USAF Museum Bf109 G10

[Don Pearson]

Richard Corey's article struck me as odd on 2 points; a) civilians willing to work for the Germans (another topic all together), and b) wnr 127xxx for a 109. Is that a legitimate number?

Don

[chuckschmitz]

Based on the replies here and elsewhere the "accuracy" of many of the displays at the museum are in question. So are the markings on a particular aircraft more important than the fact that it shows a Bf109, etc., as it would have looked as it flew against 8th Air Force B-17s? If parts for the restoration for a given aircraft come from a number of wrecks, which markings do you use? Is the fact that the aircraft still exists in some form the more important point?

[Larry deZeng]

Good questions, Chuck.

On the one hand we have the gross negligence on the part of the USAF Museum regarding authenticity when compared to the considerable lengths that NASM goes to in achieving accurate displays.

On the other hand, the alleged comments of the Dayton Museum director made in one of the recent posts here make sense, too. Let's face it: correct Bf 109 displays with the correct model number, correct color schemes, markings, Werknummern, etc., etc., etc., are only important to approximately .0000000000000001% of the population at large and about .000001% of the Museum's visitors. I'm sure those who run the place besides the director are fully aware of this. Go out and do a random street survey of 1,000 people and you will be lucky to find even one who can tell you what a WNF Bf 109 G-10 is.

So if the Museum's primary mission or business goal is not in conflict with its sloppy attention to accuracy, then it is hard to fault them from a management standpoint. I'm sure nobody at Wright-Pat is losing sleep over this issue.

[chuckschmitz]

If I was king for a day I would go for accuracy. I really believe they could accomplish both things at the same time. At the very least they should have the signs with the correct info and the aircraft should be the correct model for the markings.

[Nick Beale]

The point isn't how many people would know the difference, it's maintaining standards of scholarship. A Bf 109 is every bit as deserving of accurate representation in a museum as a flint axe, a Roman sword or a Civil War musket.

[chuckschmitz]

Nick,

I agree. How do they do things at the RAF Museum? Its' been years since I've been there.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by chuckschmitz

Nick,

How do they do things at the RAF Museum?

A slow reply but I've now been back to Hendon and the answer is that they generally show that aircraft in its original appearance. If they don't, they say on the display what they've done and what it originally was. Again, with replicas and multi-aircraft rebuilds, they tell you that they've chosen particular markings.

[Larry deZeng]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

The point isn't how many people would know the difference, it's maintaining standards of scholarship. A Bf 109 is every bit as deserving of accurate representation in a museum as a flint axe, a Roman sword or a Civil War musket.

It makes a difference to the director of the Museum. According to the comments he allegedly made and other evidence provided here by TOCH! members who were past visitors, the Museum doesn't give a hoot about accuracy and scholarship. But before we have the director and his staff boiled in oil or have the Museum shut down indefinitely, perhaps there are other issues involved that we don't know about such as budget limitations regarding restoration, directives from HQ USAF in Washington, morons running the place when the restoration was done many years ago, etc. If enough visitors wrote complaints about the mislabeling of their exhibits, it would eventually carry some weight and perhaps force changes in the way the place is run.

[veltro]

A museum "by definition" has some standards to aim for. One of the foremost is historical accuracy and the capability to teach people correct things (and not 56% or who knows what).

Some call it "nitpicking", others call it "standards of scholarship"... sue me, but I'll go forever where the latter are respected.

The price to pay will not be reflected in administrative terms but in knowledge terms and the risk is that by following this route, one day a museum will exhibit a "Roman musket" simply because no one will give a damn if it is wrong...

IMHO, of course...

[Dan O'Connell]

Originally Posted by Larry deZeng

It makes a difference to the director of the Museum. According to the comments he allegedly made and other evidence provided here by TOCH! members who were past visitors, the Museum doesn't give a hoot about accuracy and scholarship. But before we have the director and his staff boiled in oil or have the Museum shut down indefinitely, perhaps there are other issues involved that we don't know about such as budget limitations regarding restoration, directives from HQ USAF in Washington, morons running the place when the restoration was done many years ago, etc. If enough visitors wrote complaints about the mislabeling of their exhibits, it would eventually carry some weight and perhaps force changes in the way the place is run.

There are many people just like me who will gladly offer their time, expertise, money and "man power" to see that these artifacts are CORRECTLY displayed, at no cost to the museum or the tax payer. An artifact is presented as it's "type" and you only get one chance to get it right, before the errors start perpetuating themselves.

Hopefully, these exhibits will last for generations. It is inexcuseable to incorrectly display them.

I am a retired archaeologist. What damage would I cause, if in a tired and uncareing moment, or just plain spitefulness, I said an Oregon arrowhead was "Egyptian". I certainly would know it's untrue, but others later would say "see, here's proof, the Egyptians were in Oregon".

Absurd, yes, but we are dealing with history, and the hard won knowledge of a few serves to educate many, which is passed on. That's called a knowledge base.

We have so few of these "relics" left, that to an historian, or any person knowledgeable in the subject, it's practicaly criminal to pass on untruths.

It's even worse not to even care.