b17 swamp ghost poll

ZRX61 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am **Posts:** 2309

Fly it!

Static aircraft are just piles of metal in the shape of something that was once useful.

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:00 pm

ZRX61 wrote:

Fly it!

Static aircraft are just piles of metal in the shape of something that was once useful.

Thats one of the best sayings I've ever heard!

oh yeah... FLY IT!

kalamazookid · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:37 pm

Whatever allows it to actually continue to be the B-17 that crash-landed in the swamp, as opposed to a hunk of brand-new metal in the shape of it. I'd personally rather see history preserved than history manufactured. That's not a knock on restored aircraft or replicas, but there's something special to me about an original aircraft where most of it was actually there. It's a direct connection to the past. Although restored aircraft and the workmanship that goes into them is spectacular, I'm kind of a sucker for the "time capsules," so to speak.

I'd be all for whatever condition means that most of the original materials can be used along with NOS parts or restored parts (but not significant portions) of other B-17s. Allow it to retain its identity, so to speak. If that means flying, then great. If not, I'll still be happy. Either is better than rotting in the elements.

Flame suit on.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:43 pm

DaveM2 wrote:

Rebuilding it to fly would give you the best of both worlds- a replica airworthy 'Swamp Ghost' and with the actually airframe (in the main) headed for the skip-you could retrieve it all before the scrap man, reassemble it, and have the original static Swamp Ghost as well . WIN-WIN! :finga:

Not a bad idea, but let 'em put the dataplate on the replica so it'll get the crowds out to see the plane. :roll:

I still think it should be flown.

Ryan

ZRX61 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am **Posts:** 2309

kalamazookid wrote:

Whatever allows it to actually continue to be the B-17 that crash-landed in the swamp, as opposed to a hunk of brand-new metal in the shape of it. I'd personally rather see history preserved than history manufactured. That's not a knock on restored aircraft or replicas, but there's something special to me about an original aircraft where most of it was actually there. It's a direct connection to the past. Although restored aircraft and the workmanship that goes into them is spectacular, I'm kind of a sucker for the "time capsules," so to speak.

I'd be all for whatever condition means that most of the original materials can be used along with NOS parts or restored parts (but not significant portions) of other B-17s. Allow it to retain its identity, so to speak. If that means flying, then great. If not, I'll still be happy. Either is better than rotting in the elements.

Flame suit on.

You'd probably like reading the diary about Campbells Bluebird:

http://www.bluebirdproject.com/Bluebirdproject/

How to retain most of the original artifact & add minimal new stuff...Click the "diary" tab

hang the expense · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:56 am

RyanShort1 wrote:

Doesn't matter. The owners, who invested their money, blood, tears, and sweat have said they want to return it to flying. #1 it is.

Ryan

AINT HAPPENING.The wings are toast.Bet ya a ride in a dual control Kittyhawk.Loser pays.Ya up for it?

oz rb fan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 474

in my opinion #2 this is an important artifact in it's own right (last intact pacific veteran b17,last known bendix belly turret etc).
joe public probably could tell the difference between a flying e model to a g model.the amount of metal that would be replaced would make the flyer a nice looking replica.
if the black cat pass one came out then fly that one as it would need a huge amount of work just to get it up to static condition so why not go the extra to fly it,although it is an even more historic aircraft than the "ghost".

Fouga23 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:56 am

Static. Too much needs to be replaced to make it fly. It wouldn't be the same.

Jollygreenslugg · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:47 am

Sympathetic static restoration

Mark_Pilkington · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:15 am

.
#2 please - it is too unique a combat veteran and time capsule to destroy by "rebuilding".

I recently discovered that a unique one of a kind warbird survivor recovered in a similar way to Swamp Ghost has had its entire fuselage exchanged with that of another aircraft due to some problems in its airworthy rebuild.

Instead of now being that original aircraft (as it is presented) it is infact a hybrid - totally cheapening the outcome - its not surprising that situation is not transparently known and publicised?

regards

Mark Pilkington

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:21 am

For all of those that say that static aircraft are just piles of metal and such, that is crazy.

I am not against flying Swamp Ghost as long as most of her identity is not lost replacing metal and other parts. As some that have seen the project in person are saying that it is not a possibility, then I say a restoration to static to make it look like it did before the last mission would also be proper.

Either way I think we all agree that it is going to be way better off in either of these roles than in the swamp. My hat is off to all of those that worked for so long and so hard to get it home.

B-25 C · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:37 am

I would love to see it fly, but if it was lost you would have nothing to see or fly. #2

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

Quote:

I recently discovered that a unique one of a kind warbird survivor recovered in a similar way to Swamp Ghost has had its entire fuselage exchanged with that of another aircraft due to some problems in its airworthy rebuild

A certain P-47?

As for SG I'm just glad it is out of that swamp. I think #1 is the worst of the 3 options since so little of the original metal would be left yet it still beats leaving it in the swamp as a "tourist attraction".

Randune · **Joined:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:36 pm **Posts:** 68

Personally as much as I like flying examples.... I think the best of both worlds would be trade it for one of the gate guardians mentioned get that flying, then display the Swamp Ghost as listed in option #03.
I think it would be a interesting testimate (sp) to the fate of the birds still "out there".
I'd be more worried about it going to Dayton as a long term project never to be seen by human eyes again.. at least in our life times anyway. Kinda Like that scene at the end of Raider of the Lost Ark when it gets boxed up and put into a giant warehouse.

Mark_Pilkington · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:07 am

PinecastleAAF wrote:

Quote:

I recently discovered that a unique one of a kind warbird survivor recovered in a similar way to Swamp Ghost has had its entire fuselage exchanged with that of another aircraft due to some problems in its airworthy rebuild

A certain P-47?

As for SG I'm just glad it is out of that swamp. I think #1 is the worst of the 3 options since so little of the original metal would be left yet it still beats leaving it in the swamp as a "tourist attraction".

.
I'd rather not say as my information is unsubstantiated/second hand, but it is now repeated from two different souces who claim to be in the know?

Its not a P-47, actually rarer than that, its a combat recovery, and a well known and applauded restoration for its accuracy and rarity, yet I have been told the orginal recovered fuselage was repaired with a twist and so a second fuselage was swapped over and restored in place of it, meaning only the wings fly from the original aircraft?

I dont intend to confirm / deny every "guess" until I'm left being silent on the "correct" answer so I would prefer to leave it at that, but a very sad outcome for what was a relatively intact airframe rather than just a data plate!

regards

Mark Pilkington

Warbird Information Exchange

b17 swamp ghost poll

Who is online