B-17 Liberty Belle fire & landing in Oswego,Ill, EVERYONE OK

[tulsaboy]

Chuck,

How is the Brooks team doing? I know that we have all been thinking of you, and hoping for the best. It must be hard to see her in the state she is in, given all that you and the team have done to make her the reliable touring aircraft that she has been for the last several years. Scott Maher, a local guy for us Tulsans, always made sure to bring her to town at least once or twice a year. The last time she was here, I took my 3 year old twins out to see her. It wasn't their first time. They call her "the big airplane with the little door." My girls climbed in and out of the aft fuselage over and over, and your guys just smiled and tolerated a couple of ornery little girls. They even invited them to climb to the front to see the cockpit. The girls were in love. That airplane, whether it lives again or not, touched a lot of us in different ways. For my girls, it was the first B-17 they ever saw, the first warbird they ever climbed in, and the first group of warbird operators they encountered. The folks there could have yelled at them, told them to get away, to not touch. Instead, they invited them in. The Liberty Belle team was centered around an aircraft, but is made up of a bunch of hardworking, NICE people who did a great deal to share the story of WWII with the next generation- my girls included. I hope that the team Don assembled doesn't see this as a defeat, but just the end of the first chapter in what I hope will be a long story of their group's efforts to bring history to life.

Good luck, and please let us know as the team goes through its process what Don's plans are. No need to rush, but we will be waiting with baited breath!

kevin

[Chuck Giese]

Kevin,

I've been on the road for a few days, most of my contact with the others have been quick phone calls or text msg updates. I think it's safe to say that we are all dealing with the loss in our own ways, I've spun through several stages of grief, and will continue to do so for a while. She was a good ship, and I'll miss her.

The trip has given me a lot of time to think about why we do this (and if we should do this), I'll post some thoughts when I get out the other side. I'm still a little raw right now.

Chuck

[B-17 guy]

One thing I'm anxiously waiting to find out is how much of her can be salvaged. What parts can be used etc..Any pics from the recovery operation?

[gary1954]

One thing I'm anxiously waiting to find out is how much of her can be salvaged. What parts can be used etc..Any pics from the recovery operation?

Exactly what I too have been pondering. Surely 3 of the four engines will go to the -17 under restoration in Douglas.

[Glenn Wegman]

Surely 3 of the four engines will go to the -17 under restoration in Douglas.

If the airplane was insured, at this point, pending investigation, I believe that the wreckage belongs to the Insurance Co.

[Xray]

Terrible loss, condolences to those whose efforts kept this fine bomber in the air for so long.
Saw her last year at the TOM show, was there for both days right at the end on the runway. Must have made a couple dozen passes right over my head, along with the other big birds of course.
I have long ago stopped taking cameras to shows. I usually watch them from outside the base, where the vantage point is far better than inside the perimeter. Filming takes away from my enjoyment of the show, but I wish I had taken some last year. Those approaches & passes are etched in my mind, very sad to know this historic bird is no more.

[gary1954]

Surely 3 of the four engines will go to the -17 under restoration in Douglas.

If the airplane was insured, at this point, pending investigation, I believe that the wreckage belongs to the Insurance Co.

that i figured, I also figured that Mr. Brooks would buy them back from the Ins company for a lot less than a rebuilt/new one out of the can

[B 25 C]

If she could be rebuilt to flying I would be first in line to fly her as a paying passenger!

[Jerry O'Neill]

Surely 3 of the four engines will go to the -17 under restoration in Douglas.

Why wouldn't all four engines go back to Brooks if he so desired?
If you're talking about #2, according to the report from Ray Fowler, it was feathered because of the fire behind it. I don't know if it actually is destroyed or damaged badly.
Jerry

[gary1954]

If you're talking about #2, according to the report from Ray Fowler, it was feathered because of the fire behind it. I don't know if it actually is destroyed or damaged badly.


Yep, yer right about all four, I was taking into consideration that with the alphabet involved, they "may" want to take that engine apart for grins and giggles...just incase but not knowing if the engine played any part in all this. However there are some very smart people in the alphabet team, so, who knows.

[wingman1]

has anybody got pic's of the salvage?

[Nathan]

If she could be rebuilt to flying I would be first in line to fly her as a paying passenger!

Same here! NEVER SAY DIE!

[Bomberboy]

If she could be rebuilt to flying I would be first in line to fly her as a paying passenger!

Same here! NEVER SAY DIE!

Sorry to state the obvious, but what do you mean "rebuilt to fly" etc?
There is very little left that can be rebuilt!!!

This is my personal opinion.
Apart from the engines, props and wingtips, the rest of the remainder (which is again not much, but potentially only the outer wings, tail and nacelles) looks like they would have to be worked on in a big way anyway because of the fire/heat damage they have sustained.
It would almost have to be a newly constructed aeroplane, in which case it's not appropriate to be called a genuine B-17 (built from largely genuine manufactured parts).

I would still be happy to see what would purport to be a B-17 (aka some form of replica as some might call it), come out of this using as much of what is left of the Liberty Belle (which is not much), but the main parts of the fuselage and wings etc etc, would have to be built from fresh aluminium and steel parts etc, but i'm afraid that the Liberty Belle as we knew her and as far as I can see from all the photos, cannot be re-built in itself per-se.

Another alternative of course is to use as many other original B-17 parts from other aeroplanes that may not currently constitute a complete aeroplane in themselves, but that as a 'bits of parts' collective could.
During the war, it is well known that many an aircraft were re-built, re-constructed and repaired in the field, with large sections from different aircraft quite sucessfully.
The only issue there would be the actual aircraft's identity, particularly if the major parts are from many different airframes.
this is not such a problem if there is say only a single donor genuine airfame involved.

I often find some words such as 'rebuilt' are used as some sort of 'second nature' word without thought or due process in a thought.
One could build an aeroplane around an engine (the scenario here), but as such it could only really be a replica.
One could change an engine on an aeroplane, but the aeroplanes identity would not change as a result.

I await others views with interest.

Bomberboy

[wingman1]

If she could be rebuilt to flying I would be first in line to fly her as a paying passenger!

Same here! NEVER SAY DIE!

Sorry to state the obvious, but what do you mean "rebuilt to fly" etc?
There is very little left that can be rebuilt!!!

This is my personal opinion.
Apart from the engines, props and wingtips, the rest of the remainder (which is again not much, but potentially only the outer wings, tail and nacelles) looks like they would have to be worked on in a big way anyway because of the fire/heat damage they have sustained.
It would almost have to be a newly constructed aeroplane, in which case it's not appropriate to be called a genuine B-17 (built from largely genuine manufactured parts).


Bomberboy

i agree with you, but i happen to think that would a bad thing to have happen. IF it is done RIGHT. if all of the new built parts from restorations over the years could be collected it most likely could be done RIGHT NOW.

on anothe note does anybody have recent pic's of the wreckage and remains? if so would you mind posting some and sharing please? thank you in advance.

[B 25 C]

The key word was IF

If she could be rebuilt to flying I would be first in line to fly her as a paying passenger!

Same here! NEVER SAY DIE!

Sorry to state the obvious, but what do you mean "rebuilt to fly" etc?
There is very little left that can be rebuilt!!!

This is my personal opinion.
Apart from the engines, props and wingtips, the rest of the remainder (which is again not much, but potentially only the outer wings, tail and nacelles) looks like they would have to be worked on in a big way anyway because of the fire/heat damage they have sustained.
It would almost have to be a newly constructed aeroplane, in which case it's not appropriate to be called a genuine B-17 (built from largely genuine manufactured parts).

I would still be happy to see what would purport to be a B-17 (aka some form of replica as some might call it), come out of this using as much of what is left of the Liberty Belle (which is not much), but the main parts of the fuselage and wings etc etc, would have to be built from fresh aluminium and steel parts etc, but i'm afraid that the Liberty Belle as we knew her and as far as I can see from all the photos, cannot be re-built in itself per-se.

Another alternative of course is to use as many other original B-17 parts from other aeroplanes that may not currently constitute a complete aeroplane in themselves, but that as a 'bits of parts' collective could.
During the war, it is well known that many an aircraft were re-built, re-constructed and repaired in the field, with large sections from different aircraft quite sucessfully.
The only issue there would be the actual aircraft's identity, particularly if the major parts are from many different airframes.
this is not such a problem if there is say only a single donor genuine airfame involved.

I often find some words such as 'rebuilt' are used as some sort of 'second nature' word without thought or due process in a thought.
One could build an aeroplane around an engine (the scenario here), but as such it could only really be a replica.
One could change an engine on an aeroplane, but the aeroplanes identity would not change as a result.

I await others views with interest.

Bomberboy