Warbird Information Exchange

it maybe a Kansas winter, but if you will note I said Arizona SUMMER, where the skins can get to over 130 Degrees, and it can be 110-115 in the shade. I have worked outdoors in 20 degree weather to 115 degrees.
it is not as comfortable as being in a hangar, but it can be done.

I notice that it mentions nothing of Tallichet who is the majority owner of the aircraft and it seems like that is a big secret for specific reasons and without being slanderous I think many of us know what those reasons are.

What is the actual reason that Boeing decided to kick Doc out in the cold? It really seems a bit strange that they had so much invested interest in the aircraft and now it is getting the boot. They sponsored the restoration of the Boeing Bee, the Stratoliner (twice). It seems a little strange that they wouldn't see this one through to completion. Is there something I am missing on why it was pushed out into the cold?

Maybe the Stratoliner incident gave Boeing second thoughts regarding sponsorship of a flyable aircraft? If the supposedly professional Boeing test pilots could screw up so badly with the Stratoliner (something that Boeing should have had in their control) then affiliation with an outside organization flying a B-29 that Boeing was part of may send some liability their way. Dunno, just wildly speculating.

Mm...good point. It's pretty close here. Still, do ya'll get hail storms and tornadoes that frequently? ^_^;



I've never even heard of Tallichet's involvement with the aircraft. Could you enlighten me?



It says right there in the article: they needed the hangar. They've only got X number of hangars there, and Doc has been located in no less than three (yes, they had to move it to another hangar for a while at which point I was unable to work on it any further) different hangars at different times. When someone pays them to do business, they've got no choice but to move Doc. They are a company and they've let enough people go as it stands. There's no reason why they should turn down work over a B-29. (I get the feeling some people might think they should have turned down work or something; some people have to put bread on their tables, though. In that light, a B-29 isn't nearly as important)

The Kansas Aviation Museum is about 1/4 a mile away from the previous hangar, so it isn't that big of a distance.

I do not believe that Boeing is sponsoring Doc's flying at all. They were just giving it a place to be restored & loaning some equipment. This is Boeing Wichita we're talking about, not Boeing Seattle. Just because they're the same corporation doesn't necessarily mean they both operate the same, or can even afford it! They did sell their commercial division about a year ago, after all. They don't employ nearly as many people as they did when they first started on Doc, ergo, they don't make as much money either.

...of course, I may have this wrong, but that is what I understood it to be (and it's been a year since I checked).

I'm not surprised you haven't heard it because it isn't advertised as such.



No need to get defensive. As far as I am concerned Boeing can do whatever they want. The fact that the did what they did for a very long time is pretty amazing. I realize that is what the article says but sometimes when you want to get rid of an employee that you don't like it is because you are "eliminating that position" and then 6 months later that position somehow becomes available again. It isn't always about what is said it is about what isn't being said. Knowing what I know about the situation with the ownership if I was a major corporation I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole but that is just me and just my opinion. Like I stated previously at one time I was in touch with Dick looking for parts for the aircraft. In that journey I kept running into people that said "I'm not donating any of my parts to Tallichet." After a while of that I realized what the situation is. I had previous experience with Tallichet operations when I did some work on a fiberglass Corsair and that was enough for me.

As for the defensive remark, I figured at the time that people might accuse Boeing of being harsh or unsupportive on the project. I said everything without getting my hackles raised, sorry if it sounded like that. I've never been a very good communicator.

Anyways, yesterday I found out that Boeing has donated property out back of the Kansas Aviation Museum (actually, it's more to the side, but whatever) for Doc's hangar. Now all they need is the money to make the hangar. I talked to two different museum employees and got two different stories. One said temp metal hangar, the other said temp fabric hangar (circus tent, anyone?), one said that the $4,000,000 hangar was for Doc, the other said it was for the museum (the museum itself said in the past that hangar was for Doc). So...dunno. The KAM hasn't seemed terribly well organized, IMO (no offense to them, of course; they don't have the funds to hire people and pay for better facilities).

As far as I am aware, the title to the aircraft is currently solely in the hands of Mr. Mazzolini, who had traded a full restored B-25 to the NMNA in exchange for permission to recover/ownership of Doc. That's what I was told when I signed up to work by the (then) project manager. Mr. Mazzolinin and Mr. Mazzolini alone owned it. Any other information about Tallichet I was not aware of.

I'll post the photos later; it's lunch time.

Not an issue. I am a very cut and dry person, that is why everything I say sounds bad .



It is actually registered to Bomber Force Inc. which makes it a little more difficult to determine who the actual owner is. The B-25J 44-29035 that you mentioned was also owned by Tallichet prior to Mazzolini which is probably not coincidental.

I hope Doc does find a home and I hope it does find it's way into the air, but for personal reasons I just can't support Tallichet.

on Doc.., I have not heard much as far as her restoration progress.

Thanks

_________________
S.

Mods: Can we change the title of this thread; it is misleading and somewhat inflammatory given how out of date it is?

Doc is stored indoors in donated space at a secure location.

Funding needed for engines, propellors, and fuel cells. The rest of the airframe is largely complete and restored. Wiring and plumbing is mostly all new and completed.

Thanks for the update

_________________
S.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&F ... &encType=1


From the Doc website.., she is being put into 'Dead Storage'. What a shame this project has been put on 'hold'!!

darn!!!!!

_________________
S.

And what exactly constitutes DEAD storage??

_________________
Cheers,
Peter

________

can't be good!

_________________
S.

A heck of a lot better than it sitting outside like it was for awhile. Using words like "dead storage" were probably done purposefully, to generate the reaction you and others showed. It annoys me when I see people use scare tactics on projects. Just my 2 cents. As far as I know it went into storage because it was winter time and noone wanted to work on that aircraft out on the tarmac in 0 degree weather. With the weather warning up, one would think we'll know one way or the other soon enough. Also, the project is pretty much done except for the big ticket items like the engines. That is most likely the reason why it's in storage.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org

To put it into context, scroll immediately South of Doc in that areal view down the Boeing hanger flight line and you'll even see Air Force One gets the same treatment. Hanger space is a premium at Boeing Wichita and Doc was really lucky to have the hanger space as long as it has in the past.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&F ... &encType=1

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org