Warbird Information Exchange

You make a good point about the true significance of the aircraft being that it's the only survivor of the Philippines disaster and because
it's the only existing "sharkfin". It's interesting to note that General Brett did not want to see the Swoose saved from the scrap heap at the end of the war because he didn't want attention focused on just a few of the individuals that were associated with it during its lifetime. I always thought he was refering to Kurtz and his crew. If so, time has proven him correct.
Very few "affectionados" ever heard of Henry Godman. BY the way, one myth about the Swoose that continues to be perpetuated is that the a/c was damaged in the Dec. 8th attack on Clark and rebuilt with parts from other wrecks, then given its name. Not true. The ship was with the rest of the 14th B.S. at Del Monte on the 8th. Several aborted missions were attempted soon after but offically its first combat mission is listed as being flown on Dec. 22nd, after being withdrawn to Darwin.

I would have interpreted General Brett's comments and attitude to the preservation of the Swoose relating more to his own modesty and preference not to have it focus on his use of the aircraft.

I am observing the debate on the thread with interest, the desire to create a factory finish "shark fin", the desire to depict the early response to Pearl Harbour, and the desire to retain its evolved heritage intact.

I personally consider its heritage in its current form has become to established to return it to "Betsy" and to remove its artwork skins for seperate display etc.

An interesting and viable solution is that made by Shay



But rather than half Olive Drab and half bare metal, another option is to finish the entire aircraft in bare metal, with the starboard side as per 1944 with the nose art of flags and Swoose artwork near the entry door, and the port side as 1941? with tail stripes etc, but without the ventral tub?





The overall bare metal finish would cause less "culture" shock to "head on" and other views where both sides of the aircraft can be seen, but it is a successful delivery of two of the desired outcomes.

It will also provide an excellent balance to the camouflaged "Belle" to be displayed at the same location?

Structural modification and skin "removal" is not an appropriate conservation practice.

The issue of converting the internals back to Bomber with installation of the ventral gun tub seems less supportable, I feel the preservation of the authentic Swoose transport interior is far more important than a recreated "bomber" internal that most people wont get to see in anycase?.

A cut-away mockup centre fuselage configured as a "bomber" with waist guns etc could be displayed next to the Swoose (if those components can be found or manufactured), allowing people direct access to those displays, including a mockup of the ventral gun tub.

The priority has to be to preserve its "authentic" heritage, not to destroy it and remove it to "recreate" earlier heritage, otherwise why not simply create a large fibreglass "accurate" Full Scale Model and be done with it?

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Mark,

I agree with you. I think this aircraft is in such a condition where it should be considered more an artifact rather than a restoration candidate. The heritage of the airframe is that it represents an important part of history that goes somewhat untold. There were many aircraft that went on to be trainers, or personal transports, etc. You don't really see that represented much in museums. I think in a lot of ways it is our own selfish desires to see a pure restored example of a shark-finned B-17 in bomber configuration that drive some of this. This aircraft served many noble purposes through it's service life and I think hacking it up, adding a lot of new metal and trying to add parts of other aircraft such as a tub from a crash is actually somewhat insulting to the aircraft to say that the only part of it's service life that was important was the couple months it was in combat.

I think having a restored, or recreated tub on display as well as a nice model portraying it in it's earlier life would be much more appropriate.

Ryan

I would really hate to see the skins removed for seperate preservation.

Was it ever called the Swoose BEFORE it had the passenger interior but after it was no longer in combat?

I thought it was called the Swoose because it was patched up from parts of shot up B-17's so it seems it could be in a quasi combat config yet still be called the Swoose but without the seats. Did it ever haul passengers before it had the ventral bay removed but after it was Old Betsy? In other words did it have a period when it was not really named? Do we have wiggle room here?

While we're at it, what's the history of the Swoose's back half: 40-3091?

As to the half-and-half paint scheme, back in the 70s the Museum was supposedly going to paint the Martin B-10 (which was recovered from Argentina) in half U.S. and half Argentine markings; I guess they changed their minds... Are there many aircraft in museums that are marked this way?

_________________

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)

Of course the B-24 at Pima carries Indian AF markings on one side and USAAF on the other. The only other split-personality bird I know of is an F-86 outside a museum in Frankenmuth, MI. It's got the markings of one ace from Michigan on one side, and another on the other side. Since the the squadron markings are the same, it' not really distracting.

SN

the A-26 I brought down from Greybull was painted as a 50 50 plane, the left side was in it's Korea era markings, the right side was a air tanker.

"According to Wiki" - smiles




It would seem that it was hurridly placed into an OD paint scheme in the Phillipines for its short and brief combat service, and remained in that scheme in Australia when it had its "tail graft" then gaining the "Swoose" nickname, and later being modified as a transport, and returning to bare metal finish.

The options therefore are:

1.a 1940 bare metal colour scheme - factory fresh
(not historically relevent?, no "Swoose" logo or "flag nose art" )

2. a 1941 Clarke field bare metal colour scheme - 8 December Clarke Field as Betsy
(requires structural modifications etc to be historically relevent, no "Swoose" logo or "flag nose art")

3. an late 1941 early 1942 OD colour scheme, mid December to early January combat missions as "Betsy"
(requires structural modifications etc to be historically relevent, no "Swoose" logo or "flag nose art")

4. a 1942 OD colour scheme, post surgery at Laverton Australia as the "Swoose" (no structural modifications, has "Swoose" logo but loss of "flag nose art")

5. an @ 1944 bare metal colour scheme, as the "Swoose"
(no structural modifications, has "Swoose" logo and retains "flag nose art")

6. a post 1946? OD colour scheme as the LA Memorial "Swoose"
(not of any historical relevence, but no structural modifications, has "Swoose" logo and retains "flag nose art")

7. A composite "2 sided" OD scheme of:
*Port Side late 1941 early 1942 OD colour scheme, mid December to early January combat missions as "Betsy"
(but no structural modifications etc)

*Starboard side 1942 OD colour scheme, post surgery at Laverton Australia as the "Swoose" (no structural modifications, has "Swoose" logo but loss of "flag nose art")
With a restored or mockup ventral tub located next to the port side of the aircraft?


8. A composite "2 sided" bare metal scheme of:
*Port Side 1941 Clarke field bare metal colour scheme - 8 December Clarke Field as "Betsy" (but no structural modifications etc)

*Starboard side bare metal @ 1944 bare metal colour scheme, as the "Swoose" (no structural modifications, has "Swoose" logo and retains "flag nose art")
With a restored or mockup ventral tub located next to the port side of the aircraft?

Either option "5" or "8" of the 1944 bare metal "Swoose" seem to be the most historically correct and relevent to the heritage of the individual aircraft and its current configuration and retention of its "Swoose" and nose flag "art", in both cases the existing black undersides do not appear "original" or retained.

EDIT>>>

It seems that the Swoose lost its ventral bathtub, and its OD camouflage about the same time in 1944, prehaps both to enhance it speed, range and fuel economy? (see pics on link below)

This would make options "3", "4", and "7" less historically accurate without re-installing the ventral bathtab, reinforcing the logic of "5", or "8" above.

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=219521#219521

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Part of the issue with Swoose is that it is, as pointed out, in pretty rough shape. I've seen her up close a couple/few times out at Garber, and the pictures posted thus far of her at Dayton make her look better than she actually looks in person. Particularly the fact that the port-side nose is pretty well dished in from an accident of some sort after her arrival at Garber (there are old pictures of her at Garber without the damage). In my decidedly amateur/enthusiast opinion she's going to need both structural work and skin repair/replacement in that area.

IIRC, one of the justifications for putting SSB into OD/Gray was that the amount of new sheetmetal mixed in with the old made her look very patchwork. I'd think the same would apply to Swoose. I don't see why careful removal and replacement of the "historic" skin areas that have the graphics would be a big problem. NASM does this with aircraft in its collection to allow them to be hung from the trusses at Udvar-Hazy. The original skin and other components removed are removed and stored in such a way that allows them to be reattached if such is deemed desirable at some point in the future (at least that's what the tour guide who led the "Aircraft Hanging Tour" at last year's Night at the Museum event said).

Mustangdriver said earlier that the swoose is in really rough shape. i wonder if someone could expand on that and be more specific about what kind of issues the museum will be facing in the restoration/preservation. Is she so corroded that she's falling apart, or just a mess from all of the years of neglect? I really like the idea of restoring her to to original combat configuration as she would have rolled off of the assembly line. this is what the aircraft was really intended for and what she became after her combat days is a distortion of the true spirit of the aircraft. i also really like the idea of removing the sheet metal with the flags and the swoose artwork and displaying it seperately,thus still being able to tell the story from that perspective.they are both important perspectives,but the aircraft was built as a bomber and in my humble opinion,should be displayed as such. flame on................

Hmm.

Seems to me that the airplane should be portrayed as she was when she made her most significant contribution to the war effort. Sure, she made a couple of bombing runs, but the basic reason for her current existence is that her pilot when she was a transport got LA to save her. Not some random B-17D but this *particular* B-17D, which was named the Swoose. I would propose that had this aircraft *not* been converted to a transport, that she would have been scrap metal like the rest of the early B-17's, and thus this airplane should be presented as the transport version.

One could also make the argument that since this aircraft is cobbled together from two airframes, that restoring it to the configuration the aircraft had prior to being reassembled during the war would be glossing over a very significant part of this particular aircraft's history.

In essence, put her back as a transport, and make a nice display about the history of both airframes involved. She's famous *because she was a transport,* not because of the month of bombing missions.

My 2 cents.

Chris

Fabulous...simply fabulous to see Swoose out of her cell that she has been locked away in for so long! How cool would it have been if she and The Belle and Shoo Shoo were to have been photgraphed outside the NMUSAF on the ramp together??? Photo op of a lifetime never to happen now that Shoo Shoo is going to NASM. I see the point of the one fella here who stated that it is important for all of the WWII vets who visit NASM to be able to see a B-17 and reflect. At the same time, how many of those vets in their reflection may be offended by so many resources spent on restoring the Axis aircraft on display? And, if giving the veterans something wonderful to look at with reverential reflection is the key to wanting Shoo Shoo, then why not donate some of the Axis aircraft back to their countries of origin so that those respective veterans can have some final thoughts as well in their waning years? I did not know that someone else paid for the restoration of the Seiran or the other aircraft that was mentioned as well. Seeing the time and effort that is and has been spent on restoring the other Axis aircraft seems to me to be a bit of a slap in the face to the American servicemen and women who will visit NASM and not know that the Seiran was paid for by someone else.

Quite a quandry indeed.

Once again...I am NOT bashing NASM...I am questioning why they want to have their cake and eat it too insofar as wanting and now getting a combat veteran B-17 to display in the same general area as the Arado bomber, the Dornier (push-pull fighter?), the Zero and the FW-190 amongst others that are presented in such quality?

However the NMUSAF displays Swoose/Ol Betsy will not matter so much as she will now be able to be looked upon once again by an adoring crowd

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.

August before last I went to NASM Udvar Hazy on the 6th because of group of anti-nuke agitators that show up to protest the Enola Gay. While there I asked one of the Docents about the Seiran and the allegations that the Seiran force was about to be used in a radiologial attack on a US West Coast city.

He told me that at the time of the atomic bombings the two I-400 class subs were on their way to launch their Seirans in a suicide attack against the US carrier fleet at Ulithi.

Then he told me a related story. When the Seiran was being restored (and to reiterate, the restoration was paid for by the Tamiya model company, as the Do-335 was actually restored by Dornier) an older Japanese gentleman and his son showed up at Garber for one of the weekend tours. He was VERY interested in the Seiran, and identified himself as the CO of the Seiran squadron (apparently the collective jaws of the restoration staff and docents present dropped in unison).

He got to actually go sit in the plane ... and the NASM staff established an ongoing relationship with him. When Udvar-Hazy opened and the Seiran went on display he was invited back to see the aircraft in the museum. While there one of the museum staff asked him what he thought about the Seiran being displayed underneath the Enola Gay. He responded that when the atomic bombs were dropped he was on his way to die. According to what the Docent told me, he looked up at Enola Gay and said "That plane not only saved my life, it saved my country".

It seems to me (and remember, I am not affiliated with NASM in any official way, other than being a regular patron who likes to ask questions) that NASM restores aircraft based on the level of effort involved (aircraft capable of preservation/restoration to get onto display quickly taking priority), availability of funding and resources (Tamiya paying for the Seiran, Dornier doing the work on the Anteater ... could even talk about Boeing restoring the Dash 80 and 307), and a compelling interest in whether the aircraft fills a particular "hole" in the display collection or tells a compelling story. There's no way that they are going to meet everyone's wants (why, for instance put effort into some of the more recently preserved/restored for display aircraft like the P-61C, C-121 and F-105D instead of focusing all their effort on Flak Bait?), but I think they're doing a really good job of balancing all the various interests out there.

Totally agree!!! I can't even believe people would want to change her.

I have to say that I think she is going to stay as the Swoose, just a matter of what time frame. I want to see her as the Swoose, but as early in the swoose name as possible so that it still carries it's bath tub and such.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director