Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum

[over/out]

Well, 'er goes nut'in, I'd like to see her on her landing gear and tail wheel (if they're around) with structure support, so she wont break,belly dents, bent props & all. Is the "Dented" fin that was'nt there until she came to the states going to be straighten out? ( easy does it!) She would look "Proud "on her feet again. well .02 cents up, Good luck ( Nice , if they have a spayed "Hanger Cat" to guard her !), Anthony

[PinecastleAAF]

Count me among those who do not want to see it restored. To me this is about the best outcome I could imagine.

[mustangdriver]

Flying, static, preserved as is, any of it is better than the swamp. I am sure that the museum will give it a good home.

[JDK]

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this mindset of leaving a pile of corroded metal as a display piece. ...

As well as August's comments, PLEASE read my earlier post which actually addresses every one of the concerns you raise.

You're welcome to disagree with the explanations and theories I'm offering - but they're not mine, just standard practice in the heritage sector. It's worth considering they have some idea of why they have developed these ideas.

It's a discussion that has a case by case answer to each time the question is asked, however the choices available are not 'decay' or 'restoration', but conservation or restoration, and almost always a mixture of the two techniques.

(The conservation choices of restoring to fly or restoring to 'as new' mean that the majority of the original aircraft is thrown away. Given that we have other, currently preserved and flying B-17s, there's little justification for throwing most of it away to be like another one of them.)

Be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR the choice is NOT between restoring the aircraft up on it's wheels or 'dumping' it on the floor of the display hall. Wreck display requires a good deal of planning, and certainly a bespoke support structure - which will provide more (and better longer term) points of support than a three-point undercarriage.

In EITHER case a conservation programme will be carried out which will stabilise the artefact for as long as is practicable. A wreck like Swamp ghosts (which I have seen firsthand, and is in good condition as a wreck) can be conserved to survive, stable, as long as a restored B-17; and as a non flying wreck the mathematical probability vastly favour its survival over that of a flying aircraft.

Regards,

[JDK]

I assume most of us are on WIX to share and learn. With that in mind -

As a general observation, for any of us to expand our understanding, we need to observe and listen to other views and comments here on WIX as elsewhere - obviously we will disagree at times, but to ask questions answered two posts earlier, or not to carry the discussion forward (why one might disagree with those points, for instance) from that point is frustrating. One key reason we have certain pointless, endless 'discussions' on WIX is because of holding views or opinions in the face of evidence or other views. Sometimes we are just wrong, or outvoted, or just have a different take; that's fine. The issue is going back to the start and hoping to get a different result.

I for one have regularly been wrong; my views have changed and my understanding expanded by other's input and knowledge. If you can't say the same, three things, please think about it.

There are lots of views (and more critically facts) we don't like; the trick it to leave them, or learn why your take may be better changed, or move on. Ignoring answers to re-iterate the same view just cramps discussion and frustrate input by the informed in favour of the repetitious.

Regards,

[Chris]

I been following this thread and as much of a believer in restoring aircraft to flying condition as I am, I think SG should be displayed as is. To do a first class restoration would involve replacing at least %90 of the airframe. It wouldn't really be SG anymore. As far as lessons learned by our younger generation by a diorama, it would point out the horror of war and that not everyone made it back alive or if they did, they may have serious disabilities. Nicely restored aircraft bring up the heroism of war but not the nastiness and reality. Corrosion can be inhibited and slowed a great deal. Nothing can prevent it. Even a brand new sheet of aluminum starts corroding as soon as it is formed. It's a natural process. In this case I believe that Displaying SG as is makes the most sense both historically and financially. Hawaii is a long way to go though. At least it's out of PNG

[Jarink1]

I won't disagree with the idea of preserving it as-is and displaying it in a "crashed" state - but I'm sad to hear it's going to be in Hawaii. That's too far and too expensive a trip for at least 90% of the population.

[JDK]

Thanks for sharing the pics, Chris!

I've no knowledge of US tourism stats, but I'm pretty sure Hawaii gets more visitors than Dayton Ohio, for instance.

Regards,

[Mike]

Do you think they'll paint it up as Memphis Belle?

[APG85]

Do you think they'll paint it up as Memphis Belle?

[Mark_Pilkington]

James

you made the poll too difficult by providing two options- smiles

In a "perfect world" some major artefacts from the Pacific War should be on display in Port Morseby PNG given the intense fighting that took place in and around this nation, however we have seen that its not sufficiently developed to be investing its time and resources in such endeavours and past attempts have largely failed the outcome and the artefact, and so removal from the swap (most definately!) and removal from PNG was the best chance for Swamp Ghosts long term survival.

However I did give that option a wishful tick.

We dont have a B-17 being preserved or displayed in the South Pacific, and one in Australia would be appropriate to honour the 5th AF role in defence of Australia and use of northern Australia as a base, but without Steve Searle that opportunity is probably again passed, and in anycase he was rumoured to be pursueing a flying example and the money to recover Swap Ghost as an "as is" display would probably not be generated in Australia.

There were projects claiming to be working on recovering it, (and alternatively the Black Cat Pass example) to Australia but these never really seemed to have any real capability to succeed.

So while its a nice "thought" it was never going to be a practical outcome for it to come to Australia, even as a long term "store" for future PNG display, and you didnt list it as an option in anycase.


And so in a "practical world" return to the USA was the only project that was going to get the financial backing and resources to save it from rotting away in the swamp and becoming a target for scavengers and scrappers, and certainly that had to happen.

I personally thought NMUSAF would have been the perfect location, with Swamp Ghost "as is" to represent the B-17 and US in SWPA and the Pacific War, Swoose Goose restored to its escape to Australia condition to represent the pre-war B-17 and the US surprise entry into the war at Pearl, and of course the Belle restored to its European story, the three would make an interesting set of unique examples of the same type evolving and participating in the major conflict of our time.

You didnt give us an NMUSAF option in your poll, if you had I would have put it in place of PNG as the best perfect and practical outcome, but equally I can imagine the bean counters questioning 2 B-17's on display, and certainly baulking at 3.

The Pacific Museum is a good second place, and I know it will be well looked after and appreciated there as well.

I do strongly support its preservation "as is", I'm not concerned if it cant stand on it gear, it would need a significant level of restoration (and probably structure/component replacement) to ensure the legs and engine mounts could carry the weights safely and securely and so display in a cradle providing viewing of the underside, and unique belly turret, bombbay etc would seem very suitable and appropriate.

I dont really support the recreation of a "swap" diorama, certainly include large wall photo boards of its resting place, even a full size wall print as a backdrop, and decorate the room with some large ferns and palms if there is a need to "set a mood", but to recreate a swap anything like the Kuni grass and water that surrounded and filled the aircraft would start to hide much of the lower structure and even inhibit seeing the aircraft in its entirety, so I wouldnt be keen to see it slip into a theme park setting, and obsecure viewing and inspection of the airframe, I can go to a botanical gardens or PNG itself to see a tropical swamp etc.

I know the Halifax in the RAFM in ostensibly recreating it sunk and sitting on the "bed of the lake", but other than some gravel flooring the aircraft is simply sitting on a bare floor for full viewing and access, (of course that mood is disturbed a bit by the fully restored nose turret) but that is the type of outcome I would envisage as being suitable at Hawaii.

So theres my two bobs worth, I certainly wouldnt support it being "restored" to fly, there would be little of the Ghost itself left in that outcome, and to restore it back to its pre-forced landing condition for static display on its gear would still see a lot of material being replaced.

Swamp Ghost, like the LGB, the Sahara P-40, and even the Italian P-40L are best left "as is" to tell their story of loss, and survival and eventual recovery.

regards

Mark Pilkington

[JDK]

The poll to which Mark refers is here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=45858

[Russell Smith]

The PAM created a similar display with the Ni'ihau Zero flown by Shigenori Nishikaichi. There wasn't much left of the Zero. What should they have done, taken the few remaining corroded parts and fabricated a new replica around them? I actually found this crash display to be quite compelling.

[Jarink1]

I've no knowledge of US tourism stats, but I'm pretty sure Hawaii gets more visitors than Dayton Ohio, for instance.

Regards,

Sure Hawaii gets lots of 'visitors'; that's because it has a small population. My regret is that SG being kept on an island 2,000+ miles from 99.6% of the US population makes it less accessible for almost everyone, especially those with limited financial means. Not everyone who has an interest in aviation or history has fat wallets.

[CH2Tdriver]

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this mindset of leaving a pile of corroded metal as a display piece. ...

As well as August's comments, PLEASE read my earlier post which actually addresses every one of the concerns you raise.

(The conservation choices of restoring to fly or restoring to 'as new' mean that the majority of the original aircraft is thrown away. Given that we have other, currently preserved and flying B-17s, there's little justification for throwing most of it away to be like another one of them.)

Regards,

I would generally concur that from an "Aviation Archeology" perspective the display of SG as is would be appropriate. However, as others on this board have opined, calling it "Archeology" is invalid as there is nothing that SG or any aircraft wreck can teach us that we don't already have from the historical record on microfilm or from actual examples. They insist to call it what it is "wreck hunting".

We are not at the point in history where SG is an object like the Mary Rose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose

Where in the above case a valuable recovery and preservation of an object that was thought lost for the ages. So in that respect what will actually be lost in a full up static restoration of another B-17? Why go through all the trouble of recovering it then? It was not a war grave, and if it was I would want to see it left alone. At this point displaying SG as is results in a curiosity basically. Something to gawk at that was found by wreck hunters. Restoring it would also be important specially since we don't have a restored example of an early B-17E. When I look at the pics of SG, it seems like quite a bit of the original airframe could be used in a static restoration. It would still be SG, and when you look at her restored you would have a fine example of a representative B-17 from the early years of the war. The PAM does seem to be a fine museum and an appropriate place for her.

Whatever the plan is it is. Maybe I just object to those who are obsessive on the amount of parts that are original or not in a restoration and become critical of what is a fine effort and a lot of hard work. That is what I don't get. Taken to the extreme they end up calling Skyraider owners to get serial numbers off of individual parts just to see whats original.