Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:50 am
Pat Carry wrote:Since I dont know how to hi-lite someone's post then respond to it, I will say to Matt the NASM does have the wings and the tail section for the Swoose.
Click the "quote" box on the upper right corner of the persons message box that you would like to respond to. A new box will appear with their old message in it. Type away...
Last edited by APG85 on Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:51 am
We learn something new everyday! Thanks much Scott.
Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:36 am
I think the NASM should unload their B-17G. They have zero plans to display the plane and they could make just a few buks on the deal.
Swoose
Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:06 am
I'd bet that some people at the Smithsonian will be glad to get rid if the Swoose from the standpoint that restoration always presented them with a dilema. That being what configuration/finish to restore her to. I have a copy of the Air and Space Museum's restoration guideline for the a/c that I obtained from the assistant curator back in 1983. It's clear from reading it that they didn't know what to do with her or when they could do it, and the information they had on her backround was sketchy.
Since then alot more information has come to light, but the problem remains the same.
The skin on the aircraft in is in poor condition from outside storage, which precludes it's restoration to a natural aluminum finish as "Ole Betsy" when it was transfered to Clark Field from Hickam. At that time it carried a plane and group number 21 with an 11th Bomb Group designator.
No one is really certain what camouflage color(s) were used when it was painted at Del Monte, or what the pattern was. It was a shabby job, not a "factory finish". Some pictures appear to show a two tone pattern. The color of the undersides is also in question, although photos I have of other aircraft at Del Monte after the war started show only the upper surfaces painted, with alot of natural metel showing through. It appears that at sometime the undersides were painted black. For a time the 21 remained on the painted tail without the 11 BG code. The original Swoose logo was removed and later replaced with a similar one in Panama, so even if they got the camouflage right, repainting the logo a second time would not have the same "feel".
The last option would be to paint it OD and grey to represent a generic B-17D, but then it looses its historic appeal since she would neither be Ole Betsy or the Swoose.
Duane
Since then alot more information has come to light, but the problem remains the same.
The skin on the aircraft in is in poor condition from outside storage, which precludes it's restoration to a natural aluminum finish as "Ole Betsy" when it was transfered to Clark Field from Hickam. At that time it carried a plane and group number 21 with an 11th Bomb Group designator.
No one is really certain what camouflage color(s) were used when it was painted at Del Monte, or what the pattern was. It was a shabby job, not a "factory finish". Some pictures appear to show a two tone pattern. The color of the undersides is also in question, although photos I have of other aircraft at Del Monte after the war started show only the upper surfaces painted, with alot of natural metel showing through. It appears that at sometime the undersides were painted black. For a time the 21 remained on the painted tail without the 11 BG code. The original Swoose logo was removed and later replaced with a similar one in Panama, so even if they got the camouflage right, repainting the logo a second time would not have the same "feel".
The last option would be to paint it OD and grey to represent a generic B-17D, but then it looses its historic appeal since she would neither be Ole Betsy or the Swoose.
Duane
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:03 pm
The plane is and always will be known as the Swoose. Probably the best bet is to restore it as delivered to the Smithsonian and display it with informational displays depicting it's checkerd history and various color schemes and markings...
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:11 pm
Are there any pictures of this B-17G that the NASM has in storage?
Is this a former fire bomber? Or another combat veteran? Or what?
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
Is this a former fire bomber? Or another combat veteran? Or what?
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:21 pm
Are there any pictures of this B-17G that the NASM has in storage?
Is this a former fire bomber? Or another combat veteran? Or what?
Shay
It's this one:
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b17regis ... 83814.html
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:31 pm
Thanks Chris.
So from the sounds of the registry this G model maybe partially unconverted from it's fire-bomber day back to military comfiguration.
Anyone have more current pictures? Perhaps while she was on display at Pima?
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
So from the sounds of the registry this G model maybe partially unconverted from it's fire-bomber day back to military comfiguration.
Anyone have more current pictures? Perhaps while she was on display at Pima?
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:35 pm
Shay, the only photos I have seen of the B-17 in storage has been when I visited the NASM's booth at Oshkosh. They set up a small display booth in one of the buildings to raise money for Udvar Hazy. You might also want to check www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/boeing_b17g.htm
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:40 pm
APG85 wrote:The plane is and always will be known as the Swoose. Probably the best bet is to restore it as delivered to the Smithsonian and display it with informational displays depicting it's checkerd history and various color schemes and markings...
That's an alternative. It would not take any restoration except putting the "G" model replacement nosepiece back on. Other than that, the shape it's in now is how they got it, which is pretty poor. The problem with that is the museum doesn't display aircraft in such a condition, at least not to my knowledge. Their SPAD 13 would look new compared to it.
Duane
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:43 pm
I think that the plane will be restored. It would be one thing if the planes was in this condition due to combat history like Flack Bait. But it is in poor condition due to years of neglect and outside storage.
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:51 pm
With a 10 year restoration job moving ahead on the Memphis Belle, how long would restoration take on the Swoose? 10 years, maybe longer? I hope I'm still around to see that. Mustangdriver, could the NMUSAF work on both the Belle and the Swoose at the same time? Just curious.
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:53 pm
They could, and right now the shop is getting to a point where it is clearing out a little. A few months back it was getting kind of tight.
Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:57 pm
I have to say that seeing restoration taking place on 2 combat veteran B-17's simultaneously would be pretty darn kool!
Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:02 pm
Sigh- so it seems like this entire thread is revolving around 4 very significant forts.
Let me see if i have this straight- This is the overall outcome.
B-17F "Memphis Bell" - Dayton
B-17D "Swoose" - Dayton
B-17G "Shoo Shoo Baby" - NASM
B-17G Fire Bomber - NASM
Hmmmm. I dunno, i think its kinda foolish to trade the oldest known B-17 in existence for a nicely restored one. Then have another B-17 of the same variant there as well! But then again this way makes the NASM not have to restore 2 bombers. This way they have a beautiful combat vet, already restored.
I say, Get "Shoo Shoo Baby" up and flying again. How hard and expensive could it be as opposed to dismantling her? She only flew a couple of times and then was hangared and essentially kept in mint condition while at Dayton, no? This would be great publicity for both museums.As well as both museums have direct links to active runways. It would be a direct flight, unless the decided to hit up some airshows along the way?
Wishful Thinking.
Let me see if i have this straight- This is the overall outcome.
B-17F "Memphis Bell" - Dayton
B-17D "Swoose" - Dayton
B-17G "Shoo Shoo Baby" - NASM
B-17G Fire Bomber - NASM
Hmmmm. I dunno, i think its kinda foolish to trade the oldest known B-17 in existence for a nicely restored one. Then have another B-17 of the same variant there as well! But then again this way makes the NASM not have to restore 2 bombers. This way they have a beautiful combat vet, already restored.
I say, Get "Shoo Shoo Baby" up and flying again. How hard and expensive could it be as opposed to dismantling her? She only flew a couple of times and then was hangared and essentially kept in mint condition while at Dayton, no? This would be great publicity for both museums.As well as both museums have direct links to active runways. It would be a direct flight, unless the decided to hit up some airshows along the way?
Wishful Thinking.