Warbird Information Exchange

Should be loaned to a smaller local level museum (like a Valiant Air Command of Titusville FL type) that would gladly put it on display and take care of it. It would help attract more visitors to these small museums

Yes, I agree!

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!

To be fair, the 42-32076 restoration team at Dover AFB fully intended to restore Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby as she looked when she landed in Sweden in May 1944. Then along came her original pilot, Paul McDuffee, armed with a faulty memory and a lot of bullying, blustering and outright lying, insisting that when he flew the plane it was camouflaged and named "Shoo Shoo Baby", before being stripped and re-named. McDuffee made so much noise that the decision was made to give in and paint the plane.

That decision may have made life easier for the restoration team in the long run, but I am sure it was definitely not their intention and definitely not their decision.

The stuff about painting the plane because of the condition of the skin was always a cover story - it was a concern, but as I recall the team just wondered how patchy and odd it would look when they removed and replaced the "marginal" pieces of fuselage skin.

_________________
www.B17BlackJack.com

I've seen that sort of thing before. When I was advising on the Lake Greenwood B-25, I had to fight to convince the board that the airplane originally had a natural metal finish - never mind the fact that photos from its raising clearly showed an anti-glare panel and black stencil markings. The original pilot couldn't remember and suggested desert pink (for a training aircraft in South Carolina), so, in response to the evidence, the board argued that the paint washed off from having sat beneath the water. Likewise, the original pilot denied the bomber having been named Skunky, so partially to honor his wishes and partially because some found it "demeaning," we were told to not call her that. The problem was that "Skunky" was clearly painted on its nose in black when they raised her from the lake. This sort of idiocy is why I left.

I digress.

Steve, since you were involved with her discovery and restoration, I wonder if you could clarify this for me. I can't remember where I read it, but I recall seeing that the outboard wing required extensive and unsightly repair. Do I have her confused with another? Likewise, the story about McDuffee is not surprising, but there is one thing here that bothers me: When they painted her, they painted here completely inside and out. Of every picture taken of Shoo Shoo Baby, I don't think I have ever seen a portion of her unpainted. If they were going solely on McDuffee's arguments, shouldn't they, for example, have left the waist unpainted inside? Or might this just be a case of the restoration team not knowing any better at that time?

I don't want to sound critical. Despite the inaccuracy of the markings, the team at Dover did a great job. It's like the Coronado down in Pensacola - the markings might not be right, but the finished result is immaculate.

-G
http://www.gblume.com

First off, what an honor to post along with Steve Birdsall.

Regarding the B-17's, here are my assumptions:

1. While I'd like to see SSSB remain in Dayton, I suspect that decision will not be reversed.

2. The NASM only wants to disassemble and reassemble SSSB one time.

2. Whether you or I agree with them or not, the NASM is likely not satisfied with the current restoration on SSSB. I can imagine a decision being made where the airplane "must be moved" and, in NASM's opinion, the only place for it is the restoration queue. As a result, the airplane will sit however long it takes until its turn is called. Their official position is that their work is supposed to last hundreds of years ... so a few decades, to them, are not significant.

3. Despite wishing that NMUSAF & NASM had unlimited budgets, manpower, and the will to pull off multiple Enola Gay-type restorations, they don't. We could argue the nuance of these all day, but I believe this is the case.

4. Barring some divine intervention, see #1 above.

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

Thanks Ken, you're too kind! That third point you make is always true and you will not be surprised to hear that there was always a small but noisy chorus questioning the "waste of taxpayers' money" during the long restoration of 42-32076.

_________________
www.B17BlackJack.com

After the best part of 40 years it's not easy to answer those questions precisely, and I can't speak for the members of the restoration team, but I'll do the best I can.

At the time the restoration began nobody was quite sure exactly when Boeing Seattle ceased camouflaging B-17s - we knew it was in the B-17G-35-BO block, but we did not have photo coverage of all the planes. Roger Freeman and I compared notes but a lot of that block went to the MTO and neither of us had enough information about those aircraft. Our earliest bare metal aircraft was 42-32045, but I didn't find a photo of the camouflaged 42-32044 until years later (and by then the cut-off point had been discovered in a Boeing blueprint that had been provided to the restoration group).

Of course we were always certain that 42-32076 was unpainted, but when McDuffee raised doubts it really muddied the waters - just like in the case of your B-25. Boeing was approached and reportedly wrote a letter stating that they believed the plane would have been camouflaged - I've never seen the letter, which was "lost".

So I think "not knowing any better at the time" covers it pretty well but, as I said, I can't speak on behalf of the restoration team.

Both outboard wings were rebuilt "from the inside out", as Mike Leister put it.

Steve

_________________
www.B17BlackJack.com

Nope! no OD from way back in 1944. (except for that small strip) Shame what egos can screw up.

_________________
America ... explain how you are NOT Racist, you'll except tyranny from a white man, but you won't take health care from a black man.
... Foolish, foolish foolish!!!.

Ah, I see. Thanks, Steve.

-G
www.gblume.com

This topic always makes me remember a visit my dad and I made to the restoration hangar at Dover AFB @ 1986.

Dad had been at Dover with the 512th MAW in the 50s so he was checking out the base and showing me around.

Pictures I have of the work in progress aren't great, but I hope they are of interest. Wasn't like today where everyone walked around with 8 megapixel HD camera phones in their pockets!

An interesting point about the "was she camo" question. When one compares the Starcer lettering and picture from WWII and the re-creation, it is apparent that a photo must have been used to very accurately duplicate the font, size, and image placement - almost to the rivet line. If this is true, then one would assume they knew the plane was not camo. I know Mr Starcer was good, but I doubt he re-created the entire artwork simply from memory.

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

There seems to be quite a bit of tunnel vision going on here in this thread, sadly.

Knowing quite a few people who work for the NASM, and having partnered with them for several events, I can state unequivocally that they very much DO care... but here's the thing, they care about the ENTIRETY of aviation history. This is a heavily WWII-centered board, and as one of those folks for whom the amazing aircraft of WWII still fire the imagination, I certainly understand that.

But the sad fact is that the NASM is subject to the same federal budgetary vagaries as anything else in this country nowadays. They have a very narrow budget to work with, and they have to prioritize based not on public perception but on the space available, the condition of the artifacts, the experience of their team, the availability of materials required for restoration, etc. It's not nearly as simple as "Oh hey, eff all you WWII lovers, we're just gonna restore Piper Cubs and Concordes and y'all can suck it!" Nothing could possibly be further from the truth, and anyone harboring such idiotic notions needs to open their eyes and look at the preponderance of what's been done over the past few years at the U-H museum:

- Sikorsky JRS-1 Pearl Harbor survivor now on display
- Curtiss SB2C-5 Helldiver completed and on display
- B-26 "Flak Bait" currently under conservation
- Horten Ho IX currently under conservation
- Heinkel He 219 wings somewhere in the queue

Those are just the ones off the top of my head; there are likely more that I'm not remembering at the moment.

So stop with the ridiculous claims of some kind of anti-WWII bias because they have no basis in reality, and remember that the purpose of the NASM is to cover the entirety of aviation history, not just the parts you like best.

Lynn

PS: Steve B, I just finished the new Ken's Men book... utterly outstanding, sir. I know it was a team effort with Larry Hickey and others, but I know full well how long you've carried the torch for the B-17 men of the PTO (I'm currently re-reading "Flying Buccaneers") and your passion for telling their stories carries through in this book. It's a pleasure to have you here as a contributor.

I would be more sympathetic toward this view if they had done something with the B-17D The Swoose in the half century they had the airplane. This rare artifact of the early days of World War II and the only existent example of the shark finned B-17s was virtually ignored by the NASM. Granted, Paul Garber saved the airplane, but that's all the NASM did with it. It is to be a challenging job to restore it, no doubt, and one hopes the NMUSAF will turn some attention towards it in the near future. The NASM, at the least, could have reassembled the airplane and put it on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center in its current condition.

_________________
Scott Thompson
Aero Vintage Books
http://www.aerovintage.com
WIX Subscriber Since July 2017

Lynn Ritger,

I believe you are a voice of reason amongst a chorus of desire.

C2j

Scott, I understand your point (biased though you may be in favor of B-17s... but that is very much a good thing!) and I would be the first to agree that there have been some very significant oversights through the years, with the Swoose situation ranking near the top of that list. However, you'll note that the NASM placed it with the NMUSAF to get it into the restoration queue quicker, and to take advantage of their space, equipment, and trained personnel who are wrapping up the Belle project; I think that reflects very positively on the current NASM leadership, that they are working to make elements of the collection more accessible. Their partnership with the Air Zoo on the XP-55 restoration is another great example of getting a rare and significant type out of storage and on display by partnering with a group who has the talent and space to make it happen.

Now, if you want to talk about a REAL "WTF?!" situation, let's discuss the complete lack of a B-24 anywhere within the NASM system... that certainly can't be blamed on anyone within the past couple of generations but it's still a glaring oversight.

Cheers,

Lynn