Switch to full style
This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Liberty Belle In the news...

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:24 pm

I find the last line interesting...
A WWII relic flies local skies

By JACOB RESNECK, Enterprise Staff Writer


LAKE CLEAR — Crowds gathered at the Adirondack Regional Airport Monday for a glimpse of the “Liberty Belle,” a World War II-era B-17B bomber, one of 13 known to exist in the world.

Restored and owned by the Liberty Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to education of World War II aviation history, the four-engine “Flying Fortress” arrived in the morning from Albany on its way to Bangor, Maine before embarking on a tour of eastern Canada.

The Liberty Belle stopped off in the Adirondacks and flew three 20-minute excursion flights over Tupper Lake, in gratitude to a generous donation to the foundation from Tom and Susan Lawson, part-time residents of Tupper Lake.

Friends and family of the Lawsons were taken up in the B-17B, which buzzed over the Lawsons’ Lake Simond summer residence. Tom Lawson Jr., a private pilot, was able to fly the heavy bomber, a unique opportunity.

“It was very docile and very stable,” he said of the aircraft. “But you have to manhandle it a little bit — you have it force it through maneuvers, as it’s all cables; there’s no hydraulics.”

The goodwill tour through Canada, which will include eight stops over 10 days, is to satisfy a settlement for salvaging another B-17B discovered on Labrador, said salvage diver Bob Mester of Underwater Admiralty Service Inc.

Based in Kirkland, Wash., Mester’s company salvaged the aircraft in 1998. In negotiations with the Canadian government, the company agreed to co-sponsor educational tours of B-17s in Canada. The Liberty Belle’s tour of Labrador and Newfoundland is part of that agreement, Mester said.

One of more than 12,700 produced between 1938 and 1945, the Liberty Belle never saw combat — which is one of the reasons it is still intact. About a third of B-17s produced were lost in combat, mostly in daylight bombing raids over occupied Europe from bases in England and, later, Italy.

“About 40,000 men were lost on these,” said the Liberty Belle’s chief pilot, Ray Fowler. “She was restored in the mid-’90s and only has about 400 hours, making her almost brand-new.”

Manufactured by Boeing in Burbank, Calif., the Liberty Belle was originally used as an experimental plane and at one time had a fifth engine — a turboprop fitted on the nose. She was restored in the 1960s for a museum but then destroyed by a tornado that struck the hangar, Fowler said. Thirty years later, about $3.5 million was invested into the Liberty Belle by the Liberty Foundation. The plane was trucked in pieces to Kissimmee, Fla., where it was completely rebuilt.

Completing its third flight for the afternoon — 21 passengers were taken in all — the Liberty Belle logged a flight plan to Bangor, Maine and flew east.

The flights — which cost the Liberty Foundation about $3,500 per flight hour — have been donor-financed. Once the money runs out, the Liberty Belle will be retired from service and donated to an air museum, Fowler said.

Found it here:
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.co ... cleID=3453

Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:59 pm

I am sure thats suposed to read B-17 G instead of B.
I don't think there are any B models left

Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:42 pm

The donors are probably the passengers. Once they stop paying for rides, I guess there isn't a good reason to fly her anymore.

Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:26 am

What the HELL!! Am I reading this right---------after they fly the plane a bit more, they are going to donate it to a museum and then it will fly no more. I hope I am misunderstanding this! Please clarify.

Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:16 pm

Tigercat wrote:What the heck!! Am I reading this right---------after they fly the plane a bit more, they are going to donate it to a museum and then it will fly no more. I hope I am misunderstanding this! Please clarify.


You can't really tell what you're going to get out of a reporter. They can be really attentive folks who take copious notes and put out detailed, interesting pieces. Other times you get the part-time sports beat guy that hates doing human interest / events work just wants to knock off early.

It kinda goes back a post I put up in the "if you were starting a museum..." thread. When you're talking to someone about your organization, you become the de facto face for that group. You are the all-knowing, all-seeing expert in the field. You flew into town as crew on a B-17 and you're a member of the organization? Clearly you are an expert on all current flying B-17's, B-17 history, All mechanical aspects of a B-17, and you are uniquely suited to answer all questions about the day-to-day and long term business operations of your oganization. It doesn't matter if you're the A/C crew chief, a phone answering docent who volunteers once a month, or one of the computer geeks that just won't go away :wink: ,what you say becomes etched in stone and, this is a scary thought, a member of the press will sometimes "interpret" what you say. (not entirely unlike what happens on these boards (for good or ill). Nuggets of fact get squished, sqeezed, juiced, and spun around until the "fact" can support any argument or statement.) The conversation probably went like this:

reporter: So what are the long term plans for this aircraft?
crew: Well, we're going to fly it for as long as we can. (off handedly, speaking in the very long term) as long as there are people willing to pay to take flights, we'll keep it flying. Eventually, we'll put it in a museum or hopefully build a museum around it.

What the reporter heard: "We'll fly it for a while longer and then donate it to some museum."

This underscores the value of good PR people that know exactly what not to say and when not to say it. Technical folks don't usually make good PR people. "We had to do some routine maintenance before the show...." becomes "after overcoming major mechanical difficulties...." in the eyes (and words) of a reporter who needs to get a story past an editor. This is why you need to try and limit "official-ish" communications duties to a couple of key people that not only know what's going on, but have a good idea of how their statements will be recieved. There is such a thing as bad publicity.

The person being interviewed was probably mis-quoted or just had his words interpreted to fit what the writer wanted to put in the story. Don't read too much into it until you start smelling some real smoke. :lol:

Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:54 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Phil. I appreciate your insights into what probably actually happened. I REALLY hope this plane keeps flying. I have never had the opportunity to see it yet.

Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:16 pm

The Liberty Belle looks great with the new paint on her. I was really surprised how much of a difference it made. When it was in Albany I had the chance to go over and see it a few time, I would have hung out at the end of the runways but the weather this past weekend stunk. Run once again.

Tim
Post a reply