Monthly Archive for March, 2011

Take Me Out to the Ball Game!

The 2011 Major League Baseball season starts today at 1:05pm, when the National Air and Space Museum’s hometown Washington Nationals host the Atlanta Braves at Nationals Park.

This afternoon the red and white uniforms of the Nationals will stand out against the bright green of the field.  In the late 1950s, players took to the field of the U.S. Naval Air Material Center in Philadelphia wearing a different uniform—B.F. Goodrich Mark IV spacesuits.  Photographs of this event were found in the Archives Division’s Frederick Clark Durant Collection (Acc. No. XXXX-0084).

space suit

Hey batter, batter! Swing batter, batter! NASM 9A05849, use courtesy of Goodrich Corporation

The game was staged as a flexibility demonstration for the spacesuit.  The final score of the baseball game is unknown, but the Mark IV would evolve to become the original Project Mercury spacesuit, a definite home run!

space suit

He checks the runner on second and turns to the plate... NASM 9A05850, use courtesy of Goodrich Corporation

There’s only one thing left to say as the season begins…

Play ball!

Elizabeth C. Borja is a reference services archivist in the National Air and Space Museum’s Archives Division.

In the Good Old Summertime!

The Visitor Services Division at the National Air and Space Museum is shaking off the winter doldrums and preparing for another exciting summer season. The National Air and Space Museum consists of two museum locations, the National Mall building in Washington, DC and the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles Airport in Chantilly, VA. The National Mall building is the most visited museum in the world with over 8 million visits a year. That averages out to almost 23,000 every day! The Udvar-Hazy Center sees over one million visits every year. If you are planning on visiting one of our Museums this summer, here are some tips for an enjoyable and safe experience.

The Cherry Blossom Festival is usually the busiest time of the year. Washington, DC could see a million visitors during the week of peak bloom. Our summer season starts with the cherry blossoms and ends after Labor Day weekend. Holiday weekends, like July 4th and Memorial Day, are usually busier as well.

National Mall Building

The National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC

A rule of thumb is ‘the earlier the better.’ As the day progresses, the number of visitors in the Museum will increase, so try to arrive right when we open at 10 am or during the ‘lunch break’ between 12 pm and 1 pm. The National Mall building will be open until 7:30 from March 25th through September 4th and the Udvar-Hazy Center will be open until 6:30 from May 27th through September 4th; however, we will occasionally close at 5:30 for special events. Please double-check our website to see if we are going to close early on the day you plan to visit.

Milestones of Flight Gallery

"Milestones of Flight" Gallery at the National Mall building.

Entrance to the Museum is free and no tickets are required. The entrances have security checks where all visitors are screened and bags are inspected. Do not bring tripods, scissors, tools and especially knives. Even pocket knives or Swiss army knives are prohibited.

If you need help while you are at the Museum, head over to the Welcome Desk, which is near the entrances to both locations. Volunteers are ready to answer your questions and give you tips for your visit. You can buy the $2 Go Smithsonian Visitor Guide, which has descriptions and maps of each Smithsonian building, or we can give you a simple free map of our Museum. Maps can also be found on our website.

Welcome Center

Welcome Center at the National Mall building

We recommend comfortable shoes for both locations.DC is a walking city and if you come to the National Mall, you should expect to be on your feet all day. The Udvar-Hazy Center is also very large (approximately the size of three football fields) and has a concrete floor.

Sandals, flip-flops, flats and Crocs are not the best for walking. We talk to visitors every day that have broken sandals, sore feet and blisters. Try to bring band-aids; you or someone you’re with may need them.  Remember to dress and pack appropriately. DC can be cool, especially in rainy weather, so check the weather forecasts right before you leave. But, DC can also get very hot, so bring plenty of water. Outside food cannot be eaten inside Smithsonian museums, but water bottles are welcome. Staying hydrated will help you get through the day.

Visiting multiple Smithsonian museums in one day can be difficult. Forgetting to eat lunch or waiting until late afternoon to eat can easily happen. Most museums have food courts inside. It could be easier to eat in a museum as there are very few restaurants around the National Mall.

The DC Metro system has several stations around the National Mall area. L’Enfant Plaza is the closest station to the National Mall building. L’Enfant is on the corner of 7th and Maryland St. SW and the museum is on 7th and Independence St. SW, only two blocks away! Use the Smithsonian Metro station to go to the National Museum of American History and the National Museum of Natural History. The Smithsonian Metro station is six blocks away from the National Air and Space Museum.

The Udvar-Hazy Center is 30 miles away from downtown DC. Visiting both locations in the same day is difficult. Traffic can be very heavy during rush hour and can lengthen your travel time significantly. Public transportation to the Udvar-Hazy Center is available, but depending on your point of departure, you may need to use a combination of public transportation options to reach the facility. Please consult MetroBus and the Virginia Regional Transit for the best routes, schedules and fares. If you are driving, the Museum has a large parking lot; however, there is a $15 parking fee for all personal vehicles. Buses park for free.

Udvar-Hazy Center

Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center

We are looking forward to seeing you at the National Air and Space Museum and the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. If you need additional information that our website does not provide, you can email us at NASMVisitorServices@si.edu. Have a safe and enjoyable summer and we’ll see you soon!

Josh Chartier is a coordinator in the Visitor Services Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

Whither Human Spaceflight at the Start of the Second Decade of the 21st Century?

Shuttle

Space Shuttle Endeavor as she lifts off November 30, 2000, carrying the STS-97 crew of five

The first decade of the twenty-first century has offered both serious challenges and enormous potential for the development of new human launch vehicles that could finally achieve the long-held dream of reliable, affordable access to space. But at the end of the decade, the policy questions posed by the 2003 loss of Columbia about the future U.S. human spaceflight still loom large.

One difficult issue to be wrestled with in human space access policy is how to break the cycle of NASA choosing the “one best way” to reach space and cutting off alternatives that might be more successful. Since the beginning of the agency such a cycle has led to the extensive hyping of systems and the resultant disappointment and loss of credibility when they fail to deliver on the promises of those advocating them. This then leads to another round of analysis and other projects. Just since the Space Shuttle began operations in 1981, the landscape has been littered with failed efforts that might potentially replace the shuttle ranging from NASP to X-33 to Orbital Spaceplane, and I could go on.

Although the transportation of astronauts to Earth orbit is presently both difficult and expensive, sustained investment in advanced technologies could resolve this. Unfortunately, there is seemingly little stomach for making those investments. While there are some positive developments in this arena, especially the creation of a new Office of the Chief Technologist at NASA charged with pursuing “game-changing” technologies, the effort remains underfunded.

Perhaps the private sector efforts of SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, and others will come to the rescue of human spaceflight in the U.S. The recent success of the launch of Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule by SpaceX is a positive sign, but I urge caution in trumpeting it as THE answer to the nation’s human space access dilemma. Although the trajectory is positive, the SpaceX team still has a long row to hoe from this test flight to an operational system.

Likewise, the U.S. Air Force’s recent success with a modified X-37B reusable orbital vehicle suggests that innovation for non-crewed military purposes may also be applicable to NASA’s human spaceflight program.

Interestingly, beyond technology R&D at NASA—which of course may be critical to the next human spaceflight system—the space agency may well have to look beyond its personnel and its various centers for the next human space access system. This is not unprecedented, but it is troubling after more than 40 years of being able to harness on its own capabilities to resolve these technological challenges. The space agency relied on modified ballistic missiles developed by the military to launch its Mercury and Gemini spacecraft into orbit, but since Apollo it has owned and operated its own systems.

space shuttle

Space Shuttle Atlantis was photographed while docked to the Destiny laboratory on the International Space Station (ISS) during the STS-104 mission

President Obama’s decision to rely on private sector efforts to develop next generation human space access capabilities was a bold, controversial initiative. However it turns out, it represents a path that harkens back to an earlier model in which NASA had more equal partnerships with other organizations to accomplish its space exploration mandate.

I am heartened by recent developments in this arena. Of course, if this fails, it is quite possible in the next few years that America may find itself without a human spaceflight capability after the shuttle retires this year.

At this point in the history of human spaceflight, 50 years after Alan Shepard made his first suborbital flight and John F. Kennedy challenged Americans to reach the Moon by the end of the 1960s, it is appropriate to consider the possible futures for American astronauts in space. I am reminded of a statement that has been used repeatedly to suggest American ingenuity: “If we can send a man to the Moon…?” But I would then end the phrase with this question, “…how come we can’t send a man to the Moon?” Are we seeing U.S. leadership decline in this most exclusive of all endeavors undertaken by great nations of the world?

A lesson in humility might spur a national commitment to redouble our efforts. The late social commentator and comedian Sam Kinison once said to other nations seeking to undertake space spectaculars: “You really want to impress us! Bring back our Flag!” If Americans are sufficiently impressed that another nation can do things in space that we cannot, we may come to view this as a crisis, and as is always the case in a perceived crisis, the U.S. will make the investment necessary to overcome it. Maybe China, India, or any number of other nations seeking to advance their national prestige will bring back our flag from the Moon, metaphorically at least, and prompt us to redouble our efforts.

With sufficient diligence and resources, of course, virtually anything humans can imagine in spaceflight may be achieved. We should be concerned, however, that neither sufficient diligence nor resources will be available for this great initiative. In the process of failure we may also lose our longstanding intrinsic ability for access to space with our seasoned, capable, and resolute astronaut corps. These outcomes are most unsettled as the end of the first decade comes in the twenty-first century.

Roger D. Launius is senior curator in the Space History Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

MESSENGER on Final Approach to Mercury

Today at 8:45 pm EDT (March 18, 2011, 12:45 am UTC), MESSENGER will become the first spacecraft ever to enter Mercury’s orbit. With MESSENGER on the last leg of its journey, I’m reminded how long it has taken to get there.  I watched the spacecraft launch in the early morning hours of August 3, 2004, almost six and a half years ago.  Now after one flyby of Earth, two flybys of Venus, and three flybys of Mercury, the spacecraft will catch up with Mercury again, but this time it will be captured by the planet.  You might think as one of our closest neighbors in the Solar System it would take a lot less time to get into Mercury orbit – but because Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun, at a distance where the influence of the Sun’s gravity is much greater, it is a challenge to reach and orbit.

MESSENGER

This artist's impression shows MESSENGER with its sunshade side. The sunshade shields the spacecraft from solar radiation, helping to keep the instruments from overheating. Image courtesy of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

In its three flybys of Mercury, MESSENGER imaged much of the planet’s surface. As great as the flyby images are, they vary greatly in resolution and in lighting geometry.  In orbit, MESSENGER will map the entire surface of Mercury at high resolution and with even lighting.  These first images obtained from orbit will revolutionize our understanding of Mercury.  I will be eagerly examining the new images for evidence of fault scarps, landforms created by the shrinking of Mercury’s crust causing it to break and from cliffs.  These cliffs tell us that Mercury’s interior has cooled and the entire planet has contracted.  With a new global view of Mercury, we can map all the fault scarps and estimate just how much the planet has contracted over time.  It’s an exciting time for the exploration of Mercury!

Mercury

This color image of Mercury was captured on September 29, 2009 during MESSENGER's third and final flyby. Image courtesy of NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Tom Watters is senior scientist and geologist in the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies at the National Air and Space Museum.

Airplanes and Overpasses

As we begin to take occupancy of our new home in the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center’s new wing, and begin the process of outfitting the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar, we are faced with the daunting task of moving all of our equipment into the new spaces and setting up an environment which will be favorable to the preservation and restoration of our priceless artifacts for decades to come. This is likely to be a lengthy process but we have begun to deliver selected artifacts so that when the viewing area becomes accessible, visitors will be able to see examples of our gems in the rough.

Each of these aircraft has been in storage at the Paul E. Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland for years, where the Museum’s restoration work had taken place for decades.  These aircraft are seldom seen by the public, and are all in need of preservation or restoration treatments.

By far, the largest of these chosen artifacts is the Sikorsky S-43 / JRS-1 (U.S. Navy version) flying boat.  It is actually a twin-engine amphibian design, which has an overall length of more than 51 feet, a wingspan of 86 feet, and weighs over six tons.  The airplane is constructed mostly of aluminum along with extensive use of fabric coverings on the control and lifting surfaces, and powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney radial engines. This particular airplane has historic significance in that it was stationed in Hawaii on Dec. 7th, 1941, and survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Sikorsky

Sikorsky JRS-1 in storage at the Paul E. Garber Facility.

Once assigned to the team tasked with relocating this large object, I began, as I usually do, by researching the project.  This meant a visit to the National Air and Space Museum Archives which are also currently located at the Garber Facility, but will be moving to the Udvar-Hazy Center.   The helpful staff was able to find the material I needed in the form of a manufacturer’s maintenance manual.  The document contains a wealth of information and addresses the transport, assembly, and rigging of the airplane.  Having this important information available for a 73-year-old airplane that was produced in relatively small numbers, and of which there are only a few left in existence, is an amazing testament to our Archives Division.

After reading through the relevant information, we came to realize that, by design, the large flying boat would separate into manageable sub-sections, as the airplanes were often crated when they left the factory to be assembled upon reaching their final destination.  This would prove invaluable for transport of the pieces over the D.C. beltway to Chantilly, Virginia.  While looking at the fully assembled airplane in a storage building at the Garber Facility, we concluded that although the disassembly, move, and reassembly would be rather involved, it should be a fairly straight-forward process. However, by virtue of the Sikorsky’s sheer size and weight, this would not be an easy job.

Sikorsky Wing

Collections staff remove the Sikorsky JRS-1 wing center section in preparation for the move from the Museum's Paul E. Garber Facility to the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.

Prior to beginning the actual disassembly process, several preliminary steps had to be taken.  We removed all of the access panels which covered the assembly hardware and applied penetrating lubricant to all the bolts.  This would help loosen potentially stuck or corroded mounting bolts.  All of the support struts and bracing wires were tagged as to their relative location on the airplane to help during the reassembly process.  Several rigging slings were fabricated in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines for the purpose of lifting the large sections.  We bagged and tagged all loose mounting hardware to ensure nothing got misplaced along the way.

During the removal of the propellers from the engines we encountered a problem that resulted in a unique solution.  Once the exact Hamilton-Standard propeller model had been identified, I found that we did not have the proper tool needed to remove it. A co-worker suggested I look in a Japanese engine and propeller tool kit that we had in the collection.  As it turns out, the American-made Hamilton-Standard propellers had been produced under license in Japan prior to World War II, so the Japanese tool kit contained the exact tool needed to do the job.

In order to avoid a delay in fabricating welded stands to support the engines once removed, we decided to take a different approach.  Rather than remove the engines from their mounting rings, we instead pulled the engine mounts from the nacelles at the front of the wing.  This allowed us to rotate each engine vertically and utilize the four-point mount itself as a stand.  Although this required more work to disconnect the various components, it saved time in the schedule.

Sikorsky Engine

Collections staff rotate the Sikorsky JRS-1 engine vertically so the four-point mount can be used as a stand.

The rest of the disassembly work proceeded on schedule, and then the relocation of the aircraft to our new home near Dulles airport began.  Five tractor trailer loads were required to transport all of the various sub-assemblies.  The largest section was the one-piece hull, which exceeded “normal” dimensional limits and meant that requisite permits had to be obtained through both the Maryland State Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles for transport of a “wide load” on our open trailer.  The route chosen for transport was also carefully evaluated to avoid “choke points” such as low overpasses, beltway construction, and “Jersey” barriers.

Sikorsky Hull

Sikorsky JRS-1 hull is secured to transport trailer

Sikorsky

Collections staff tow the Sikorsky JRS-1 fuselage down I-495.

Through much planning and coordination on the part of the team, the move went smoothly and the big Sikorsky now awaits its public debut alongside the other artifacts in the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hanger.

Anthony Carp is a Museum Specialist in the Collections Division at the National Air and Space Museum.

Musings on Black History Month-Women’s History Month and the History of Aviation

For a number of years now, the United States has set aside February and March to celebrate Black History Month and National Women’s History Month, respectively. While these commemorations are praiseworthy, they should not disguise the fact that they have been rather contentious culturally. Some would argue that it is insulting to African Americans to celebrate their history for only one month every year. In the case of women, National Women’s History Month has become a call to arms in an ongoing struggle for women’s rights, to ensure educational and economic opportunities for all women, and for ending violence against them. Moreover, these celebrations give the impression of being restitution for past historical wrongs and injustices.

Unfortunately, the use of these tributes in the history of aviation has its own sense of tokenism. Celebrations of the aviation accomplishments of African Americans and women should not ignore the fact that often these groups had to struggle against deeply-ingrained racial and gender prejudice. Laudably, the interwar years saw attempts to democratize aviation, with such programs as “An Airplane for Everyman,” a New Deal attempt to design and build an affordable aircraft for Americans, and the Civilian Pilot Training Program, another New Deal program created to stimulate the private flying business and train thousands of pilots in preparation for wartime. Ironically, while attempts were being made to make flying all inclusive, blacks and women were routinely disenfranchised from aviation because of prejudice.

Eugene Bullard

Eugene Bullard is the acknowledged first African American military pilot, although he flew for the French flying service not the US Air Service. An American expatriate to France, Bullard was a hero of the Battle of Verdun before he began to fly for the French.

Eugene Bullard, the acknowledged first American black military pilot was initially accepted into the Aéronautique Militaire, trained as a pilot, and flew in combat, but was refused entry into the U.S. Air Service largely because of racial prejudice. There is some reason to believe that Bullard was subsequently booted out of the French air service because of American influence and American racial prejudice. Bessie Coleman, the acknowledged first black woman aviator in United States, was so determined to learn to fly that she had to travel to France to do so. Her successors in Chicago were forced to create a “shadow” activity, flying in segregated circumstances, because they were barred from the white flying community. William J. Powell, who established black flying activity and trade education programs in California, saw aviation as a way for blacks to be accepted into the mainstream. As enlightened as Powell’s ideas were, they came to naught in a climate of racial prejudice.

Bessie Coleman Aero Club and William Powell

Founded by William J. Powell (standing, extreme right) in California 1931, the Bessie Coleman Aero Club took the name of the first acknowledged African-American woman pilot. The club promoted flying activities and trade education in the belief that aviation would break down racial barriers. Powell insisted that the club be open to all races and to women.

Military flying was especially an area where blacks were excluded because they were deemed intellectually unfit. In October 1925 a report prepared for the U.S. Army chief of staff, titled “The Use of Negro Manpower in War,” was reportedly the result of several years of study by War College students and faculty. The report concluded that Negro men considered themselves to be inferior to white men, subservient by nature, and lacked initiative and resourcefulness. Blacks were only “fair” laborers and thought to be substandard as technicians and fighters. Blacks were also very low on the scale of human evolution, with a smaller cranial cavity than that of whites. Blacks were thought to be profoundly superstitious by nature, and to possess numerous character and moral weaknesses, among them petty lying, promiscuity, and a tendency to commit atrocities in regard to white women. But the most injurious accusation was that blacks were cowardly. This study would be the basis for the exclusion of black Americans from the Army Air Corps, but it could also have served as a blueprint for keeping them out of flying altogether. Even when the U.S. Army Air Corps was finally forced by law to admit blacks into its flying program on January 16, 1941, it was on a segregated basis until well after WWII.

The War College report, however, had a larger context. Reinforcement for racism was provided by nineteenth-century scientific theory. For example, Samuel G. Morton, a professor of anatomy at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote numerous works, among which Crania Americana; or, A Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America (1839), An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America (1842), and Crania Aegyptiaca; or, Observations on Egyptian Ethnography, Derived from Anatomy, History, and the Monuments (1844), are considered to be the foundation of a theory of scientific racism. Crania Americana, for example, sought to divide peoples into four hierarchical racial classifications, based on measurable physical differences, especially as regards the capacity of the brain, with Europeans at the high end of the scale, and Asians, Native Americans and Africans at the low end.

In the twentieth century, the idea of the separation of the races and the superiority of one race over another was further reinforced by psychology. Anthropologist Audrey Smedley [Race in North America: Origins and Evolution of a Worldview (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2007)] points out that the development of intelligence tests was one avenue of reinforcing the idea of race and racial superiority and inferiority established scientifically in the nineteenth century. These tests claimed that intelligence was measurable and based on hereditary differences rather than environmental factors. “The IQ tests,” Smedley writes, “became the favorite technique of pro-heredity advocates, and their success reflects the fact that their findings and interpretations have been highly compatible with the racial worldview to which Americans in general have subscribed.” (293)

In the case of women, Blanche Stuart Scott, Matilde Moissant, Harriet Quimby, Ruth Law, and Katherine Stinson overcame numerous barriers in the years before WWI to fly and set flying records. One of the largest obstacles was the overwhelming impression that piloting an airplane was a masculine endeavor, an idea that had been promulgated in the early years of flying. It was the Great War, however, that definitely put a masculine stamp on flying, especially with the creation of the “ace,” a fighter pilot who gained prominence by the number of victories (aircraft shot down) scored against the enemy. Businessmen like Andre Michelin, the French tire mogul established a million-franc fund for aviators who had distinguished themselves in battle. By 1916, governments began to recognize aviators and exploit their nationalistic and propagandistic value. Courage in aerial combat was seen as a distinctly male trait.

American cultural taboos against women taking part in combat affirmed that women would not be allowed to fly in combat; thus, there was no possibility that women could achieve distinction as military pilots. Nor were women admitted into other areas of aviation, except in a token manner, despite the fact that there were notable headliners during the 1920s and 1930s, particularly Amelia Earhart, Louise Thaden, and Jacqueline Cochran. As Susan Ware [Still Missing: Amelia Earhart and the Search for Modern Feminism (New York; W.W. Norton)] points out, “The late 1920s represented a golden age for the woman pilot. But at the end of the decade women pilots had been excluded from the next stage of development—that of commercial aviation—and their marginalization was cemented by World War II. The postwar world of aviation was very much a man’s world, although strong-minded and talented individual women continued to play a role.” (61-62)

Amelia Earhart

The most famous woman pilot of her era, Amelia Earhart was a promoter of women’s careers in aviation and one of the founders of the Ninety-Nines, the first professional organization of women pilots. Her disappearance in 1937 during an around-the-world flight attempt sent shockwaves through the aviation community. Speculation about what happened to her is widespread nearly three quarters of a century later.

Louise Thaden

Another renowned woman pilot who came to prominence in the interwar years, Thaden was winner of the 1929 transcontinental Women’s Air Derby (the so-called “Powder Puff Derby”), one of the founders of the Ninety-Nines, and the first woman (with Blanche Noyes) to win the Bendix Trophy Race in 1936, flying from New York to Los Angeles in slightly less than fifteen hours.

Jaqueline Cochrane

Cochran was a celebrated woman pilot whose career spanned four decades from the 1930s to the 1960s. In 1937, she won the prestigious long-distance Bendix Trophy Race, flying from Los Angeles to Cleveland in a little more than eight hours. She later founded the WASP (Women Airforce Service Pilots), a group of civilian women who flew military aircraft in non-combat situations during World War II. In 1953 she became the first woman to break the sound barrier.

Ware’s statement is borne out by the fate of the WASP (Women Airforce Service Pilots) program of WWII. The WASP were civilian women who worked for the U.S. Army Air Forces as service pilots, ferrying aircraft from factories to ports and military training bases, towing targets, and flying cargo. Despite the success of the program, and the fact that women proved they were capable of flying many different kinds of military aircraft in difficult circumstances and over long distances, the program came to an abrupt end because of politics, and the fears of male service pilots that their jobs would be taken by women after the war.

WASP

Members of the WASP (Women Airforce Service Pilots) are pictured at Lockbourne Army Air Field in World War II. From left to right are Frances Green, Margaret (Peg) Kirchner, Ann Waldner and Blanche Osborn. The WASP were civilian women pilots who flew in non-combat situations for the U.S. Army Air Forces during the war. The program came to an abrupt end in 1944 because of gender politics.

While the situation for blacks and women in aviation has changed somewhat, racial and gender stereotypes still exist. Also, despite the breaking of barriers, blacks and women are decidedly underrepresented in military aviation, commercial aviation, aeronautical engineering, and the aviation business in general. One can only hope that commemorations like Black History Month and National Women’s History Month will at least make people aware that historically blacks and women have proved they were capable of making significant contributions, and that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and be accorded equal status.

Dominick A. Pisano is a curator in the Aeronautics Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

The Last Sikorsky JRS-1 Makes A Move to the Udvar-Hazy Center

On December 7, 1941, a US Navy squadron consisting of ten Sikorsky JRS-1 amphibious seaplanes was on station in the Hawaiian Islands. Shortly after the Japanese attack that Sunday morning, the planes were launched in an effort to locate enemy submarines and ships near Oahu. Initially not armed, the first missions included riflemen positioned on board near open windows and doors to shoot potential adversaries in case any were discovered. Later, these ten JRS-1 craft were armed with depth charges, one under each wing that could more effectively attack Japanese submarines.

The Sikorsky JRS-1 fuselage arrives at the Udvar-Hazy Center. Smithsonian photo by Mark Avino.

On Tuesday, March 8 at 10:15am, the world’s only surviving JRS-1 (designated S-43 in the civilian world) arrived at the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar at the Museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles International Airport. After 50 years in preservation storage at the Paul E. Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland, this World War II veteran amphibious sea plane finally emerged into the bright Virginia sunshine—and it looks fantastic.

The Sikorsky JRS-1 is backed into the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar. Smithsonian photo by Dane Penland.


Doug Erickson talks to Matt Jolley from Warbird Radio while Public Affairs Specialist, Frank McNally, looks on.

Doug Erickson, of the Museum’s Collections Division, expertly piloted the “Big Blue” truck and flatbed that carried the fifty-one foot long fuselage from Suitland, around the Washington DC beltway, then via Route 66 to the Udvar-Hazy Center. Aside from a bit of a tight squeeze on the entry ramp to 66 and bunches of “gawkers,” the transport went precisely as planned. For Doug, the significance of the object really hits home AFTER the job of safely loading, moving, and unloading is complete. “It goes from being work, to being really cool!”

Collections staff prepare to offload the Sikorsky JRS-1 inside the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar. Smithsonian photo by Dane Penland.


Museum Technician, Pat Robinson, grabs a strap to help steady the aircraft as it is lifted off of the flatbed trailer.

Museum Technician, Pat Robinson, has been assisting with the disassembly and move preparation for the JRS. Others on the team include, Anthony Wallace, Move Project Manager; Tony Carp, JRS Disassembly Lead; Douglas Erickson, JRS fuselage move driver/coordinator; and Scott Wood. Pat mentioned that while the task has been challenging, the sight of the aircraft in the open air for the first time in decades was a highlight of the day. During the process, the team has uncovered much of the original paint scheme and original colors that will one day guide the restoration of the aircraft. The vibrant green used on the vertical tail and the cherry red on the engine cowlings verify that this JRS-1 belonged to the unit commander.

As curator of the JRS-1, the opportunity to get such a significant artifact into the public view has been a major goal. It seems fitting that this historic American aviation artifact will be on public view at some point during this year of the Centennial of Naval aviation, as well as the seventieth anniversary of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

In what may be the last “flight of the JRS-1” the team steadies the fuselage in preparation for rotating it 180 degrees for display. Smithsonian photo by Dane Penland.

The team poses in front of the Sikorsky JRS-1, resting comfortably in position for display inside the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar.

This aircraft is one of the most historically significant in the national collection and represents a long, proud heritage of aviation in the U.S. Navy. Moving the JRS-1 to the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar will allow the National Air and Space Museum to utilize the most modern facilities available to improve the long-term preservation of treasures like the JRS-1.

Dik Daso is curator of Modern Military Aircraft in National Air and Space Museum’s Aeronautics Division.