Warbird Information Exchange

If you look at a military A/C log book evertthing revolves around the Data plate / Bu Number You can change everything but the Data plate.!

A myth that surrounds the Swoose is that it was damaged at Clark on Dec. 8th, and rebulit with parts from other wrecks, eventually to be named the Swoose. Actually, 40-3097 then named Ole Betsy, was at Del Monte at the time of the attack. It flew several missions
in the P.I. before withdrawal to Darwin, from where further missions were
flown. Its last combat mission was out of Malang, Java on 1/11/42, during which it was badly damged. It was sent back to Australia for extensive repairs, including the grafting of a repalcement tail section from 40-3091.
it was then that it received the name "The Swoose".

One dilemma regarding restoration is what configuration do you restore
it to? It originally was in natural metal finish with tail no. 21. At Del
Monte, it received a crude camoflage paint job, but was still known as Ole Betsy. The Swoose logo and name came later, followed by a number of modifications including removal of the bathtub and revised waist windows.
In February of '44 it was stripped back to bare metal, given a depot overhaul and had a new Swoose logo painted on it which is still there.

I would say that it should go into the O.D. scheme with the Swoose emblem on it. But that is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. To be honest, any configuration would be cool, but I think that it should carry the Swoose art work.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

James,

Great job explaining my "replica" comment. I don't know if I can do any better. I will, however, add a few thoughts.

People involved in historic preservation use a typology in which words like "original", "restoration", "reproduction", "replica" and "mock-up" have specific meanings. There is some variation in the use of these terms. James, I have heard the definition of "replica" which specifies that it must be built by the original builder, but that condition is not universal and I think my usage would be seen as valid in the trade. I might have said "reconstruction" instead; that might be a little less controversial. Also, I fudged by saying "part replica"; these terms, as you know, are not generally applicable only to portions of an artifact.

The best resource that I know of in the aviation area is Mikesh's "Restoring Museum Aircraft." Honestly, you cannot even have an informed discussion about airplanes in museums until you have read this book or something much like it (and I don't know of anything much like it in the aviation area). Another resource, which I agree with in general outline but perhaps not in all specifics, is TIGHAR's Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology, http://199.236.90.155/Projects/Histpres/guide.html. We all know that TIGHAR has a fairly lame (i.e. nonexistent) record of actually recovering and preserving historic aircraft, but that does not mean that their thinking on this subject is not sound. TIGHAR uses the specific example of Shoo Shoo Baby and concludes (and I agree) that it is "not an original nor is it a restoration. It is correctly described as ... a composite rehabilitation to factory condition." From what I have heard, the Belle is destined to be a "reconstruction" by their definition, and by mine. I was hoping that it would be a "restoration," but everyone's statements about the amount and nature of work being done on it suggest to me that it has deteriorated too far to restore (i.e. it cannot be brought to display condition without substantial introduction of new material, especially internally).

Much more extensive development of these terms than either Mikesh or TIGHAR has been done in more established, non-aviation museum communities, and the aircraft preservation field has been slow to grasp these concepts, with unfortunate consequences for the preservation of our aviation heritage.

James is also bang on target about the "keynote". Terms like replica and reproduction should not be seen as derogatory. The condition of the original artifact is often such that those are the only available options. The key is documentation and provenance -- recording exactly which pieces of the artifact, down to every rivet, are (1) original to the airframe as of a given reference date, (2) replacements taken from other airframes, and by whom, and when, and (3) newly fabricated or adapted from other sources. This "back office" record-keeping is why one cannot just visit a restoration hangar and see for himself whether the restoration is being done properly; the museum's filing cabinets and disc drives are equally as important. The number of photos and records being made of the Belle as it is restored should run into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. The NASM does this. I have no idea whether the NMUSAF does, but I doubt it does to the same extent as NASM. I'm quite sure Fighter Rebuilders hardly does it at all. It greatly increases the time and expense of a restoration, and I believe that is one reason why other museums are able to put new airplanes on the display floor more frequently than the NASM does. But when you look at the NASM product you know that you are looking at the best preservation work being done on airplanes today, and two hundred years from how, the NASM restorations (and their all-important documentation, which hopefully will survive) are the only ones currently being done in the U.S. that will furnish a reliable guide as to exactly what 20th-century airplanes were really like.

To address your comments specifically Mustangdriver: (1) we'll agree to disagree on whether airplanes have souls; (2) there is a big difference between "replica" and "mock-up", mainly that replicas adhere to the original materials, methods of construction, etc. while mock-ups do not, so I am not comparing anything at NMUSAF to a plastic model; (3) the issue of the replacement of wings and tail has everything to do with the "reference date" of the artifact and would be an interesting subject itself if you wish to pursue it; (4) I do think I could actually be of some assistance with the documentation end of things, and one day when I have more time I probably will help out a museum in that end, although I am not sure that I will choose to donate my time to one of the wealthiest organizations in the world. The USAF has enough money to blow away the NASM's restorations or those of any other organization, and I would be the first to vote for one less B-2 bomber to fund a lifetime's worth of first-rate restorations (maybe some of them even flying).

August

Hey august, I will go with you on some of the reconstruction terms you are defining. The Belle will have the same wings, tail, and fuselage that she did when she finished her tour. The interior will be from a few various sources, but some of it is her own stuff. Luckily Robert Morgan had taken a few things from the interior over the years, and Linda Morgan is giving them to the museum to use in the restoration. The control yokes are an example of this. The bomb site was taken from the aircraft during the war, but many of her interior components are still there. The onl sheet metal we reall have to replace is some in the lower tail section, and and near where tha ball turret was. Other than that, she will be original. We are trying to save as much original stuff as possible, and documenting everything along the way. We are zero timmming the whole aircraft, but it will be very original. The book you mention by the way is a very great book, and I am with you that it is a must read.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I am glad to hear all of that. Is the aircraft being restored to the represent what it was like at the end of its tour, or at some other point (e.g. when the documentary was filmed in Europe)? This can make a big difference as to how original the airframe can be considered. For example, the NASM chose to preserve the Ryan NYP as it was at the end of its tour, not to return it to the configuration in which it flew the Atlantic. In that way they are able to have a far more original artifact. Relatedly, the IWM has an interesting display at Duxford where they split a 109E downed during the Battle of Britain down the middle, "restored" (or reconstructed, or whatever) half of it, but preserved the other half as it had survived after its war tour, replete with graffiti.

I would like to see the NMUSAF do something like that, not necessarily with the Belle, but with something. Thinking about it, the NMUSAF might be the only major public museum I know that does not display any pre-1946 aircraft in untouched-since-1945 condition (other examples would be the IWM and Chicago Spitfires, RAFM Halifax, NASM P-38 and Ki-45). Although I like the museum, it seems to be very concerned with having everything factory fresh which is what I meant by over-restoring. So when you tell me the Belle is being zero-timed, I get nervous, because with a historic airplane I would rather just see any deterioration arrested and otherwise the minimum necessary done to make it presentable for display. Seems like every time I go there, I see another airplane that's been rebuilt, converted, or disguised to look like something it isn't. Last time it was the P-63E, which I always thought was a nice and reasonably original airframe, now converted and repainted to look like an RP-63A pinball. I just hope what they've done to it is reversible. Anyway perhaps all this helps explain my original point that I would just as soon not see the NMUSAF restore the Swoose.

August

I read you loud and clear. I think you are going to be very pleased with it's final restoration. It is going to be restored to how it would have looked on it's 25th mission.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager