Where'd the Ball Turret Go??

[APG85]

I have heard that Shoo Shoo Baby was a high priority restoration and parts were"robbed" as necessary from other aircraft to complete her. Different times...

[Steve Nelson]

If you want to get picky, the cockpit side windows on the SB are incorrect..they should have the oval blisters, but they're the later rectagular style used on the B-242M. Until recently, she also had the later style "high hat" top turret. And don't even get me started about the incorrect interior colors. Numerous other Air Force Museum WWII warbirds have inaccuracies in paint or equipment.

This isn't intended to rip on the Air Force Musuem..they do the best they can with the resources (human and material) they have. But with a collection as vast as theirs, it's difficult to restore things to the level we'd all like to see. Evey time I go to the museum I notice they've fixed, added, or improved something on various aircraft. I think it's great that they keep the aircraft on display and continue "tweaking" them as time, money, parts, and personel permit. If they waited until an aircraft was "perfect" to put it on display, they'd have a few pristine restorations, and a barn full of airframes in storage (like the NASM.) When I toured the restoration shop a couple of months ago, I was impressed with the level of research they're doing on the Memphis Belle..I'm really looking forward to seeing her finished.


SN

[peter]

Just curious, why was she not kept airworthy and also when was her last flight??

[Steve Nelson]

She was pulled out of storage at Davis Monthan AFB in 1959, put into ferryable condition, and flown to Wright-Patterson. The Air Force Museum is strictly a static museum never intended to keep her airworthy or operational. In fact, she was on outdoor display for ten or twelve years before they built the current facility and got her (and the other warbirds) out of the weather.

SN

[mustangdriver]

Hey Steve, according to wartime photos of her, she never h ad the blister type windows. I am not sure why.

[mustangdriver]

I sent the e-mail a little while ago to the head of restoration and one to the head of archives. I will let you all know what I hear.

[peter]

Wow 1959 was her last flight then? From the one pic, she looks like she is lovingly looked after.

[mustangdriver]

I would say that she is looked after really well.

[k5083]

thanks mustangdriver!!! i'm curious as to their reply. please post it after it arrives. is the smithsonian air & space museum remiss in their restorations as well?? i understand that a plane being restored can't be 100% complete down to the rivets, but cosmetically it should be to insure knowledge gaps are covered, to prevent historical misinterputations from the viewer. we on this site recognize these errors, but to john q. public who is just going to a museum for something to do it spreads lack of historical foresight.

Tom

A good book on the NASM's restoration philosophy is Bob Mikesh's "Restoring Museum Aircraft." The short answer to your question is that the NASM pretty much sets the gold standard in aircraft restoration techniques as far as originality, documentation, etc. The NMUSAF -- not so much. Different museums, different missions. The NASM is totally focused on preservation, whereas the NMUSAF partly is and does some beautiful work, but also has a story to tell which causes it to make compromises that the NASM wouldn't.

August

[Steve Nelson]

Hey Steve, according to wartime photos of her, she never h ad the blister type windows. I am not sure why.

This is the clearest wartime photo of the SB I've ever come across..posted in a modeling forum a while back. She definately has the side blisters. I've got a book showing her being refurbished at D-M and they're still in place. That doesn't mean she always had them..I think they were retrofits on B-24Ds.

The more I look at wartime photos, the more convinced I'm becoming that the name was actually red and white, rather than black and white as it is now. Also, the original nose art was much more well done that what's on her now (see second pic.) I've heard anecdotal evidence that the bathing suit was painted on when she came back to the states, and the girl flew her combat missions in the buff. If I ever build a model of the plane, that's how I'll portray her!

Note also that in the closeup the aircraft number is yellow with a black border..all other wartime photos show it as white. This may be after she was spruced up for the trip home, although I can't imagine a plane with such a politically incorrect name being used for a publicity tour. I still have never gotten an answer as to why, of all the thousands of B-24s available (many with much more illustrious combat records) the SB was the one chosen for preservation. Not that I'm complaining..I've just always wondered.

SN

[mustangdriver]

Wow! Those are great pics. I have never seen those before. THe only wartime pics the museum has of her on display shows the other style side windows. SO I guess they were added. I have only seen pics of her with the bathing suit on. Can anyone tell me if she was indeed restored. I was under the impression that she had interior work done, and that the outside was pretty much original.

[Rogue]

It seems that IF the original turret still exist, that it could be re-acquired for SB.
Being its the turret carried in combat by SB, I would imagine it would only have to be replaced by a B-17 turret in the B-17.
Hope fully NMUSAF saved the associated B-24 parts.

I agree she should have "Her" turret, even if it's not really visible.

[mustangdriver]

I think so as well. I think it was dumb to remove it in the first place.

[Steve Nelson]

Can anyone tell me if she was indeed restored. I was under the impression that she had interior work done, and that the outside was pretty much original.

These should answer your question. They're from the same book I got the nose art pic from: "The B-24 Liberator" by Steve Birdsall. The first shows the SB being pulled out of storage at Davis Monthan, and the next stipped back to bare metal. When she was first repainted, the unit markings were rather inaccurate. The museum applied correct markings sometime in the 1980s.






Although the interior is more or less original as far as equipment, someone blasted the whole thing with the usual "interior green." The interior of the nose and cockpit were originally Dull Dark Green, the bombay was Neutral Gray, and the waist compartment was bare metal (rather than the zinc chromate yellow it is now.) Here's are a couple of pics of the inside of the nose compartment before it was repainted (taken by a freind of a freind years ago.)






These are the only other wartime shots I have of the SB..the first is actually from the NMUSAF website, and the other is from the old Arco/Aircam series book on teh B-24.






Okay..I'm obviously way too obsessed with this particular aircraft!!


SN

[mustangdriver]

I love it as well. THanks for the info.