Warbird Information Exchange

I know we are all looking forward to this. www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!

It's taken awhile....I saw it in mid-2011 and a lot of the hard work had been done. I thought it would be finished by now.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Great news and I'm glad it's finally getting the opportunity to be seen by thousands of more people than its previous location on Mud island. Two things jump out from this statement in that article:

"The B-17F Memphis Belle™ – the first U.S. Army Air Forces heavy bomber to complete 25 missions over Europe and return to the United States – will be placed on public display at the National Museum of the U.S. on May 17, 2018. "


First, I thought that it was a pretty well known fact that the M.B. was not the first, or even second heavy bomber to complete 25 missions over Europe. I don't understand why the NMUSAF, which prides itself on historical accuracy, continues to perpetuate this myth.

Second, I haven't seen the "TM", or Trademark symbol used on the Memphis Belle name before. I guess the USAF is serious about protecting its Intellectual Property.


Hopefully, after the M.B. is done, they can concentrate on the "Swoose". I'm really eager to see a "shark-fin" B-17 go on display.

Perhaps the first to 'return to the US' has something to do with it?

_________________
Classic Wings Magazine

https://www.classicwings.com/

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/ClassicWingsMagazine/

Preserved Axis Aircraft

http://www.classicwings.com

TM on the Memphis Belle....reminds me a bit too much of Yeager doing the same with his X-1 or a airframe builder licencing an ancient design and wanting royalties from model companies.

All perfectly legal but a bit excessive.

What's next, trade marking the White House?
Oddly, the Navy hasn't had issues with the NCIS TV series. I'd think they would have more of a case for protecting that more than a airplane nickname from 75 years ago named by an aircrew.
Obviously, "Memphis Belle" was not a USAAF designation or thought up by the service.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw that "TM".

One can only hold one's breath in anticipation of the next daft piece of corporate BS. So did the crew sign over the rights to the USAF using that name? Presumably the similarly-named B-52 also has a TM?

I wonder when this means SSB will be moved to the NASM. Also wondering if the NASM will place SSB on display as-is or send her to the restoration hanger.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/

That's a toughie. The NASM is more of a stickler for correct markings and paint schemes; either they take it back to natural metal finish with considerable effort to make the old and new skin look consistent, or they present it as-is with a big disclaimer.

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

Seeing the NASM has a 200+ years backlog of restoration projects, I'm thinking it will go directly on display. But with the very slow pace of work at the NASM it could take them 15 years to put SSB back together again once it arrives there.

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!

Oh, O.K. So, now the NMUSAF is parsing words. That is technically a correct statement, but to the average, uninformed reader it suggests a different interpretation of the facts.

With that verbal manipulation, the NMUSAF should go into politics. Ha ha!

I don't think they can go back to a natural metal finish without a whole lot of extra work and perhaps a complete re-skinning of major portions of the aircraft which would undoubtedly take away some of the originality. If I remember my history correctly, the NMUSAF originally decided to paint SSSB in Olive Drab because the skins of the aircraft were not in a good enough condition to display as NMF. I also seem to recall that one of the wings on that aircraft is an "F" model wing and not original to the SSSB. Can somebody with more knowledge than me confirm this?

Loving the whole "SSB" and now "SSSB" thing.

But which is correct (technically SSSB)?

If they put it in the restoration queue, they can prevent showing a B-17 for another 70 years...and delay giving it the honor it deserves until the entire generation that designed, built, flew, serviced and paid for them are gone.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

The statement is historically correct. There is nothing to ponder. It's a miracle it made it through 25 at that time. It completed the missions within a day or so (depending on which source you use) of the other B-17. The B-24 never made it back. This was the first bomber to return to the US and tell people what it was like.

The TM is a necessity and has existed for many years before the plane ever came to the museum.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Knowing their restoration back-log I'd say put SSB on display as-is with an explanation of paint. Get her on display while they generation that served on them is still around to see it. She's a great representative example.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/