Greetings to Everyone,

I will try to write a concise letter about my own opinions about the plane on exhibit at the Pienma Museum.

The letter will have 3 parts: 1-What do I think of CNAC 53 on exhibit in Pienma; 2-What are we allowed to do; and 3-What I wish we could do.

1-What do I think about the plane on exhibit in Pienma?

Our beloved CNAC #53 is in fact what we can see in the Pienma Museum. The plane on exhibit at Pienma is more than 80% of the original pieces and parts.

In the 3^rd section of the letter I make a recommendation to asses the true percentage amounts in a way that benefits everyone.

I wanted to make a long narrative letter about what kind of opinions I have heard up until now. Better not. Short version:  Concerned individuals went from suspecting that CNAC 53 was sold in pieces to others, to thinking that a Russian built DC3 parts were used in the museum display, resulting in the reconstructed plane being more Russian rather than CNAC’s plane #53. I heard words like fraud, scam, or rip-off. In my mind these words meant that the plane on exhibit was reconstructed from pieces of other planes.

We know that #53’s wing was on display at Wal-Mart.  It is now in a hotel complex south of Kunming. We know that the owners of this complex are asking (blackmailing) the prefecture of Nujiang for a sum of $200,000.00 US dollars to have it returned to the Pienma museum. They also have #53’s wheel. We also know that the landing lights are elsewhere and are not on the plane. All these incidences have made many suspicious and question what is more real about the reconstruction of the CNAC plane. It is hard for others to see and understand the truth about the reconstruction process of CNAC 53.

In addition, I was told that the Chinese Aviation Experts reconstruct their planes to look as original as possible. However, rather than giving emphasis to “authenticity” as we do in the West; the experts want to have a finished product that looks complete. I was worried about how I could explain this to my friends in the West. I was beginning to realize that expecting “authenticity” like we do in the West could fall under “cultural arrogance” or “cultural insensitivity” on our part due to different Western expectations and standards. Fortunately, the discussion is not needed because a lot of the original plane is used in the display.

I once heard Fletcher say that he would be very happy if the plane in the exhibit had more than 50% of the original parts and pieces. This is why I am so happy to see Mr. Wong How Man’s pictures. Thanks to his pictures taken in 2004, I see that the plane on exhibit at the Pienma Museum is in fact more than 90% of our beloved CNAC #53. Also, after having seen these pictures, Ge Shuya confirms that what is seen on the floor of the museum under construction is what he saw up on the mountain with Fletcher. There is so much of the original airplane used in the reconstruction project that I am even beginning to doubt that another airplane was needed to make the reconstruction process complete.

The pictures I am sending show the details comparing the original pieces and the final product. This picture shows that the plane on display is in fact CNAC 53.

It is important to understand that, in the beginning, no one but Fletcher envisioned the plane would be hauled down from the mountain. Actually, he hoped he could fly it from the crash site. It is a miracle that somehow those pieces survived and managed to be used in the final reconstruction.

I think it is essential we try to understand why those pieces in the ground are like that. It is also very important to understand the chain of events that lead the making of this museum. I do not have all the facts so I will refrain from making any statements. The fact that only the wings was originally brought down from the mountain shows the level of aspirations on the part of the villagers. They never believed any one would help them in bringing the whole airplane down from the mountains (much less invest in a building of such magnitude). I need to repeat what I said before; it is a minor miracle that we have those pieces.

I can imagine that a professional archeologist would have forbidden anyone from touching the airplane from day one. He or she would have managed to bring the plane down from the mountain in neat little boxes. I am afraid those are luxuries we never had in Pienma. Furthermore, I believe that the experts that helped in the reconstruction of CNAC #53 arrived to the museum at this point with the pieces as they are in How Man's pictures. Therefore, they had no saying in how to bring the airplane from the mountain. 

I wish I had not lost my T-shirt made by Fletcher with the: “Crashed in 1943, Flown in 1996”. (Fletcher: do you have any XXXL left?)

2. What are we allowed to do?

During Fletcher’s birthday party in Pienma the highest official of Nujiang County asked us how they could make their exhibit better.

As many of you know, my personal issue with the museum had to do with the improper markings of the plane, i.e., The Army Air Corp star and the ATC symbol. CNAC 53 was a civilian plane flown by civilian pilots and crews. Under the Geneva Convention it was forbidden for CNAC to use any kind of military markings. The mistake is understandable because the planes were bought by CNAC from ATC and then repainted in the CNAC colors and marked with the CNAC Chung. We know the paint deteriorated during those 60+ years on the mountain. If one looks closely, one can see the faded Chung on the fuselage in one of pictures so generously provided by How Man to all of you.

Fletcher and I were given permission to advise the museum on the final re-markings of the plane. Hopefully we can also help with the repainting of the airplane. There seems to be 2 options; clear like CNAC 50 or dark olive with… Anyway, once we can reach an agreement we can give the museum our recommendation on how to finalize the restoration project on CNAC 53. I have, also, included a picture with the suggested ideas behind those markings.

3. What I wish we could do?

My biggest priority at the moment is to convince the museum officials to make a diagram of the plane. This step forward could benefit everyone, both here and abroad. If done as I envision, it will help the museum tell Foxy’s story to future generations. It will also tell, how the plane was retrieved after Fletcher’s expedition in 1996 and, how the plane was reconstructed by the Chinese in an effort to expand and educate the people of the World about CNAC’s participation in Chinese and American aviation history.  In addition, it will help us determine the true percentage of the original pieces in CNAC #53 on display at the Pienma museum.

I found an original diagram from the engineers at Douglas. The one I am using, as an example, is from a Douglas C47, but I hope it can explain what is meant.

Another thing that is very important to me is to help the museum retrieve all the original pieces and include them in the plane, on exhibit, in Pienma. I am appealing to the gentleman inside all of us to return the pieces to the museum.

In fact, Ge Shuya and I plan to make a visit to return an original piece of the plane. We hope this gesture can symbolize the new way of doing business with the museums here in China and abroad. Perhaps there can also be a Loan Program established concerning the memorabilia. All interested, concerned parties would be invited to participate in this process.

The missing wing and other missing parts of the plane, is very disturbing to me. We could leverage, from a legal point of view, the return of the pieces. However, this is the Westerner in me. I am not sure of the true possibilities of this approach. I was told by a Chinese lawyer that the new law in antiquities could be used to make the possession of any parts and pieces of CNAC 53 illegal. But this is just speculation, I believe. We could pay these $%#@@, but I would prefer not even to contemplate this possibility. Anyway, any positive, productive suggestions on the return of the needed parts and pieces would be greatly appreciated and welcomed.

The last part that of this letter, which is of great concern to me, is that some of the wall space of the museum is used to NOT tell the story of CNAC. Much of the exhibit is of the AVG, the military ATC, and Jim Fox, but not about CNAC and its place in Chinese/American Aviation History.  I do not think there is intentional malice or intended omissions of the CNAC story, however, it is one of my personal missions while I live here in China; is to tell the story and history of CNAC. Personally, this is what is desired on my part, hopefully, others will agree and provide the necessary wall space.

I want to personally thank Mr. Wong How man for providing us with these pictures that have help me understand the situation much better. His picture bellow faintly show the Chung over the star (I added yellow dots).

After examining How Man's pictures taken in 2004, I came to the conclusion that the plane at the Pienma Museum is the reconstructed CNAC plane #53 not a Russian look alike Therefore, at this time, I do not feel a trip to Pienma Museum is necessary, but, will do so if needed. I do not believe Fletcher had all the necessary information to make a conclusion as to the authenticity of the plane. In my opinion, had it been available...his apprehensions would have been nullified and his fears calmed.

It is with great peace of mind for me and most of all, hopefully, for Fletcher, to be able to make these statements with the information provided by those concerned individuals about this matter.

I will be very satisfied when I get an official and confirmed diagram of the plane. As I have told many in the past, the diagram would be the pedigreed documentation on and about the reconstruction project of CNAC plane #53.

Sincerely,

Diego Kusak