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

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.

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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!

"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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[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" 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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[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

ost (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

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/gal...3.html#SKYHAWK

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

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero.../bell_uh1h.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero.../cessna_o1.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...vought_rf8.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...douglas_a1.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...douglas_a4.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...grumman_a6.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...kheed_c130.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...l_F4A_sage.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...cdonnel_f4.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/mig21.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...ft/NAF-100.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...ublic_f105.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero.../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

"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.

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

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