Trip to the National Museum of the US Air Force

T Bolt · Feb 21, 2012

I should have done this before I started posting the pictures, but better late than never.

All the pictures posted so far have been in the World War II hanger, which is one of 4 interconnected hangers of the main museum complex. The museum is located on Old Wright Field which is part of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. There are also 2 connected hangers for the Presidential aircraft, and the Research and Development aircraft, along with a series of interconnected hangers used for aircraft restoration. These two hanger areas are located on the secure portion of Wright-Patterson, and are only accessible by bus tour. The tour to the R&D and Presidential Hangers runs multiple times a day and can be signed up for on the day of your visit (but sign up early) The tour to the restoration hangers runs only on Fridays and should be signed up for well in advance on the museum's website although there are a numbers of walk-ins allowed, but don't count on them.

Picture 1 Overall view of Old Wright Field. The yellow arrow is the main Museum complex, The red arrow is the Research Development hangers, and the blue arrow is the Restoration hangers.

Picture 2 Close up of the main complex. To give you an idea of the size the two aircraft parked at the far end above the hangers are KC-135s (707s)

Picture 3 A map of the main complex from the museums website

T Bolt · Feb 21, 2012

Back to the WWII hanger........

This one is a P-47G made up to be a P-47D Razorback. All the P-47Gs were made by Curtiss and none saw combat.

T Bolt · Feb 21, 2012

I didn't get a shot of the sign, but this looks like either a P-47D-30 or -40, and has to have some of the ugliest nose art I've ever seen. Also, the guns don't have the proper blast tubes, they should look more like the Razorback above.

T Bolt · Feb 21, 2012

A-36, an Allison Engined dive bomber version of the P-51

T Bolt · Feb 21, 2012

The museum lists this as a P-51D although the prop makes it look like a P-51K. Could just be a non-original prop. The drop tanks look like the disposable paper type.

rochie · Feb 21, 2012

looks like you handled what look like some tough lighting conditions rather well Glenn !

T Bolt · Feb 21, 2012

Thanks Karl, it was rather dark in there and I didn't have a tripod. I'm not crazy about the look of flash pictures, and anyway the flash was only good up to about 15', so only for close ups. I was usually shooting with an ASA of 1250, but it still was a struggle to hold the camera still enough. I deleted hundreds of pictures because of camera shake. The one improvement I could suggest for that museum is more light!!

Gnomey · Feb 21, 2012

Good stuff Glenn!

hub · Feb 21, 2012

Nice one Glenn, I can't stop drooling

Airframes · Feb 21, 2012

Good stuff Glenn, and I agree about the difficult lighting conditions.
Maybe the Museum should be told that their display board is incorrect! It should really read something like 'Rolls Royce (Packard-built) Merlin engine' .... !!
(Sorry, not being pedantic, but in generations to come, 'they' might believe the engine was designed, built, etc, in the USA, as opposed to the real story !)

pbfoot · Feb 21, 2012

Airframes said:
Good stuff Glenn, and I agree about the difficult lighting conditions.
Maybe the Museum should be told that their display board is incorrect! It should really read something like 'Rolls Royce (Packard-built) Merlin engine' .... !!
(Sorry, not being pedantic, but in generations to come, 'they' might believe the engine was designed, built, etc, in the USA, as opposed to the real story !)

thats what is says

Airframes · Feb 21, 2012

I meant the title caption Neil.
The 'average' person these days expects bullet point answers, and either can't be bothered, or hasn't the 'gumption', to read any further.
The current 'generation', as sometimes seen on this forum, seem to expect life to give them answers, solutions, etc, without having to work for these. In years to come, where will that lead us (as a civilisation)?
As mentioned - not being pedantic, but pointing out how a (at present) minor discrepancies can lead to a whole change of historic facts at 'some time' in the future, often perpetuated by such small indiscretions.
Let's face it, it could eventually be, in 50 or 100 years time, that Canada, a State of the USA, played a small part in World War 2, which began in 1944.
Get my point?!