WWII Planes: You Are My Sunshine

 

Not-so-shiny
California Sunshine

Next in my pile of possibly-WWII era photos we have California Sunshine. Like I said in my introduction post, this one had a couple of groups of numbers, so I started with the one that looked most like a serial number: 42-86776. The Google bot returned a hit on Forgotten Props. This site told me that this is a Douglas A-20G-20-DO Havoc. Wow! So the top group of numbers on the plane is the plane’s model number? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. (After looking at an unrelated picture of a P-51 from a museum a few days later, Hey! It’s got its model number on it, too! So I guess I should just look closer for these things, or pay better attention.) 

Strangely, though, Forgotten Props was the only site that gave me any information for that serial number, which perhaps shouldn’t have been surprising, considering the site says “Construction #: N/A” and “Information Needed” (Not even my new friend Pacific Wrecks had any information about this specific plane, or even included it in the listing of A-20 Havocs, which includes planes that were scrapped or abandoned, not just ones that were wrecked. Nor did this site have this, which lists a ton of airplane serial numbers. Why is this serial number unaccounted for? Mystery!). However, when I did the serial number + the nose art, I got one hit: this plane was assigned to Maj. William H. Kemble, Jr. of the 312th Bombardment Group. This also matches fuzzy details in the picture: under the serial number, there’s white lettering that – as best as I could read, with my eyes, two different magnifying glasses, and blowing up the scan – says “PILOT MAJOR W. H.[?] [ ],” so Major William H. Kemble, Jr. would work (and now that I know what it might be, and looking at the physical picture again in the morning with daylight and fresh eyes, yes, that’s absolutely what my picture says). I tried searching by Major Kemble’s name to see if I could find anything about the fate of this plane; all I found was that in December 1953, he crashed, with minor damage, a C-45 with serial number 44-47659. 

The fuller description of the book this information about 42-86776 comes from says that this bomber group was stationed in the South Pacific, flying combat missions from New Guinea, so again we have that South Pacific connection with where my grandfather was stationed. The 312th Bombardment Group originally flew P-40 dive bombers, but “quickly converted to the A-20 light attack bomber and fought its way across New Guinea, the Netherlands East Indies, the Philippines, and Formosa. Many of these missions were flown in the low-level strafer attack mode.” (Later in the war, the 312th switched to flying B-32 Dominator Very Heavy bombers, if you’re wondering.)  

Pacific Wrecks says that serial number 42-86786 was delivered to the U.S. Army Air Force on September 1, 1943; with this being 10 serial numbers after my California Sunshine, can I assume that my plane was delivered to the USAAF around the end of August or beginning of September 1943? 

Douglas A-20s were light or medium bombers, attackers, and night fighters, and were used by many countries’ air forces. A-20s were called either “Boston” or “Havoc,” depending on the type and whose air force they were in. Most of the U.S.’s A-20s were used in the South Pacific. Joe Baugher says that “most [A20] sorties were flown at low level… . During these low level bombing operations, it was found that there was little need for a bomb aimer. Consequently, the bomb aimer was often replaced by additional forward-firing machine guns mounted in a faired-over nose. The A-20's heavy firepower, maneuverability, speed and bombload made it an ideal weapon for pinpoint strikes against aircraft, hangers [sic], and supply dumps. In formation, their heavy forward firepower could overwhelm shipboard anti-aircraft defenses and at low level the A-20s could skip their bombs into the sides of transports and destroyers with deadly effect.” The Aviation History Online Museum says that A-20s were “said to be easy to fly with good handling characteristics during takeoff and landing. It represented an advance in flight control systems with light handling during high-speed flight… The tricycle landing gear made takeoff, landing and ground handling very simple and pilots were able to fly it with a minimum of instructions.” The modifications for the A-20G “optimized [it] for low altitude attacks,” but “such low-level torpedo attacks were quite dangerous for the A-20s which were vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, [however] the success of such operations outweighed the risks”. 

A20-G planes were the most produced of the A-20 series: over 2850 were built. The plane had a wingspan of 61’, was 48’ long, and about 18’ high; it carried two to three crewmen; and could travel 325-340 mph maximum. 

The final A-20s were delivered in September 1944. After the war, Baugher says, “the Havocs and appropriated Bostons had become surplus to USAAF requirements, and most were immediately scrapped. However, a few surplus Havocs were offered on the surplus market at very attractive prices--only $3000 apiece with a full tank of fuel. Nevertheless, the A-20 never became very popular on the civilian market.”

Rampage of the Roarin’ 20’s: The Illustrated History of the 312th Bombardment Group During World War II describes the original paintjob of A-20s: “The standard A-20G camouflage, applied at the Douglas Aircraft Corporation plant in Santa Monica, California, was Dark Olive Drab upper surfaces with Neutral Gray undersurfaces.” The book also includes an image – I think an artist’s rendering of the nose art – of the airplane that shows our California gal in a maroon dress with white underskirt, thigh high nylons with her thighs showing above her garters, white collar and wrists, a maroon hat with white band, with her image surrounded by grey and holding something… a parachute or a feather duster? “California” is in yellow with red borders, and “Sunshine” is either in all yellow, or with a very thin border. And still, the airplane itself is a dark olive drab. 

U.S. Army Air Force Douglas A-20G-20-DO (S/N 42-86657) in flight, via Wikipedia

Douglas A-20G Havoc at National Museum of the United States Air Force, via Wikipedia

I count at least 40 bomb markings in my picture, most of which look like they include another marking (a star?) above the bomb; if this plane had presumably so many missions and successful missions, why can I not find anything about it online? Especially given how much I found about American Beauty! That is a huge mystery. 

So was this plane about to be scrapped when my grandfather (possibly) saw it? Where and when was this? Since I can’t seem to find any records of what happened to this plane in its career, I have no idea. (And honestly, I’m a little disappointed by the internet right now. You start out not expecting to find any information, but once you start to see how much information, overall, is out there, you suddenly expect everything to be accessible. Why is there so little information for California Sunshine?) 

One last thing: underneath the pilot’s name in the picture is what looks like more writing, possibly “PROJ. 96344” or “PROJ. 9634-J.” I searched the internet with a variety of search terms, including other numbers I thought it might be (for example, not being completely sure that was a 9 and not a 2), and the only result I got was one A-20G Havoc, serial number 43-9106, with “PROJ. 96344” stenciled on it. I also tried googling that number with combinations of “USAAF,” “US military,” “WWII,” and still only got this one result. So… is it a project number of some sort? And if it’s on two planes (California Sunshine and Short Stuff), why isn’t it on – or noted online – other planes? And this serial number is a fair way away from Sunshine’s, and the plane is an A-20G-25-DO, so it doesn’t seem like this “Proj.” implied a specific production line. I don’t know. Anyone out there know anything they can share with me? 

So, feeling a little underwhelmed with the information I found on our California Sunshine gal, I move on to the so-called “Zero.” 

pt3: WWII Planes: The Mistaken Identity of Oscar or Zero

WWII Planes: What a Beauty

American Beauty airplane

First of my WWII airplanes to look up is American Beauty, and her toplessness. There’s no serial number on this plane visible in the picture, so all I had to go on was the artwork. I was quite surprised when this turned up a lot of information. First, I found this plane on a few people’s Pinterest boards. I know nothing about this plane – or military aviation history, really, other than the very significant planes – so it’s wild to think that my grandfather saw the same plane that other people have seen and posted/published pictures of. It’s one of those moments of “Wow, my family witnessed history, stuff other people cared about, too!” 

Another search result gave me a serial number: 42-73045. The page had a brief, but extremely fruitful, history of the plane and a couple more pictures. Woo! Making progress! 

This page tells me that the American Beauty was converted to a photoreconnaissance F-7A and flew in New Guinea and the Netherlands East Indies in 1944, then was scrapped at Nadzab Airfield in New Guinea. From my grandfather’s service records, I know he was in the South Pacific for part of 1944, and the condition of the plane looks pretty awful – implying it might be scrapped soon – so things are matching up. I wonder if my grandfather saw this plane as it was in the process of being scrapped. I don’t have anything that says he was stationed at this specific airfield, though, so I don’t know if he was there and saw it on a daily basis, or if he was just passing through. 

(These two sites explain how a B-24’s bomb areas (bomb bays, bomb doors, sights) were reconfigured for cameras and camera sights in an F-7A, if you're curious.) 

So to the googlemachine I went with this serial number the Pacific Wrecks site gave me. Most of the hits had similar information, if not the exact information, but one document I found in a couple of places that I loved had a picture of the 7/18/44 20th Mapping Squadron, 6th Photo Group crew and a typed/scanned list of all of their names. Could you imagine finding that if your father or grandfather was one of those people listed? I know my grandfather wasn’t part of a Mapping Squadron, but I still held my breath as I read the names, just in case. 

Finally, I searched the Library of Congress and National Archives websites using the plane’s serial number, name, and/or a few other bits I found while looking at all of these other records. LoC didn’t give me anything; the Archives gave me no results using the specific information, and I didn’t feel like going through the 41,000+ results for “B-24” and 1,827 results for F-7A in the 1940s (although the ones I looked at were amazing. They are so clear and the captions are so detailed.). Yikes! 

One thing I was confused about were the markings under the window. (For one, they look like flower pots to me.) As far as I know, marks like that usually represent bombing missions, but if this plane was only used for photoreconnaissance, there wouldn’t have been bombing missions. Two grainy images I found online also have these decals (one only has one row of decals, but the other has the exact set of decals my photo does; other clues tell me that if my grandfather’s picture was of the plane on its way to being scrapped, this other photo looks like it’s even further along in the process). For a moment, I thought maybe it represented how many missions the plane had gone on (but why do some have stars and others don’t?), but there are 12 of these flower pots, and websites I found say it went on 19 missions… yet others say it was shot down on its 12th mission. Hmmm… 

So to solve the first: The Mystery of the Mysterious Flower Pots. Two websites about the 20th Mapping Squadron briefly noted these markings! According to Bill Cahill and Chuck Varney, these are mission markers, but they’re not flower pots, they’re K-17 aerial cameras (Really? Okay… maybe.). A star above a camera [flower pot] represents a successful mission (whereas clouds would mean failure due to weather, an X would mean mechanical failure, and “C.F.” would mean crew failure), and flower pots – I mean, cameras – without a star meant a non-successful mission (perhaps due to weather, mechanical, or crew issues, but not wanting to draw attention to the non-success). 

Mystery #2: The Mystery of the Missing 7 Flower Pots. This one, I don’t know. The main discrepancy is whether the plane went on 19 missions or was shot down on mission #12. Could it have been shot down and damaged, seen by my grandfather and the other photographer, reconstructed, and gone on 7 more missions? And/But if it did, why wouldn’t those extra seven missions be denoted by flower pots, too (unless, again, my grandfather and that other photographer saw it between missions 12 and 13… but that seems unlikely)? 

A final note on American Beauty: a few of the sites I found say the artist is Al G. Merkling. Merkling was a Corporal in the 20th Mapping Squadron and did most of the squadron’s nose art. 

I’m sure there’s a ton more information that I could try to find, but I’m happy with what I have on this one now: it was built in 1942 as a B-24J Liberator, but was converted in 1943 to a photoreconnaissance F-7A; serial number 42-73045; artist Cpl. Al Merkling; it flew (19 or 12) missions around New Guinea in 1944; and was scrapped in New Guinea at Nadzab Airfield in 1944, around the same time my grandfather was stationed – as military records like to say – “somewhere in the South Pacific.” If I want to go further in-depth, I also now know what changes were made to a B-24J to make it into an F-7A for cameras, and I have names and pictures of some of the men who flew the 42-73045 and other planes in the 20th Mapping Squadron. What I still don’t know is whether my grandfather took this photo, where he saw this plane, and when the photo was taken. (Label your photos, people!) Those questions will never be answered, but a lot of my questions about the plane itself have been. 

pt2: WWII Planes: You Are My Sunshine

WWII Planes: The Mistaken Identity of Oscar or Zero

 

Wreckage of a Japanese Zero or Oscar

And now for our final plane. On the back of this photo is written “What’s left of a [Japanese] Zero.” When I blogged about this at the very beginning of this project, Dave left a comment (Hi! And thank you for commenting!) suggesting that what is labeled as a Zero may actually be a Nakajima Ki-43. He says, “Flown by the Japanese Army Air Force and named Hayabusa = peregrine falcon, it is very similar to the Zero. Some were captured and flown by test pilots, hence the star-and-bar.” 

Japan’s A6M, or “Zero” or “Zeke” to the Allied forces, was a long-range carrier-based fighter plane of WWII, and was originally noted for its maneuverability and range. In the early years, it outmatched the Allied forces, including the British Spitfire, which had gone up against German and Italian planes but had trouble against the Zero. It carried two bombs plus two guns of 500 rounds each in its engine cowling and one gun with 60 rounds in each of its wings. After a few years, though, other countries’ fighter planes began outmaneuvering the Zero, thanks to new tactics and engineering. Over 10,000 Zeros were manufactured through 1945, and Zeros – often other planes modified to look like Zeros – were featured in Tora! Tora! Tora! and Black Sheep Squadron. 

Similar to the Zero, the Ki-43, or “Oscar,” was widely used in Pacific combat during WWII. It was also reported to be easily maneuvered by pilots, “but somewhat underpowered and, despite updates, unable to compete effectively with U.S. fighters in the latter stages of the war.” Its small guns also made it “under gunned by Western standards.” 

According to The Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum, the engineers of the Ki-43 “decided to go small [and] reasoned that the superior airmanship and marksmanship of Japanese pilots could make up for a plane’s lack of heavier weaponry. Pilots who flew the Ki-43 thought it handled beautifully—a great advantage in a dogfight.” Over 5,000 Ki-43s were produced. 

Other aspects of the Oscar and Zero made them almost indistinguishable when in flight: both only had one crewmember, and could fly around 330 mph max. They were comparable in length (28' for the Oscar vs. 29' of the Zero), wingspan (37' and 39', respectively), and height (both approximately 10' high), but the Oscar’s fuselage and tapered wings made them easier (for someone in the know) to tell apart on the ground. 

Side-by-side comparison with Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum Oscar. Left picture from FHCAM website.

Side-by-side comparison with Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum Oscar. Left picture from FHCAM website.

Side-by-side comparison with Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum Zero. Left picture from FHCAM website.

Side-by-side comparison with Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum Zero. Left picture from FHCAM website.

 

With Dave’s comment in mind, I started my research the same way I did for the California Sunshine: with the serial number. This one is trickier, though, because the tail – and therefore the number – in the picture is possibly cut off, the number isn’t very specific (004, compared to something like 42-86776), what country do I search for, and what type of plane? So I used combinations of “Japanese,” “U.S.,” “ki-43,” “Oscar,” “Zero,” “serial number,” “tail number,” and “004.” I got a couple of results for a Ki-43 with tail number XJ004, but as you can see from my picture, the tail is possibly cut off in the frame, so even though all that’s visible is 004, the serial number could have an XJ, or something else, but it’s not obvious. 

The plane renumbered as XJ004 was a Ki-43-II “Oscar” Type 1 Fighter Hayabusa. According to Pacific Wrecks, it was based at Hollandia on the north coast of New Guinea (!), and was abandoned at the Japanese Cyclops Airfield, also in New Guinea, in 1944 (I assume the plane was abandoned when the U.S. overtook this airfield in April, but I didn’t find anything to confirm that). In May and June of ’44, U.S. Army Air Force 5th Air Force, 49th Fighter Group, 8th Fighter Squadron personnel repaired the plane, with additional help later from Air Technical Intelligence Unit personnel. “During the restoration, this aircraft was stripped to a bare aluminum finish. The repairs included rebuilding the engine and using spare parts found in the area. The control surfaces were replaced and a pair of 12.7mm machine guns were installed as armament. … Once completed, The U.S. star and bar markings were painted on the wings and fuselage. The lower side of the wing was painted with "U.S. Army" in black bock [sic] letters. The tail code XJ004 was painted in black on both sides of the tail.” Later, the paint job was redone to match that of the squad that restored it, and it was used for mock flights, testing U.S. planes against the Japanese aircraft, and for technical evaluation.

Dave Pluth also talks about the XJ004 and its recovery from Cyclops Airfield, and has a picture (which can be seen in a better quality here) that he says was taken “at Hollandia just after all the paint was stripped from the aircraft”. The plane in the picture is in good-looking condition: no major portions missing like in mine, yet “just after all the paint [presumably the Japanese paintjob] was stripped from the aircraft.” Mine is in rough shape, but has U.S. markings; could mine have been marked with U.S. paint and serial number while it was still wreckage, then fixed later? I’ve heard of wrecked or captured planes being re-marked by the capturer and studied, just like this Ki-43’s story, but I’ve never heard if they re-paint them while still wrecked, or if they wait. Pluth continues his description of the process by saying, “After reconstruction was complete the aircraft was stripped to bare metal and given pre-war red, white and blue markings on the tail with oversized stars and bars on the fuselage and wings. The finishing touch was put on when the name Racoon Special! (which was actually misspelled) was added to the fuselage.” So, if I’m reading this correctly, the U.S. recovered a plane, painted U.S. markings and gave it a new tail number, restored the plane, then took off the U.S. markings and serial number and painted it again, with a new design? So if Dave’s suggestion is right that this was captured by the U.S., and if a military paints captured wreckage while it is still very, very wrecked, and re-paints it again after restoration, then this could be the case here. … Maybe? I don’t know; that picture that Pluth has is still in way better shape than mine is, so maybe my 004 isn’t the same as everyone else’s XJ004.  

Pacific Wrecks also talks about restored Zero XJ002 and says that this aircraft was reassembled by U.S. Air Technical Intelligence Unit and that “[w]hile being restored, most of the green paint [the Japanese paint scheme] was stripped off to bare metal. After restoration, the aircraft was painted green with U.S. markings and tail code XJ002 in black on both sides of the tail.” So did they restore it first, and only after it was complete paint it with U.S. markings? So then that wouldn’t match the condition of my plane.

Searching for a Japanese Zero, rather than an Oscar, that was recovered and restored by the U.S. and numbered 004 brought no results. 

Another thing of note is the nose, right next to where it breaks off. To me it looks like there’s something written there. Are those scratches on the photo/negative? Is it really there? Is it English writing, or Japanese? To me, it looks like 

G                   x 

[Y or J] [box] t 

Those last two marks reminded me of Japanese writing; they look like they could be “ro” “hi” in Katakana. I found a few Katakana characters that look sort of similar to the first Y/J-looking character, but nothing that definitely matched. 

No other pictures of Zeros or Oscars that I found had anything like that. It looks like there’s also some other paint job under and next to the markings, and again, I haven’t seen anything like that in any of the photos I found online, so possibly those were added by the U.S. I found one picture, of the Ki-43 with tail number XJ002, that had something under the cockpit, but I can’t really tell what it is. Could it be the same paintjob as on mine? 

Side-by-side comparison of markings on XJ002 and my "Zero." (Pic from Pacific Wrecks.)

(I also read about Japanese planes being marked with a green and white cross when surrendered, but neither of these look like the examples I've seen of that cross.)

 

Side-by-side comparison with wrecked Ki-43. Photo from Arawasi

There was this one shot that could be compared well to my picture, and they look alike, right? The body looks more or less alike, the cockpit and canopy look alike, the wings look alike… maybe the tail of the confirmed Oscar looks a little more rounded than mine does, and again, the tail of mine may be cut off at the frame’s edge, but… I can’t be sure.

Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum's Stuka restoration, 2019

(And while I’m at it, the picture of the wrecked Zero/Oscar reminded me of Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum’s Stuka restoration. I guess planes break apart – intentionally or not – in the same way.) 

 

 

*sigh* I just don’t know about this one. I’m not seeming to come up with anything conclusive, so this one’s going to remain 100% a Mystery. (Label your photos, people!) 

 

Whilst writing all this, I realized there are two pictures in a scrapbook that I’ve always wondered about. I once took pictures of them to ask the aviation mechanics I worked with, but never got the courage. At one time, I did ask a visitor at the museum because somehow we got on the topic, but other than that, these are still two unknown-to-me planes. That might need to be my next project…

WWII Planes: Moments of “Wow, my family witnessed history, stuff other people cared about, too!”

Oh, hi there. Remember back in ... well, I won’t say when, because it’s embarrassing how long it’s taken me to get back to this, so let’s just say “in a previous episode,” when I talked about researching pictures my grandfather possibly took of possibly WWII-era airplanes? Well, I’ve finally got time again to do some real digging! 

To recap, I have a handful of photos that came from my mother’s parents’ stuff. Three of them are of what look like wrecked or broken-down airplanes. I posit that my grandfather took these photos, possibly around WWII. None of the photos have writing on the back to confirm any of my suspicions (other than the one that says “what’s left of a [Japanese] Zero”). (side note: People, please label your photos! Dates, locations, significance!) I’ve always thought these photos were interesting, but after working in a military aviation museum, I was intrigued about the airplanes’ histories and what information I might be able to find about them. 

So then, let’s get started! (And please be kind about my terminology: I may like looking at and listening to planes, and may have worked around mechanics and pilots for a couple of years, but I [obviously] don’t know all the lingo.)  

First, artwork is amazing for finding information about an airplane! Two of the airplanes in these photos have nose art typical of the era: risqué ladies! (*catcall* *whistle*) The feminist side of me says that it’s disgusting, objectifying women like this; but the historical-minded side of me understands that images like these kept up the morale of the boys fighting the wars back then. As Caroline Galambosova said of nose art for Daily Art Magazine, “So-called Nose Art created a powerful bond between man and machine. Pilots wanted to see their airplanes as almost human entities with which they could identify. Especially when they faced danger, they even wanted to endow their war-birds with superhuman qualities to protect them and bring them safely back. … The images… were morale-boosting, good-luck charms, and also reminders of a pilot’s personal life, hobbies, characteristics, and much more.” Although some pilots did put their wives’/girlfriends’ names on their planes, or their hometowns, or four-leaf clovers, or some superhuman quality, I would guess that when most of us think of “art on WWII airplanes,” we think of the sexy pin-up girl. As Galambosova says, “The average age of a bomber crew was 22 years old and they were mostly single. Being away from home, ladies were on their minds. Pin-up girls and provocative female paintings, often half-naked, were matched with memorable names.” 

However you feel about the art, it is a handy reference when researching a plane. It’s amazing what you can find by searching the art’s name (e.g., “American Beauty” and “California Sunshine”), and possibly some other keywords (“airplane,” “WWII,” etc.). It won’t necessarily give you the aircraft’s full history, since art could be changed, but it can lead you to some good information.  

Second, serial numbers are your friends. On one of the planes, I was able to make out a bunch of numbers, one that looked like a code, and one that looked like a serial number. Throw those bunches of numbers into a search engine, and – if you’re lucky – you get good info! Even if you’re not sure what’s a serial number and what’s something else, put ‘em in and give it a try. 

Now, on to the research! 

pt1: WWII Planes: What a Beauty

pt2: WWII Planes: You Are My Sunshine

pt3: WWII Planes: The Mistaken Identity of Oscar or Zero

Reading List: Recruiting and Managing Volunteers in Museums: A Handbook for Volunteer Management by Kristy Van Hoven and Loni Wellman

This is a nice guidebook to being a volunteer manager and having a volunteer program. It covers topics like what might motivate different groups of volunteers (college-age, retiree, family, etc.); different types of opportunities for volunteers; how to plan and run a volunteer program, including working with the departments at your organization, forms to create, interviewing potential volunteers, onboarding a volunteer, and managing and retaining volunteers; and a few case studies that, while being extremely specific and not very generic situations that most people will have, do include a few ideas and "ah-ha"/"hmm...." moments. 

The upsides:

• Sample documents, like job descriptions, internal volunteer request forms, volunteer evaluations
• Lists of questions to ask at volunteer interviews and evaluations

The downsides:

• It felt short and very surface-level. But... 

Overall:

As I was reading this, I kept thinking, "Yeah, that's basic. But I want more. I wish this were more in-depth," but when I then tried to figure out what it was lacking and what I wish it had, I couldn't think of anything. So I guess this must be a really good resource! :) 

I think if you're new to volunteer management (a new volunteer manager or your organization is beginning or tweaking your volunteer program), this is a good book to read. It will give you a good overview, things to do and not do, and ideas that you can implement or expand on for your site. 

If you've done volunteer management in the past, or your organization already has a volunteer program, this can be used as a refresher, or even for additional ideas. 

Recruiting and Managing Volunteers in Museums: A Handbook for Volunteer Management, 2016

Kristy Van Hoven and Loni Wellman

125 pages, including sample forms and lists of questions

Reading List: How to Close a Museum: A Practical Guide by Susana Smith Bautista

Here we go, the thing museum people don't want to talk about: closing your museum.

Sadly, we know it happens, though, right? In general, not every museum that has ever opened is still open today, and especially given what's happened in the world the past two years, we know museums are closing. There have been some webinars and conference sessions (such as "What Happens When Museums Close" at the 2021 American Alliance of Museums' virtual conference and "Managing the Afterlife of a Collection" at the New England Museum Association's 2021 virtual conference), a handful of articles and blog posts, AASLH's "What's Next? A Guide to Museum Transitions and Closures" (2021), and AAM's collection of resources, but now there's also a book to help you through the hard stuff.

The first thing I really took from this book is to hire a lawyer. Even just reading this as a guide for information, some of this stuff is hard. Plus, every state is different about what you're required to do to close your museum, so get a lawyer! And as Bautista points out, even if you have a lawyer on staff or on your Board of Directors, get an outsider so there are no questions of conflicts of interest.

The "Above and Beyond" chapter includes ethical and moral questions to consider, to go along with all of the legal questions you need to answer and rules you need to follow. What I especially appreciate about this chapter is that it reminds the reader of the duties we have to the public -- holding collections in the public trust, programming for the public's good and education, partnerships we have with our community -- and asks you to think about these ethics and morals as you plan how to close your museum (who you tell, when you tell them, where your collections go, etc.). It makes the book be about more than what you need to do, but also adds what you should do.

There's also a chapter with a step-by-step Closing Plan, but you definitely need to read the whole book first, before you actually begin your shutdown. Some of these steps require a lot of planning ahead of time, before they can be implemented as part of the closing procedures, so don't try to work through the step-by-step section in real time. 

The upsides:

• The appendix of sample documents and plans
• Brainstorming suggestions, such as potential partnerships and organizations to give your collections/assets to.
• Case studies of other museums that closed give interesting things to think about, including sometimes how not to do things. 
• Throughout the book are tips about planning that can help you avoid being in a position where you need to think about closing your museum, so really, everyone should read this, even if you're new or not yet thinking about closing. (Like they say, plan ahead of time, when you have a clear head, rather than waiting until you're panicked.) 

The downsides:

• This is not an all-in-one, do-it-yourself guide. You'll need help: legal help, help from your Board of Directors, help from the staff. But that's not a downside of the book; this book isn't meant to have you do it all, and it's probably not very possible for one person to do it all. If anything, it's a downside of the situation.

Overall: Yes! At times it felt like this book was skimming the surface, but I don't know that it's possible to get in-depth enough. As said above, each state -- and each situation -- is different, so there's no way Bautista could cover everything. But this will certainly get you started if you're in that "We have to close" crunch (and even if you're not yet, or hope to never be). 

How to Close a Museum: A Practical Guide, 2021 

Susana Smith Bautista

133 pages of text, approximately 60 pages of Appendix (sample documents, etc.) and Bibliography