Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:43 am
Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:09 am
Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:18 pm
Chris Brame wrote:aerovin wrote:In May 2018, B-17G Shoo Shoo Baby will be pulled from display and placed in storage pending shipment to the NASM at an unspecified date. The NMUSAF will place B-17F Memphis Belle on display in its stead.
I'm supposed to be going to the NMUSAF next April for my cousin's wedding (she and her fiancee are both doctors in the Air Force); hope Baby will still be there. (If I can get into the restoration hangar as well, that will up the number of surviving B-17s I've seen from ten to thirteen in one shot! )
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:16 am
Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:47 am
Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:30 am
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:27 am
Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:31 am
Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:36 am
lucky52 wrote:What is that tube like apparatus mounted on the exhaust pipe of the #2 engine?I saw them on the Midway B-17 thread about 6 months ago.I thought I saw it on the #3 engine exhaust pipe also.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:46 pm
k5083 wrote:I would like to see the Baby stripped to natural metal and refinished. I consider the decision to change her to OD a mistake. The excuse at the time was that the skin was no longer presentable, but restoration techniques have advanced, if that was even true to begin with. She doesn't have to have a mirror finish although that probably is what NMUSAF prefers.
The ranting about what the NASM does or doesn't care about, its political views etc is both uninformed and tiresome.
August
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:30 pm
Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:45 am
TheBigBadGman wrote:k5083 wrote:I would like to see the Baby stripped to natural metal and refinished. I consider the decision to change her to OD a mistake. The excuse at the time was that the skin was no longer presentable, but restoration techniques have advanced, if that was even true to begin with. She doesn't have to have a mirror finish although that probably is what NMUSAF prefers.
The ranting about what the NASM does or doesn't care about, its political views etc is both uninformed and tiresome.
August
As nice as it would be to have Shoo Shoo Baby restored to her proper color, I don't see it happening. She's completely covered inside and out - stripping all that paint would require a LOT of work. I doubt any museum would go through all that effort just to get the colors right, especially considering that, in terms of parts, she is more complete that most restorations. I seem to recall that a great deal of metal work was done on the wings, and that that was where her appearance was most ragged. Somebody else might know more as to the details there.
As for the ranting you described - I would argue that it has a valid place here. This is the community most responsible for the preservation of antique aircraft, and as such, we should feel free to openly state our opinions on such matters. JohnB is quite spot-on when he notes the shameful way the Enola Gay's display was handled by the NASM. Likewise, the fact that priceless aircraft like Swoose sat in storage for as long as they did sets a disturbing precedent. We may not agree on the NASM's policies, and that is fine, but I think we can agree that the record shows that they have no problem placing Shoo Shoo Baby into indefinite storage in favor of the strange and obscure.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:24 am
Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:15 am
Warbird Kid wrote:Can someone fill me in on what the issue was with NASM and Enola Gay and what they did (or didn't) do?
Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:38 am
k5083 wrote:TheBigBadGman wrote:k5083 wrote:I would like to see the Baby stripped to natural metal and refinished. I consider the decision to change her to OD a mistake. The excuse at the time was that the skin was no longer presentable, but restoration techniques have advanced, if that was even true to begin with. She doesn't have to have a mirror finish although that probably is what NMUSAF prefers.
The ranting about what the NASM does or doesn't care about, its political views etc is both uninformed and tiresome.
August
As nice as it would be to have Shoo Shoo Baby restored to her proper color, I don't see it happening. She's completely covered inside and out - stripping all that paint would require a LOT of work. I doubt any museum would go through all that effort just to get the colors right, especially considering that, in terms of parts, she is more complete that most restorations. I seem to recall that a great deal of metal work was done on the wings, and that that was where her appearance was most ragged. Somebody else might know more as to the details there.
As for the ranting you described - I would argue that it has a valid place here. This is the community most responsible for the preservation of antique aircraft, and as such, we should feel free to openly state our opinions on such matters. JohnB is quite spot-on when he notes the shameful way the Enola Gay's display was handled by the NASM. Likewise, the fact that priceless aircraft like Swoose sat in storage for as long as they did sets a disturbing precedent. We may not agree on the NASM's policies, and that is fine, but I think we can agree that the record shows that they have no problem placing Shoo Shoo Baby into indefinite storage in favor of the strange and obscure.
You may be right about Shoo Shoo Baby, but I don't believe NASM would have made the choice NMUSAF did. They may accept the plane as it is now, but had they made the restoration decision, they would have found some other solution.
The ranting can continue as far as I'm concerned. I'm not trying to shut down anyone's speech, just commenting on its value.
As for Enola Gay, what the NASM did with its first try was to get pretensions to being a world-class museum with a duty to educate from more than one perspective. Congress and vets groups told it, "No, we're only interested in the WWII U.S. propaganda version here -- it's that or nothing." So they went with nothing. I have a different opinion about where the shame in that episode lies.
August