Talk:National Museum of the United States Air Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bock's Car / Bocks Car / Bockscar

I noticed that the reference to Bocks Car was changed to Bock's Car. If you go to the actual page for the aircraft or here, you will see that on the nose art, it is spelled without the apostrophe, but there is some dispute as to whether it is spelled with space after the "S". Rogerd 00:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And if you check the History and Talk pages, you'll see that I'm a party to that dispute. :-) "[Frederick] Bock's Car" just makes so much sense, while "Bocks Car" and "Bockscar" make none, that I just can't believe they intended to name the ship anything else. (And when I look at "Bockscar" I keep parsing it as "Bock_Scar", which is even worse.) And the crew did intend the name to make sense. Planes weren't given names by reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out a random assortment of letters--the tail numbers would have done for that.

—wwoods 02:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that "Bockscar" makes the most sense (What's "random" about that?). It it clearly not a car, so "Bock's Car" makes no sense, but "Bockscar" is a play on the word "Boxcar". And again, there is no apostrophe on the nose art, but there is a boxcar with wings. What they actually painted on the aircraft should be the final arbitor! Rogerd 02:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

use the spelling of bockscar that is on the airplane!

Well, the spelling on the plane is "BOCKS_CAR". Admittedly the font--which seems more like something from the '60s than the '40s--is more misleading than it might be. Nevertheless, when you compare the overlap of the other pairs of letters with that of the S-C, you'll see a distinct difference.

—wwoods 08:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may have noticed that my first edit of this page (00:13, 8 Mar 2005) had the space, but on my most recent edit, I left it out because the Museum's web site (probably with input from a professional curator) spells it without either the space and apostrophe. Rogerd 15:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

B-2 Spirit

Is there really a B-2 on display in the museum? This is an awfully recent aircraft, and there are only about 20 examples ever built, so I would expect them all to be in service. Any citation for one being a museum piece? Similarly for the F-117A, though I could see some of the early examples being retired more readily than any B-2s

Yes, there really is a B-2 on display in the museum's Cold War gallery. It is a static test article that never flew but was used for load testing the frame. See: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/ac/pg000217.htm There is also an F-117A, which has been on display since 1991, see: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf22.htmPatrick Berry 14:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The museum has restructured its web site, the first link is now http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=422 and the F-117 link is now http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=410 --rogerd 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's only sort-of a B-2. It was a structural test article that they tested to destruction: literally broke it in half. Museum had to put it back together. My Grandfather rattled off the airframe number or some such when I told him that, but I forget what it was. He was doing some kind of logistics whatsis as a Civillian for the USAF at the time, and one of the things he worked on was the B-2. Before It went public even. But yeah. It was never a flying B-2. -Graptor 74.215.0.194 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

More photos

I've made some photos, maybe there is one or two that will lok good in this article. Please take a look: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have an extensive collection of images from the museum. They are at my smugmug site. I will be happy to upload any images to commons that others think would be useful. If you see any there that you want me to upload, leave a message on my talk page. --rogerd (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Sorry...was notified that I hadn't put a critique of what needs to be cleaned up when i put up the tag a while back. Anyways, the intro needs copy editing and expansion, and the exhibits section needs to be better organized (perhaps subsections divided off into the different hangars with overviews of their contents). I already started working on the wiki links to the aircraft listings, getting most of the WW2 section done, but it needs to be finished.

Overall, the article has lots of promise, but it needs some editing, additions, and rewrites.nf utvol (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Caquot balloon image

All of the images in the article are photographs of the museum or exhibits in the museum, except for Image:Saucisse caquot 1972.jpg, which is a drawing of a balloon of the same type exhibited at the museum. IMO, I don't think that this image belongs in the article. I didn't photograph that aircraft the last time I was there, but may in a future trip. I have one image that has part of it ([2]), I think. The only images of this aircraft at the museum's web site are here. --rogerd (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Architect

Is it correct that Robert Little (architect) designed the museum? Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Museum Renovations

The NMUSAF is currently going through some upgrades, which I think should be reflected in the article. Specifically, the theatre is no longer IMAX, but rather a very large digital projection screen with 3D capability. I attempted to make an edit earlier today so the article reflected such changes, but they were determined to violate the rules on COI. I understand my username is affiliated with the museum, but I am trying to keep my edits as factual as possible, and included a reference to the press release regarding the renovation. I don't mean to be difficult, just trying to understand what can and cannot be put into this article specifically (outside of the generic conditions I was directed to and read from Theroadislong )

Here is my new proposed edit for in the Future Developments section, between the two existing paragraphs: "Additionally, the Air Force Museum Theatre is in the process of upgrading its theatre from IMAX to digital 3D with a stage. This upgrade will allow for a broader range of programming, including educational presentations and live broadcasts, in addition to expanded documentary choices. The renovations will also include a 7.1 surround-sound system, as well as hearing or visually impaired audio devices, and personal closed captioning systems." A reference could be added to the press release, copied here

Additionally, I would suggest a minor change to the first sentence of the last paragraph in the same section to more accurately reflect the names of the attractions. "Fundraising is constantly on-going through the Air Force Museum Theatre, museum store and Valkyrie Café."

I apologize is this is not the correct way to go about this, but it was suggested in those COI articles to post in the Talk section. This is my first foray into the editing of wiki articles, so I appreciate the feedback. Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your help! AFMTheatre (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Theroadislong, but if you have changes that improve the text, I don't have a problem with you just putting them in. In my view, your edits improve the text and do not seem like a conflict of interest. He might of reverted your edit out of hand as you are flagged as a new editor - I've been known to do that. Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thank you for your response, I appreciate your input. I am still hesitant to edit it, as I don't want this account blocked so I can possibly make suggestions in the talk section for later edits after the project completes. Is it possible for you or another user to do it for me? Is that the protocol? Again, I appreciate your help, thank you. AFMTheatre (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the change you outlined above. Just FYI, you won't be blocked just because one person or a few people disagree with your edits. Name of the game sometimes... However, I did agree with some of the text that Theroadislong reverted - you need to stay away from peacock/fluff wording. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Great, thank you very much! And thanks for the advice, I'll note it for future edits and submissions. AFMTheatre (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mid-2013 reduction of stored aircraft

I've recently read in a few aviation magazines that due to funds "sequestration" in recent budget reduction, several aircraft in the museum's collection are to be disposed of (some even scrapped), which seems a short-sighted decision to me. Does anyone have enough information on this to add it to the article? I'll try to provide the sources I've read. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No aircraft are being scrapped. They just cancelled the tours of the Experimental/Presidential Aircraft Hangar due to the sequestration. Ckruschke (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National Museum of the United States Air Force/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Was initially assessed as A-class and High importance, but I've reassessed it. The article has a 6 paragraph intro and one paragraph of content. Most of the article is a very long list. The content needs to be expanded and the list needs to be moved to a separate page, perhaps List of National Museum of the United States Air Force aircraft. Start-class, and Mid importance. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)