WIX Archives
How this Richard?
Posted by BR on Fri Dec 20, 2002 07:03:54 PM
In reply top Re: Dead in it's tracks as far as I know.... posted by Richard Allnutt on Wed Dec 11, 2002 04:59:58 PM
The museum represents the development of technology, i.e., it's history, which in my way of thinking allows the museum to create a more comprehensive and diverse collection of aircraft. If a museum solely represents Canada's aviation history, as many in this forum think the NAM does, then the museum could justify selling off many of the aircraft in their collection as they wouldn't be required because they have no Canadian connection. If the NAM was solely Canadian history, aircraft like the He-162's then would have no place in the museum. Obviously as a Canadian National Museum, there is a strong focus on Canada's history but to truly depict aviation development in a strictly aviation sense, the museum needs to focus on aircraft that are not Canadian. There is a strong push at the NAM to preserve Canadian aviation heritage from a non-technical point of view, i.e. person, squadron, company histories, and the collection reflects this. But the bottom line is that for the museum to actively pursue to acquisition/aircraft for their collection, the aircraft must meet the criteria set out by the collections policy and if they already have a representative aircraft, why would you expend the resources to get something you don't need?
As for the B-24 and Lanc, you can easily fit the two aircraft into a technology themed museum. The B-24 fits as it has Canadian history as they were used in Canada and by Canadians but it also depicts the development of heavy bombers in the US (technology) much like a B-17 would. Aircraft like the Lanc, represent British development in heavy bomber technology and fits in from other historic points of view because they were operated in Canada and abroad by Canadian crews and the fact they were manufactured in Canada. So both aircraft would be appropriate in the collection.
In reality, seeing the Labrador B17 in the museum would be great. If someone was willing to fund the recovery and restoration I'm sure the NAM be more than happy to take it on. But as a museum, their focus will be on filling the gaps in the collection and maintaining present artifacts and building a better museum. I seen many museums suffer from un necessarily taking on projects they shouldn't.
As for duplicate aircraft in collections, this is common. The second aircraft can be used as a loaner to other museum, for trade, sale, as a example when restoring another aircraft of the same model. Also, museum's generally aren't in the business of turning down aircraft that are donated, aircraft that don't meet the museums collections policy can be used in the same way duplicate aircraft are.
Again, because the museum's mandate is first technology ( the NAM is under the National Museum of Science and Technology) it allows the museum to expand the collection and include aircraft that would be outside its collection policy if it were strictly a Canadian Museum. If memory serves me, the actual mission statement of the Science Museum and its subordinates is along the lines of technology development and how it effects Canadian.
As a Canadian, I'd rather see the NAM focus on filling these gaps in their collection and creating a more comprehensive collection rather than acquiring projects that are not needed and would create an unnecessary burden on them.
I am not a member, employee or volunteer at the NAM but I've been up to my neck in aviation museums and vintage aircraft for a while and this is how I see the NAM based on my talks with them and reading their reports.
Is this a better answer?
BR