One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:11 pm
Just a separate thought (as requested by Zane). Very understandably many people have posted about the tragedy of the loss of the Belle, and it being an historic aircraft, rare in many senses of the term.
Most important was, of course, the credit to the crew for ensuring no-one (including ground assistance) was hurt. That's key.
I wish the crew all the best for their future plans, and support in principle what route they take to the future. It's an irreplaceable loss, in one key sense - a history of the machine may have come to a full stop here; a rebuild is possible, but prohibitively expensive and in my own opinion, unlikely.
After all those preconditions, my point is only this: The Belle was not, in historic terms 'rare' or 'irreplaceable'. It is in itself not an historic aircraft in the way that the Swoose, Memphis Belle or Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby are.
It is an odd factor that there are twice as many surviving airworthy and flying B-17Gs as there are of all the other W.W.II era four engined bombers flying*. - Even after the loss of the Belle.
That's not just American 'heavies' that's from all the combatant nations together.
We are short of diversity here - for that, thank heavens that the accident did not remove the sole B-29 we have flying, or 50% of the world's flying B-24s or Lancasters. That would, in one real measure of historic importance, be a much greater tragedy.
There is no likelihood of the B-17 as a type becoming extinct in our children's lifetimes, short of a global catastrophe.
There are no complete W.W.II era Japanese, Italian, German, French or Russian four engine bombers surviving in any form - not even wrecks. While they are all types of minor historical importance, they did exist, and for those wondering what machines I'm referring to, their extinction is one reason you haven't heard of them. The British Commonwealth deployed three four engine heavies during the war. We feel well provided for with two flying Lancasters and a good number of static well-preserved or under restoration examples, plus possible restorations to more active status. However there are only two recovered /recreated Handley Page Halifaxes and no Short Stirlings at all - with a single seabed wrecked Stirling gradually eroding.
A terrible loss. It could have been a lot worse.
Regards,
*There are two flying Lancasters, two B-24s (different models) a B-29. I'm excluding the Privateer, as it's commemorating its firebombing career. Currently there are ten B-17Gs flying regularly.
Most important was, of course, the credit to the crew for ensuring no-one (including ground assistance) was hurt. That's key.
I wish the crew all the best for their future plans, and support in principle what route they take to the future. It's an irreplaceable loss, in one key sense - a history of the machine may have come to a full stop here; a rebuild is possible, but prohibitively expensive and in my own opinion, unlikely.
After all those preconditions, my point is only this: The Belle was not, in historic terms 'rare' or 'irreplaceable'. It is in itself not an historic aircraft in the way that the Swoose, Memphis Belle or Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby are.
It is an odd factor that there are twice as many surviving airworthy and flying B-17Gs as there are of all the other W.W.II era four engined bombers flying*. - Even after the loss of the Belle.
That's not just American 'heavies' that's from all the combatant nations together.
We are short of diversity here - for that, thank heavens that the accident did not remove the sole B-29 we have flying, or 50% of the world's flying B-24s or Lancasters. That would, in one real measure of historic importance, be a much greater tragedy.
There is no likelihood of the B-17 as a type becoming extinct in our children's lifetimes, short of a global catastrophe.
There are no complete W.W.II era Japanese, Italian, German, French or Russian four engine bombers surviving in any form - not even wrecks. While they are all types of minor historical importance, they did exist, and for those wondering what machines I'm referring to, their extinction is one reason you haven't heard of them. The British Commonwealth deployed three four engine heavies during the war. We feel well provided for with two flying Lancasters and a good number of static well-preserved or under restoration examples, plus possible restorations to more active status. However there are only two recovered /recreated Handley Page Halifaxes and no Short Stirlings at all - with a single seabed wrecked Stirling gradually eroding.
A terrible loss. It could have been a lot worse.
Regards,
*There are two flying Lancasters, two B-24s (different models) a B-29. I'm excluding the Privateer, as it's commemorating its firebombing career. Currently there are ten B-17Gs flying regularly.
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:59 pm
I read somewhere that a PETLYAKOV Pe-8 was still extant at a remote airfield (not Monino!). Anybody have more information on that?
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:03 am
I've never heard reliable info to suggest that.
Probably the same airfield that has the Dolittle B-25, Lancaster and Stirling...
Probably the same airfield that has the Dolittle B-25, Lancaster and Stirling...
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:10 am
JDK wrote:I've never heard reliable info to suggest that.
Probably the same airfield that has the Dolittle B-25, Lancaster and Stirling...
They're all on the moon with the B-32.
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:13 am
I agree completely. The loss of Liberty Belle is regretable but thanks to the professional actions of the crew avoided tragedy. Soon enough it will be economically prohibitive to operate these types of aircraft. I hope this doesn't happen in my lifetime but it will almost certainly happen in my son's.
As for the superior survival rate of the B-17 versus other types I think it was largely due to economic and geographic factors that kept the airframe viable for a multitude of jobs from aerial survey, cargo, test and firefighting. Canada or France might have used Lancasters for some of that work but I would bet the B-17 was more economical to purchase and operate in the 1940s and 50s. Britain is too small to see much use for converted heavies and certainly is not plagued with massive forest fires. Some nations actively discouraged the civilianization of ex military aircraft.
Isn't there an effort to recreat from wreckage a FW 200? Interesting that of all the combatants only Britain and the US truly understood that strategic bombing would depend on conventional four engined aircraft.
As for the superior survival rate of the B-17 versus other types I think it was largely due to economic and geographic factors that kept the airframe viable for a multitude of jobs from aerial survey, cargo, test and firefighting. Canada or France might have used Lancasters for some of that work but I would bet the B-17 was more economical to purchase and operate in the 1940s and 50s. Britain is too small to see much use for converted heavies and certainly is not plagued with massive forest fires. Some nations actively discouraged the civilianization of ex military aircraft.
Isn't there an effort to recreat from wreckage a FW 200? Interesting that of all the combatants only Britain and the US truly understood that strategic bombing would depend on conventional four engined aircraft.
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:19 am
I remember seeing a few pictures of a german bomber recovery . maybe it was the fw200 as mensioned. it came off the crane and went flat on the bardge. . on a lighter note my thoughts are with all the FW190s out there in the air again , it was just a matter of time before the b-17s starting going down again.
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:37 am
robkamm wrote:on a lighter note my thoughts are with all the FW190s out there in the air again , it was just a matter of time before the b-17s starting going down again.
Twisted....but funny!
haha
Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:01 am
that is funny!!!!
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:04 am
robkamm wrote:I remember seeing a few pictures of a german bomber recovery . maybe it was the fw200 as mensioned. it came off the crane and went flat on the bardge. . on a lighter note my thoughts are with all the FW190s out there in the air again , it was just a matter of time before the b-17s starting going down again.
You kidding??? With all the P-51's flying?
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:25 am
The safety of the crew and passengers is the key thing to remember.
Think about it, if someone had been seriously injured (or worse) the FAA and NTSB might of had to come down hard on the bomber experience flights...which could have seriously curtailed their flying operation...f not ending them alltogether.
Yes, it could have been much worse.
And more 17s (the Urbana and the second Liberty ship) are in the pipeline...the good news.
Think about it, if someone had been seriously injured (or worse) the FAA and NTSB might of had to come down hard on the bomber experience flights...which could have seriously curtailed their flying operation...f not ending them alltogether.
Yes, it could have been much worse.
And more 17s (the Urbana and the second Liberty ship) are in the pipeline...the good news.
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:27 am
robkamm wrote:I remember seeing a few pictures of a german bomber recovery . maybe it was the fw200 as mensioned. it came off the crane and went flat on the bardge. . on a lighter note my thoughts are with all the FW190s out there in the air again , it was just a matter of time before the b-17s starting going down again.
That got me laughing this morning...
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:52 pm
it's still a sad loss. so much work went into her and now she's gone. Much like that b-29 they tried to fly off that frozen lake. Very upsetting to watch
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:48 pm
Very funny, robkamm.
However the aircraft would've even more been avoided by the firefighters if it's had bombs and ammunition as well as fuel aboard!
No one's arguing that. But I'm trying to think about the issue, and measure it, rather than just emoting.
Certainly sad, but there's an element of proportion that often is lost; most often seen when we talk about the post-war boneyard photos on WIX - sure they're hard to look at, but that misses the point that in 1945 we needed the drinks cans - postwar life was hard, and the munitions had to become ploughshares.
Secondly, if we'd somehow been able to keep all those aircraft, the one we now have wouldn't be as rare, and would not be as valuable and worth investing cash in. There's an economic rationalism behind warbirds although it usually doesn't seem like it. Of course we can just emote, instead.
We also regularly get the "we must preserve them all" drivel here. No we can't and shouldn't. The flightline of Cessna 172s at the flightschool are worth keeping while they're doing their job. Afterwards, crush 'em, except enough for those who want to use them, and we preserve one in a national museum.
Again, once we get past the irrational attempt to keep all our childhood's toys aspect, then the hard, thinking, work begins - what's worth preserving, and why? How do we make the choices (that the more idealistic WIX posters never consider, let alone address)? What is historical? What's going to be important historical material for 'tomorrow' that we don't even see 'today'? Which leads to:
And that's an excellent point. The history of preservation and commemoration is, itself, history, and there are some stirrings recognising that as well as the original warbird preservation impulse. The loss of the de Havilland Mosquito RR299 (tragically with two crew) was the end of an aircraft that was historic by virtue of decades of display flying, and historic by virtue of being the only flying Mosquito in the world. It was, in a measure, a greater loss to the world than that of the Liberty Belle, both in the loss of life, and in the historic rarity and modern history of the airframe. That said, Liberty Belle's history was an important and interesting one, and if rebuilt would enter another phase that would be unique to that machine*. So don't misunderstand that I'm dismissing the Belle's own importance. However museums and historians have always to choose what's important, and those choices are hard. Meanwhile most active warbird preservation is harder technically, but usually predicated on an easier choice of airframe - one that's available, rather than going and getting something rare and needed to fill a gap. (An exception would be MAAM's P-61.)
Some things to think about, perhaps.
(N.B. This isn't intended as an attack on anyone, nor to ignore the terrible position the Liberty Belle folks are in, but certainly an attack on any tendency towards thoughtless romantic emoting.)
Regards
[* It could be rebuilt. We do have the technology. And if it cost 6 million dollars, it'd probably be a bargain.]
However the aircraft would've even more been avoided by the firefighters if it's had bombs and ammunition as well as fuel aboard!
whistlingdeathcorsairs wrote:it's still a sad loss. so much work went into her and now she's gone. Much like that b-29 they tried to fly off that frozen lake. Very upsetting to watch
No one's arguing that. But I'm trying to think about the issue, and measure it, rather than just emoting.
Certainly sad, but there's an element of proportion that often is lost; most often seen when we talk about the post-war boneyard photos on WIX - sure they're hard to look at, but that misses the point that in 1945 we needed the drinks cans - postwar life was hard, and the munitions had to become ploughshares.
Secondly, if we'd somehow been able to keep all those aircraft, the one we now have wouldn't be as rare, and would not be as valuable and worth investing cash in. There's an economic rationalism behind warbirds although it usually doesn't seem like it. Of course we can just emote, instead.
We also regularly get the "we must preserve them all" drivel here. No we can't and shouldn't. The flightline of Cessna 172s at the flightschool are worth keeping while they're doing their job. Afterwards, crush 'em, except enough for those who want to use them, and we preserve one in a national museum.
Again, once we get past the irrational attempt to keep all our childhood's toys aspect, then the hard, thinking, work begins - what's worth preserving, and why? How do we make the choices (that the more idealistic WIX posters never consider, let alone address)? What is historical? What's going to be important historical material for 'tomorrow' that we don't even see 'today'? Which leads to:
TriangleP wrote:One thing I might add to jdk's discussion is that, although Liberty Belle didn't have an historical prevenance, it seemed to gain one over time as the veterans signed the interior of the fuselage. Its my contention that in of itself was of great value to our society and future generations as a personal testament left by the veterans, now lost.
And that's an excellent point. The history of preservation and commemoration is, itself, history, and there are some stirrings recognising that as well as the original warbird preservation impulse. The loss of the de Havilland Mosquito RR299 (tragically with two crew) was the end of an aircraft that was historic by virtue of decades of display flying, and historic by virtue of being the only flying Mosquito in the world. It was, in a measure, a greater loss to the world than that of the Liberty Belle, both in the loss of life, and in the historic rarity and modern history of the airframe. That said, Liberty Belle's history was an important and interesting one, and if rebuilt would enter another phase that would be unique to that machine*. So don't misunderstand that I'm dismissing the Belle's own importance. However museums and historians have always to choose what's important, and those choices are hard. Meanwhile most active warbird preservation is harder technically, but usually predicated on an easier choice of airframe - one that's available, rather than going and getting something rare and needed to fill a gap. (An exception would be MAAM's P-61.)
Some things to think about, perhaps.
(N.B. This isn't intended as an attack on anyone, nor to ignore the terrible position the Liberty Belle folks are in, but certainly an attack on any tendency towards thoughtless romantic emoting.)
Regards
[* It could be rebuilt. We do have the technology. And if it cost 6 million dollars, it'd probably be a bargain.]
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Any aircraft that crashes is a loss.Having experienced aircrew pass away in them is a tragedy.
Re: One perspective on the Liberty Belle loss
Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:40 am
JDK wrote:Very funny, robkamm.
However the aircraft would've even more been avoided by the firefighters if it's had bombs and ammunition as well as fuel aboard!whistlingdeathcorsairs wrote:it's still a sad loss. so much work went into her and now she's gone. Much like that b-29 they tried to fly off that frozen lake. Very upsetting to watch
No one's arguing that. But I'm trying to think about the issue, and measure it, rather than just emoting.
Certainly sad, but there's an element of proportion that often is lost; most often seen when we talk about the post-war boneyard photos on WIX - sure they're hard to look at, but that misses the point that in 1945 we needed the drinks cans - postwar life was hard, and the munitions had to become ploughshares.
Secondly, if we'd somehow been able to keep all those aircraft, the one we now have wouldn't be as rare, and would not be as valuable and worth investing cash in. There's an economic rationalism behind warbirds although it usually doesn't seem like it. Of course we can just emote, instead.
We also regularly get the "we must preserve them all" drivel here. No we can't and shouldn't. The flightline of Cessna 172s at the flightschool are worth keeping while they're doing their job. Afterwards, crush 'em, except enough for those who want to use them, and we preserve one in a national museum.
Again, once we get past the irrational attempt to keep all our childhood's toys aspect, then the hard, thinking, work begins - what's worth preserving, and why? How do we make the choices (that the more idealistic WIX posters never consider, let alone address)? What is historical? What's going to be important historical material for 'tomorrow' that we don't even see 'today'? Which leads to:TriangleP wrote:One thing I might add to jdk's discussion is that, although Liberty Belle didn't have an historical prevenance, it seemed to gain one over time as the veterans signed the interior of the fuselage. Its my contention that in of itself was of great value to our society and future generations as a personal testament left by the veterans, now lost.
And that's an excellent point. The history of preservation and commemoration is, itself, history, and there are some stirrings recognising that as well as the original warbird preservation impulse. The loss of the de Havilland Mosquito RR299 (tragically with two crew) was the end of an aircraft that was historic by virtue of decades of display flying, and historic by virtue of being the only flying Mosquito in the world. It was, in a measure, a greater loss to the world than that of the Liberty Belle, both in the loss of life, and in the historic rarity and modern history of the airframe. That said, Liberty Belle's history was an important and interesting one, and if rebuilt would enter another phase that would be unique to that machine*. So don't misunderstand that I'm dismissing the Belle's own importance. However museums and historians have always to choose what's important, and those choices are hard. Meanwhile most active warbird preservation is harder technically, but usually predicated on an easier choice of airframe - one that's available, rather than going and getting something rare and needed to fill a gap. (An exception would be MAAM's P-61.)
Some things to think about, perhaps.
(N.B. This isn't intended as an attack on anyone, nor to ignore the terrible position the Liberty Belle folks are in, but certainly an attack on any tendency towards thoughtless romantic emoting.)
Regards
[* It could be rebuilt. We do have the technology. And if it cost 6 million dollars, it'd probably be a bargain.]
thoughtless romantic emoting? If you love the aircraft or maybe you had a family member fly on one during the war, my thought is yes it is a emotional attachment to a machine. We are all on the same page as the main concern is that everybody got out ok, thank god. But that plane probably gave so many smiles and fun to veterans and younger generations. I personally don't look at it as we have several of them flying so if one goes down, it's not that big a loss. Maybe it's a New England thing were we are attached to the plane just a bit more. Remember, in 1979 in windsor locks, ct is was devestated in a tornado,( we do not get tornados in ct. or ma. like the mid-states,) It sat outside for sometime and i remember playing on it until it was gone. They come to find out she was restored to flying condition and they did a great job. I'm feeling more sorry for everybody who went to great lengths and cut their nuckles to preserve her and have this happen. Plus, who's got 6 million dollars to just rebuilt a B-17 that you just did rebuild?