United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable

Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senate

October 1995 SMITHSONIAN

INSTITUTION

Better Care Needed for

National Air and Space

Museum Aircraft

GAO/GGD-96-9

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-260089 

October 19, 1995

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison

United States Senate

Dear Senator Hutchison:

This report is in response to your request that we review matters relating to aircraft restoration

at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum (NASM). Your request was made

on behalf of constituents who were concerned that NASM is not restoring a sufficient number of

historic aircraft in its collection.

Copies of this report will be distributed to the Secretary of the Smithsonian, the Acting NASM

Director, and cognizant congressional committees. Copies will also be made available to others

upon request.

Major contributors to this report are John Baldwin, Sr., Assistant Director, and Robert Homan,

Evaluator-in-Charge.

If you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8387.

Sincerely yours,

J. William Gadsby

Director, Government Business

 Operations Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose The National Air and Space Museum (NASM), located on the Mall in

Washington, D.C., has attracted an average of nine million visitors per year

since its opening in 1976. In December 1994, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

was contacted by an historic aircraft organization, which believed that

NASM was not properly managed and in particular was not restoring a

sufficient number of aircraft, thereby allowing its collection to deteriorate.

GAO was asked to assess the rate of aircraft restoration; examine the

adequacy of facilities for preserving aircraft; and if preservation problems

exist, identify options to better care for the aircraft collection.

Background In 1946, Congress passed legislation that the Smithsonian Institution

establish a separate air museum, which became the National Air Museum.

In 1966, Congress changed the name of the National Air Museum to NASM

and granted the Smithsonian the same functions with respect to space

objects as it had previously granted the Smithsonian for aviation objects.

Congress indicated that NASM should “memorialize the national

development of aviation and space flight.” The museum was designed to

display to the public notable exhibits comprising the nation’s air and space

collection, including historic and scientific aviation “firsts” such as the

original Wright Brothers flyer, Charles Lindbergh’s “Spirit of St. Louis,”

and the first manned spacecraft.

NASM’s aircraft collection now consists of 344 aircraft; 210 of which are

stored at its Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility

in Suitland, MD; 62 that are on display at the Mall museum; 58 that are on

loan to other museums; and another 14 that are stored at three other

locations.

Since the mid-1980s, NASM has planned to build a museum extension at

Dulles International Airport, VA, to provide additional exhibit space and to

replace existing substandard storage and restoration facilities. The

planned extension is currently expected to cost about $162 million. The

Smithsonian estimates it will have to raise $100 million in private money to

supplement funds pledged by Virginia. NASM recently began formulating a

financing plan for the extension.

The museum has received considerable media and congressional attention

recently, with its proposed exhibit of the “Enola Gay,” the plane that

dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. In January 1995, 81

Members of Congress demanded the NASM Director’s resignation,

protesting NASM’s proposed interpretation that would have accompanied

Page 2 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Executive Summary

the exhibit. Citing the controversy involving the exhibit, NASM’s former

Director resigned in May 1995.

Results in Brief Although the NASM on the Mall is popular with the public and has

preserved many of our nation’s historic air and space artifacts,

management of the aircraft collection at other locations that are not

generally seen by the public needs improvement. NASM commits relatively

few resources to aircraft restoration, compared to other museum activities

and another federally funded air museum. But, even if NASM were to

increase its restoration efforts, the museum would not have adequate

space to properly display or store the aircraft. Therefore, it is important

for NASM to determine how to better preserve its collection in view of the

limited financial resources available for aircraft restoration and storage,

including determining what size collection can be adequately supported.

Since NASM was established, certain aspects of the museum’s mission as a

national air and space museum have been vague. For example, the

legislation that created NASM does not specify whether the museum should

duplicate collections at other federally funded air and space museums or

whether a national museum should include foreign aircraft. Once NASM’s

mission is clarified, NASM would be better able to develop criteria for what

constitutes historically and technologically significant aircraft and, in the

context of such criteria, consider which aircraft it should have in its

collection to fulfill its mission, considering available museum resources

and the adequacy of storage facilities.

If it is determined that NASM’s current collection is too large in view of the

resources and facilities available, options to reduce the collection size so

that the collection can be stored or displayed in space with adequate

environmental controls include deaccessioning1

 aircraft and obtaining

second-party restorations by making temporary loans to other museums.

Using more second-party restorations would help preserve NASM’s

collection, alleviate its storage capacity problems, and help share its

collection with the public.

The planned extension at Dulles Airport could help alleviate NASM’s storage

facility problems, but funding is uncertain and the extension may take

several years to complete. One option that may be available to reduce

costs in the short term, while NASM seeks funds for the entire extension,

would be to limit the new space to the same size as current storage

1

An object is “deaccessioned” when it is removed from a museum’s collection.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Executive Summary

facilities. If feasible, this would help NASM expedite plans to replace its

deteriorating storage facilities with new storage and restoration space at

Dulles with proper environmental controls.

In addition to storing aircraft in substandard space, NASM does not have a

management plan for each aircraft that describes (1) whether and how the

aircraft will be used in future exhibits, (2) to what extent and when it will

be restored, and (3) who is responsible for monitoring its condition.

Collections management staff said that they feel disenfranchised from the

Mall museum, citing management’s emphasis on research and exhibits.

Principal Findings

Relatively Few Resources

Devoted to Aircraft

Restoration

In fiscal year 1994, NASM devoted about $2.7 million to collections

management, including restoration, or 14 percent of its total expenditures

of about $20 million. This excludes time spent by curators on collections

management, which Smithsonian officials said was not tracked or

reported. NASM currently employs a restoration staff of 12 individuals,

which represents 4 percent of its total staff of 288, excluding the security

force. The Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH, another federally funded air

and space museum, employs 20 restorers out of a total staff of 90, or

22 percent of its total staff.2

In the past 5 years, NASM completed seven restoration projects, while

continuing the restoration of four other projects, at a cost of about

$1.4 million. These 11 projects included 3 U.S. aircraft and 8 foreign

aircraft. Assuming that current staff levels remain constant, the restoration

staff continue to spend half of their time on other work, and no additional

aircraft needing work were added to the collection, GAO estimated that it

would take about 100 years to restore aircraft that need work.

NASM’s collections management staff at the Garber facility said that since

so much attention is placed on exhibits and research, they feel

disenfranchised from the museum on Washington’s Mall. Their chief

concerns were that (1) aircraft restoration is given a relatively low priority;

(2) too much of their time is spent on tasks other than restoration;

2

The ratio of restorers to total staff at NASM and the Air Force Museum may not be directly

comparable because of differences in the museums’ funding, number of visitors, condition of aircraft,

and other factors.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Executive Summary

(3) additional restoration work on aircraft is required because the

collection has not been properly maintained; (4) NASM’s management does

not have adequate backgrounds in museums, aircraft, or spacecraft; and

(5) little interaction occurs between restoration staff and NASM curators.

(See p. 22 for a detailed list of these concerns along with management’s

responses.) While these concerns were not the focus of GAO’s review, some

of them could be explained by communications problems and different

perspectives from management. GAO also noted that many of the concerns

have persisted for years without being resolved. NASM managers, including

the former director,3

 said that exhibits do not take away funds from

aircraft restoration because exhibits generally are privately funded.

Managers also said that they have tried to obtain increased funding for

collections management but have not been successful. In commenting on a

draft of this report, Smithsonian officials said that feelings of

disenfranchisement on the part of the collections management staff

resulted from a number of factors, most notably resource-related matters.

Storage Facilities Do Not

Provide Adequate

Preservation

Even if NASM were to devote more resources to restoration, the museum

does not have adequate storage facilities to protect aircraft and related

artifacts from deterioration. A NASM conservation assessment undertaken

from 1991 to 1994 examined the condition of 13 storage buildings at the

Garber facility and the condition of the artifacts. The assessment indicated

that the buildings had wide temperature fluctuations, leaky roofs,

structural problems, and dirt and dust accumulation. The aircraft and

other artifacts were deteriorating as a result.

The Smithsonian spent $9.1 million in the past 10 years to improve the

Garber facility, and Smithsonian officials said that the facility needs at

least an additional $7.4 million in repairs over the next 5 years.4

 However,

Smithsonian officials responsible for maintaining and repairing all

museum facilities said that it is unlikely that NASM will receive the needed

repair funds because it must compete with other Smithsonian facilities for

scarce repair funds. NASM also has a $33.8 million backlog of deferred

maintenance and repair at the museum on the Mall.

GAO identified two options to partially address this concern. NASM could

decrease the size of its collection by deaccessioning items with less

historical and technological significance and could undertake

3

NASM’s former director resigned on May 2, 1995.

4

The Smithsonian estimates that 35 percent of these improvements were made for NASM’s share of the

Garber facility, which is also used by other Smithsonian museums.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Executive Summary

second-party restoration loans. Second-party restoration loans involve

loaning NASM aircraft to other museums for display over a temporary

period, such as 10 years, in exchange for having them restored to NASM

standards. Although NASM deaccessioned 11 aircraft in the past 5 years, it

has not made the difficult decisions on what aircraft could be removed

from the collection or developed a strategy to find additional museums

that might be interested in restoration loans.

NASM’s Future Plans Are

Uncertain

NASM has relied on a planned 670,000 square-foot extension facility at

Dulles Airport to replace the Garber facility and allow for the acquisition

of aircraft that cannot be transferred to the Mall museum as the solution to

its storage problems. However, it is unclear when or whether the

extension will be built, given the uncertainty surrounding the museum’s

ability to raise at least $100 million in private funds needed for its

construction.

Recommendations GAO is recommending that the new NASM Director and Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution consult with Congress to better define the mission

of NASM. Once that has been done, the new NASM Director and the Secretary

should determine the relative priority of the aircraft in the NASM collection

and the number and types of aircraft that can be adequately supported. If

the size of the collection needs to be reduced, NASM should consider

accomplishing that through more emphasis on deaccessioning and loaning

out aircraft. For those aircraft that remain in the collection, GAO is

recommending that NASM develop a management plan for each aircraft,

which includes (1) whether and how the aircraft will be used in future

exhibits, (2) to what extent it will be restored and when, and (3) who will

be responsible for monitoring its condition. GAO is also recommending that

NASM develop a plan to increase the interaction of the collections

management staff and the curators. In addition, GAO is recommending that

NASM further explore private funding alternatives and the feasibility of

options to better care for the current collection, such as constructing an

initial phase of the Dulles Airport extension facility.

Agency Comments GAO requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the

Smithsonian or his designee. The Under Secretary provided written

comments, which are discussed in chapter 5.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Executive Summary

The Smithsonian recognized a number of issues raised in this report and

said it is working to address them. The Smithsonian said that the greatest

challenges are the lack of adequate storage space and inadequate

resources to do all of the things that must be done. The Smithsonian

disagreed with some of GAO’s findings and indirectly disagreed with some

of GAO’s proposed solutions to the collections care problems. As discussed

in chapter 5, GAO evaluated the Smithsonian’s comments and clarified its

findings where appropriate but still believes its recommendations would

help solve NASM’s resource problems and help ensure that the NASM aircraft

collection is better cared for.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

10

Background 10

Funding 12

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 15

Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively

Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

17

Restoration Efforts 17

Collections Management Staff Generally Feel Disenfranchised 21

Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do

Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

26

Inadequate Storage Facilities Are Causing the Collection to

Deteriorate

26

Consideration of Other Alternatives Could Lessen NASM’s

Restoration and Preservation Burden

32

Chapter 4 

Future Plans for the

Dulles Extension and

Additional Aircraft

Are Uncertain

36

NASM Extension Plans 36

Future Acquisitions Could Exacerbate Storage Problems 38

Chapter 5 

Conclusions and

Recommendations

41

Conclusions 41

Recommendations 42

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 43

Appendixes Appendix I: Garber Facility Assessment 46

Appendix II: Probable NASM Aircraft Acquisitions 49

Appendix III: Comments From the Smithsonian Institution 52

Tables Table 1.1: Sources of NASM Funding for Fiscal Year 1994 13

Table 1.2: Fiscal Year 1994 NASM Expenditures 14

Table 2.2: NASM Aircraft Restoration Projects From 1990 to 1995 19

Page 8 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Contents

Table 2.3: Collections Management Staff Concerns and

Management Responses

22

Table 3.1: New Restoration Loans Initiated During 1993 and 1994 34

Table I.1: Conservation Assessment of Buildings at the Garber

Facility

46

Abbreviations

AMARC Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration Center

CEPS Center for Earth and Planetary Studies

DOD Department of Defense

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

NASM National Air and Space Museum

NMAH National Museum of American History

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Page 9 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Background Since its opening in 1976, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and

Space Museum (NASM), located on the Mall in Washington, D.C., has

attracted an average of nine million visitors per year. It received the most

visitors in 1984, with 14.4 million. The museum had 8.2 million visitors in

1993 and 8.5 million visitors in 1994.

Since 1976, 106 aircraft have been on display at the Mall museum. Of

NASM’s 344 aircraft, 62 are currently on display at the Mall museum and

seen by millions of visitors to the museum. Of the remaining 282 aircraft,

210 are stored at the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage

Facility, Suitland, MD;1

 58 are on loan to and exhibited by other museums;2

12 are stored at Dulles International Airport, VA; 1 is stored at the

Department of Defense’s (DOD) Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration

Center (AMARC), Tucson, AZ;3

 and 1 is at Andrews Air Force Base, MD.

NASM estimates that 245 of the 344 aircraft are exhibitable, 55 need minor

work to become exhibitable, and 44 need major restoration work. Since

the early 1980s, NASM has planned to build an extension facility at Dulles

International Airport to replace the Garber facility and to display large

aircraft that cannot be shown at the Mall museum.

The Smithsonian’s earliest acquisition of aviation artifacts was made in

1876, when it received kites from the Imperial Chinese government to

celebrate the American Centennial celebration. In 1905, the Smithsonian

acquired its first flying machine, Langley Aerodrome No. 5, a model

aircraft that made the first successful flight of any unmanned,

engine-driven aircraft. Several other aircraft were added to the

Smithsonian’s collection before World War I, including the 1909 Wright

Military Flyer, the world’s first military airplane.

In the decade after World War I, the Smithsonian acquired several World

War I aircraft. Paul E. Garber, a Smithsonian employee with an interest in

airplanes who joined the Smithsonian in 1920, arranged for the

Smithsonian to acquire the “Spirit of St. Louis” in 1928, a year after Charles

Lindbergh’s historic solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean. During the

1930s, the Smithsonian added many historic aircraft to its collection,

which was housed in a small metal building behind the Smithsonian’s Arts

and Industries Building in Washington, D.C.

1

NASM also has on display 68 aircraft at the Garber Facility, which received about 18,000 visitors last

year.

2

Three additional aircraft are pending shipment from Garber for loan to other museums.

3

NASM also has a Boeing 707 fuselage and a Convair C-131E at AMARC, which have not been entered

as part of the collection but were acquired for parts.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 1 

Introduction

In 1946, Congress passed legislation that the Smithsonian establish a

separate air museum, which became the National Air Museum.

Mr. Garber also obtained many of the Smithsonian’s World War II aircraft

from a collection assembled by Army Air Force General Hap Arnold, who

believed that it was in the national interest to obtain one example of each

type of World War II aircraft, including captured enemy aircraft. After

World War II, most of these aircraft were stored in an automobile factory

building in Park Ridge, IL, until the government sought to reactivate the

factory for the Korean War in 1950. That collection subsequently was

divided between the Smithsonian and the Air Force. The Smithsonian’s

then newly organized National Air Museum acquired its share of the

collection, which was moved to a 21-acre tract of federally owned land,

located by Mr. Garber, in Suitland, MD, about 7 miles from Washington,

D.C. The aircraft were mainly stored outside at Suitland from the early

1950s until they were moved into temporary storage buildings that were

constructed primarily in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s.

In 1966, Congress changed the name of the National Air Museum to the

National Air and Space Museum and granted the Smithsonian the same

functions with respect to space objects as it had previously granted the

Smithsonian for aviation objects. Congress indicated that NASM should

“memorialize the national development of aviation and space flight; collect, preserve, and

display aeronautical and space flight equipment of historical interest and significance;

serve as a repository for scientific equipment and data pertaining to the development of

aviation and space flight; and provide educational material for the historical study of

aviation and space flight.”4

According to the legislative history, the museum was designed to display

to the public notable exhibits comprising the nation’s air and space

collection, including historic and scientific “firsts” such as the original

Wright Brothers flyer, the first to fly at Kitty Hawk in 1903; Charles

Lindbergh’s “Spirit of St. Louis,” the first solo across the Atlantic Ocean in

1927; the first Earth satellites; and Alan Shepard’s Freedom 7 and John

Glenn’s Friendship 7, the first manned spacecraft in the Mercury program.

Testifying before Congress in 1964, the Director of the National Air

Museum said that the museum “. . . cannot accept one of each airplane and

4

P.L. 89-509.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 1 

Introduction

launch vehicle. We accept only those of great historical significance.”5 The

congressional report accompanying the authorizing legislation emphasized

that NASM would make possible for the first time a comprehensive

presentation to the public of the notable exhibits comprising the nation’s

air and space collections.

NASM’s collection tracks the country’s early developments of flight to the

most recent space ventures. Although NASM’s collection contains some

military aircraft, the museum’s focus is not military aviation. By contrast,

other federally funded aviation museums, such as the Air Force Museum in

Dayton, OH, and the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FL, primarily

display military aircraft. Further, NASM does not display replicas but

restores aircraft to original, although not flyable, condition. NASM’s

restorations involve using original parts or locating similar parts, or

constructing the parts if they cannot be found.

Some officials in other air and space museums told us that NASM has very

high restoration standards—standards that they said their museums

generally could not afford to meet. The Director of the Air Force Museum,

for example, said that NASM “wrote the book on aircraft restoration,” and

that NASM’s restoration process is “excruciatingly thorough and detailed.”

The Air Force Museum Director also said that the museum cannot afford

to follow NASM’s restoration standards and must make compromises in

seeking originality. The Director of the Champlin Fighter Museum in Mesa,

AZ, told us that NASM’s restoration process is more tedious than

Champlin’s. An official from the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson,

AZ, told us that his museum tries to put acquired aircraft on display as

soon as possible, limiting restoration work to cosmetic changes. The

former director said that NASM’s high standards are intentional and are

designed to allow researchers in the future to study the materials and

technology originally used to construct aircraft.

Funding NASM operates on both federal funds, used primarily for employee salaries,

and private donations, which largely fund exhibits.6

 In fiscal year 1994,

NASM received about $15.4 million in federal appropriations, grants, and

contracts for salaries, travel, research, and supplies. It also received

5

Hearings on S.2602 to amend P.L. 722 of the 79th Congress and P.L. 85-935, relating to the National Air

Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, before the Subcommittee on the Smithsonian Institution of the

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 22 (1964).

6

According to NASM, over the past 5 years, $802,173 in federal funds were spent on the museum’s

exhibits, and the remainder, $3,352,500, was provided by other sources, such as corporate donations

and Smithsonian trust funds.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 1 

Introduction

$10.6 million in nongovernmental funds, such as private donations and

theater and gift shop revenues. Table 1.1 details the sources of NASM

funding for fiscal year 1994.

Table 1.1: Sources of NASM Funding

for Fiscal Year 1994

Source of funds Amount received

Amount spent (as of

September 30, 1994)

Federal appropriationa $12,210,000 $12,210,000

Government grantsb 2,950,540 573,784

Grants-government contractsc 287,093 106,475

Nongovernment grants 252,430 49,278

Restricted endowmentsd 296,582 113,232

Unrestricted endowments 342,219 185,778

Gifts 2,014,376 315,582

Special purposee 1,598,835 430,328

Bureau discretionaryf 1,838,910 1,798,495

Bureau auxiliaryg 3,548,465 3,548,465

Reimbursementsh 451,795 451,795

Total $25,791,245 $19,783,212

Note: Excluded above are expenditures for NASM’s facilities repairs and its security force, which

are paid for separately by the Smithsonian. In fiscal year 1994, the Smithsonian spent $613,453

on NASM facilities repairs and $2.9 million on NASM’s security force, which consists of about 76

personnel.

aIncludes salaries and benefits, travel, and supplies.

bGovernment grants include funds made available from governmental sources at the federal,

state, or local level to support specific types of research, education, or other projects.

cThe government contracts listed in this category are agreements with the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration and the National Research Laboratory to provide funding for specific

research projects.

dEndowments are funded from the interest on the invested principal. The uses for restricted

endowments are set by the terms of the original endowment.

eSpecial purpose funds are those funded by the Smithsonian for special exhibits and scholarly

studies.

f

The sources of discretionary funds include revenue sharing from auxiliary activities, such as the

NASM theater, shops, royalties, and honoraria.

gBureau auxiliary funds are revenue producing activities such as the museum theater that are

initiated as a means of providing additional resources to accomplish their missions. At the end of

the fiscal year, two-thirds of these funds are transferred to the NASM discretionary fund and

one-third to the Smithsonian general fund.

hReimbursements are made by other organizations for federal personnel costs and other

expenses, such as travel costs, that are incurred by the Smithsonian as a result of providing

services.

Source: NASM.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Of the $26 million of funds received in fiscal year 1994, NASM spent about

$20 million, as of September 30, 1994. About $6 million of the funds

received included revenue from endowments, grants, and gifts that will

not be paid out until later years. Table 1.2 shows fiscal year 1994 NASM

expenditures in the categories that the museum maintains for its budget

data.

Table 1.2: Fiscal Year 1994 NASM

Expenditures Category of expenditure Amount

Office of the Directora $2,129,000

Art 112,000

Space history 1,020,000

Archivesb 691,000

Public affairs 299,000

Computer services 567,000

Development/special 438,000

Facilities managementb 249,000

Aeronautics 1,409,000

Collections managementb 1,785,000

Exhibits 1,461,000

Audiovisual 586,000

Exhibits production 793,000

Center for Earth and Planetary Studies 1,033,000

Planetarium 900,000

Langley Theater 2,889,000

Education 535,000

Lab for astrophysics 600,000

Building managementc 2,283,000

Total $19,779,000d

aIncludes salaries of the director, an astrophysicist, and 14 other positions.

bFunding for the Collections Management Department includes the categories of archives,

facilities management, and collections management. The facilities management category pertains

to expenses incurred at the Suitland, MD, and Dulles Airport, VA, facilities for routine

maintenance, such as cleaning and snow removal.

cThe building management category pertains to the Mall museum building only and includes

services such as cleaning and routine, minor maintenance.

dDoes not agree with figure for total spent provided in table 1.1 because of rounding.

Source: NASM.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

In December 1994, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was contacted by an

historic aircraft organization, which said that NASM was not properly

managed and in particular was not restoring a sufficient number of

aircraft, thereby allowing its collection to deteriorate. We were asked to

assess the rate of aircraft restoration; examine the adequacy of facilities

for preserving aircraft; and if preservation problems exist, identify options

to better care for the aircraft collection.

To obtain information about the formation of the Smithsonian’s aircraft

collection, we reviewed the legislative history of NASM and historical

materials written about the museum and its collection. We also obtained

and analyzed NASM data regarding the current number and aircraft in its

collection, their condition and location, and the costs of aircraft

restoration and storage. We inspected NASM’s Paul E. Garber Preservation,

Restoration, and Storage Facility in Suitland, MD, NASM aircraft stored at

Dulles International Airport, VA, and DOD’s AMARC in Tucson, AZ. To obtain

information about NASM’s plans to collect additional aircraft, we reviewed

the museum’s collections rationales for aircraft and space objects.

At NASM, we interviewed staff involved in aircraft restoration and

preservation, including the Assistant Director for Collections Management,

the conservator, 10 restorers, 3 volunteers, and 4 other collections

management staff; 5 curators; the former senior curator; the Senior

Advisor to the Director; and the former director. We selected NASM

employees based on their involvement with managing the collection for

our interviews. Some of the individuals we interviewed contacted us on

their own initiative to provide information.

To compare NASM’s restoration and preservation practices with other

federally funded museums, we visited and interviewed officials from the

Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH, and the Smithsonian Institution’s

National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., and obtained

data from these museums about their restoration staffing levels. We also

visited and interviewed officials from the Champlin Fighter Museum in

Mesa, AZ, about its restoration of an airplane for NASM under contract.

To compare restoration and preservation practices at a nonprofit museum

that receives no government funds, we visited and interviewed an official

from the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, AZ. We also interviewed

other individuals knowledgeable about NASM’s restoration and preservation

policies and practices, including the Director of the San Diego Aerospace

Museum in San Diego, CA, and the Air Force Historian. We also reviewed

Page 15 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 1 

Introduction

reports from 1988 to 1994 of the Research and Collections Management

Advisory Committee, an advisory group consisting of academic and

museum professionals that was formed by the most recent NASM Director

to provide senior management with outside reviews of museum programs.7

 In addition, we interviewed the Advisory Committee Chairman and one of

the committee members.

We obtained and reviewed materials relating to NASM’s planned extension

at Dulles Airport, including space requirements, financing, and future

aircraft acquisitions plans. We also reviewed the legislative history

regarding the extension and interviewed NASM officials involved in

planning the project.

To obtain information on repairs needed, recently made, and scheduled

for NASM facilities, we interviewed staff and analyzed data from the

Smithsonian’s Office of Design and Construction.

As agreed with Senator Hutchison’s office, we focused on NASM’s collection

of 344 aircraft and did not focus on the 8,000 spaceflight items and 23,800

other artifacts in the NASM collection.

We did our work from January through June 1995 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. Our work was done in

the Washington, D.C., area; Dayton, OH; Mesa, AZ; and Tucson, AZ. We

requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the

Smithsonian or his designee. The Smithsonian’s written comments are

included in appendix III and discussed and evaluated in chapter 5.

7

From 1988 to 1991, the committee was called the Collections Management Advisory Committee, after

which the committee was renamed the Research and Collections Management Advisory Committee.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

In fiscal year 1994, NASM devoted about 14 percent of its total expenditures

on collections management, including aircraft restoration. Management

has no firm plans for restoring each aircraft in the collection and has no

recognized standards against which to monitor the productivity of the

restoration staff. NASM’s collections management staff, who work at the

Garber facility in Suitland, MD, said that so much attention is placed on

exhibits and research, they generally feel disenfranchised from the

Washington, D.C., Mall museum staff. NASM management responded that

because exhibits are generally privately funded, they do not take away

funds from aircraft restoration. Further, management officials said that

they have consistently requested increased funding for collections

management, even though those efforts have not been successful.

Restoration Efforts NASM currently employs 12 individuals who work on aircraft restoration

out of a total staff of 288, or 4 percent of its workforce.1

 The Air Force

Museum, another federally funded air museum, employs 20 restorers out

of 90 total staff, or 22 percent. The ratio of restorers to total staff at NASM

and the Air Force Museum may not be directly comparable, however,

because of differences in the museums’ funding, condition of aircraft,

number of visitors, and other factors.

In fiscal year 1994, NASM devoted about $2.7 million to collections

management, or 14 percent of its total expenditures. NASM’s collections

management department staff work mainly at the Paul E. Garber

Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility in Suitland, MD.

Collections management personnel who work at the Garber facility

include the restoration staff; personnel who handle the shipping, receiving,

and storage of artifacts; the conservator’s staff; and the archival staff. The

Garber facility contains the restoration shop, stored aircraft and

spacecraft and related parts and artifacts, and film storage. Public access

is limited to 3 of the 13 storage buildings at the Garber facility, plus the

restoration shop. The archival staff work both at the Garber facility and at

the Mall museum, where the photo collections are stored. The collections

management department also includes the registrar, who maintains the

official object records at the Mall museum. Collections management

personnel also maintain the 12 aircraft and 2 hangars that NASM has at

Dulles Airport.

1

NASM differentiates between restoration and preservation of its collection. Restoration is defined as

bringing an artifact back to its original state, while preservation is defined as maintaining the aircraft

to prevent future deterioration. The total staff of 288 does not include the 76 employees involved in

providing security of NASM, who are paid for by the Smithsonian. Also, NASM said that in 1994,

volunteer restorers contributed an equivalent of 2.3 staff years of effort at NASM.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

NASM’s restoration staff told us they spend about half of their time working

on tasks other than restoration, such as delivering and hanging aircraft,

training and supervising interns and volunteers, performing maintenance

on shop equipment, research, and administrative work.

During the past 5 years, NASM completed seven restoration projects, while

continuing the restoration of four other projects. These 11 projects

involved 3 U.S. aircraft and 8 foreign aircraft. NASM spent about $1.4 million

to restore 9 of the 11 aircraft; it did not maintain cost records for the other

2. The largest project undertaken was the restoration of the “Enola Gay,”

which took over 10 years to complete at a cost of about $809,000. During

the past 5 years, NASM spent a total of $11.3 million for collections

management. Table 2.2 shows a list of restoration projects that NASM

worked on from 1990 to 1995.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

Table 2.2: NASM Aircraft Restoration

Projects From 1990 to 1995 Type of aircraft Project time Work hoursa Cost

Hawker-Hurricane (World War

II British fighter)

Started June 1988, not

yet completed 17,943 $231,571

B-29 “Enola Gay” (World War

II U.S. bomber)

December 1984-

May 1995 57,646 808,948

Voisin (World War I French

bomber)

April 1989-

June 1991 7,273 104,709

Aichi Serian (World War II

Japanese attack plane)

Started June 1989, not

yet completed 12,276 178,156

Pflaz D XII (World War I

German fighter)

March 1991-

May 1991 589 10,949

FE-8 (World War I British

reconnaissance plane)

May 1991-

August 1991 767 14,796

Fokker D.VII (World War I

German fighter)

1991 (repainting) no records

availableb

Sopwith 7F.1 Snipe (World

War I British fighter)

1992 (recovering) no records

availableb

Stinson SR-10 Reliant (1930

U.S. mail plane)

September 1992-April

1993 3,628 38,014

Langley Aerodrome Model 5

(model aircraft)

Started January 1994,

not yet completed 470 6,808

Ohka 22 Baka (World War II

Japanese bomber)

Started October 1993,

not yet completed 4,218 3,966

Total 104,810 $1,397,917

Note: The restoration costs shown reflect only the staff salaries and do not include the costs of

equipment, materials, and overhead.

aDoes not reflect some projects for which work hours and costs were not recorded, such as

on-site preservation of the “Spirit of St. Louis” and repainting and preservation of the P-47.

bThese projects were staffed exclusively by volunteers with only general oversight by the paid

staff; workhours were not recorded.

Source: NASM.

NASM’s former Senior Curator, who still works at the museum as a

volunteer, told us that the restoration staff’s productivity has decreased in

recent years. He attributed that productivity decline to (1) the restoration

staff being diverted from restoration to other tasks, (2) little or no interest

shown by the museum management in restoration, and (3) a decrease in

the curators’ involvement in restoration.

Although NASM prepares a yearly restoration schedule, it does not have a

long-range plan for which aircraft it plans to restore beyond the coming

year or specifically what work is needed for each airplane in the

Page 19 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

collection. Further, NASM does not determine the relative importance of

each aircraft or whether and how each aircraft will be used in future

exhibits. In commenting on a draft of this report, Smithsonian officials

said it was more important to explain why an aircraft was collected and

what role it plays in the collection than to plan its use in future exhibits.

NASM does not use any work measurement standards or other estimates of

the time it should take to prepare work or aircraft restorations. The

Assistant Director for Collections Management told us that she does not

have a technical background in aircraft restoration and does not know

how long the restoration work should take. She said that she relies on the

restoration shop foreman to evaluate the restoration staff’s performance

and provide technical guidance to them.

At our request, NASM estimated the amount of time it would take to restore

all aircraft currently in its collection that needed work. NASM said that of

the 344 aircraft in its collection, 245 were exhibitable, 55 needed minor

work to become exhibitable, and 44 needed major restoration work.

Assuming that a 12-person restoration staff worked full-time on restoring

aircraft, NASM estimated in May 1995 that it would take about 52 years to

restore the 99 aircraft. However, since the restoration staff told us they

spend only half of their time on restoring aircraft, we estimated that it

would take about 100 years to restore the 99 airplanes, assuming that no

additional aircraft needing work were added to the collection, the current

staffing trends continue, and the restoration staff continue to spend half of

their time on other work.

When we asked about the rate of restoration at NASM, the former NASM

Director said that he saw no need to accelerate the restoration backlog or

to plan NASM’s restoration work for the next 50 years because too many

changes in restoration techniques would occur over that period. He said

that because of the cost of restoring the “Enola Gay,” NASM has adopted a

new policy whereby any large planes will be accepted only if they do not

need restoration work. He added that the museum’s mission is broader

than restoration and includes research and education, which also have to

be supported.

The former director also said that it is harder to obtain additional

resources for collections management from outside sources than it is for

exhibits. He said that NASM had received some private donations in recent

years, including a $250,000 corporate gift that was made after loaning

spacecraft and aircraft to Japan, new paint-mixing equipment worth

Page 20 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

$50,000 from a U.S. corporation, an airplane hangar at Dulles Airport

worth $100,000 from a group of local construction companies, $27,000 for

the “Enola Gay” restoration from veterans, and restoration of two engines

of the “Enola Gay” by the San Diego Aerospace Museum.

Collections

Management Staff

Generally Feel

Disenfranchised

We asked members of the collections management staff, including the

Assistant Director for Collections Management, the conservator, 10

restorers, 4 employees involved in maintaining the collection, and 3

volunteers, about the rate of aircraft restoration. The staff generally were

not satisfied with the current restoration efforts at the museum and

indicated that they felt disenfranchised from the curators and management

at the Mall museum.

The collections management staff said that (1) collections management,

including aircraft restoration, is given a low priority compared to other

museum activities, such as exhibits, research, publishing, the Laboratory

for Astrophysics, and the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies (CEPS);2

(2) too much of their time is spent on tasks other than restoration;

(3) additional restoration work is required on aircraft because the

collection has not been properly maintained; (4) NASM’s management staff

and some curators do not provide effective leadership because they do not

have adequate backgrounds in museums, aircraft, or spacecraft; (5) little

interaction occurs between the restoration staff and the curators;

(6) management wasted funds when it recently held a 3-day retreat outside

of Washington, D.C.; and (7) some recent exhibits, such as one on Barbie

dolls, contain few or no aircraft.

We asked NASM management to comment on these concerns.

Management’s primary responses were that (1) exhibits are generally

privately funded and do not take away funds from restoration; (2) the

collections management department is tasked with many responsibilities

in addition to aircraft restoration; (3) NASM’s requests for increased funding

for collections management have been rejected by the Smithsonian or the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB); (4) NASM’s management staff have

backgrounds in museums, aircraft, and management; (5) the Smithsonian

requires curators to spend time on research and publishing; (6) the retreat

2

CEPS and the Laboratory for Astrophysics are scientific research units of NASM. According to NASM,

research at CEPS is focused on “geological and other processes acting to modify the earth’s surface

and those of the other terrestrial planets.” The Laboratory for Astrophysics is charged with conducting

basic research in astronomy and astrophysics. Budget data provided by NASM indicated that federal

funds, including grants and contracts with other agencies, accounted for $920,000 of the $1,033,000

cost of operating CEPS and $566,000 of the $600,000 to run the astrophysics lab in fiscal year 1994.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

was useful to prepare the museum’s mission statement; and (7) that one

manager had opposed creating new exhibits with few or no artifacts.

A comparison of the collections management staff’s views and

management’s responses to them is provided in table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Collections Management

Staff Concerns and Management

Responses

Staff concerns Management responses

Collections management, including aircraft

restoration, is given a low priority compared

to other museum programs, such as

exhibits, research, publishing, the

Laboratory for Astrophysics, and CEPS.

Exhibits are generally privately funded and

do not take away funds from restoration. 

Research and publishing are required for

curatorial positions.

The Laboratory for Astrophysics and CEPS

are directly related to the museum’s

mission, and the research generated by

them is incorporated in the galleries and

public programs. The Smithsonian only

pays for three of the astrophysics lab staff

salaries, while all of the lab’s other

expenses, including three other staff, are

funded through grants from other agencies

that would not be used for aircraft

restoration.

Museums are not only about technology.

They should also tell stories, not just

display inert objects.

The restoration staff’s time is spent on too

many tasks other than restoration.

NASM tasks its small Collections

Management Department with many

responsibilities. The staff’s efforts to care

for and preserve the collection are diluted

to meet an ambitious exhibitions program,

safety and health regulations, and by

sharing the collection with others around

the world.

Additional restoration work is required

because the collection has not been

properly preserved.

NASM has consistently requested

additional funding for collections

management, but the requests have been

turned down by the Smithsonian or OMB.

NASM must compete with other

Smithsonian museums for repair funds,

and other museums have higher priorities

than repairing the Garber facility. The

planned Dulles extension should provide

NASM with a new restoration shop and

storage facilities.

(continued)

Page 22 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

Staff concerns Management responses

NASM’s management staff does not have

adequate backgrounds in museums,

aircraft, and spacecraft.

Some of NASM’s managers do have

backgrounds in museums, aircraft, and

spacecraft, and some managers have

other valuable skills and backgrounds,

such as management.

Little interaction occurs between the

restoration staff and the curators. The

curators rarely visit the Garber facility.

The Smithsonian requires curators to

spend time on research and publishing.

The curators do not need to visit the

Garber facility unless they are working on

a project involving the artifacts.

Management wasted funds when it recently

held a 3-day staff retreat outside of

Washington, D.C.

The retreat was an opportunity to prepare

the museum’s mission statement and was

useful.

Some exhibits contain few or no aircraft,

such as an exhibit of Barbie dolls.

The purpose of the Barbie doll exhibit is to

“engage the interest of very young female

children with a display of dolls

representing some of the changing roles of

women in aerospace.” The Mattel

Corporation is paying for the $5,678 exhibit

cost.

One manager said that she had opposed

creating new exhibits with few or no

artifacts.

Source: NASM collections management staff and management officials.

The concerns raised in table 2.3 and NASM’s responses show a high level of

disagreement and morale problems among the staff who are responsible

for preserving and restoring NASM’s artifacts. While these concerns were

not the focus of our review, our overall work in the management area

indicates that some of the conflict that exists could be explained by

communications problems and the different perspectives of collections

management staff and NASM management.

NASM’s focus on research and exhibits, compared to collections

management, also has been cited by the Research and Collections

Management Advisory Committee, an advisory group formed by the

former NASM Director and consisting of academic and museum

professionals. The committee’s 1994 report indicated that curators

perceive that research and exhibition are the only work that counts for

advancement, and as a result, many do not spend time with the collection,

visit the Garber facility, or address collections issues on an ongoing basis.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

In its 1990 report, the Advisory Committee raised the same concerns

expressed to us 5 years later by the collections management staff. The

1990 report said that

“the leadership of the Museum must continue to focus its attention on collections

management issues. The perception amongst the staff is that the Director is most interested

in and concerned with research, publication, exhibition, and scholarship generally, and

while the Committee knows of the leadership’s dedication to the collection and its care, it

believes that this commitment needs continually to be communicated outward to the rest

of the staff: to the curators, who need to be reminded of the realities of limits and

resources; and to the collections management staff, which often must struggle internally

inside the Museum to get the attention and cooperation of other staff.”

Morale problems among the collections management staff are not new.

According to a 1982 book by a former NASM Director, in the early years of

the Garber facility, “a split developed, whereby the people at Silver Hill

regarded themselves and were regarded as blue-collar renegades,

necessary, but somehow not part of the Smithsonian.”3

 The author added

that no one really knew or cared how hard and how well the Silver Hill

crew was working. In 1994, the Advisory Committee noted that friction

between the curators and collections management staff remained, in spite

of improved dialogue and increased contact.

In commenting on a draft of this report, Smithsonian officials said that

feelings of disenfranchisement on the part of the collections management

staff resulted from a number of factors, most notably resource-related

matters.

A NASM Collections Management Advisory Committee member also

expressed the view that NASM management and exhibits appeared to be

geared more toward pleasing academic peers than the public, and that

exhibits have too much interpretation of the role that aircraft and

spacecraft played in history and society. He cited, for example, the

criticism that occurred with respect to the interpretation that was

contained in a proposed script for the exhibit of the “Enola Gay,” the

aircraft that dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan. In

January 1995, 81 Members of Congress wrote to the Secretary of the

Smithsonian, complaining that the former director’s actions in drafting the

exhibit script “were a slap in the face to all the parties who contributed

their time and expertise in creating an exhibit that best reflects the

3

In the book, The Aircraft Treasures of Silver Hill, by Walter Boyne (New York: Rawson Associates),

1982, the Garber facility is also referred to as Silver Hill.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 2 

NASM Pays Relatively Little Attention to

Aircraft Restoration

contributions that all Americans made to the culmination of World War II”

and demanding the NASM Director’s resignation. On May 2, 1995, the NASM

Director resigned, citing the controversy involving the exhibit, which

received considerable media attention. NASM is now displaying only part of

the plane, without extensive commentary.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

Even if NASM were to restore more aircraft, the museum does not have

adequate storage facilities to protect them from deterioration. Current

conditions are much improved since the time when much of the collection

was stored outdoors, and some repairs have been made in recent years to

the Garber facility. However, the buildings in which the aircraft are stored

do not have humidity controls or air-conditioning, and only a few are

heated. As a result, the collection in storage is continuing to deteriorate,

including previously restored aircraft. NASM has consistently requested

increased funding for collections management and for storage facilities

repairs in recent years, but NASM must compete with other Smithsonian

museums for limited resources and has been unable to obtain needed

funding. In the absence of additional funding, NASM has not developed a

strategy to pursue alternatives to lessen the storage burden, such as

loaning aircraft to other museums for 5 to 10 years for display in exchange

for their restoring the aircraft for NASM or deaccessioning items with less

historical or technological significance.

Inadequate Storage

Facilities Are Causing

the Collection to

Deteriorate

The Smithsonian’s collections management policy, issued in May 1992,

requires museums to ensure that collections are maintained in conditions

intended to preserve and extend physical integrity. Under the policy,

prudent collections management requires the identification and

elimination or reduction of damage to the collection, such as

deterioration. The National Park Service, which has prepared guidance on

museum collection policies, indicates that collections should be

maintained in storage facilities with appropriate levels of relative humidity

and temperature.1

Much of NASM’s aircraft collection was stored outside in Suitland, MD, from

the early 1950s until they were moved into temporary storage buildings

that were constructed primarily in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s.

Although moving the aircraft indoors was an improvement over storing

them outdoors, the Garber storage facilities are still not environmentally

controlled. The wood, fabric, and even metals used in aircraft are

susceptible to deterioration and corrosion when exposed to great

differences in temperature and humidity, even though aircraft may be

protected from rain and snow. Storing the aircraft outdoors and later in

facilities that were not environmentally controlled caused aircraft in the

collection to deteriorate, which meant that additional restoration work

had to be done.

1

National Park Service, Museum Handbook, Part I, Museum Collections, 1990.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

NASM currently has 236,300 square feet of storage space at the Garber

facility, including the restoration shop, and 50,200 square feet of space at

Dulles Airport, or a total of 286,500 square feet. Of the 286,500 square feet

of space for storage and the restoration shop, 101,500 square feet are

heated. The storage space is overcrowded and lacks humidity controls.

Overcrowding has resulted in 5 of NASM’s 344 aircraft being stored

outdoors: 2 are at Dulles International Airport; 1 is at AMARC in Tucson, AZ;2

1 is at Andrews Air Force Base, MD; and 1 is on loan at the Pima Air and

Space Museum in Tucson.

From 1991 to 1994, NASM undertook a conservation assessment, examining

the condition of the museum’s 13 storage buildings at the Garber facility

and the condition of the artifacts contained in them. According to the

assessment, the buildings and artifacts are suffering from wide

temperature fluctuations, leaky roofs, structural problems, and dirt and

dust accumulation. Moreover, the reports indicated that the building

conditions are promoting the deterioration of the collection, including

restored aircraft. For example, the assessment on a building that contains

restored aircraft indicated that “the restoration process alone cannot be

considered a solution because many restored objects in Building 20 are

deteriorating . . . . Almost all recently restored aircraft in Building 20 have

evidence of corrosion.” Excerpts from the reports are contained in

appendix I.

The conservation assessment also commented on overall preservation

practices at the Garber facility. According to a June 1993 report, “[t]he

condition of many objects stored at the Garber Facility illustrates what

can happen when museum administrators permit a collection to grow and

develop without providing direction and funding for its preservation . . . .

[P]reservation is a primary museum responsibility, moreso than education,

research, or exhibition, given that those functions are, or should be,

collection-dependent. Therefore, preservation is not an option or a low

priority, nor is it a one-time budget expense. It is a continuous process that

requires adequate levels of staffing and funding.”

In the past 10 years, the Smithsonian spent $9.1 million to improve the

Garber facility, including roof repairs, asbestos removal, and storm-water

2

To minimize deterioration, DOD stores aircraft in Tucson, AZ, because of its low humidity and

rainfall. Aircraft windows and openings are covered to prevent ultraviolet ray damage to interiors of

aircraft stored there.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

structures, or an average of $910,000 per year.3 Also, a new artifacts

storage building to be shared with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of

American History (NMAH) and a new chemical building for NASM are being

constructed at a cost of about $1.4 million. While these repairs have

helped improve conditions at the Garber facility, much more repair work

is needed.

We interviewed officials from the Smithsonian’s Office of Design and

Construction, which is responsible for maintaining and repairing

Smithsonian facilities and asked about the feasibility of obtaining

additional repair funds for the Garber facility. The Design and

Construction officials indicated that during the last 5 years, the

Smithsonian spent over 8 percent of its total repair funds on NASM facilities

(including the Garber facility and the Mall museum), which represent 

7 percent of the square footage of all Smithsonian facilities, and spent 

5 percent of its total repair funds on the Garber facility alone, which

represent 3 percent of the square footage of all Smithsonian facilities. The

officials also said that over the next 5 years, the Mall museum needs at

least $33.8 million in repairs and that the Garber facility needs at least

$7.4 million in repairs. However, the officials said that it is unlikely that

NASM will receive the needed repair funds because NASM must compete

with other Smithsonian museums for scarce repair funds.

The Design and Construction officials said that the Smithsonian has a

backlog of $250 million in deferred maintenance for all of its museums,

can only afford to make about $25 million in repairs each year, and

accrues another $32 million to $35 million in additional repair work each

year. Because new requirements exceed available funding each year, the

backlog of deferred work will continue to grow. The Office of Design and

Construction officials also said that recent improvements that have been

made to the Garber facility are not expected to last long. They added that

some of the Garber buildings have structural problems and may not be

repairable.

NASM must compete with other Smithsonian museums for its overall

funding, including collections management, as well as repair funds. In 4 of

the past 5 years, NASM’s requests for increased funding for collections

management have been turned down either by the Smithsonian or OMB.

4

 In

3

The Smithsonian estimates that 35 percent of these improvements were made for NASM’s share of the

Garber facility, which is also used by other Smithsonian museums.

4

For fiscal year 1995, the Smithsonian instructed NASM not to request additional funding due to budget

constraints.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

fiscal year 1994, for example, NASM requested an additional $395, 000 and 3

additional positions for collections management. The Smithsonian

reduced that request to $150,000 and 1 additional position, which OMB

rejected. For fiscal year 1996, NASM requested an additional $576,000 and 9

additional positions for collections management. The Smithsonian

reduced the fiscal year 1996 request to $411,000 and 1 additional position,

which OMB rejected.

In making its 1996 request for additional collections management funding,

the Smithsonian indicated that

“NASM has the unique mission to preserve the technology represented by the history of

aviation and spaceflight, by preserving the vehicles in which early pioneers broke speed

records, explored new worlds, fought aerial battles, and sought data about our universe.

Judging by the millions of visitors who visit the Museum and by the many letters from the

public urging us to step up our efforts to preserve this evidence of flight, there is a broad

base of public support for artifact restoration. Sadly, without additional resources, some of

our treasures may be lost.”

Museum officials said that they must rely on federal funds for maintaining

their facilities because of the difficulty of raising private funds for storage

facilities with no public access. Another official said that donors want

their contributions to be visible, for example, with exhibits, where the

contributors’ names can be prominently displayed.

While we do not take any position on how NASM should allocate its

resources, the Assistant Director for Collections Management suggested

reassigning some curatorial staff to collections management temporarily

to address critical collections care problems. She also said that the

Smithsonian should increase its focus on the care of the collection and

place less emphasis on research until major collections problems are

under control. NASM’s curators are required to conduct scholarly research

in their fields of interest, as well as assume other responsibilities involving

exhibits, managing the collection, and public service.

We visited AMARC in Tucson, AZ, where NASM currently stores one aircraft.5

An AMARC official said that NASM does not pay to maintain its aircraft, as the

other AMARC customers do. The official said that maintenance normally

involves putting a new protective coating on the aircraft and new oil in the

engines every 6 months, which involves about 4 hours of work and

5

When we visited AMARC in March 1995, NASM had six aircraft stored there. NASM also has a Boeing

707 fuselage and a Convair C-131E at AMARC, which have not been entered as part of the collection,

but were acquired for parts.

Page 29 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

generally costs a few hundred dollars per plane. The official also said that

no one from NASM had visited AMARC to inspect its aircraft for 2 or 3 years.

The official added that, even though NASM does not pay to have its aircraft

maintained, AMARC took care of two of NASM’s aircraft at no cost to NASM

because they were on display.

NASM has attempted to preserve some of its aircraft that are stored outside

at Dulles Airport and Andrews Air Force Base. Two of NASM’s aircraft that

are stored outside at Dulles Airport —a Lockheed 1049 Constellation and a

Lockheed C-130A Hercules—and another that is stored outside at Andrews

Air Force Base—a Grumman A-6E Intruder—are connected to

dehumidifiers. The airplane at Andrews Air Force Base is housed in a

container.

The Collections Management Advisory Committee reported in 1991 that,

while the facilities improvements that have been made at the Garber

facility were substantial, they were short-term fixes. Stating that a new

extension must be built to provide adequate indoor storage space, the

committee said in its 1991 report that the longer the delay, the higher the

cost in deteriorating artifacts and interim expenses. The committee added

that some of the deterioration is irreversible.

According to Smithsonian policy, museums normally establish minimum

standards of physical care and regular schedules for the maintenance of

collections. NASM Collections Management staff said that they do not

conduct formal, periodic inspections of aircraft in storage. Smithsonian

officials said that curators are aware of the condition of aircraft when they

are acquired and are responsible for reviewing the condition of those in

storage. Smithsonian officials said that some curators spend an average of

30 percent of their time on collections management and that one curator

spent 3 years working on an engine maintenance program. However, some

curators told us that they generally do not inspect the collection unless

they have a reason to do so, such as preparing an exhibit involving the

artifacts. NASM has adopted a new policy that 0.5 percent of the collection

be randomly inspected by 1996 and then the same amount be inspected on

a biannual basis. The proposed policy was submitted to the Smithsonian

for approval in July 1994, but was not approved until May 1995. NASM’s

Assistant Director for Collections Management said the Smithsonian does

not give collections management a high priority.

We asked NASM officials about who is responsible for seeing that the

collection is properly cared for—the curators or the collections

Page 30 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

management staff. The Chairman of the Aeronautics Department said that

the curators and collections management personnel have joint

responsibility. However, the former senior curator said that it is unclear

who is responsible for the collection. The collections management staff

said that the Collections Management Department is responsible for the

physical care of the collection. The former NASM Director said that the

curators are supposed to know the condition of the artifacts in their

collections and, if they notice a problem, are to bring it to the attention of

the collections management staff, who then prepare a correction plan with

the assistance of the curators.

We interviewed officials from the Smithsonian’s NMAH, who told us that

NMAH faces the same, if not worse, storage problems as NASM. NMAH officials

said that in the early 1980s, the museum was forced to decide that it could

no longer collect large objects because of the lack of storage space. The

officials said that of the seven storage buildings NMAH has at the Garber

facility, all have leaky roofs, three have asbestos, and one is quarantined

because of asbestos contamination.

In a 1991 article for a Smithsonian publication, NASM’s conservator said

that collections storage is often the most neglected function within a

museum. He said that exhibition is generally considered a higher priority

and receives a greater share of the funding, and that storage is considered

by many to be a static function requiring only space. The conservator also

noted that one of the major threats to important collections is poor storage

and that as a result of poor storage (1) objects could be misplaced,

(2) important information could be lost, (3) irreversible damage could

develop and progress go undetected, and (4) theft and damage could go

unnoticed for years.6 NASM’s conservator told us that NASM’s aircraft need

more preservation and less restoration. He said that restoring aircraft is

not needed to preserve them.

The former NASM Director said that he would like to move the entire

collection at the Garber facility to the museum’s planned new extension

facility, which is discussed in detail in chapter 4. However, the Research

and Collections Management Advisory Committee has recommended that

improvements be made to the Garber facility, despite the extension plans.

In its 1990 report, for example, the committee noted needed improvements

6

A March 10, 1995, Washington Times article indicated that a NASM curator was suspended in

connection with allegations of stealing and reselling of aviation artifacts. An official from the

Smithsonian’s Office of Inspector General told us that policy prohibited him from confirming or

denying the existence of an ongoing investigation. On July 1, 1995, The Washington Post reported that

the curator had pleaded guilty to stealing museum artifacts.

Page 31 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

in the chemical treatment facility and welding shop, and overcrowding at

the Garber facility. In the minutes of its 1989 meeting, the committee

indicated that NASM should not rely on the prospect of the future

extension, which may be years away, to substitute for today’s crucial

conservation and storage needs.

Consideration of

Other Alternatives

Could Lessen NASM’s

Restoration and

Preservation Burden

Because NASM lacks a clear focus regarding its mission, its collection

includes some aircraft whose historical significance has been questioned,

some duplicate aircraft, and a number of foreign aircraft. It is not clear

whether this fulfills Congress’ original intent to establish a national

museum that showcases this country’s most important aviation

achievements. Reducing the size of the collection and undertaking

second-party aircraft restorations with temporary display loans are viable

alternatives to lessen NASM’s burden of caring for a large aircraft collection.

However, NASM has not developed a strategy to deaccession aircraft. It also

has not accelerated pursuing second-party restorations with temporary

loans, despite repeated recommendations to do so by its advisory

committee.

Deaccessions Congress intended that NASM collect, preserve, and display aeronautical

and space flight equipment of historical interest and significance. While we

have no basis for determining which aircraft should be included in NASM’s

collection, some other individuals familiar with NASM’s aircraft collection

that we contacted questioned whether NASM should have collected certain

aircraft. The Director of the Air Force Museum, for example, questioned

the wisdom of NASM having acquired a large collection of World War II

Japanese aircraft.7 NASM’s Senior Advisor to the Director questioned

whether the museum should have acquired a Boeing 727—a commercial

aircraft still widely used. Further, a NASM curator, who is a former Air

Force pilot, questioned whether the museum needs two McDonnell F-4s.

Moreover, the Air Force Historian, who is a former NASM curator, said that

NASM’s collection is disorganized and is too large to care for.

NASM’s Research and Collections Management Advisory Committee has

repeatedly recommended that the museum accelerate deaccessioning of

aircraft. For example, in 1991, the committee reported that NASM

7

In commenting on a draft of this report, Smithsonian officials said that most of the foreign aircraft in

the collection were provided by the U.S. military services.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

“must get serious about deaccessioning, and expand where feasible its loan program. We

recognize the reluctance on the part of the staff to part with important artifacts and the

fear that other institutions, as well as the process of physical transfer, might produce some

damage. But the collection is simply too large—for what this Museum needs in terms of a

national collection, in terms of balance, and most compelling, in terms of the Museum’s

ability to prevent artifacts from deteriorating. And the Museum cannot accomplish its

mission of preservation and the diffusion of knowledge if so much of its collection is

hidden from public view in storage facilities that do not meet minimum museum

standards.”

In its most recent report, the committee again recommended that NASM

accelerate deaccessioning and loans of aircraft and even suggested that

the museum consider seeking authority from Congress to sell part of its

collection.

We asked the former NASM Director what the museum has done to respond

to the committee’s recommendation regarding reducing the size of the

collection. He said that it is not easy to find other museums to take NASM

aircraft. Also, NASM’s Senior Advisor to the Director said that there is a

reluctance to deaccession aircraft, because some NASM staff believe

everything in the collection is valuable. From 1991 to 1995, NASM

deaccessioned 11 aircraft. Another six aircraft have been identified for

deaccession, but NASM cannot find responsible museums willing to accept

them, according to NASM officials.

The Assistant Director for Collections Management said that, while NASM

may not have too many aircraft to reflect the history of aviation, the

museum does have more planes than it can care for. She also said that

there should be more coordination between NASM and other national

museums that operate on federal funds, such as the Air Force and Navy

museums, to avoid duplication. The Air Force Historian agreed that NASM

should not duplicate the collections of the Air Force and the Navy.

The Chairman of the Research and Collections Management Advisory

Committee told us that there has been disagreement among museum staff

about whether NASM should deaccession aircraft. The Advisory Committee

Chairman also said that, since the former NASM Director was not a

historian, he had to rely on the advice of expert curators regarding

deaccessions, but that the experts could not agree on what aircraft, if any,

to dispose of. The chairman said that NASM has the greatest aircraft

collection in the world, but that it needs to be pruned. Moreover, the

chairman said that because the museum had such a large and varied

Page 33 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

constituency, including the public, military, airplane buffs, and film

makers, deaccessioning aircraft would be difficult.

Second-Party

Restorations/Loans

Another alternative that could lessen NASM’s burden of caring for its

aircraft collection would be loaning its aircraft to other organizations for

display over a temporary period, such as 10 years, in exchange for having

them restored. NASM officials told us that they are using second-party

restorations and in fact developed the legal and contracting procedures to

undertake such work, and would welcome similar proposals from other

institutions. While NASM is using this option, it has no detailed strategy to

determine whether there are additional opportunities to use it.

NASM reported that it loaned 18 aircraft to other museums for restoration

and storage during 1993 and 1994. Of these 18 aircraft, NASM initiated the

loan of 8 aircraft—6 for restoration and 2 for storage. The other party

initiated the loans for the other 10 aircraft. For example, the Champlin

Fighter Museum in Mesa, AZ, contacted NASM about restoring a Kawanishi

N1K2-J, nicknamed the “George,” for NASM in exchange for being able to

display it for 10 years. Table 3.1 shows the six aircraft restoration loans

that were initiated by NASM in the last 2 years.

Table 3.1: New Restoration Loans

Initiated During 1993 and 1994 Type of aircraft Museum/Organization

Boeing 307 Boeing Company

MiG 21 U.S. Air Force

Horton II Museum fur Verkehr und Technik, Berlin,

Germany

Horton IIIf Museum fur Verkehr und Technik, Berlin,

Germany

Horton IIIh Museum fur Verkehr und Technik, Berlin,

Germany

Horton VI Museum fur Verkehr und Technik, Berlin,

Germany

Source: NASM.

The Assistant Director for Collections Management told us that NASM does

not have an active program to identify outside restorers. The former NASM

Director agreed and said that NASM must be careful about who it allows to

restore its aircraft, since many museums do not meet NASM’s restoration

standards. To help overcome this concern, NASM provides standards that

second-party restorers must follow. These standards, along with careful

Page 34 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 3 

Storage Facilities Do Not Provide Adequate

Preservation

screening of the capabilities of second parties, coupled with periodic

monitoring of work in progress during restoration, can help ensure that

adequate standards are followed. In addition, NASM officials said that the

loan program requires considerable staff time for crating, shipping, and

other related tasks that reduces staff time available for in-house

restoration efforts.

The Collections Management Advisory Committee has also recommended

that the museum expand its loan for restoration program. In its 1990

report, the committee reported that there was some resistance by NASM

staff about the program because of concern that the quality control of

restoration would be lost. However, the committee noted that, given the

positive experience involving the San Diego Aerospace Museum’s

restoration of one of the four “Enola Gay” engines, the program should be

expanded.8

 We also noted that NASM was satisfied with the Champlin

Museum’s restoration of the Japanese World War II fighter, the “George.”

The Director of the San Diego Aerospace Museum told us that his museum

would be interested in restoring entire aircraft for NASM in the future. We

did not survey other museums about their possible interest in restoring

aircraft for NASM, but it is possible that there may be others who might be

capable and interested.

Another approach undertaken by the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH,

and the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FL, involves providing other

museums with two aircraft for restoration, allowing them to keep one and

restore and return the second. Likewise, NASM has provided three aircraft

to a German museum, which, after restoring the aircraft, plans to give one

to the Air Force Museum, return one to NASM, and keep the third one.

8

Following the 1990 Advisory Committee report, the San Diego Aerospace Museum restored a second

engine from the “Enola Gay.”

Page 35 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 4 

Future Plans for the Dulles Extension and

Additional Aircraft Are Uncertain

NASM officials cited plans to build an extension at Dulles Airport, VA. as the

solution to the museum’s storage and restoration problems. However, it is

uncertain when or whether the extension will be built, given the museum’s

need to raise at least $100 million in private funds for its construction.

Also, NASM would like to acquire 80 aircraft over the next 30 years, which

would exacerbate its current storage problems.

NASM Extension

Plans

In the early 1980s, the Smithsonian began looking for a site on which to

build an extension for NASM to store its aircraft collection currently housed

at the Garber facility and large aircraft to be acquired in the future. By the

mid-1980s, the extension was planned also to house the restoration

facilities at Garber and to display aircraft on a limited basis. By 1989, NASM

wanted the extension to include a theater, a restaurant, and a museum

shop, as well as expansion space for other Smithsonian bureaus.

A key consideration in selecting a site was access to an active runway to

accept large aircraft that could not be transported to the museum on the

Mall. As early as 1983, after considering several sites, the Smithsonian

chose Dulles Airport as its preferred site. In 1988, the site selection

process was reopened after the Governor of Maryland expressed an

interest in locating the facility at the Baltimore-Washington International

Airport. Then, in 1990, the City of Denver submitted an unsolicited

proposal to locate the extension at Stapleton International Airport.

In February 1991, we testified that the Smithsonian’s site selection process

had not adequately considered and justified its selection of Dulles Airport

as the extension site.1

 The Smithsonian subsequently provided information

and analysis needed to support its selection of Dulles Airport as the

extension site and its decision to reduce the estimated cost of the

extension from $325 million to $162 million. In March 1991, we informed

the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and

Related Agencies that, in light of the Smithsonian’s additional analysis, its

decision to locate the extension at Dulles Airport could be objectively

defended by the Smithsonian.

NASM is currently planning to build a 670,000 square-foot extension facility

at Dulles Airport at a cost of $162 million. NASM plans to finance the

extension through private fundraising and funds pledged by Virginia.

According to NASM officials, Virginia has agreed to provide the Smithsonian

with a $3 million interest-free loan and has pledged to finance site-work

1

National Air and Space Museum Extension Site Selection Process, GAO/T-GGD-91-5 (Feb. 5, 1991).

Page 36 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 4 

Future Plans for the Dulles Extension and

Additional Aircraft Are Uncertain

improvement for highway access, airplane taxiways, and parking, plus

$6 million in construction costs. In addition, the Governor of Virginia has

indicated that the state is committed to issuing up to $100 million in bonds

to assist in capital construction. Under the proposal, the Smithsonian will

make lease payments to Virginia equal to the debt service, and once the

debt is retired, title to the facility will pass to the Smithsonian. The

Smithsonian will be responsible for all of the extension’s operating costs.

In August 1993, legislation was approved authorizing the extension and the

appropriation of $8 million in federal funds for its planning and design.

However, in July 1995, the President signed a bill to rescind $4,175,000 in

planning funds that had been appropriated for the extension. In

September 1995, a congressional conference committee adopted a report

regarding a fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill authorizing the

appropriation of $1 million for planning and design of the Dulles

extension. As of September 26, 1995, Congress had not yet approved the

conference report. NASM officials estimated that the extension could open

sometime during 2000 to 2005, but added that rescinding the planning

funds could postpone the extension opening.

The former NASM Director told us that to raise $100 million in private

funds, NASM may need to enter into joint ventures with companies,

allowing them, for example, to hold permanent aerospace trade fairs at the

extension. The former director also said that the extension may

incorporate entertainment rides and simulators, and that corporations may

be permitted to use their logos in exchange for financial support. NASM has

begun formulating a financing plan for the extension.

Some NASM officials said that it would have been difficult for the museum

to raise the extension funds under the former director because of the

controversy involving the exhibit of the “Enola Gay,” discussed in chapter

2. It still remains uncertain, however, if the Smithsonian will be able to

obtain the support needed to construct the extension.

In its 1994 report, the Research and Collections Management Advisory

Committee noted that NASM management lacked a consensus on the

expected benefits of the extension, which were never extensively

discussed or debated within the Smithsonian. The committee

recommended that the museum formulate a mission statement for the

extension. The former NASM Director told us that he was developing a

mission statement and that he would like the extension to allow the

museum to tell stories involving the (1) history of the Cold War, (2) effects

Page 37 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 4 

Future Plans for the Dulles Extension and

Additional Aircraft Are Uncertain

of the World War II bombing campaign, (3) impact of the revolution in air

travel for Americans, and (4) benefits to society provided by

downward-looking satellites.

In March 1995, the Secretary of the Smithsonian contracted with the

National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to review the

management of NASM. NAPA is to complete its study in the Fall of 1995, and

is to pay particular attention to an examination of NASM’s mission. As part

of the study, NAPA said it would review whether NASM is adequately

considering the mission of the extension. In August 1995, Smithsonian

officials said that the Board of Regents would shortly review the scope of

NASM’s mission.

Plans for the extension include 670,000 square feet of space, compared to

286,500 square feet of space at NASM’s current storage and restoration

facilities. We asked museum officials about the feasibility of immediate

construction of a restoration shop and storage facility at Dulles Airport, as

part of the first phase of the extension, to replace the current 286,500

square-feet of storage space. The Assistant Director for Collections

Management said that it would be best to start the extension project by

building a restoration shop with public access, then build display and

storage space, followed by construction of storage-only space. She also

said that the extension must have amenities to attract donations and that

Virginia has indicated that it may not be interested in providing funds if the

facilities were not accessible to the public.

The former senior curator said that the NASM Director should be given a

mandate to build the extension, such as was given to the former NASM

Director in opening the museum in 1976. He noted that in that situation,

former astronaut Michael Collins was selected as the NASM Director

because he had the needed experience and visibility in working with

Congress.

Future Acquisitions

Could Exacerbate

Storage Problems

NASM would like to collect 80 aircraft of all types over the next 30 years,

even though it cannot properly care for the collection it has now. Included

among these 80 aircraft are such large aircraft as the Boeing 747 and

Boeing B-52.2

 The 80 aircraft, which were contained in a collections

rationale prepared by NASM in 1989, are listed in appendix II.

2

NASM also has acquired a Concorde, which will be delivered to the museum when the aircraft is

removed from service.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 4 

Future Plans for the Dulles Extension and

Additional Aircraft Are Uncertain

The 1989 collections rationale noted that past attempts by the museum to

prioritize the collection effort were unsuccessful. The rationale

acknowledged that after over 80 years of collecting aeronautical artifacts,

NASM at that time barely had adequate exhibition and storage space for the

aircraft in its collection or for large aircraft yet to be acquired.

The 80 aircraft that NASM would like to acquire include 23 general aviation

aircraft; 11 commercial aircraft; 12 military aircraft; 11 light, ultralight, or

homebuilt aircraft; 15 gliders; and 8 vertical flight aircraft. The collections

rationale contains justifications for each proposed acquisition. For

example, the acquisition of the Boeing 747 was justified because it

epitomized the new era of wide-bodied airliners. The rationale also listed

some practical criteria to be considered before acquiring additional

aircraft: (1) the aircraft must be obtained, preserved, restored, and

exhibited at a reasonable cost; (2) it can be transported to the museum at

a reasonable cost; (3) it has research, scholarship, and/or educational

value; and (4) it meets the physical requirements for exhibition.

In its 1990 report, the Advisory Committee noted that the museum’s

aircraft collections rationale, which has not been updated since it was last

revised in 1989, had no clear goal or guidance. The committee said that to

be useful, the rationale should include (1) a statement of the scope of the

collection, (2) an explanation of how the scope of collecting relates to the

charter of the museum, and (3) an explanation of how professional

standards are maintained throughout the collections process. Further, the

committee indicated that the rationale lacked safeguards to ensure that

additions to the collection are not made if they further jeopardize the

museum’s ability to cope with the existing collection and if the new

additions cannot be cared for adequately. Such a practical consideration

as this would seem critical to NASM in view of its traditional inability to

obtain funding to adequately care for its collection.

NASM’s 1991 Space History Department’s rationale also included practical

criteria for assessing priorities in collecting future space artifacts. It

represented these criteria in the following questions to be applied, in

addition to technical criteria, when deciding whether to acquire space

artifacts.

• Is the same object preserved elsewhere in a safe or permanent museum, or

does it rightly belong in another, more appropriate museum?

• Can the object be preserved by the means at hand, or is its preservation

beyond the capability of NASM?

Page 39 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 4 

Future Plans for the Dulles Extension and

Additional Aircraft Are Uncertain

• Is the object too large to be collected and preserved, or might parts of the

object adequately represent its history?

By incorporating these criteria in the written aircraft collections rationale,

NASM could lessen the impact of exacerbating the museum’s ability to care

for the existing collection and seeing that new additions are adequately

cared for.

In commenting on a draft of this report, NASM officials said that although

the collections rationale suggests that 80 aircraft might be added to the

NASM collection by 2020, it should be understood that the presence of an

aircraft in the rationale does not constitute permission to collect it.

Officials said that a curator desiring to collect an aircraft must follow a set

of carefully crafted procedures that have been established over the past 

6 years. Under the procedures (1) the object must appear in the rationale

or replace a similar object listed in the rationale and (2) the acquisition

must be proposed and defended before the Aeronautics Department

Collections Committee, which consists of all of the curators, and the NASM

Collections Committee, which consists of both curatorial and collections

management staff.

NASM officials also said that over the past 5 years, no aircraft has been

acquired without provision being made for its appropriate storage and

care. NASM officials said that from 1989 to 1995, it acquired only 12 aircraft,

compared to the acquisition of 56 aircraft from 1982 to 1988.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions Although NASM is popular with the public and has preserved many of our

nation’s historic air and space artifacts, the management of the aircraft

collection that is not generally seen by the public needs improvement.

NASM commits relatively few resources to aircraft restoration, compared to

other museum activities and another federally funded air museum. But,

even if NASM were to increase its restoration efforts, the museum would

have no place to properly display or store the aircraft. Therefore, it is

important for NASM to determine how to better preserve its collection in

view of the limited financial resources available for aircraft restoration

and storage, including determining what size collection can be adequately

supported.

Since NASM was established, certain aspects of the museum’s mission as a

national air and space museum have been vague. For example, the

legislation does not specify whether the museum should duplicate

collections at other federally funded air and space museums or whether a

national museum should include foreign aircraft. Once NASM’s mission is

clarified, NASM would be better able to develop criteria for what constitutes

historically and technologically significant aircraft and, in the context of

such criteria, which aircraft it should have in its collection to fulfill its

mission, considering available resources and the adequacy of storage

facilities.

If it is determined that NASM’s current collection is too large in view of

resources and facilities available, options to reduce the collection size so

that the remaining aircraft can be stored or displayed in space with

adequate environmental controls include deaccessioning aircraft and

obtaining second-party restorations with temporary loans to other

museums. Using additional second-party restorations would help preserve

NASM’s collection, alleviate its storage capacity problems, and share its

collection with the public.

The planned extension at Dulles Airport should help alleviate NASM’s

storage facility problems, but funding is uncertain and the extension may

take several years to complete. One option that may be available to reduce

costs would be to limit the new space to the same size of current storage

facilities. If feasible, this option should help NASM expedite plans to replace

its deteriorating storage facilities with new storage and restoration space

at Dulles Airport with proper environmental controls. Including lower

cost, limited public access and a few amenities would make the new space

more useful.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations

In addition to storing aircraft in substandard space, NASM does not have a

management plan for each aircraft that describes (1) whether and how the

aircraft will be used in future exhibits, (2) to what extent and when it will

be restored, and (3) who is responsible for monitoring its condition.

The lack of resources devoted to collections management has resulted in

the restoration staff feeling disenfranchised from the Mall museum staff.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of the Smithsonian, together with the

Acting NASM Director

• consult with the appropriate Committees of Congress to better define the

mission of a national air and space museum, and within that definition,

criteria for identifying historically and technologically significant aircraft.

As part of this effort, the Secretary and NASM Director should specifically

consider the extent to which the museum should (1) include foreign

aircraft in its collection and (2) duplicate aircraft contained in the

collections of other federally funded museums;

• determine the relative priority of the aircraft contained in the NASM

collection in the context of the definition of historically and

technologically significant aircraft referred to in the above

recommendation;

• determine the number and types of aircraft that should be retained, given

the newly established criteria and actual and expected levels of funding

and storage capacity; and

• deaccession those aircraft in the NASM collection that either do not meet

the historically and technologically significant criteria or cannot be

adequately stored and maintained with available resources. In pursuing

the latter, additional consideration should also be given to second-party

restorations and temporary loans of aircraft.

We further recommend that the new Director of NASM

• develop a management plan for those aircraft that are to remain in the

NASM collection that includes (1) whether and how exhibits will be

developed for purposes of displaying the collection, (2) the extent to

which each aircraft will be restored and when such restoration will be

done, and (3) which organization will be responsible for monitoring each

aircraft;

• develop a plan to increase the interaction of the curators and collections

management staff; and

Page 42 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations

• further explore private funding alternatives and the feasibility of options

to better care for aircraft, such as constructing a smaller, environmentally

controlled facility to house those aircraft that will remain in the collection

and are currently in inadequate storage facilities, as an initial phase of the

Dulles Airport extension.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the

Smithsonian or his designee. The Under Secretary provided comments

dated August 17, 1995, which are in appendix III. The Smithsonian

provided additional comments in an attachment to their August 17, 1995,

letter.

These comments have been discussed with Smithsonian officials and

changes have been incorporated into this report where appropriate.

The Under Secretary said that the Smithsonian recognizes a number of

critical issues raised in our report and is working to address them. She

said the greatest challenges are the lack of adequate storage space and

inadequate resources to do all of the things that must be done. The Under

Secretary disagreed with some of our findings and indirectly indicated

disagreement with some of our proposed solutions to the collections care

problems that we identified.

Regarding our first recommendation, the Under Secretary indicated that

(1) the Board of Regents will shortly review the scope of NASM’s mission;

(2) NASM has rationales that define criteria to assess an object’s value to

the collection; (3) when NASM was created, it was recognized that there

might be some duplication between NASM and other museums; and (4) the

overwhelming emphasis of the NASM collection is American. Our work

indicated that the scope of NASM’s mission was unclear. The Air Force

Historian, for example, questioned the wisdom of NASM having acquired a

large collection of World War II Japanese aircraft. We still believe that the

Smithsonian should consult with Congress to better define NASM’s mission

and the criteria for identifying historically and technologically significant

aircraft. We believe this consultation is necessary primarily because of the

inadequate resources NASM has to take care of its current collection and

the need to address that problem in a systematic fashion.

Our recommendations to determine the relative priority of all aircraft in

the collection in the context of the criteria for historical and technological

significance and determining the number of aircraft that should be

Page 43 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations

retained are parts of our proposed systematic solution to NASM’s storage

problems. However, the Smithsonian did not address these

recommendations in its comments. Also, while the Smithsonian’s Board of

Regents may help define NASM’s mission, the board is not in a position to

decide whether federally funded museums should duplicate military

aircraft in their collections. Further, the budget climate has changed since

NASM was created, and Congress now may want to look for opportunities

to reduce or eliminate duplication. Although NASM officials indicated that

the practical criteria for assessing priorities in collecting future space

artifacts applies to aircraft acquisitions, the written rationale does not

indicate that the criteria also apply to aircraft. Moreover, since most of

NASM’s operating costs probably will be paid by federal funds, including the

Dulles extension, we believe that Congress should be further involved in

determining the role of the nation’s air and space museum.

With respect to our recommendation to deaccession aircraft that cannot

be adequately stored and maintained, the Under Secretary said the

Smithsonian tries hard to deaccession aircraft and would welcome

additional loans to other museums but cannot always find takers. As

mentioned in this report, however, NASM has not developed a strategy to

find other museums that might be interested in restoration loans. We

believe that such a strategy would better inform other museums about

restoration opportunities and could result in more restoration loans of

NASM aircraft.

Regarding our recommendation to develop a management plan for each

aircraft in the collection, the Under Secretary indicated that curatorial

responsibility has been assigned for each aircraft and that curators

prioritize treatments as required to preserve aircraft. However, as

discussed in this report, NASM does not prepare long-range plans for

exhibits and restorations. We are not suggesting that an exhibit plan be

developed for each aircraft in the collection. However, we are suggesting

that NASM make determinations about the likelihood of whether aircraft

will be exhibited at some point and the extent of restoration that would be

needed to put the aircraft that are likely to be exhibited into exhibitable

condition. Further, the lack of resources for collections management

demonstrates an even greater need for a management plan.

In response to our recommendation that NASM increase the interaction

between the curators and collections management staff, the Under

Secretary said that they already collaborate and that such collaboration

has developed into a full and genuine partnership. Our interviews with

Page 44 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Chapter 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations

several collections management staff (discussed in ch. 2) disclosed

viewpoints that were substantially different from this. We believe that the

substantial differences in opinion between the collections management

staff and NASM management on this subject indicates that more attention

should be devoted to determining what the condition is and how it should

be resolved.

Finally, the Under Secretary indicated that she disagreed with our last

recommendation, which dealt with exploring the feasibility of constructing

a smaller, initial storage facility at the Dulles extension to replace

inadequate storage space. She said that display and educational space

would be constructed by 2003 and that storage space would be built after

this, as funds become available. We continue to believe that the need for

storage space is more critical than the need for additional display and

educational space, but we recognize the need to accommodate the

differing views and desires of the various parties that may contribute to

funding the extension.

Page 45 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix I 

Garber Facility Assessment

From 1991 to 1994, NASM undertook a conservation assessment, examining

the condition of the museum’s 13 storage buildings at Garber and the

condition of the artifacts contained in them. Below are excerpts from the

assessments.

Table I.1: Conservation Assessment of Buildings at the Garber Facility

Building no. Year built

Heat, a/c, or

humidity control Contents/Condition

2 1952-1954 None “Some of the objects stored in Building 2, such as the Gotha

Go 229, a World War II German twin-jet-engine flying wing,

and two Horten III flying wing prototypes, are quite

significant.a These artifacts have suffered for years from

outdoor storage and mishandling. Environmental conditions in

Building 2 are very poor, and certain objects continue to

deteriorate.”

3 1952-1954 None “Most of the objects in Building 3 fall into the two broad

categories of aircraft engines and armament . . . . Most are of

great significance, representing prototype engines, surviving

examples of production engines, and captured engines from

World War II. The engines are generally in poor condition due

to years of outdoor storage.b Storage conditions within

Building 3 are poor.”

4 1952-1954 None “Most of the artifacts stored in Building 4 are either aircraft or

spacecraft hardware . . . . Building 4 contains many gaps and

voids that permit dust and dirt to enter the building . . . . Dirt

and dust contribute to the degradation of surface finishes and

promote corrosion.”

5 1952-1954 None “There are many significant objects stored in Building 5 . . . .

We found corrosion, mold, and insect activity . . . . Heavy dirt

and dust accumulation has occurred on most interior

structural members since the building was constructed.”

6 1952-1954 None “Building 6 contains aircraft engines, wing sections, missiles,

and aircraft . . . . Major problems include corrosion, dirty

surfaces, and peeling paint . . . . This building was damaged

by a tornado on November 23, 1992.”b

7 1953 None “Building 7 contains aircraft, weapons, propellers, and

avionics . . . . In the summertime, temperatures routinely reach

and exceed 38 degrees C; relative humidity is also extremely

high . . . . No class of material can be preserved effectively

under these conditions. This environment promotes corrosion

of metals, destruction of organic materials, and oxidation of

synthetics such as rubber, cellulose nitrate, and polyvinyl

chloride.”

9 1952-1954 None “Building 9 is used for storage and is not open to the public. It

contains a great variety of aircraft and spacecraft hardware,

including parts, tools, accessories, etc. . . . . The absence of

environmental controls promotes deterioration of objects

inside the building . . . . The interior space is dusty and dirty

due to gaps along the walls and doorways.”

(continued)

Page 46 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix I 

Garber Facility Assessment

Building no. Year built

Heat, a/c, or

humidity control Contents/Condition

11 1952-1954 None “Building 11 is a storage building that is closed to the public

and contains mostly aircraft engines. . . . The building is in

generally poor condition. The concrete slab has several major

cracks and is crumbling along the edges; portions of the steel

structure are rusting. Gaps along the perimeter allow insects

and rodents to enter the building. . . . Ongoing deterioration

includes corrosion, paint loss, dimensional changes such as

cracking and joint separation in wooden artifacts, and

possible insect damage.”b

20 Late 1960s Heat only “Building 20 is an exhibit building which contains aircraft,

restored and unrestored, and other artifacts. . . . [C]onditions

under which these objects are exhibited do not facilitate their

preservation, and in fact contribute to their degradation—even

in the case of restored aircraft, which are no less susceptible

to harsh environments than are other artifacts. . . . The roof

has minor leaks, and condensation drips inside during the

winter. . . . A number of artifacts located near the windows

have been damaged by light. . . . The restoration process

alone cannot be considered a solution because many

restored objects in Building 20 are deteriorating . . . . Almost

all recently restored aircraft in Building 20 have evidence of

corrosion . . . .[The Focke-Wulf FW 190 F-8] demonstrates the

restoration myth that once restored, an aircraft is good for

another 150 years. When restored, the machine was stripped

of all original paint and then repainted. Now, rust is beginning

to appear on steel elements.”

21 Mid-to-late-1960s Heat only “Building 21 is used for storage, shipping and receiving. . . .

Almost every artifact (new accession, outgoing loan, or

incoming loan) is processed through Building 21. . . .

Conditions in Building 21 fall short of recognized museum

standards for collections storage and shipping and receiving.”

22 Not provided Heat only “Building 22 is a display/storage building that has been closed

to the public and is now used solely for collections storage. . .

. The Caroline, President John F. Kennedy’s campaign plane,

was among the first of the aircraft to be moved into the

building. . . . This object demonstrates how quickly an aircraft

can deteriorate when not cared for properly. . . . Despite a

requirement for indoor storage, the fuselage and wing

sections were stored outdoors for many years. In 1989, a

family of feral cats took up residence in the fuselage, and, in

addition to numerous cat droppings, shredded the upholstery

and the rugs. . . . Relative humidity and temperature were

responsible for mold, growth, corrosion, and peeling paint.”

(continued)

Page 47 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix I 

Garber Facility Assessment

Building no. Year built

Heat, a/c, or

humidity control Contents/Condition

23 Early 1970s Heat only “Building 23 is a display/storage building. . . . Significant

aircraft in Building 23 include a Douglas VB-26B Invader, the

nose section of a Mitsubishi Betty Bomber, a Grumman

Avenger, a Bachem Ba349 Natter, a Sikorsky S-43 (JRS-1)

flying boat, and a cut-away Felixstone F-5L fuselage. . . . The

roof leaks, and condensation forms on exposed steel rafters.

Rust is visible on structural elements . . . . Of the nine storage

building assessed to date at the Garber Facility, Building 23

has fewer problems than the rest. Unfortunately, its

environment is still not conducive to long-term artifact

preservation.”

24 1975 Heat only “Building 24 is an exhibit and storage building that contains a

wide variety of artifacts and environments. Among its exhibits

are restored and unrestored aircraft, paper kites, space

artifacts, and a number of other relatively small artifacts. . . .

The roof leaks, and condensation forms on metal building

components. . . . There is no humidity control in the exhibit

area; frequent fluctuations between extreme high and low

relative humidity values occur daily.”

aThe Horten aircraft have been sent to a museum in Berlin, Germany, for restoration.

bNASM currently has a program underway to preserve the engines.

Source: NASM Conservation Reports 1991-1994.

Page 48 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix II 

Probable NASM Aircraft Acquisitions

In 1989, NASM prepared a collections rationale, which contains plans to

collect 80 additional aircraft of all types over the next 30 years. The

aircraft NASM plans to acquire are listed below.

Commercial Aircraft

(acquire 11)

Polikarpov Po-2

Douglas DC-4

Bush aircraft: De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver or DHC-3 Otter

Vickers Viscount

Embraer Bandeirante

De Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter

Boeing 707

Boeing 727

Sud/Sud-Est/Aerospatiale SE 210 Caravelle

Tupolev Tu-104

Boeing 747

Military Aircraft

(acquire 12)

Any World War I British aircraft (e.g., Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter)

Any World War I Italian aircraft (e.g., Ansaldo S.V.A. 9)

Any Interwar (1919-1939) British aircraft, e.g., De Havilland

 D.H. 82 Tiger Moth

Morane Saulnier 127

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

Douglas A-20 Havoc

Avro Lancaster

Gloster Meteor

Any German bomber (e.g., Junkers Ju 87)

Soviet aircraft: Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird1

Dassault Mirage III

Mikoyan-Burevich MiG-21 Fishbed

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

Private Aircraft

acquire 11)

Alexander Eaglerock A-2, American Eagle A-1 or Brunner-Winkle

 Bird

Travel Air 4000, Laird Speedwing, Commercial or Stearman C3B

Fleet 2 or Great Lakes 2-T-1A

1

NASM acquired this aircraft after this list was prepared in 1989.

Page 49 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix II 

Probable NASM Aircraft Acquisitions

Buhl Bull Pup LA-1 or Cessna C-34 or Ryan Model SC-150/ST

Aeronca Champion 7AC, Cessna 120 or 140, Luscombe Silvaire Model

 8, Globe Swift, Stinson Voyager, or Taylorcraft BC-12D

 (acquire 3)

Cessna 172

Piper Arrow or Commanche or Mooney M-20/M-22/PFM

Business Aircraft

(acquire 6)

Piper Malibu

Beech Baron 55

Piper Aztec

Beech King Air

Rockwell Commander

Cessna Citation I

Utility Aircraft

(acquire 6)

Stinson SB-1

Bellanca Aircruiser

Piper Pawnee or Schweitzer Grumman AG Cat

Ayres Turbo Thrush S2R-T65/400

Champion Citabria or Decathalon

Christen Eagle

Mudry CAP 10B

Gliders

(acquire 15)

Akaflieg Stuttgart FS-24 Phonix

ASW 12

ASW 22B

Bekas N

Caproni A-21S

D.F.S. Olympia

D.F.S. Wiehe

Eipper-Formance Quicksilver

Glaser-Dirks DG-400

Glasflugel H-301 Libelle

Hall Cherokee II

Hoffman H-36 Dimona MK II

Letnany L-13 Blatnik

Nimbus 3/24.5

Slingsby T.21B

Woodstock One

Page 50 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix II 

Probable NASM Aircraft Acquisitions

Light/Ultralight/Homebuilt

Aircraft

(acquire 11)

Aerocar Micro-Imp

Aerolites Ag-Bearcat

Circa Reproductions Sopwith Triplane

Freedom Master Air Shark I

Glasair III

Hamilton HX-321

Holcomb Perigee

Lancair 200/235

Ligeti Stratos

Monnett Moni

Paraplane

Pietenpol Air Camper

Polen Special

Questair Venture

SA-60 Silhouette I

Sadler A22

Seawind International Seawind 2000

SNS-9 EXP II Hiperlite

Starlite SL-1

Van’s RV-3

Volmer Sportsman

Wheeler Express

Vertical Flight Aircraft

(acquire 8)

Bell AH-1G Cobra

Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

Boeing-Vertol CH-47 Chinook

Gyrodyne XRON

McDonnell Douglas AH-64A Apache

McDonnell Douglas Notar

Mil Mi-12

Mil Mi-24 Hind

Sikorsky H-3

Sikorsky HH-52

Farrington Air and Space-18A

Williams Research X-Jet

Source: NASM 1989 Collections Rationale.

Page 51 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix III 

Comments From the Smithsonian Institution

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

See p. 41.

See comment 1.

Page 52 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix III 

Comments From the Smithsonian Institution

See comment 2.

See p. 43-44.

See p. 42.

Page 53 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix III 

Comments From the Smithsonian Institution

See pp. 42-44.

See p. 35.

See p. 43.

See comment 3.

Page 54 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Appendix III 

Comments From the Smithsonian Institution

The following are GAO’s comments on the Smithsonian Institution’s letter,

dated August 17, 1995.

GAO Comments 1. The scope of our work, as discussed on pp.15-16, was limited to aircraft

restoration.

2. The fact that NASM’s storage facilities are inadequate to preserve the

collection is discussed throughout chapter 3.

3. We did not reproduce the attachment.

(240171) Page 55 GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/GGD-96-9 National Air and Space Museum Aircraft