Warbird Information Exchange

It's the American version of "Swamp Ghost". Let it rot where virtually no one will ever get to see it.

Regards,
Mike

Yeah, I wonder why no one has pushed for the recovery. Even if the park commission says it is of limits, even they have bosses.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

has anyone ever tried to recover this plane?? i did a little searching and there arent too many people on that island. who would kick up a fuss and why would they?? im off to google earth now to see if i can find it. the co ordinates for the island are 52.199271 and -174.213398 good luck!!

"preserve and maintian the aircraft in place"!?
And just how are they going to:

1: Maintain the aircraft? Corrosion control or a building over it perhaps?

2: Preserve what? An enormous pile of aluminum dust? That'll be pretty hard to preserve and maintain with the winds the Aleutian weather produces!!!!!

Shame!
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

Hey gang, its the government.Need I say anymore. It is really a shame.

_________________
Hang The Expense

You've got to keep in mind that it's not just about the plane (interestingly enough, a museum argued that the plane be kept where it was and not brought in, but that was a while ago), it's about the place. Dunno if any of you have ever visited the boundary waters up in northern Minnesota, but the US Forest Service has that area almost completely cut off to any type of machine whatsoever since it's a sanctuary or whatever they call it (my school-addled brain has completely forgotten the name).

Anyways, even if you're lucky enough to get to visit the plane, it's been put on the National Register of Historic places, so an attempt to remove it is absolutely impossible.

BTW, it's not rotting, since it's on the tundra. A plane kept in such a cold area is much less likely to be corroding and falling apart than planes in the jungles, so please don't compare it to Swamp Ghost. It's more like Kee Bird in that respect. It'll stay where it is and in a relatively good shape for some time. Still, it's a B-24D, and I love them thangs! I hope someone could persuade the government to bring it back. It'll be recovered, it's only a matter of time.

Alright, now I suppose I sit and wait for people to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.



Hah! There are three (USAF, Hill, this one) I can remember, plus two cockpit sections (VA and Fighting Sam)!

I wonder just how "recoverable" the airframe really is.

Don't get me wrong. As a member of an organization whose founding goal was to get a Ford-built B-24, (and not only could this be Ford-built, but could very well have come from the unit some of my great uncles served with) I'd love nothing more than to see this thing in the hangar bay next to the rest of our aircraft. But let's not just assume that 'because it's there' is a perfectly good reason to go running headlong into Alaska with bulldozers and helicopters. These planes aren't the kee bird. You're not gonna slap engines on them and go off into the wild blue yonder. There are a laundry list of of things that need to be "just right" before something this big (and expensive) can be reasonably called a restoration candidate.

Look at the B-17's that are flying today. Many of them spent *years* in restoration to flying condition, and the museums that own them *flew* those aircraft to their new homes. In addition, most of those planes spent at least 20 years as reasonably maintained workhorses before restoration. Imagine, no, try and put into that same context, the additional work involved when all you get are 60 year old, weathered and battered chunks of airplane.

I hate to be the wet blanket, but if this plane has sat for 60 years, there's at least some bit reason behind it (above and beyond the issue of it lying in national park land). As much as anyone I'd love to see this bird in a hangar with an army of people hammering away on it. But there are at least two factors that you need for a restoration of something like this. Money and a viable candidate of an aircraft. With the planes in Alaska, I doubt we'll ever see the right combination of both.

Tell the guys doing the P-61 that the Alaska B-24 isn't restoreable. That is if you can get them to answer while they're enthralled in overwhelming laughter.

If the financial backing is there to do it, nothing is impossible. But how much "B-24" is going to be left when they're done? Restoration, to me at least, implies more than rebuilding from scratch and riveting in a rusted out dataplate. Just my .00002 lira.

Ok gang, the stuff is 60 years plus. If it is static then use all you can. If it is to fly then you can count on most of the airframe is going to be new.Who gives a rats rear end if it aint original. If it looks like a duck,its a duck. Also when you wreck the heck out of it then you are out just money and not a historic artifact. I predict that in ten years there will be brand new B-17s under build.Just like p-40s,fw190s,mustangs,zeros etc.We gotta have someting to do for the next thirty years Ps, Bombers! its just alot more rivets thats all.

_________________
Hang The Expense

Hmm. Scroll down to the last picture and let the plane offer its own opinion!

_________________

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)

Ha, funny. good one

_________________
Hang The Expense