Not good news for the B-17 we know as ShooShooShooBaby

[Pat Carry]

="JohnB"]Let's see, the NASM museum has been open since 1976, and while we can't expert them to put a B-17 in the downtown location , the U-H facility has been open for what, close to 20 years?

It's pretty obvious the NASM staff doesn't care about displaying a B-17.
For years they put less historic and important types ahead of The Swoose in the restoration line (really the never used Japanese sub-based airplane and the Do 335 got attention years ago), now they're willing to put a beautifully restored historic airframe in a closet for a few years.
Yeah guys, you don't want to display a B-17 when there are still WWII veterans around to see it.

I've always assumed the staff still retain a Vietnam-era anti-military prejudice. Certainly, their handling of the Enola Gay (and the resulting controversy) displayed that.[/quote]
Agreed!

[Richard W.]

Yeah, the Seiran was an odd choice but to be fair it should be mentioned that it was the Dornier company that restored the Pfeil, not the guys at Silver Hill.

[Misterg97]

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! )

The Belle goes on display 17 May as part of the 3 day celebration including a WWII fly in. The Belle is no longer in the restoration hanger as she is getting ready for the move along with major changes in the WWII hanger.

[TheBigBadGman]

The latest photo I can find of the Memphis Belle. Posted 27 November.

The OD doesn't look quite dark enough to be OD 41 but it might just be the lighting. The green on the engine is the primer. The Boeing manual says not to paint a primer but I suppose they have their reasons for putting one on.

Looks like she's gonna be pretty bare bones interior-wise when put on display. That's to be expected.

Has anyone visited there lately? I'd really like to get a good look at the new nose-piece.

For what it's worth, I agree whole-heartedly with everyone's sentiments on Shoo, Shoo Baby. I would argue that the NMUSAF needs to expand its WWII gallery anyways, so why not just keep her? Imagine making room for the Barksdale B-24, having a gallery of aircraft where one can see the evolution of US bombers from early to late war.

[k5083]

I visited a few weeks ago, just after access to the restoration hangar was closed because they don't want people to see the Belle in advance of the unveiling. Kind of a bride on wedding day thing I guess. If the Belle is indeed no longer in the restoration hangar, this move would make no sense, but there you have it. I was a bit disappointed not to get a look at the Helldiver.

The title of the song was Shoo Shoo Baby but the lyric was "Shoo Shoo Shoo baby." Give the Andrews Sisters version a listen if you haven't.

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

[Thomas_Mac]

The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force YouTube page has some good videos on the painting/cleaning of The Belle.

https://www.youtube.com/user/USAFmuseum/videos

[lucky52]

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.

[Pat Carry]

I wonder who gets the honor of painting the nose art?

[K5DH]

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.

Part of the cockpit heating system.

[TheBigBadGman]

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.

[lucky52]

Thank you K5DH.

[k5083]

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

[Warbird Kid]

Can someone fill me in on what the issue was with NASM and Enola Gay and what they did (or didn't) do?

[mike furline]

Can someone fill me in on what the issue was with NASM and Enola Gay and what they did (or didn't) do?

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/ ... exhibition

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/enola/

[StangStung]

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

Well said, August. Worth repeating.