Warbird Information Exchange

ha Ha, Hey jack, I am planning a trip to go see the Spruce Goose in October. How far is that ffor you to meet up?

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Depends on if I'm walking again by then
Time will tell
Oh yeah...I broke my foot (don't ask how).

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

my late father-in-law SSGT Ed Potocki was a flight engineer/top turret gunner on B-17's [815th BS 483rd BG] in Italy in 1944. He told me of his dislike for Studies and always preferred Wrights. Said the others were "junk"! Never did explain why..

_________________
..defeat is never an option!

Hey Jack, is that a cat on your foot or a furry slipper ?

For the first time ever, I ain't saying nothing about nothing.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

I may be out on left field, but I do believe Morgan's dislike for the Studebaker engines came from his pre-war experience with Studebaker cars...people he knew who owned them had problems with them, etc. Considering that Studebaker was one of the companies that later formed AMC, his dislike was probably well-founded. As a somewhat later example, my father was issued a metallic green '73 AMC Matador unmarked car (which, other than being an unmarked car, was same kind of car they used in Adam-12, and as a young boy, that fact thrilled me to no end), and he said that car was the biggest pile of crap he had ever driven.

I do recall seeing a wartime Studebaker ad (maybe in a LIFE magazine from the period) with an illustration of a B-17 and a pilot in the foreground with the quote "Sure, they've got the power".

Nash and Hudson formed AMC and later acquired Jeep, but Studebaker had no connection - they hooked up with Packard.

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

Regarding Studebaker built R-1820s, the following is quoted from the late Roger Freeman's book: The B-17 Flying Fortress Story: Design - Production - History

"In addition to production from the Wright plant at Patterson, New Jersey, R-1820 engines were from 1941 license-built by the Studebaker Corporation at a South Bend, Indiana, factory. In fact, although at first mostly found on Douglas and Vega models, the majority of engines used in B-17s came from this source, although the early products were considered inferior to those from Wright. Malfunctions experienced with Studebaker engines led to a generally held bias for Wright products among B-17 pilots and mechanics, although, once manufacturing difficulties had been overcome, the Studebaker engine was equally reliable and gave good service."

Would the running up of the engines be something that will be open for the general public to see Chris?

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!

Who would I have to bribe, or do "other" things to to get a ride should they taxi her?

Robbie

The engine run is in the planning stages. I am trying to help with it. Here is my idea. First off gather all of the flying B-17's to do an all B-17 air show and fly over like the one done in the 1990's maybe even do the rose pedals again, and then starrt all four engines and taxi her to the museum as firetrucks spray water. The problem is that once she is there at the museum, she will still have to be taken back to the shop to have everything sealed and all vapors steamed out.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Sounds like a great idea!

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!

at the cost of mere millions

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

A guy in my squadron recently made a low pass over the base before departing for the desert. I saw it with my own eyes. I'm pretty easy going, but I agreed that it was a bit much and a breach of flight safety, especially because it was near max gross weight and below our training altitudes. During the investigation, the commanding General had some words with him. The pilot professed that he did it for his family - the General said that the pilot broke the rules and common sense not for his family, but because he was selfish. I'm rarely on the side of the brass, but the General was right.

Cranking the Belle is also selfish. Brand me a stick in the mud, but cranking her is a pure mistake. The systems won't be preserved as they're assembled by the technicians in the same way as if a run was not in the cards. After the run, you'll never clean the exhaust residue, oil, fuel, and other lubricants well enough (compared to no engine run) - it just subjects her to the prep, the run, and the additional chemicals for cleaning. The seams and joints where the cleaner either can't go or subsequently drain will suffer. And no matter how good folks say that oil and residue is "preservative", we know it's wordplay considering the long-term goal of a museum like NMUSAF.

Because she won't fly again, restore and preserve her as best as is possible and leave her be. What's best for the machine beats what's best for man. Having other B-17s fly-by to help celebrate the completion of this great restoration is a fab idea.

If the goal is preserving her for many generations to come, then running her doesn't contribute to that one bit - it's a distraction. You can argue that it enhances her display by showing a video of the run to everyone for the next 200 years. That's no different than us looking back at her running and flying in wartime footage.

If we really cared about the machine and the overall goal, we'd skip it.

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."