About the Belle....

[aerovin]

'Factory fresh markings' brings to mind Bob Richardsons B-17F. After Bob passed the MoF 'assumed' they were meant to have the airplane since Bob had flown around for years with MoF decals on the nose. The airplane was carted off to Plant 2 down East Marginal Way for restoration by, I think BMA (Boeing Management Assn) and volunteers.
The Richardson family said 'hold the phone there pardner, that belongs to us, and wasn't mentioned in the will, you don't own it'
The airplane sits, inside Plant 2 restored to factory fresh status except for a really stupid looking 'BOEING BEE' nose art script painted on at the behest of some fat cat doner, all alone and where no one can see it or appreciate it, covered with dust.

I think there's more to the story here. I believe the Museum of Flight had signed legal documents between it and Richardson that specified the fate of the aircraft, and that is where the "no flying" part of the deal was done (as per Richardson's instructions). That the Museum of Flight still holds the airplane for future display is indicative of the legal standing of each party.

As for the name, it was a compromise between those that wanted nose art and those who didn't want anything except a factory fresh airplane. In my opinion, the nose markings are understated, reflect the style of the times, and don't seem particularly offensive.

The last I heard, the airplane is slated to be displayed when the next big airplane hangar is constructed by the Museum of Flight. Perhaps those who want it displayed really really badly will be donating money to get the hangar built.

[mustangdriver]

The Boeing Bee is a very nice airplane. The nose art is not bad, as like said before it looks like a typical 1940's nose art that would have been done at the factory.

[b17engineer]

I spent many hours working on that B-17, loaned them tooling that they didn't have and finally got fed up when it became clear that they weren't going to fly it. I want airplane's to fly after I work on them. That is my satisfaction. I can build a model and get as much satisfaction as looking at one in a museum. I just wish they had returned all of my stuff.

RICK

[mustangdriver]

I spent many hours working on that B-17, loaned them tooling that they didn't have and finally got fed up when it became clear that they weren't going to fly it. I want airplane's to fly after I work on them. That is my satisfaction. I can build a model and get as much satisfaction as looking at one in a museum. I just wish they had returned all of my stuff.

RICK

I fail to see where a 1/48th scale model of a B-17 is the same as a real one that has been restored to static display. That is very dangerous thinking. ONCE AGAIN everyone say it with me STATIC is JUST as IMPORTANT as FLYING when it comes to historic aircraft.

[b17engineer]

Sorry if my thoughts are offensive to you, but I don't see any difference between an aircraft that is grounded permanently and a model. I just don't waste my time on static planes.

RICK

[b17engineer]

We all have our own thoughts on this subject and these are mine.

RICK

[Hal B]

Yep, Shoot-em; Stuff-em and Hang-em from the ceiling...

SOME static a/c are just as important as flyable ones. Historically significant or extremely rare examples should remain static. Fly the rest of them!

[mustangdriver]

Yep, Shoot-em; Stuff-em and Hang-em from the ceiling...

SOME static a/c are just as important as flyable ones. Historically significant or extremely rare examples should remain static. Fly the rest of them!

Right and here we are talking about a RARE F model B-17. There are only a few F models around. I know of 2 that are restored and one in restoration.

[gary1954]

Ya know, this talk about flying, static is an interesting one, and I agree with HalB, in that some of the "rare" aircraft should perhaps be hangared. For example, B-25 40-2168, the NASM missed the chance to get this particular B-25, when this is the VERY B-25 that should be on display at the NASM, since I believe it is what, the 4th production model of the B-25, and was Hap Arnolds VIP transport....Hmm who was Hap Arnold? I imagine that not many at the NASM know, let alone the value of the 4th production model of the B-25 (if I have my numbers right - of which I am sure I will be shot down like a B-17 over SCcccchhhhWienFurt). Have a nice day.

[Zachary]

Sorry if my thoughts are offensive to you, but I don't see any difference between an aircraft that is grounded permanently and a model. I just don't waste my time on static planes.

RICK

I guess you wouldn't waste your time with the Declaration of Independence either then? Or dinosaur bones, since they aren't living anymore. I guess by your thinking anything preserved in a museum or archives is pretty worthless. Heck, why should future generations have access to any of this stuff, when we can use it up ourselves right now.

Would I love to see the Belle flying again, sure. But not at the cost of losing it in a crash or accident. I'd rather regret not seeing an historic aircraft in the air than regret not having it around at all.

Zack
-assistant keeper of static "models" at the EAA AirVenture Museum

[Jerry O'Neill]

Just for fun, let's beat this dead horse some more!
Jerry

[Jack Cook]

Whomever stated that there was a agreement between MOF and Richarson about the B-17F being flown is correct. It was specifically stated in the donation contact that the a/c was not to be flown.

[Zachary]

It's not dead, just comatose!

[Steve Nelson]

It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords.....

Sorry..couldn't resist.


SN


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

[Ztex]

If it's a dead horse it should be stuffed and hung in a museum for preservation...lest we run out of horses.

If it's not dead it should be running in the field with the other horses...unless it's a rare one....


Gee whiz guys....

I think we have established the fact that there are differences in opinion on this matter and that there is a need for both types in the world of airplanes.