenge
-- i.e., unfair to the Americans! (This was one of two instances when
the Air & Spacers rejected content that we would regard as balance on
the pretext that it was unfair to Americans.) Furthermore, Harwit
(supported by Neufeld) said the airplane itself was a dominating
"militaristic" and "macho" element in the exhibit...Neufeld
acknowledged that his low US casualty estimate (20-30,000) was for
invasion of the southern island only, and only for the first month at
that. He said higher casualty estimates -- such as the often-cited
500,000 -- could not be used because veterans groups use a figure of
1-2 million (??!!) and would not be satisfied with anything lower. The
solution, therefore, is not to use any casualty estimate --
conveniently eliminating a the impact of a key point in the decision
to drop the bomb. This, like Harwit's reluctance on Japanese
atrocities, just happens to tilt the balance toward the point we
believe they are really trying to make, and to which we object."



>
> Not was there a political decision to cancel the exhibition, they
> ordered that all the research notes and proofs of the accompanying book
> be destoyed. So it's now effectively impossible to dispute the decision
> or the claims that influenced it.

No, it is not. The concept papers are available, as are copies of the
"scripts" for the exhibit. Those were the items under *contention*,
for gosh sakes, and many of them are available for you to peruse on
the web via the cite I have provided to you.

>
> I have no doubt that the debate over both 1945 and 1995 will continue
> for a long time and various people will continue to make various claims
> about what should and shouldn't be said. I have no doubt that somebody
> will follow up this post with claims about what the exhibition was
> supposed to have said, but it will be impossible to prove either way
> because the evidence was ordered to be destroyed.

No, it wasn't. See above.

>
> Benjamin Franklin once said something about a country learning from its
> history and not ignoring the unpalatable bits. When a nation ignores
> part of its history, no matter how unpalatable it is, it ceases to be
> civilised. (If anybody has the exact quote, please let me know.)

What was "unpalatable" about that decision? It was total war, the
Japanese started it, they refused the unconditional surrender offered,
and we undoubtedly saved a lot of US and allied lives by bombing
versus invading (and likely saved as many or more Japanese lives).
Very palatable. What is unpalatable is putting up an exhibit about the
end of the war, and the things that led to that point, with sixteen
graphic photos of Japanese casualties for every one photo an American
casualty, with ten "aggressive" anti-Japanese US period quotes to one
aggressive anti-American Japanese period quote (odd, as they were the
folks who started the fracas), etc., and then trying to claim that it
is *really* quite fair and balanced. No wonder that so many japanese
have a problem accepting responsibility for their actions leading to
and during the war, when groups like NASM were so prepared to place
the lion's share of the responsibility on the US...

Brooks

>
> Cheers
> David

[John Keeney]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
> > >
> > > Quoting what was posted in another forum:
> > >
> > > "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
> > > particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
> > >
> > > Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
> >
> > I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
> > that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
> > bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
> > surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
> > and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.
> > To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
> > misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
> > organisation!
> >
> > An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
> > find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
> > aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
> > -- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
> > comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
> > noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
> > Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
> > it) will help a little bit to correct that.
> >
> > I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
> > involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
> > communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
> > with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
> > find a way to deal with something like this.
> >
> > The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> > of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
> > will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
> > this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
> > is worth trying.
>
> I totally agree with this, and I believe that is also a possible solution
> being discussed at the highest levels.
> The aircraft should and probably will be displayed with absolutely no
> attempt to project agenda or conclusion . The effect will be as one
viewing
> a fine painting in a gallery; reflection. The controversy is just too
> intense...too divisive to do it any other way.
> The Enola Gay is part of American history. It should be presented in that
> context alone, with a simple notation that defines the part of history to
> which the aircraft belongs. The final thoughts on the matter should be
> silently left to the viewer.
> I believe this is how it will be done.
> Dudley Henriques

If it was up to me, there would be two plaques: one, the basic museum
spill as to particulars of this *type* of plane; two, one telling why *this*
plane is historically important: something like "The Enola Gay was the
plane from which the first... 1945."
Each plaque need be no bigger than about 24"x18" with fairly large
lettering to boot.

[Cub Driver]

>The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
>of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific.

Been there, done that! NASM got so badly burned in 1994/95, doing
exactly what you suggest, that likely it was determined not to touch
the word Hiroshima with a ten-foot pole.

I don't know what happened to the actual exhibit (though I went to it,
and walked through the Enola Gay fuselage--tiny!). I suppose the
placards were simply removed? However, the accompanying book was
pulped by Smithsonian Institution Press, and the NASM director was
famously fired.

The problem with that exhibit was that it presented Little Boy /
Hiroshima as an atrocity, without mentioning the fact that Japan was
the aggressor in the Pacific War, and one of the nastiest ever known.
That was what upset the vets, and through them the Congress.

I suppose the curators said something on the order of: Well! if they
don't want to hear what *we* have to say, then we won't say
*anything*! So there!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>If it was up to me, there would be two plaques:

NASM could carry this even further by issuing three different
explanatory brochures. They could be stacked in three piles,
identified as:

Peaceniks

Veterans

Technology Buffs

This would be keep with the general fragmentation of American society.
I went to the multi-media room (even that name tells you something!)
the other week and was struck by the university-issued sign on the
librarian's desk:

BUILD COMMUNITY - CELEBRATE DIVERSITY

as if it weren't precisely the emphasis on diversity that was
fracturing the community!






all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>If you want to see what the original exhibition focused upon, the
>info is available at www.afa.org/media/enolagay/chrono.asp. From
>reading the rather well documented chronology, and supporting memos
>and meeting records, that the AFA includes in their site, it is
>apparent that Harwit's (Museum director) claims that the concerns
>raised "were not true" is itself an incorrect (at best) or downright
>dishonest (at worst) assertion;

This tracks my recollection of the affair.

I did a lot of research at NASM in the 1980s and 1990s. Mr. Harwit's
administration was poisonous in a lot of ways, most especially to the
veterans on the staff. When Mr. Harwit was replaced, the general
feeling I picked up was one of delight.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Matt Wiser]

(Vicente Vazquez) wrote:
>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
>
>Quoting what was posted in another forum:
>
>"History is not a commodity to be modified and
>repackaged to suit the
>particular political agenda of a certain organization...
>"
>
>Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
As someone with a BA and MA in history, I fully agree with the above quotation.
History is not meant to be PC. You tell it like it was.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Dudley Henriques]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
> > > >
> > > > Quoting what was posted in another forum:
> > > >
> > > > "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit
the
> > > > particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
> > > >
> > > > Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
> > >
> > > I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
> > > that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
> > > bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
> > > surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
> > > and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.
> > > To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
> > > misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
> > > organisation!
> > >
> > > An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
> > > find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
> > > aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
> > > -- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
> > > comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
> > > noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
> > > Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
> > > it) will help a little bit to correct that.
> > >
> > > I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
> > > involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a
better
> > > communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
> > > with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
> > > find a way to deal with something like this.
> > >
> > > The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> > > of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
> > > will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
> > > this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
> > > is worth trying.
> >
> > I totally agree with this, and I believe that is also a possible
solution
> > being discussed at the highest levels.
> > The aircraft should and probably will be displayed with absolutely no
> > attempt to project agenda or conclusion . The effect will be as one
> viewing
> > a fine painting in a gallery; reflection. The controversy is just too
> > intense...too divisive to do it any other way.
> > The Enola Gay is part of American history. It should be presented in
that
> > context alone, with a simple notation that defines the part of history
to
> > which the aircraft belongs. The final thoughts on the matter should be
> > silently left to the viewer.
> > I believe this is how it will be done.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> If it was up to me, there would be two plaques: one, the basic museum
> spill as to particulars of this *type* of plane; two, one telling why
*this*
> plane is historically important: something like "The Enola Gay was the
> plane from which the first... 1945."
> Each plaque need be no bigger than about 24"x18" with fairly large
> lettering to boot.

The problem with the Enola Gay is that the plane and the events connected
with it represent a pivotal point, perhaps THE pivotal point in world
history. As such, it's a symbol that instantly galvanizes ordinary people
into the various categories in which they view both the airplane and the
events connected with it. The dropping of the first atomic bomb is perhaps
the most world wide galvanizing moment that has occurred on the planet. The
act, and the implications of the act, as it was occurring transcend all
conceptions of right and wrong. It simply changed the world we live in
forever. In fact, the implications are so vast, and so deeply buried in the
human existence on the planet, that the political aspects of the event pale
before the event itself.
This poses, or should pose at least, a HUGE problem for anyone designing a
permanent display for the Enola Gay. People will be coming from all over the
world to view the airplane; people whose lives have been affected, right or
wrong, by the events connected with the plane. When one considers the huge
divide on these issues in the United States alone, one only begins to
comprehend the complexity of displaying the Enola Gay properly for history.
I have always believed that the presentation of true history demands an
honesty that is quite difficult to obtain. Very few historians have managed
to reach this level of "honesty". It requires that one present all sides of
the issues. This is the easy part of historical presentation. The hard part
is the conclusions. This is where agenda and political correctness rear
their ugly heads. This is where history gets "skewed" to one viewpoint or
another. Historians have to be careful when dealing with something like the
Enola Gay. Although the event the airplane represents involved an American
decision, that decision has far deeper implications than American history.
I believe in the special case of the Gay, history should be presented
plainly as it occurred and without "conclusion". People should be allowed to
view the exhibit completely devoid of any conclusion concerning the events
associated with the airplane.
The dropping of the first Atomic Bomb should be an event worthy of deep
reflection and personal thought. The objective of the display should not be
to place blame, or right or wrong. The overpowering objective should be to
encourage people by what's NOT said or printed, to go home to wherever they
live on the planet after viewing the display, and THINK about war, and the
results of war.
The Enola Gay can of course be presented in a pure historical form, or with
a hidden political agenda. The later didn't work before and was a bad idea
from the starting gate. I'm sure they won't make this mistake again. The
pure historical path seems cold to me somehow. It neglects the human factor,
which in this specific case, I believe is wholly relevant to history. The
Enola Gay isn't really an American issue. It isn't a Japanese issue either.
It's a world issue, and how it's finally presented to that world will in
part determine how that world views those who presented it.
It's a difficult and demanding task that requires an extremely delicate
approach.
We'll see if the Smithsonian is up to it!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:31:43 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
om...
>
>>
>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
>>
>> Quoting what was posted in another forum:
>>
>> "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
>> particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
>>
>> Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
>
>I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
>that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
>bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
>surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
>and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.

The aircraft, her crew, etc did not make the (correct) decision to drop
the device, why should it be a part of their history?

>To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
>misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
>organisation!

Actually it was and is. Of course, this is in addition to its other
roles (SAR, Combat, recon, etc.)
>
>An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
>find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
>aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
>-- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
>comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
>noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
>Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
>it) will help a little bit to correct that.
>
>I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
>involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
>communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
>with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
>find a way to deal with something like this.
>
>The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
>of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
>will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
>this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
>is worth trying.

Yes, it is. The question is whether to display the Enola Gay, or
a bunch of idiots questioning the legitimate use of a weapon of
war. I would vote for a display that centered on the facts, and
just the facts.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:52:53 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
>> "Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>> >
>>
>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
>> >
>> > Quoting what was posted in another forum:
>> >
>> > "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
>> > particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
>> >
>> > Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
>>
>> I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
>> that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
>> bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
>> surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
>> and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.
>> To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
>> misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
>> organisation!
>>
>> An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
>> find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
>> aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
>> -- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
>> comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
>> noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
>> Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
>> it) will help a little bit to correct that.
>>
>> I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
>> involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
>> communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
>> with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
>> find a way to deal with something like this.
>>
>> The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
>> of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
>> will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
>> this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
>> is worth trying.
>
>I totally agree with this, and I believe that is also a possible solution
>being discussed at the highest levels.
>The aircraft should and probably will be displayed with absolutely no
>attempt to project agenda or conclusion . The effect will be as one viewing
>a fine painting in a gallery; reflection. The controversy is just too
>intense...too divisive to do it any other way.
>The Enola Gay is part of American history. It should be presented in that
>context alone, with a simple notation that defines the part of history to
>which the aircraft belongs. The final thoughts on the matter should be
>silently left to the viewer.
>I believe this is how it will be done.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
Rats, I wish I had said that :-))

Al Minyard

[Thomas Schoene]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> Yes, it is. The question is whether to display the Enola Gay, or
> a bunch of idiots questioning the legitimate use of a weapon of
> war. I would vote for a display that centered on the facts, and
> just the facts.

I'm very surprised there is reportedly no mention on the plaque, since the
various Smithsonian websites that mention the plane all seem to mention the
bomb. For example:

"During the war in the Pacific Theater, the B-29 delivered the first nuclear
weapons used in combat. On August 6, 1945, Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., in
command of the Superfortress "Enola Gay," dropped an atomic bomb on
Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, Major Charles W. Sweeney piloted another
B-29 named "Bockscar" and dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan.
On August 14, 1945, the Japanese accepted Allied terms for unconditional
surrender.

....

"Late in 1944, AAF leaders selected the Martin assembly line to produce a
batch of Superfortress atomic bombers codenamed "Silverplate" aircraft.
Martin modified these special B-29s by deleting all gun turrets except for
the tail position, removing armor plate, installing Curtiss electric
propellers, and configuring the bomb bay to accommodate either the "Fat Man"
or "Little Boy" versions of the atomic bomb. The AAF assigned 15 Silverplate
ships to the 509th Composite Group commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets and he
named his personal B-29 "Enola Gay" after his mother."

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/boeing_b29.htm

I hope that the final exhibit at Udvaz-Hazy will have something similar.
Remember that the museum does not open for a month or so, so there is time
for additions. As of Monday, Enola Gay was still up on jacks, so it seems
likely that her display is not yet final. You can see her in a web cam at:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/interact/webcams/uhc1/uhc1vt.cfm

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

> BUILD COMMUNITY - CELEBRATE DIVERSITY
>
> as if it weren't precisely the emphasis on diversity that was
> fracturing the community!

Here at UMass, there are actual administration positions that
deal with enhancing "diversity". Pay is pretty good from what
I've read!

Although I have no problems with trying to get greater "variety"
of ethnicities, religion, and points of view on a college campus,
I've come to the conclusion "diversity" is really nothing more
than a "code word" meaning [political] liberal point of view.


SMH

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:31:43 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
>
> >"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> >>
> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
> >>
> >> Quoting what was posted in another forum:
> >>
> >> "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
> >> particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
> >>
> >> Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
> >
> >I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
> >that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
> >bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
> >surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
> >and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.
>
> The aircraft, her crew, etc did not make the (correct) decision to drop
> the device, why should it be a part of their history?

Where does such idiocy come from? The bombing of Hiroshima with an
atomic weapon changed everything. "Enola Gay" is known by everyone for
dropping the bomb and unleashing horrible destruction. If the NASM
wanted to display a B-29 for its technical merits they could have
refubished some other airframe. Like it or not "Enola Gay" is the
world's first nuclear bomber and her crew well known. The destruction
in Hiroshima is also well known and not equal to the attack on Pearl
Harbor nor the bombing of Tokyo. Was it justified? No. Japan was
almost finished by Aug 1945, the conventional B-29 attacks taking
their toll. That's where the controversy begins and it should be
addressed in any display at the NASM.
>
> >To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
> >misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
> >organisation!
>
> Actually it was and is. Of course, this is in addition to its other
> roles (SAR, Combat, recon, etc.)
> >
The bombing of Hiroshima was NOT a research run Al. It was the
destruction of a city with a war weapon of extreme magnitude compared
with the conventional bombs of the day. And the radiation consequences
postwar were not known at the time the bomb was dropped.

> >An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
> >find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
> >aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
> >-- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
> >comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
> >noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
> >Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
> >it) will help a little bit to correct that.
> >
> >I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
> >involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
> >communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
> >with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
> >find a way to deal with something like this.
> >
> >The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> >of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
> >will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
> >this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
> >is worth trying.
>
> Yes, it is. The question is whether to display the Enola Gay, or
> a bunch of idiots questioning the legitimate use of a weapon of
> war. I would vote for a display that centered on the facts, and
> just the facts.
>
> Al Minyard

Any effective display needs to present both sides of the coin. "Why"
we felt justified in dropping the weapon vs the "consequences" for
Japan and the world afterward. Nuclear weapons are a grave threat to
humanity and even a Hiroshima-size bomb detonating in an American city
today would be infinately more devastating than losing the Twin Towers
on 9/11.
If you hide behind the "legitimacy" argument then please read the
story of Sadako and the 1000 cranes. Nuking Japan was a short-cut to
end the war but the moral question (like the bombing of Dresden) is
was it morally justified? In 1945 we believed in it but after the
effects of radiation became known in the postwar era along with the
introduction of thermonuclear weapons many people today (including the
older generation) have reconsidered their views. All of that needs to
be addressed in the display. This isn't revisionist history just some
soul-searching...

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:56:01 GMT, "Matt Wiser" > wrote:

>
> (Vicente Vazquez) wrote:
>>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
>>
>>Quoting what was posted in another forum:
>>
>>"History is not a commodity to be modified and
>>repackaged to suit the
>>particular political agenda of a certain organization...
>>"
>>
>>Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
> As someone with a BA and MA in history, I fully agree with the above quotation.
>History is not meant to be PC. You tell it like it was.
>
>Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

I hear by nominate you as the next head of the NASM.

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:31:43 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
> >
> > >"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > >>
> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
> > >>
> > >> Quoting what was posted in another forum:
> > >>
> > >> "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
> > >> particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
> > >>
> > >> Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
> > >
> > >I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
> > >that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
> > >bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
> > >surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
> > >and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.
> >
> > The aircraft, her crew, etc did not make the (correct) decision to drop
> > the device, why should it be a part of their history?
>
> Where does such idiocy come from? The bombing of Hiroshima with an
> atomic weapon changed everything. "Enola Gay" is known by everyone for
> dropping the bomb and unleashing horrible destruction.

It did not "unleash" the horrible destruction; it did, however, help
end it. Kind of like setting a backfire to control a forest fire you
had nothing to do with starting.

If the NASM
> wanted to display a B-29 for its technical merits they could have
> refubished some other airframe. Like it or not "Enola Gay" is the
> world's first nuclear bomber and her crew well known. The destruction
> in Hiroshima is also well known and not equal to the attack on Pearl
> Harbor nor the bombing of Tokyo.

Of course it is not "equal"; rarely is the objective in warfare to
obtain "equality" with your foe, though.

> Was it justified? No.

In your strange opinion. Little wonder, being as you have a
demonstrated tendancy to support the Axis side in most of these
discussions.

Japan was
> almost finished by Aug 1945,

"Almost finished" does not cut the mustard. "Almost winning" would not
have been a satisfactory outcome to the war. Not to mention that you
are using the advantage of post-conflict analysis to make that
deduction; the troops who stormed islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa
did not find them to be "almost finished".

> the conventional B-29 attacks taking
> their toll.

Yes, they were taking their toll, but no, that had yet to break the
Japanese will. I guess you would have found it quite acceptable to
continue the incendiary attacks, visiting the same fate that Tokyo
found on other Japanese metropolitan areas, with the accompanying high
death tolls (doubtless greater than what they ended up suffering in
the two nuclear attacks) and continued attritionary losses of US
personnel?

> That's where the controversy begins and it should be
> addressed in any display at the NASM.

I prefer the approach advanced by others in this forum, where the
simple facts are stated and you are left to draw your own conclusions.

> >
> > >To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
> > >misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
> > >organisation!
> >
> > Actually it was and is. Of course, this is in addition to its other
> > roles (SAR, Combat, recon, etc.)
> > >
> The bombing of Hiroshima was NOT a research run Al. It was the
> destruction of a city with a war weapon of extreme magnitude compared
> with the conventional bombs of the day. And the radiation consequences
> postwar were not known at the time the bomb was dropped.

So what?

>
> > >An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
> > >find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
> > >aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
> > >-- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
> > >comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
> > >noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
> > >Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
> > >it) will help a little bit to correct that.
> > >
> > >I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
> > >involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
> > >communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
> > >with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
> > >find a way to deal with something like this.
> > >
> > >The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> > >of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
> > >will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
> > >this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
> > >is worth trying.
> >
> > Yes, it is. The question is whether to display the Enola Gay, or
> > a bunch of idiots questioning the legitimate use of a weapon of
> > war. I would vote for a display that centered on the facts, and
> > just the facts.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> Any effective display needs to present both sides of the coin.

Which NASM proved unwilling, or unable, to do in the 93-95 timeframe.
Why do you think a new attempt will be any more successful (though
admittedly the absense of that ninny Harwit would make it a somewhat
easier proposition)?

> "Why"
> we felt justified in dropping the weapon vs the "consequences" for
> Japan and the world afterward. Nuclear weapons are a grave threat to
> humanity and even a Hiroshima-size bomb detonating in an American city
> today would be infinately more devastating than losing the Twin Towers
> on 9/11.
> If you hide behind the "legitimacy" argument then please read the
> story of Sadako and the 1000 cranes. Nuking Japan was a short-cut to
> end the war but the moral question (like the bombing of Dresden) is
> was it morally justified? In 1945 we believed in it but after the
> effects of radiation became known in the postwar era along with the
> introduction of thermonuclear weapons many people today (including the
> older generation) have reconsidered their views. All of that needs to
> be addressed in the display. This isn't revisionist history just some
> soul-searching...

Gee, you must have missed that petition against the earlier display
plans that was signed by some 5,000 members of that "older
generation", specificaly ones who flew B-29's during the war. Be
careful speaking for that "older generation". My father was pulling
B-29 missions over Japan when this all came about--he still to this
day remains firmly convinced that dropping the bomb was the correct
decision. Considering the losses we would have sustained in a ground
invasion of the home islands that assessment is still defendable;
placing your post-conflict analysis hat on, we now know that the
Japanese also would have likely lost even more lives not only
defending against that invasion, but due to the lengthened period of
hardship and starvation that would have resulted for *all* of the
Japanese people.

Brooks

>
> Rob

[Tex Houston]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> It did not "unleash" the horrible destruction; it did, however, help
> end it. Kind of like setting a backfire to control a forest fire you
> had nothing to do with starting.
> Brooks


From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force
Magazine".

THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

Tex Houston

[[email protected]]

"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
>"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
>IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
>
>Tex Houston
>
Says it all (in this regard) doesn't it...
--

-Gord.

[KenG]

Absafraggin'loutly....
My 2 cents worth.
Dropping the bomb was an abominable thing to do, it really was...
And I hate the Japanese for making us do it.

KenG

wrote:
> "Tex Houston" > wrote:
>
>
>>THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
>>"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
>>IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
>>
>>Tex Houston
>>
>
> Says it all (in this regard) doesn't it...
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Rick Folkers]

What a fool. You think it better to lose 100,000+ American lives than drop
the bomb
on the people who started the war. You obviously have never served in the
military or
been responsible for the lives of men serving under your command. Once you
have
experienced that responsibility you do what you need to to minimize the loss
of life
to your own people. Thank whatever powers that be that you have not been
responsible for any American lives.



"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:31:43 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:
> >
> > >"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > >>
> >
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0
e0b1ac6c51
> > >>
> > >> Quoting what was posted in another forum:
> > >>
> > >> "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
> > >> particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
> > >>
> > >> Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
> > >
> > >I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
> > >that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
> > >bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
> > >surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
> > >and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.
> >
> > The aircraft, her crew, etc did not make the (correct) decision to drop
> > the device, why should it be a part of their history?
>
> Where does such idiocy come from? The bombing of Hiroshima with an
> atomic weapon changed everything. "Enola Gay" is known by everyone for
> dropping the bomb and unleashing horrible destruction. If the NASM
> wanted to display a B-29 for its technical merits they could have
> refubished some other airframe. Like it or not "Enola Gay" is the
> world's first nuclear bomber and her crew well known. The destruction
> in Hiroshima is also well known and not equal to the attack on Pearl
> Harbor nor the bombing of Tokyo. Was it justified? No. Japan was
> almost finished by Aug 1945, the conventional B-29 attacks taking
> their toll. That's where the controversy begins and it should be
> addressed in any display at the NASM.
> >
> > >To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
> > >misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
> > >organisation!
> >
> > Actually it was and is. Of course, this is in addition to its other
> > roles (SAR, Combat, recon, etc.)
> > >
> The bombing of Hiroshima was NOT a research run Al. It was the
> destruction of a city with a war weapon of extreme magnitude compared
> with the conventional bombs of the day. And the radiation consequences
> postwar were not known at the time the bomb was dropped.
>
> > >An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
> > >find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
> > >aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
> > >-- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
> > >comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
> > >noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
> > >Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
> > >it) will help a little bit to correct that.
> > >
> > >I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
> > >involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
> > >communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
> > >with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
> > >find a way to deal with something like this.
> > >
> > >The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> > >of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
> > >will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
> > >this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
> > >is worth trying.
> >
> > Yes, it is. The question is whether to display the Enola Gay, or
> > a bunch of idiots questioning the legitimate use of a weapon of
> > war. I would vote for a display that centered on the facts, and
> > just the facts.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> Any effective display needs to present both sides of the coin. "Why"
> we felt justified in dropping the weapon vs the "consequences" for
> Japan and the world afterward. Nuclear weapons are a grave threat to
> humanity and even a Hiroshima-size bomb detonating in an American city
> today would be infinately more devastating than losing the Twin Towers
> on 9/11.
> If you hide behind the "legitimacy" argument then please read the
> story of Sadako and the 1000 cranes. Nuking Japan was a short-cut to
> end the war but the moral question (like the bombing of Dresden) is
> was it morally justified? In 1945 we believed in it but after the
> effects of radiation became known in the postwar era along with the
> introduction of thermonuclear weapons many people today (including the
> older generation) have reconsidered their views. All of that needs to
> be addressed in the display. This isn't revisionist history just some
> soul-searching...
>
> Rob

[robert arndt]

> I hear by nominate you as the next head of the NASM.
>
> Al Minyard

Does the NASM have a men's room? If so, I hereby nominate Al Minyard
for an attendant position. He's qualified!

Rob

[Cub Driver]

Any reasonable (if that's still possible) evaluation of the bomb (as
opposed to Enola Gay) would also have to address the fact that no one
in a position of authority knew what its effects would be. The plans
for Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu planned for November 1945, called
for *two* atomic bombs to be allocated to each beach. (I think there
were ten beaches.)

The first bomb was to be exploded near the shore just before the
American troops (and some from the British Commonwealth) went in.

The second was to be held in reserve in case the Japanese managed to
launch a heavy counterstrike against the beach.

That a million friendlies were to be marched through atomic debris
shows how tenuous was the grasp of radioactivy in the summer of 1945.

(It also shows how far from "finished" the men in Washington regarded
the Empire of Japan.)

www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Any reasonable (if that's still possible) evaluation of the bomb (as
> opposed to Enola Gay) would also have to address the fact that no one
> in a position of authority knew what its effects would be. The plans
> for Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu planned for November 1945, called
> for *two* atomic bombs to be allocated to each beach. (I think there
> were ten beaches.)
>

Well sort of.

The plans for Olympic as actually drawn up didnt include the
use of atomic weapons since the planners didnt know of their
existence !

Its likely that had the invasion actually gone ahead such weapons
would have been used and there was some discussion along the
lines you mention but no formal plans were drawn up to my knowledge.

Its clear that the original plans in Olympic grossly underestimated Japanese
strength at 229,000. By July it was realised that the true force was
nearer 700,000 and it was then that Marshall suggested it might
be necessary to use nuclear weapons prior to invasion. It
was also suggested that massive attacks with chemical weapons
be made IRC

There's a nice article on the subject at

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/

The estimated number of Japanese casualties in such an invasion
even without the use of nuclear weapons was in excess of
2 million.

Keith

[Thomas Schoene]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> "Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>
>
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0
e0b1ac6c51
>>
>> Quoting what was posted in another forum:
>>
>> "History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
>> particular political agenda of a certain organization... "
>>
>> Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
>
> I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
> that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
> bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
> surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
> and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.

Today's Washington Post has more on the exhibit. It does in fact include
the statment: "On August 6, 1945, this Martin-built B0-29-45-MO dropped the
first atomic bomb used in combat on Hiroshima, Japan."

It does not discuss the issues surrounding that decision, which seems to be
in keeping with how other items at the museum are displayed. Udvar-Hazy is
not (AFAIK) doing extensive interpretive exhibitions, just displaying the
aircraft and the bare minimum of historical data.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6401-2003Nov5.html
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Matt Wiser]

Alan Minyard > wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:56:01 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> (Vicente Vazquez)
>wrote:
>>>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=63b39e56-def3-48d5-8543-b0e0b1ac6c51
>>>
>>>Quoting what was posted in another forum:
>>>
>>>"History is not a commodity to be modified
>and
>>>repackaged to suit the
>>>particular political agenda of a certain organization...
>>>"
>>>
>>>Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...
>> As someone with a BA and MA in history, I
>fully agree with the above quotation.
>>History is not meant to be PC. You tell it
>like it was.
>>
>>Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news
>gateway for usenet access!
>
>I hear by nominate you as the next head of the
>NASM.
>
>Al Minyard
Thank you. Hope you keep that in mind when they have their next fiasco
over an exhibit.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[robert arndt]

"Rick Folkers" > wrote in message >...
> What a fool. You think it better to lose 100,000+ American lives than drop
> the bomb
> on the people who started the war. You obviously have never served in the
> military or
> been responsible for the lives of men serving under your command. Once you
> have
> experienced that responsibility you do what you need to to minimize the loss
> of life
> to your own people. Thank whatever powers that be that you have not been
> responsible for any American lives.

Not a fool at all, just commenting on the difference between military
justification and moral justification.
Some people believe that morality goes out the window in war yet
America always claims to be above everyone else in its treatment of
our enemies.
When the A-bomb was tested the scientists didn't want it used. Truman
thought otherwise for the very reason you state- to save American (and
Japanese) lives, preventing a long guerilla war that could have lasted
a decade. I agree with that too.
But on the moral level the answer is no. The A-bombs weren't needed to
finish off Japan who by Aug 1945 were making weapons in cottage
industries with unskilled labor (many of them school children).
Truman must have had some morality left in him too because he called
off the nuclear bombing of Japan after the second bomb. Number 3 was
on its way and was recalled. So, its not just my opinion historically
speaking.
And even if there are protests by veterans over the historical use of
the B-29/Little Boy, there are also those who have changed their views
over the past 6 decades.
The display at the NASM needs to reflect that IMO.

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rick Folkers" > wrote in message
>...
> > What a fool. You think it better to lose 100,000+ American lives than
drop
> > the bomb
> > on the people who started the war. You obviously have never served in
the
> > military or
> > been responsible for the lives of men serving under your command. Once
you
> > have
> > experienced that responsibility you do what you need to to minimize the
loss
> > of life
> > to your own people. Thank whatever powers that be that you have not
been
> > responsible for any American lives.
>
> Not a fool at all, just commenting on the difference between military
> justification and moral justification.
> Some people believe that morality goes out the window in war yet
> America always claims to be above everyone else in its treatment of
> our enemies.
> When the A-bomb was tested the scientists didn't want it used.

Nobody including Truman WANTED to use it but many of the
scientists approved of its use and indeed went on to design the
next generation of nuclear weapons.
>
Truman
> thought otherwise for the very reason you state- to save American (and
> Japanese) lives, preventing a long guerilla war that could have lasted
> a decade. I agree with that too.
> But on the moral level the answer is no. The A-bombs weren't needed to
> finish off Japan who by Aug 1945 were making weapons in cottage
> industries with unskilled labor (many of them school children).

Thats not the way to judge the moral issues.

Yes the USA COULD have defeated Japan without using the bomb
but its hardly a moral choice to kill 2 million people instead of 200,000.


> Truman must have had some morality left in him too because he called
> off the nuclear bombing of Japan after the second bomb. Number 3 was
> on its way and was recalled. So, its not just my opinion historically
> speaking.

In fact we know Truman was considering ordering
a third strike on Tokyo when the Japanese surrendered

> And even if there are protests by veterans over the historical use of
> the B-29/Little Boy, there are also those who have changed their views
> over the past 6 decades.
> The display at the NASM needs to reflect that IMO.

It should also address the issue that thousands of people
including Chinese civilians , Japanese citizens, Allied Soldiers
and POW's were dying every week the war dragged on.

The fighting didnt stop while all this happened, there was a
war being waged in Malaya, China and Borneo as well
as at sea and in the air.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>Its likely that had the invasion actually gone ahead such weapons
>would have been used and there was some discussion along the
>lines you mention but no formal plans were drawn up to my knowledge.

The bombs were in the plans as of the first of August, as published a
few years ago.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>The notion that the war would have ended quickly, merely
>because the Japanese had clearly lost it, is nonsensical. The
>Japanese had clearly lost the war by late 1943, the Germans
>in early 1944. The war continued nevertheless well into 1945
>on both fronts. Humans simply are not that rational.

Reading the radiograms that were coming into and going out of Spaatz's
headquarters in August 1945 is an amazing experience. The lads on
Tinian were preparing to drop the third bomb, gearing up to get the
Canadian Tiger Force and Jimmy Doolittle's 8th Air Force onto Okinawa,
and getting Boeing to modify the B-29 to hold a Grand Slam (whatever;
I can never keep them straight) under each wing -- at the same time
that they were trying to figure out how to put the first occupation
force into Tokyo.

Same feeling to read the debates of the Japanese war cabinet.

The war was running on autopilot by that time.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Today's Washington Post has more on the exhibit. It does in fact include
>the statment: "On August 6, 1945, this Martin-built B0-29-45-MO dropped the
>first atomic bomb used in combat on Hiroshima, Japan."

Yes, it does begin to seem that the display is more reasonable than
earlier portrayed.

Even the protestors (they include Gar Alperovitz, whom the Post
hilariously describes as an economist--he's the revisionist historian
of Hiroshima as war crime) seem to be backing off their original
statement:

"Kuznick said yesterday that the committee strongly objects to the
museum showing the plane as a technological achievement while omitting
more of its historical context, including the controversies leading up
to the bombing and the casualties."

In other words, it doesn't say what he wants it to say.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

> Has a professorship of 'political
>economy', whatever that is, at some university.

The University of Maryland is not "some university."


Chris Mark

[Kevin Brooks]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
>
> > Has a professorship of 'political
> >economy', whatever that is, at some university.
>
> The University of Maryland is not "some university."
>
>
> Chris Mark

True; all evidence currently indicates it is a veritable hotbed of
professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into whatever
field they so choose at that moment.

Brooks

[Chris Mark]

>rom: brooksvmi@yah

>True; all evidence currently indicates it is a veritable hotbed of
>professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into whatever
>field they so choose at that moment.
>

Any examples?


Chris Mark

[Kevin Brooks]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> >rom: brooksvmi@yah
>
> >True; all evidence currently indicates it is a veritable hotbed of
> >professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into whatever
> >field they so choose at that moment.
> >
>
> Any examples?

The gent mentioned and one who sometimes contributes to this NG (amongst others).

Brooks

>
>
> Chris Mark

[Cub Driver]

>> Even the protestors (they include Gar Alperovitz, whom the Post
>> hilariously describes as an economist--he's the revisionist historian
>> of Hiroshima as war crime) seem to be backing off their original
>
>AFAIK he IS an economist. Has a professorship of 'political
>economy', whatever that is, at some university.

Anyone who knows the name Gar Alperovitz, with the possible exception
of his mail-carrier and milkman, knows him as the author of books and
articles about Hiroshima. A newspaper that would describe him as an
economist would also characterize Albert Einstein as a Princeton
professor, or George W. Bush as the former owner of the Texas Rangers.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>>True; all evidence currently indicates it is a veritable hotbed of
>>professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into whatever
>>field they so choose at that moment.
>>
>
>Any examples?

Gar Alperovitz?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chris Mark]

>rom: brooksvmi

>> >True; all evidence currently indicates it is a veritable hotbed of
>> >professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into whatever
>> >field they so choose at that moment.

>> Any examples?

>The gent mentioned

If you mean Gar Alperovitz, I take it that you disagree with his views on the
atomic bombings. Fair enough. So do I. But I don't think that is sufficient
"evidence" to damn the University of Maryland as "a veritable hotbed of
professors who enjoy exaggerating their 'expertise' into whatever field they so
choose at that moment." That's more a description of every university
everywhere. Or people in bars. Or people in newsgroups.

My point, which seems to have been lost, is that the University of Maryland is
not merely "some" university, so insignificant that its name is not worth
mentioning. It's at least as worthy of mention as, say, the University of
Antwerp.




Chris Mark

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:47:10 +1100, David Bromage
> wrote:

>Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> > The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> > of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific.
>
>That's what NASM wanted to do in 1995. The Smithsonian argued at the
>time that it presented the context in which the decision to drop the
>bomb was made and the historical significance of its use. Anyone who has
>been to the Smithsonian will know it is a serious research institution
>which presents facts rather than opinions.
>
Well, while I while bow to the reputation of the Institution at large,
I stumble when I visit the Air & Space Museum. I walked through in
2000 with a friend, eager to show some of the aviation history that I
was involved in. I found WW I dioramas with biplane fighters and WW II
historic tactical aircraft from the European Theater and the Pacific.
I found research vehicles and satellite launch platforms, manned
capsules and rockets. But I didn't find a single tactical century
series aircraft. Oh sure, there was a white and blue NASA NF-104, but
there wasn't an F-100 or a 105 or an F-4 or an A-6 or an F-8. As far
as I could tell from NASM, the entire ten years of war in Southeast
Asia had never occurred.

Is this revisionism or am I just biased?

Hopefully the new facility, outside the beltway will allow some truths
to be revealed.

[Leslie Swartz]

Ed:

Come visit the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH. Much better- more
complete, more exhibits, no political B.S. Plan on spending at least 2.5
days to cover it all. That will allow you about 5 minutes per exhibit.

The "National Air and Space [sic] Museum" is about on par with that of any
typical western country; i.e., it sucks.

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:47:10 +1100, David Bromage
> > wrote:
>
> >Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> > > The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
> > > of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific.
> >
> >That's what NASM wanted to do in 1995. The Smithsonian argued at the
> >time that it presented the context in which the decision to drop the
> >bomb was made and the historical significance of its use. Anyone who has
> >been to the Smithsonian will know it is a serious research institution
> >which presents facts rather than opinions.
> >
> Well, while I while bow to the reputation of the Institution at large,
> I stumble when I visit the Air & Space Museum. I walked through in
> 2000 with a friend, eager to show some of the aviation history that I
> was involved in. I found WW I dioramas with biplane fighters and WW II
> historic tactical aircraft from the European Theater and the Pacific.
> I found research vehicles and satellite launch platforms, manned
> capsules and rockets. But I didn't find a single tactical century
> series aircraft. Oh sure, there was a white and blue NASA NF-104, but
> there wasn't an F-100 or a 105 or an F-4 or an A-6 or an F-8. As far
> as I could tell from NASM, the entire ten years of war in Southeast
> Asia had never occurred.
>
> Is this revisionism or am I just biased?
>
> Hopefully the new facility, outside the beltway will allow some truths
> to be revealed.
>
>
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>Well, while I while bow to the reputation of the Institution at large,
>I stumble when I visit the Air & Space Museum. I walked through in
>2000 with a friend, eager to show some of the aviation history that I
>was involved in. I found WW I dioramas with biplane fighters and WW II
>historic tactical aircraft from the European Theater and the Pacific.
>I found research vehicles and satellite launch platforms, manned
>capsules and rockets. But I didn't find a single tactical century
>series aircraft. Oh sure, there was a white and blue NASA NF-104, but
>there wasn't an F-100 or a 105 or an F-4 or an A-6 or an F-8. As far
>as I could tell from NASM, the entire ten years of war in Southeast
>Asia had never occurred.

I definitely and clearly remember a bombed-up A-4 Skyhawk, if that helps
(and I was there in October 2000). It was set up as part of a diorama of
carrier deck ops with Vietnam implied. I _think_ there was an A-1
hanging from the ceiling, but there was certainly a Skyhawk with lots of
Mark 82s on MERs sitting as if awaiting its cat shot (caught my memory
because I do have a very fond spot for the Skyhawk). I could be snide
about how Ed missed the Navy input, but then where was the Air Force
contribution?

I enjoyed NASM, don't recall precisely all exhibits, but the paired
SS-20 / Pershing 2 in the main entrance caught my attention as a young
Cold War survivor.


That said... compared to Duxford, the post-1950s were very poorly
represented. Duxford had a Vulcan, a TSR.2, a Tornado GR.1, a F-111, two
F-4s (one USN, one RAF), B-52 (no F-105 that I noticed, which is a pity
- sorry, Ed) and IIRC a Buccaneer (all offhand) - while NASM seemed to
start at Kitty Hawk and mostly end shortly after Yeager.

>Is this revisionism or am I just biased?

Could be faulty memory for both of us, but Ed may have a point.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:49:28 -0500, "Leslie Swartz"
> wrote:

>Ed:
>
> Come visit the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH. Much better- more
>complete, more exhibits, no political B.S. Plan on spending at least 2.5
>days to cover it all. That will allow you about 5 minutes per exhibit.
>
>The "National Air and Space [sic] Museum" is about on par with that of any
>typical western country; i.e., it sucks.
>
>Steve Swartz

Funny you should mention that. I was at Columbus OH this week, doing a
presentation and book signing at the Columbus Metro Library (a
beautiful facility, I might add.)

Some folks were there who indicated that they had attended a number of
presentations at the AF Museum and indicating that I was able to keep
more folks awake than some speakers they had seen. They indicated they
might propose to the folks at Dayton that they invite me.

Last time I was at W-P to visit the AF Museum, most of it was parked
outside. That would have been around 1962!


>

[Tex Houston]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> That said... compared to Duxford, the post-1950s were very poorly
> represented. Duxford had a Vulcan, a TSR.2, a Tornado GR.1, a F-111, two
> F-4s (one USN, one RAF), B-52 (no F-105 that I noticed, which is a pity
> - sorry, Ed) and IIRC a Buccaneer (all offhand) - while NASM seemed to
> start at Kitty Hawk and mostly end shortly after Yeager.
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Believe they now have (shipped from AMARC) 59-1822 which I think will be
restored as Don Kutyna's "Polish Glider". Probably not yet in restoration.

Tex Houston

[Tex Houston]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That said... compared to Duxford, the post-1950s were very poorly
> > represented. Duxford had a Vulcan, a TSR.2, a Tornado GR.1, a F-111, two
> > F-4s (one USN, one RAF), B-52 (no F-105 that I noticed, which is a pity
> > - sorry, Ed) and IIRC a Buccaneer (all offhand) - while NASM seemed to
> > start at Kitty Hawk and mostly end shortly after Yeager.
> >
> > Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
>
> Believe they now have (shipped from AMARC) 59-1822 which I think will be
> restored as Don Kutyna's "Polish Glider". Probably not yet in
restoration.
>
> Tex Houston

I put "Polish Glider" "F-105D" into Google and hit this site:

http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/Hangar/2002/thud/thud.htm

Tex Houston

[Kevin Brooks]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> >rom: brooksvmi
>
> >> >True; all evidence currently indicates it is a veritable hotbed of
> >> >professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into whatever
> >> >field they so choose at that moment.
>
> >> Any examples?
>
> >The gent mentioned
>
> If you mean Gar Alperovitz, I take it that you disagree with his views on the
> atomic bombings. Fair enough. So do I. But I don't think that is sufficient
> "evidence" to damn the University of Maryland as "a veritable hotbed of
> professors who enjoy exaggerating their 'expertise' into whatever field they so
> choose at that moment." That's more a description of every university
> everywhere. Or people in bars. Or people in newsgroups.

I note that you chose to snip (without attribution--bad!) the other
example; if you have spent much time around the military newsgroups,
you'd know who I was referring to.

I used to work in a university town, and I ran into quite a few
self-professed "experts" from the faculty side who were only too
willing to expand their credentials to suit whatever situation they
felt necessary (the worst being the professor who was *sure* that the
farm adjacent to his house site was causing all kinds of illegal toxic
runoff from its farm pond because, by golly, he had a PhD in
*entymology*!). Then there was the assistant professor who was crying
about all of that terrible storm runoff that ended up in his yard
("Well, sir, if you look around you, you will note that the land
slopes upwards in three directions from your lot..."). Don't try to
impress me with the abilities of our oh-so-impressed-with-themselves
academia crowd.

>
> My point, which seems to have been lost, is that the University of Maryland is
> not merely "some" university, so insignificant that its name is not worth
> mentioning. It's at least as worthy of mention as, say, the University of
> Antwerp.

Mountain, meet mole-hill...

Brooks


>
>
>
>
> Chris Mark

[Chris Manteuffel]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...

> As far
> as I could tell from NASM, the entire ten years of war in Southeast
> Asia had never occurred.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/gal203/gal203.html#SKYHAWK

> Hopefully the new facility, outside the beltway will allow some truths
> to be revealed.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/bell_uh1h.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/cessna_o1.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/chance_vought_rf8.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/douglas_a1.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/douglas_a4.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/grumman_a6.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/lockheed_c130.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/mcdonnel_F4A_sage.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/mcdonnel_f4.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/mig21.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/NAF-100.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/republic_f105.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/sikoruh34.htm

The Huey, Bird Dog, Crusader, Skyraider, Intruder, Phantom, Fishbed,
SuperSabre, Thunderchief and Choctaw will all be on display at the
Udvar-Hazy. I'm not sure about the C-130- I'm pretty sure its at
Dulles but it's not listed as an Udvar-Hazy plane (the Museum's C-130
was in VNAF service for a while; the pilot got his family and
relatives out on it and flew it to Singapore, where it was put into
USANG service and then delievered to the Museum). Perhaps it is still
being refurbished, not sure. The remainder are on loan to other
institutions.

As for revisionism, I think other factors are at work here. One is
that the more recent planes are so enormous. The only Vietnam era
airplane on display is the Skyhawk which (ignoring the Bird Dog and
the Spad) is the lightest plane on the list (note that the Skyhawk is
painted in Vietnam colors, with a full bombload; they aren't trying to
hide the association). I'm pretty sure that at one point the Huey and
Choctaw were on display because I know I've seen them in settings much
nicer then the Garber Facility. Again, makes sense because of the
size, they are easier to work with then a Thud.

The newer planes that the museum does have are generally the ones that
make people say "cool". The Starfighter in NASA colors is an excellent
example of that. It looks fast, and with the NASA coloring you get a
hint of an experimental nature to the airplane which makes people say
"cool" some more (the F-104 generally gets a bigger reaction then the
D-558-2 when I give informal tours to friends who can't run away fast
enough- have I mentioned I've been there a lot? The D-558 of course
was the first plane to break Mach 2). The U-2 is the same sort of
thing. People look at a U-2 and say "whoa". When the X-29 exhibit was
installed about a decade ago people said "cool" to that too. Now it is
rather dated (more on that below). The one exhibit which I think could
be exchanged for a Vietnam fighter would be the early jet age one. But
I've been told that the Me-262 is something that makes people say
"wow" in ways that the XP-59 does not. Too many history channel
documentaries making people think it was worth a damn, sure, but
curators do have to respect that impulse. They need to attract the
people before they can educate them, after all. And the exhibit around
the Swallow does do a decent job of debunking a lot of the myths about
the plane, I seem to recall (though I haven't actually READ the notes
on a plane at the museum in years- have I mentioned that I've been
there a lot?)

Also, in the past decade the entire curator and restoration staff has
been pulled off of their projects to concentrate all focus on specific
tasks twice, each time for about two years. First was to get the Enola
Gay ready for its moment in the sun. The second period is ongoing, the
Century of Flight exhibit paired with the opening of the Udvar-Hazy
center has meant that no new exhibits have shown up at the Mall for
quite some time (other then the Century of Flight itself, of course).
Both of those projects screwed up any thought of normal rotation of
exhibits.

But the Udvar-Hazy center has been affecting curatorial decisions for
longer then that. When the Phantom II was delievered to NASM about a
decade ago it was slated from the beginning for what was then known as
the Dulles Annex (along with the Enterprise and the SR-71, the F-4
formed the central core of the Annex from the beginning). Because of
that, there was little internal pressure to display the Phantom II at
the Mall- it's huge and a real pain to get it set up and would cost
probably at least two other planes in display space, why bother when
the Annex will be open soon? I've talked to a docent about the
Fishbed, and he said the same dynamic worked for that plane.
(Interesting story about the Fishbed: It was delievered to NASM with a
"No questions asked, as-is, no possibility of documentation" policy by
the USAF. Apparently all the internal gauges are in Arabic. Draw your
own conclusions. The Faggot is I believe from the Chinese, though it
didn't come up in conversation.) I'd bet that similar dynamics worked
for the other jets from the Vietnam era. Now the Udvar-Hazy will open
soon and there will be a cornucopia of Vietnam planes on display.

Note that I am biased because the Air & Space Museum and the Navy Yard
Navy Museum are places that I practically grew up in.

Chris Manteuffel

[John Keeney]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:49:28 -0500, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed:
> >
> > Come visit the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH. Much better- more
> >complete, more exhibits, no political B.S. Plan on spending at least 2.5
> >days to cover it all. That will allow you about 5 minutes per exhibit.
> >
> >The "National Air and Space [sic] Museum" is about on par with that of
any
> >typical western country; i.e., it sucks.
> >
> >Steve Swartz
>
> Funny you should mention that. I was at Columbus OH this week, doing a
> presentation and book signing at the Columbus Metro Library (a
> beautiful facility, I might add.)
>
> Some folks were there who indicated that they had attended a number of
> presentations at the AF Museum and indicating that I was able to keep
> more folks awake than some speakers they had seen. They indicated they
> might propose to the folks at Dayton that they invite me.
>
> Last time I was at W-P to visit the AF Museum, most of it was parked
> outside. That would have been around 1962!

Ed, THE Air Force Museum is truly a sight to behold.
I haven't been for a couple of years (maybe next week), but in the then
latest building you went in and looked off in the distance to the right
to see the Globe Master and B-18. Off in the distance to the left, the
F-117,
a 'Nam vet' B-52 up on a display stand and a Dagger. Above you hung
many a quaint and curious relics of the "X-" age and Observation types.
But from that vantage point in that brightly lit, open room you couldn't
see the XB-70, the Blackbird, X-15, B-57, B-58, MH-47 or the not
insignificant displays of 90 and Century series fighters.

The other rooms in the complex still housed huge displays and yet
another building of like size has been opened since to take some of the
overflow.

[Cub Driver]

> But
>I've been told that the Me-262 is something that makes people say
>"wow" in ways that the XP-59 does not.

I'm one of those people, despite the fact that I met both these planes
when I was researching an article about the P-59A. The 262 is a lethal
looking aircraft, even more lethal than a Zero, which itself is pretty
impressive. The 59 is rather dorky. It looks like a fish, and
evidently it flew like one--too unstable to serve as a good gun
platform, not to mention no faster than USAAF piston aircraft then in
service.

There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to the
Me-262.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

Chris, since you hang around NASM a lot, do you have any feeling for
when I should visit Udvar-Hazy? It's open to the public on Dec 15.
Would the 16th be a reasonable day, or am I going to be trampled?

Thanks for your post.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John Mullen]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> (Chris Mark) wrote in message
>...
> > >rom: brooksvmi

> *entymology*!).

What is that? I've never heard of it

John

[Chris Manteuffel]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> Chris, since you hang around NASM a lot, do you have any feeling for
> when I should visit Udvar-Hazy? It's open to the public on Dec 15.
> Would the 16th be a reasonable day, or am I going to be trampled?

I honestly not sure yet whether to go on the 16th or not. I'm betting
that the 17th is going to be worse then the 15th- being the Centenary
of Flight and all, I think that the 17th probably will be the worst
day in Udvar-Hazy center history (in terms of crowds). But I'm not
sure about the 16th. I probably will end visiting it that day, but I'm
an impatient fellow.

I think it will depend a lot on how effective the crowd control works
in the building (and how big the parking lot is, for that matter). If
the curators aren't worrying very much about crowd control, trusting
to the size of the building then it could be a bad day (even a
building longer then three football fields can get crowded). If they
are worrying about it and putting effort into it, and their system
works, it hopefully won't be that bad.

Chris Manteuffel

[Chris Mark]

>From: brooksvmi

>> >> Any examples?
>>
>> >The gent mentioned

I wasn't going to reply, but your response does exemplify the weakness of many
posts. I asked a genuine question and the response was "the gent mentioned,"
which suggested to me that you weren't familiar enough with Gar Alperovitz to
remember his name and how to spell it. Not convincing. I would have enjoyed a
discussion of Alperovitz's contentions, which he's been pushing for at least 20
years, his world view, and even a discussion of his overall qualifications.
Not to be, obviously.

Then you mentioned, without giving his name, a poster. Even less convincing.

>you'd know who I was referring to.

I don't. Who? And why not mention him in the first place?

>Don't try to
>impress me with the abilities of our >oh-so-impressed-with-themselves
>academia crowd.

Who is trying to do that? I merely asked you if you had any examples to
illustrate your claim that, "all evidence currently indicates it [U of Md] is a
veritable hotbed of professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into
whatever
field they so choose at that moment."
I though perhaps I had missed some enjoyably egregious example of academic
buffoonery. Apparently not, as the response is first cryptic (a sure sign of
ignorance) and then a taxicab driver rant. I was hoping for better.

>It's at least as worthy of mention as, say, the University of
>> Antwerp.
>
>Mountain, meet mole-hill...

If you don't pick up on the routine disparaging of American universities by a
certain type of European, and don't consider it worth remarking on, as I said,
my point has been lost.

BTW, I do find it ironic that the University of Maryland has been dragged into
this thread in the way that it has, considering the institution's long-standing
program of providing accredited college courses at military installations
throughout the world.


Chris Mark

[Tex Houston]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
> Ed, THE Air Force Museum is truly a sight to behold.
> I haven't been for a couple of years (maybe next week), but in the then
> latest building you went in and looked off in the distance to the right
> to see the Globe Master and B-18. Off in the distance to the left, the
> F-117,
> a 'Nam vet' B-52 up on a display stand and a Dagger. Above you hung
> many a quaint and curious relics of the "X-" age and Observation types.
> But from that vantage point in that brightly lit, open room you couldn't
> see the XB-70, the Blackbird, X-15, B-57, B-58, MH-47 or the not
> insignificant displays of 90 and Century series fighters.


Some of the birds you mention can be seen by signing up for a bus trip to
the annex on the base, (basically the presidential aircraft in one area the
research aircraft in another). Ask about the signup at the information
desk. Get there early as many days the open slots are quickly filled.

Tex

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Chris Mark) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >rom: brooksvmi
>
> > *entymology*!).
>
> What is that? I've never heard of it

How about entomology?

>
> John

[John Mullen]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Chris Mark) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > >rom: brooksvmi
> >
> > > *entymology*!).
> >
> > What is that? I've never heard of it
>
> How about entomology?

Insects?

John

[Gerdeus]

> There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
> with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to the
> Me-262.

Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines embedded
inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or P-80.

Gerd

[Leslie Swartz]

1962 . . . the museum is a *whole lot* bigger now!!!

They just opened another large annex (4xB-52 sized) this summer.

Lot's of ww-Nam era retirees around here Ed . . . should be no problem
selling the book!!!

Steve Swartz




"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:49:28 -0500, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed:
> >
> > Come visit the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH. Much better- more
> >complete, more exhibits, no political B.S. Plan on spending at least 2.5
> >days to cover it all. That will allow you about 5 minutes per exhibit.
> >
> >The "National Air and Space [sic] Museum" is about on par with that of
any
> >typical western country; i.e., it sucks.
> >
> >Steve Swartz
>
> Funny you should mention that. I was at Columbus OH this week, doing a
> presentation and book signing at the Columbus Metro Library (a
> beautiful facility, I might add.)
>
> Some folks were there who indicated that they had attended a number of
> presentations at the AF Museum and indicating that I was able to keep
> more folks awake than some speakers they had seen. They indicated they
> might propose to the folks at Dayton that they invite me.
>
> Last time I was at W-P to visit the AF Museum, most of it was parked
> outside. That would have been around 1962!
>
>
> >
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Think he meant *etymology*



"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Chris Mark) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > >rom: brooksvmi
> >
> > > *entymology*!).
> >
> > What is that? I've never heard of it
>
> How about entomology?
>
> >
> > John

[Kevin Brooks]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> >From: brooksvmi
>
> >> >> Any examples?
>
> >> >The gent mentioned
>
> I wasn't going to reply, but your response does exemplify the weakness of many
> posts. I asked a genuine question and the response was "the gent mentioned,"
> which suggested to me that you weren't familiar enough with Gar Alperovitz to
> remember his name and how to spell it. Not convincing. I would have enjoyed a
> discussion of Alperovitz's contentions, which he's been pushing for at least 20
> years, his world view, and even a discussion of his overall qualifications.
> Not to be, obviously.

Your question was in regards to the applicability of the statement
that the U of M has exemplified the trait of academics writ large to
consider themselves experts far beyond their narrow specializations.
Your response was tagged to another message in the thread, so even
finding it in the first place was a bit difficult.

>
> Then you mentioned, without giving his name, a poster. Even less convincing.

OK, here is another hint--he is renowned for his poor grammar and
typing, to the point of even misspelling his own name.

>
> >you'd know who I was referring to.
>
> I don't. Who? And why not mention him in the first place?

Does Vkince ring a bell?

>
> >Don't try to
> >impress me with the abilities of our >oh-so-impressed-with-themselves
> >academia crowd.
>
> Who is trying to do that? I merely asked you if you had any examples to
> illustrate your claim that, "all evidence currently indicates it [U of Md] is a
> veritable hotbed of professors who enjoy exaggerating their "expertise" into
> whatever
> field they so choose at that moment."
> I though perhaps I had missed some enjoyably egregious example of academic
> buffoonery. Apparently not, as the response is first cryptic (a sure sign of
> ignorance)

Considering that you are having some difficulty in even getting your
responses addressed to the right posts, I'd be a bit more careful
about hurling claims of "ignorance". Do you have some innate
shortcoming that requires you to get personal at this early point in
an exchange?

> and then a taxicab driver rant. I was hoping for better.
>
> >It's at least as worthy of mention as, say, the University of
> >> Antwerp.
> >
> >Mountain, meet mole-hill...
>
> If you don't pick up on the routine disparaging of American universities by a
> certain type of European, and don't consider it worth remarking on, as I said,
> my point has been lost.

You have *really* drawn this far beyond the level that it deserves.

>
> BTW, I do find it ironic that the University of Maryland has been dragged into
> this thread in the way that it has, considering the institution's long-standing
> program of providing accredited college courses at military installations
> throughout the world.

Whoopie.

Brooks

>
>
> Chris Mark

[John Mullen]

"Gerdeus" > wrote in message
om...
> > There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
> > with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to the
> > Me-262.
>
> Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines embedded
> inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or P-80.

Name one.

John

[John Keeney]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ed, THE Air Force Museum is truly a sight to behold.
> > I haven't been for a couple of years (maybe next week), but in the then
> > latest building you went in and looked off in the distance to the right
> > to see the Globe Master and B-18. Off in the distance to the left, the
> > F-117,
> > a 'Nam vet' B-52 up on a display stand and a Dagger. Above you hung
> > many a quaint and curious relics of the "X-" age and Observation types.
> > But from that vantage point in that brightly lit, open room you couldn't
> > see the XB-70, the Blackbird, X-15, B-57, B-58, MH-47 or the not
> > insignificant displays of 90 and Century series fighters.
>
>
> Some of the birds you mention can be seen by signing up for a bus trip to
> the annex on the base, (basically the presidential aircraft in one area
the
> research aircraft in another). Ask about the signup at the information
> desk. Get there early as many days the open slots are quickly filled.

Not unless they moved them OUT of the modern flight room, Tex.
They are there, or at least were three years ago, just along way off
from the door behind other planes.

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > (Chris Mark) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > >rom: brooksvmi
>
> > > > *entymology*!).
> > >
> > > What is that? I've never heard of it
> >
> > How about entomology?
>
> Insects?

Yep. Never knew that made a guy an expert on stormwater runoff as well...

Brooks

>
> John

[Cub Driver]

>> There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
>> with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to the
>> Me-262.
>
>Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines embedded
>inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or P-80.

There was a Boeing engineer with Operation Paperclip. He cabled back
to hold the development on the XB-47, which was then in design. He
came back with engineering studies that showed the advantages of swept
wings and pod-mounted engines. These were duly incorporated in the
B-47, which was the granddaddy of all Boeing airliners, and by
extension all Airbusses as well.

To be sure, the pods on the 262 were a work-around. It was only when
wings were swept that the Germans discovered that the pods served
brilliantly as air dams.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>how big the parking lot is, for that matter).

Parking lot won't matter. I reckon on cashing in air miles, flying to
Dulles, grabbing a cab.

Oh gee! If it's a zoo, how will I ever get a cab back to the airport?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>I would have enjoyed a
>discussion of Alperovitz's contentions,

Being unable to spell Alperovitz is hardly a reason to have one's
statement dismissed! (I generally paste it into the text I am writing
:)

My thoughts on Alperovitz, Kai Bird, and the rest of that gang are at
www.warbirdforum.com/shadow.htm

(Kai Bird also signed the petition, along with Daniel Ellsberg, Oliver
Stone, and E L Doctorow.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gerdeus]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> "Gerdeus" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
> > > with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to the
> > > Me-262.
> >
> > Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines embedded
> > inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or P-80.
>
> Name one.

Boeing 727.


Gerd

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver

>>I would have enjoyed a
>>discussion of Alperovitz's contentions,
>
>Being unable to spell Alperovitz is hardly a reason to have one's
>statement dismissed!

But he made no statement about Alperovitz! He just made a wild assertion about
a general category. I made the mistake of assuming he had something specific
in mind that set him off. I was curious as to what it was. But by his rant I
saw that he was just bashing academics in general, and by his lights Gar
Alperovitz and Andrew Bacevich, for example, are on a par and both morons. And
I suspect he is equally unfamiliar with the writings of either. So I've turned
him off.

As to Alperovitz, I almost brought up his name in a follow-up to the post in
which I compared Bush43 to Truman and a poster replied that Truman's enemy
(communism) was a "real" threat, the poster's implication being that today's
war on terror and the Iraq phase of it is a fraud. Of course Alperovitz is
most famous as a historian of the origins of the Cold War and his general
contention that it was mostly the fault of the Truman administration,
especially Allan Dulles, and his long-held belief that Truman's decision to use
the atomic bombs on Japan was made with an eye to impressing the Soviets and
had nothing to do with any real need to use them to end the war. We've all
heard variations of this contention for years. The idea originated with
Alperovitz lo these many years ago.
In a new thread I will title "Alperovitz" I will post two exchanges Alperovitz
had with other, much better IMHO historians. Those not familiar with Alperovitz
may find them of interest. It has been said that Gar Alperovitz
single-handledlyprolonged the Cold War by a quarter of a century, due to the
influence of his ideas worldwide and the resultant weakening of the will of the
West to resist communism and attempt to accomodate it. Don't know about that,
but he is an important figure in the history of the Cold War, and an example of
the, sometimes pernicious, influence of academics the general public is largely
unaware of on world events.



Chris Mark

[Tex Houston]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
> Not unless they moved them OUT of the modern flight room, Tex.
> They are there, or at least were three years ago, just along way off
> from the door behind other planes.

Spent four days there in July. Because of the new building any arrangement
you may have seen before no longer exists. Terry Atkin, senior curator,
told me all of the aircraft were repositioned except the B-52 but I suspect
he exaggerated.

I was there as part of the opening ceremonies of "Inventing Flight" and
since our portion was curtailed we went to the Museum on Saturday, attended
a reception there that night then went there on Monday. Later in the month
I went back to Dayton and spent two days at the facility. The XB-70 is in
the annex along with many of the research aircraft. Some research aircraft
(Tacit Blue, X-3, X-4, X-17...) are in the Modern Flight Hangar.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/ans.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf.htm

Have not listed the other hangars but the can be reached through the main
website at:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/

Tex

[John Keeney]

Well, heck then, it IS time I went back over there.
Nothing important on the schedule this week, I may go.

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not unless they moved them OUT of the modern flight room, Tex.
> > They are there, or at least were three years ago, just along way off
> > from the door behind other planes.
>
> Spent four days there in July. Because of the new building any
arrangement
> you may have seen before no longer exists. Terry Atkin, senior curator,
> told me all of the aircraft were repositioned except the B-52 but I
suspect
> he exaggerated.
>
> I was there as part of the opening ceremonies of "Inventing Flight" and
> since our portion was curtailed we went to the Museum on Saturday,
attended
> a reception there that night then went there on Monday. Later in the
month
> I went back to Dayton and spent two days at the facility. The XB-70 is in
> the annex along with many of the research aircraft. Some research
aircraft
> (Tacit Blue, X-3, X-4, X-17...) are in the Modern Flight Hangar.
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an.htm
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/ans.htm
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf.htm
>
> Have not listed the other hangars but the can be reached through the main
> website at:
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/
>
> Tex
>
>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
>
>>> There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
>>> with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to the
>>> Me-262.
>>
>>Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines embedded
>>inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or P-80.
>
> There was a Boeing engineer with Operation Paperclip. He cabled back
> to hold the development on the XB-47, which was then in design. He
> came back with engineering studies that showed the advantages of swept
> wings and pod-mounted engines. These were duly incorporated in the
> B-47, which was the granddaddy of all Boeing airliners, and by
> extension all Airbusses as well.
>
> To be sure, the pods on the 262 were a work-around. It was only when
> wings were swept that the Germans discovered that the pods served
> brilliantly as air dams.

Dan, the pods on the B-47, as best as I've been able to find, didn't
spring from any German concepts. Boeing was certainly influenced by
the Swept Wing data that it saw, and which was also corroborated by
the data they were receiving from the N.A.C.A. and R.T. Jones, (BTW,
the Boeing engineer that was tagging along with the Paperclip teams
sent his information to everybody, not just Boeing.)
When Boeing decided to enter the Medium Jet Bomber competition, they
decided to leap the pack (North American, with the XB-45, the interim
winner, Convair with the XB-46, and Martin with teh XB-48, all
straight wings with integral wing-mounted engine pods, and although
not al that different in basic concept than the Arado 234, really
Piston-Engine shapes with jets scabbed on) adn go with a thin, swept
wing. The integral pods as used in te Me 262 and Ar 234 weren't
acceptable from a structural (danged heavy), safety, (A thrown turbine
bucket, which happened pretty often back then, would cut through an
adjacent structure like a red-hot bullet. If the adjacent structure
is Wing Spars and Fuel Tanks, it's very bad) aerodynamic, (The
integral pods added a really hefty chunk of Interference Drag, and,
although they hadn't doped it out yet, raised all sorts of problems
with cross-sectional Area Distribution and Transonic Drag.) and
maintenance problems. (Can't reach to top of the engine, and on a big
airplane, it's way high off the ground)
As I recall, initially they wanted to use one or 2 large engines
buried in the fuselage, but the large engines weren't happening
quickly, and they needed the internal volume for fuel and bombs.
They then went with a sort of Flying Fishlike configuration, with 4 or
more smaller engines in the upper fuselage over the wing center
section, fed by a large nose inlet. That wasn't working either, and
the thin wing was showing signs of being very marginal in torsional
resistance, and therefore flutter-prone. Somebody in Boeing's
Aerodynamics section suggested using the engines as anti-flutter
weights, and Boeing used their new high speed wind tunnel to come up
with an engine pod design that was well separated vertically from the
wings, reducing interference drag, and well forward, keeping the engines
clear of any vital structure. The improved flutter resistance
allowed the flexible wings to work, and hhe pylons gave teh added
bonus of being nifty wing fences to help resist the pitch-up tendency
that swept wings have. When it was discovered that they'd need a bit
more power, they initially scapped an engine to each wingtip. They
then discovered that they'd want a bit more wing area, so they
extended the tips out past the outboard engines, and that became the
B-47.

While there was soem German influence in the B-47, the pod
configuration was Boeing's idea.

It's really well described in "The Road to the 707", (William H. Cook,
TYC publishing, 1991) Cook was one of Boeing's Aerodynamicists, and
spearheaded their High Speed Tunnel effort. I think the Dimond
Library has a copy.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[John Mullen]

"Gerdeus" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Gerdeus" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
> > > > with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to
the
> > > > Me-262.
> > >
> > > Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines
embedded
> > > inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or
P-80.
> >
> > Name one.
>
> Boeing 727.

Nope. It had three engines in pods at the tail. One was served by an air
intake at the front of the fin. See
http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/hangar/727.shtml

Rather like the DC 10, the L1011 or the Trident.

John

[Stephen Harding]

John Keeney wrote:

> Ed, THE Air Force Museum is truly a sight to behold.
> I haven't been for a couple of years (maybe next week), but in the then
> latest building you went in and looked off in the distance to the right
> to see the Globe Master and B-18. Off in the distance to the left, the
> F-117,
> a 'Nam vet' B-52 up on a display stand and a Dagger. Above you hung
> many a quaint and curious relics of the "X-" age and Observation types.
> But from that vantage point in that brightly lit, open room you couldn't
> see the XB-70, the Blackbird, X-15, B-57, B-58, MH-47 or the not
> insignificant displays of 90 and Century series fighters.
>
> The other rooms in the complex still housed huge displays and yet
> another building of like size has been opened since to take some of the
> overflow.

Definitely a great display of aircraft and history. Obviously US-centric
as a US Air Force Museum should be.

Perhaps back in the early 90's I saw one of the most touching displays
of the human cost of war I've ever seen. It was an item on loan from the
government of New Guinea IIRC.

A simple door panel from a C-47 (???) with a diary written on it. The
plane had gone down in the SWPA during WWII with 10 or so survivors.

Each day, for a time, recorded the hope of being spotted by rescue aircraft.
Every few days, a death of a survivor was noted. And on it went for some
time until eventually, the "diary" grew silent.

Don't know if it's still there or not, but made a very strong impression
on me.


SMH

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding > wrote:

>John Keeney wrote:
>
>> Ed, THE Air Force Museum is truly a sight to behold.
>> I haven't been for a couple of years (maybe next week), but in the then
>> latest building you went in and looked off in the distance to the right
>> to see the Globe Master and B-18. Off in the distance to the left, the
>> F-117,
>> a 'Nam vet' B-52 up on a display stand and a Dagger. Above you hung
>> many a quaint and curious relics of the "X-" age and Observation types.
>> But from that vantage point in that brightly lit, open room you couldn't
>> see the XB-70, the Blackbird, X-15, B-57, B-58, MH-47 or the not
>> insignificant displays of 90 and Century series fighters.
>>
>> The other rooms in the complex still housed huge displays and yet
>> another building of like size has been opened since to take some of the
>> overflow.
>
>Definitely a great display of aircraft and history. Obviously US-centric
>as a US Air Force Museum should be.
>
>Perhaps back in the early 90's I saw one of the most touching displays
>of the human cost of war I've ever seen. It was an item on loan from the
>government of New Guinea IIRC.
>
>A simple door panel from a C-47 (???) with a diary written on it. The
>plane had gone down in the SWPA during WWII with 10 or so survivors.
>
>Each day, for a time, recorded the hope of being spotted by rescue aircraft.
>Every few days, a death of a survivor was noted. And on it went for some
>time until eventually, the "diary" grew silent.
>
>Don't know if it's still there or not, but made a very strong impression
>on me.
>
>
>SMH

God, that must have been wrenching...It really get's to me to
come across something like that in a museum when I'm with family
or friends (and not 'steeled' for it). It seems that the older I
get the less handle that I have on my emotions and that sight
certainly would have done me in...

Thank you for passing it along.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"John Mullen" > wrote:

>"Gerdeus" > wrote in message
om...
>> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Gerdeus" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> > > > There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
>> > > > with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to
>the
>> > > > Me-262.
>> > >
>> > > Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines
>embedded
>> > > inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or
>P-80.
>> >
>> > Name one.
>>
>> Boeing 727.
>
>Nope. It had three engines in pods at the tail. One was served by an air
>intake at the front of the fin. See
>http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/hangar/727.shtml
>
>Rather like the DC 10, the L1011 or the Trident.
>
>John
>

Comet/Nimrod.
--

-Gord.

[John Mullen]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mullen" > wrote:
>
> >"Gerdeus" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > "Gerdeus" > wrote in message
> >> > om...
> >> > > > There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that
flies,
> >> > > > with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something
to
> >the
> >> > > > Me-262.
> >> > >
> >> > > Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines
> >embedded
> >> > > inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15
or
> >P-80.
> >> >
> >> > Name one.
> >>
> >> Boeing 727.
> >
> >Nope. It had three engines in pods at the tail. One was served by an air
> >intake at the front of the fin. See
> >http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/hangar/727.shtml
> >
> >Rather like the DC 10, the L1011 or the Trident.
> >
> >John
> >
>
> Comet/Nimrod.

Yep, I think you'd have to go back that far. Podded engines are safer and
easier to replace/service

John.