"Swoose" vs "the Memphis Belle"

[Jerry O'Neill]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Shoo Shoo's center section from an entirely different B-17? I had heard when the wings were cut, they needed an airworthy center section, so they located one and replaced the damaged section. I was always under the impression that if you had an aircraft's center section, you had the original aircraft.
Anybody know what percentage of Shoo Shoo is original?

And what happened to the center section that was replaced? Certainly it could've been used in some static restoration.
Jerry

[Steve Nelson]

I hope they are using a very light hand in restoring it. An aircraft with the historical significance of the Belle should be restored as little as possible, unless it had truly deteriorated to near junk when they received it.

I saw the Belle in the shop back in December..unfortunately, between vandalism and previous restoration attempts, little of her original equipment or identity remain. They'll pretty much have to rebuild her from the ground up.

The tour guide told us she'll be painted as she appeared on her 23rd mission, since that's when most of the footage for the documentary was shot, and hence the best documentation available. One thing that will be interesting to see how the restorers handle are the thousands of signatures scratched into her skin. Some may be post-war graffiti, but I think many date from her war bond tour. The two-disc edition of the documentary features footage of her being autographed by workers at an aircraft plant (looked like Douglas Long Beach.)

A few months ago someone here on wix wondered what had happened to the ball turret on Strawberry Bitch and it was speculated that it was removed and installed in Shoo Shoo.

Actually, the Bitch's ball turret was removed back in the '60s, and installed on the B-17 the AF Museum used to have (a drone controller that had been stripped of armament.) That B-17 is now at the Air Mobility Command museum at Dover AFB. That's where Shoo Shoo was restored..once she was finished, the planes switched places.


SN

[Richard W.]

I visited the Shoo Shoo Baby when she was being restored at Dover AFB in October, 1981. I understand that all the work was done by AF volunteers on their own time.

They must have done something right to put all these parts back into something that could fly again, and it looked great, but it must have fallen a little short of what the NASM or the AF Museum could do in their own restoration shops.

[mustangdriver]

The ball turret on the B-24 went to the B-17. There is a ball turret in the works to go to that B-17, and get the B-24's back, and installed. The Memphis Belle has several signatures etched into the realr fuselage. Some are for the warbond tour, but most are from idiots that wrote swear words into the skin. I am not sure of the final plans on how to handle that. The original skin is being saved, but some of it near the ball turret area is just too far gone. To say that the Belle has lost her identity is a real slap in the face to the people busting their hump to fix it. This is the plane, and as much original skin and interior is being saved as is able. When done, she will be the finest restored B-17 period. As she should be. As for Shoo Shoo Baby, that is all her. I for one like the O.D. scheme on B-17's better, so I am happy, but I know what you all mean. If it just couldn't be done. I think SSB is right up there with the finest restorations of any B-17. I guess I am biasd.

[aerovin]

Though the turret is identical, I was under the impression the mounts for the Sperry ball turret was different for the B-17 and B-24, since the B-24 turret retracted. Perhaps someone with specific knowledge can comment. I don't imagine it's a matter of unbolting it out of a B-24 and bolting it in a B-17.

[Steve Nelson]

To say that the Belle has lost her identity is a real slap in the face to the people busting their hump to fix it. This is the plane, and as much original skin and interior is being saved as is able. When done, she will be the finest restored B-17 period. As she should be.

My apologies..I didn't mean to offend anyone. You're right of course..the Belle may be a little worse for wear, but her soul is still there. I guess I was just a little depressed seeing what time and neglect had done to her. I am really looking forward to seeing her returned to her former glory.

SN

[k5083]

Though the turret is identical, I was under the impression the mounts for the Sperry ball turret was different for the B-17 and B-24, since the B-24 turret retracted. Perhaps someone with specific knowledge can comment. I don't imagine it's a matter of unbolting it out of a B-24 and bolting it in a B-17.

Yes, I think it would be safe to assume that some original parts are lost or replaced with each round of this game of musical ball turrets.

August

[k5083]

To say that the Belle has lost her identity is a real slap in the face to the people busting their hump to fix it. This is the plane, and as much original skin and interior is being saved as is able. When done, she will be the finest restored B-17 period. As she should be.

My apologies..I didn't mean to offend anyone. You're right of course..the Belle may be a little worse for wear, but her soul is still there. I guess I was just a little depressed seeing what time and neglect had done to her. I am really looking forward to seeing her returned to her former glory.

SN

Is it still a slap in the face if it happens to be true? Airplanes don't have souls. Clearly the Belle will end up part real, part replica. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will carefully document exactly which parts are which.

August

[mustangdriver]

The Belle is part replica? What in the world are you talking about? It will be a restored WWII bomber. And yes airplanes do have souls. Do you even like airplanes man? People give me crap sometimes because I am hard on the NASM about things, and I admit that I am, but you are just as hard on the NMUSAF, if not more. I have never heard you say anything nice about the NMUSAF let alone much else in this country. To call it part replica sounds as if we are putting a plastic mock up out on display. Not every piece of metal can be saved. If you look at it from that point of view, then it was a replica since the 40's, when it had two new wings put on it and a new tail. This was done during it's span of 25 missions due to combat damage. The Belle is every bit herself. As for the SB ball turret, the museum still has all of the plumbing for the turret to go into the B-24. We are doing a painstaking restoration of this aircraft, and documentation is part of this. That is why it is taking 7-10 for it to be finished. It is a slap in the face to some one that drives 4 hours each way one weekend a month to work on this aircraft. If you can do it better, we are always looking for volunteers.

[Randy Haskin]

Is it still a slap in the face if it happens to be true? Airplanes don't have souls. Clearly the Belle will end up part real, part replica. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will carefully document exactly which parts are which.

You are really straying into some strange territory with a statement like this.

So, by what standard is something "original" and something else "replica"?

If an aircraft was wrecked on active duty, and another wing was slapped on, or it was re-skinned, would it be a "replica" then, because the parts on it were not what it came from the factory with?

I can tell you from personal experience with current-day military fighters and trainers that major components are swapped and replaced ALL THE TIME during the airplane's life. The T-38s that I flew in Georgia had all been through THREE major rebuild programs in their lifetime, one of which included a complete re-skin of the cockpit area and the replacement of the longerons. When they went through the T-38C modification program, the cockpits and avionics bays were completely gutted, modified, and then reassembled completely differently with new glass cockpits.

I am currently flying an F-15E that was "written off" in a post-landing fire...



...and then rebuilt at Warner Robins ALC over the course of 2 years, 9,000 man hours, and $2 million. So, am I flying a replica F-15E?

[JDK]

Uh oh...

Common misunderstanding alert...

The difference between an original and a 'replica' in the museum biz, simply put, is that parts replaced while in preservation are not original - it's not a difficult concept. After the aircraft is no longer in service, replacing a wing with another (original) wing detracts from the aircraft's originality; doing so while it's in service is part of it's history. Replacing parts with newly fabricated parts is another step away from originality when done in preservation.

So to take an example at hand, Randy's F-15 is original with an interesting history; but were it in the care of, say the Smithsonian, Yanks etc, and that major rebuild were undertaken by or for them, it would no longer be the original aircraft (as flown by our hero), and its paperwork should reflect that fact. Of course that wouldn't be a 'replica'; but it wouldn't be 'complete and original'.

It's not a black and white world here, and a good museum will endeavour to keep as much of the original artefact, whilst ensuring the whole is stable and as complete and appropriately presented as possible - that's a tricky decision, and emotive language and misunderstandings of the terms at issue don't help, folks!

HTH.

Last edited by JDK on Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Randy Haskin]

The difference between an original and a 'replica' in the museum biz, simply put, is that parts replaced while in preservation are not original - it's not hard. After the object is no longer in use, replacing a wing with another (original) wing detracts from the aircraft's originality; doing so while it's in service is part of it's history. Replacing parts with newly fabricated parts is another step away from originality.

So, the clock stops and the paradigm changes as soon as a warbird is no longer flying in the military?

I still don't get it...tinker with it all you want while the military uses it, and it's "original". But, but when that same airframe has the same thing done with a civilian owner after retirement from military service, it is a "replica"??

[JDK]

So, the clock stops and the paradigm changes as soon as a warbird is no longer flying in the military?

I still don't get it...

Well it's probably a bit hard for fighter pilots...

Put the missile down...

Sorry, I was editing my post as you responded. In museum terms 'preservation' starts are once the aircraft enters a museum. So, were your F-15 to continue in civilian service say, that would continue in another phase of it's history; no less significant. But when it was donated to the NMUSAF (as the great aircraft flown by the greater Hacker...) if the NMUSAF were to replace the wings, seat, nose-cone etc, with stock from stores or from newly made parts, it would, as I say, no longer be fully original. That's not to say it would become a 'replica' either, as that has another precise meaning.

In short, an aircraft rebuild prop-boss to tail skid in service and entering a museum is original, and the parts tell a fascinating and important story. One rebuilt that way by the museum, if they do so completely, can't be regarded as original, and the story of the aircraft is lost.

But museums rarely get a fully complete, stable and usable aircraft - so they have to do some work, and that's what we are talking about. How much? Doesn't matter as long as they leave what they can, and notate what they replace.

Is that clearer?

[Randy Haskin]

In short, an aircraft rebuild prop-boss to tail skid in service and entering a museum is original, and the parts tell a fascinating and important story. One rebuilt that way by the museum, if they do so completely, can't be regarded as original, and the story of the aircraft is lost.

But museums rarely get a fully complete, stable and usable aircraft - so they have to do some work, and that's what we are talking about. How much? Doesn't matter as long as they leave what they can, and notate what they replace.

Is that clearer?

Apologies for the continued thread drift.

This is just a tough subject, especially in the context of operational, flying warbirds.

I definitely understand the discussion in the context of a single historically-significant aircraft (like the Swoose or Belle) in a static museum like the NMUSAF. I absoultely get the desire and need to keep as much of the metal and equipment as preserved as possible.

I still don't get calling anything put on the aircraft post-service as a "replica", though...that's just too sweeping of a term to use in that instance. I would say (for example) that the Belle has a "replacement wing" due to heavy corrosion encountered while being displayed in the 50 years after the war, NOT that it has a "replica wing".

There are a lot of warbird "rebuilds" that definitely border on being replica aircraft because of the amount of new metal and the LACK of original metal in the final flying aircraft (e.g. every single part outside of the registration number was replaced!!). However, we the warbird community take those aircraft on face value.

Personally, I buy that because I've seen heavily damaged military aircraft go through intense rebuilds just like that and still maintain their original identity. I think that so long as the spirit is there, I can believe it.

Interesting to compare, say, "rebuilds" like Max Chapman's TP-51C 42-103293 and Jack Roush's 43-12252 (both of which had very little in the way of original metal when they were rebuilt) with the Gerry Beck P-51A replica, which also has original P-51 parts in it.

I don't claim to have the correct answer...but I'm not necesarily satisfied with any of the ones I've heard thus far either.

[JDK]

You weren't meant to notice how I ducked the warbird bit of the topic. Are you sure you are a real pilot?

'Replica' isn't the correct term, in any of this discussion (naughty August. ) In fact a 'replica' is: "a copy made by the person who made the original" which is a pretty tight definition. The new build Yaks are about the only aircraft I can think of that fit the description, as the modern company is the 'grandson' of the original Yak company. We are talking degrees of originality, or where it's a new fabrication, facsimile, and so forth. But we all use 'replica' loosely, and that's the common usage of it as a result.

The keynote from a Museum's point of view is that it knows what it's got, so it acts as a historical document; an item you can look at, refer to or use that is original, and thus accurate. So a paper trail, and provenance becomes important, and why 'dataplate rebuilds' are a problem with museums as well as being a bit iffy at times on financial values.

Another good example would be Darryl Greenamyer's Bearcat 'Conquest One'. No one would argue that it's USN service is more importance than it's record-breaking period in civil hands. But if you examine the Bearcat, you want to know what was part of the machine when Darryl was flying it and what was changed after - that's important to it's history. If it was still racing, there'd be very little that belonged to that aircraft when it was Darry's 1960s record-breaker, but its history would have continued.

I've avoided mention of 'spirit'. That's a tough thing to nail down, and in rational discussion, something I'll reserved to believe in when I'm flying in a single-engine aircraft when she's over a no-landing area, and I'll be hoping my pilot's as smart as Randy.

Cheers