Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:21 pm
Mustangdriver,
I am confident that you do know more about what is going on at NMUSAF than I do, but the scenario you laid out sure sounds like a lot of unnecessary work. Why would it make sense, if NASM wants a B-17G and already has a B-17G, for NASM to send their B-17G somewhere else and have another B-17 G (like the Tulare one) shipped in? Unless I'm wrong, the Tulare one doesn't have any special combat history just like the one that NASM already has. Why wouldn't it make more sense for NASM to just keep the one that they've got and for NMUSAF to just send the Tulare one to Savannah? Seems that would be a much more efficient use of our tax dollars. The other thing about SSSB is that NASM has a long history of preferring combat history aircraft and not just type examples. If NASM is going to restore a B-17 (which would definitely have to happen either to the one that they've got or to the Tulare one) why would they send the combat veteran Swoose to NMUSAF only to get a non-combat vet from Tulare that they have to restore or to start restoring their non-combat vet B-17G? At that point, why not just keep the Swoose and dispose of the extra B-17G? I don't know much, but those seem to be fairly simple logic questions that aren't answered by the scenario you laid out or by NASM's actions to this point.
That said, I'm thrilled that the Swoose has emerged from hibernation and will finally get the treatment that she deserves and that NMUSAF will be able to properly restore and display her. That, in my mind, is a huge victory for warbird lovers and a great accomplishment for NMUSAF. Truly a proper way to acquire, restore and static-display a historic aircraft.
kevin
I am confident that you do know more about what is going on at NMUSAF than I do, but the scenario you laid out sure sounds like a lot of unnecessary work. Why would it make sense, if NASM wants a B-17G and already has a B-17G, for NASM to send their B-17G somewhere else and have another B-17 G (like the Tulare one) shipped in? Unless I'm wrong, the Tulare one doesn't have any special combat history just like the one that NASM already has. Why wouldn't it make more sense for NASM to just keep the one that they've got and for NMUSAF to just send the Tulare one to Savannah? Seems that would be a much more efficient use of our tax dollars. The other thing about SSSB is that NASM has a long history of preferring combat history aircraft and not just type examples. If NASM is going to restore a B-17 (which would definitely have to happen either to the one that they've got or to the Tulare one) why would they send the combat veteran Swoose to NMUSAF only to get a non-combat vet from Tulare that they have to restore or to start restoring their non-combat vet B-17G? At that point, why not just keep the Swoose and dispose of the extra B-17G? I don't know much, but those seem to be fairly simple logic questions that aren't answered by the scenario you laid out or by NASM's actions to this point.
That said, I'm thrilled that the Swoose has emerged from hibernation and will finally get the treatment that she deserves and that NMUSAF will be able to properly restore and display her. That, in my mind, is a huge victory for warbird lovers and a great accomplishment for NMUSAF. Truly a proper way to acquire, restore and static-display a historic aircraft.
kevin
Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:04 pm
Agree with you, Kevin. It would seem absurd for the NASM to give up one non-historic Fort for another, especially since no Fort in existence is restored to NASM standards. If they give up this one you would think they expect to get either Shoo Shoo or the Swoose back. Let's keep an eye on their requisition sheets; if they order a large quantity of paint remover we'll know it is Shoo Shoo. 
As for the departing B-17G, it has been my assumption from the outset, notwithstanding the worry warts, that the NASM would not loan it for outdoor display. They would not move a plane from shelter to the cold.
August
As for the departing B-17G, it has been my assumption from the outset, notwithstanding the worry warts, that the NASM would not loan it for outdoor display. They would not move a plane from shelter to the cold.
August
Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:10 pm
Believe it or not guys, I know exactly which 8th AF museums we are discussing ! If the Savannah museum is the headquarters for the Barksdale museum ( I don't think it is ) then they need to get the aircraft there in shape prior to taking additional aircraft.
Robbie, I have driven by the Savannah museum but have been unable to stop. Limiting factor on putting a B-17 indoors is the 104 ft wingspan and 20 ft heigth. Only a few existing buildings will handle those dimension, not to mention the ability to remove a wall to get it in. The display aircraft will be effectively entombed in the existing building if that is the plan.
Mustangdriver, once again you miss my point. OK there are B-17s owned by private entities that don't currently fly. The point is that if the reason they don't fly are local circumstances or money issues, those things can be resolved should the owner decide that they want to fly. As we've all discussed, any aircraft, owned, by whatever govt entity will NOT fly, even if the museum staff wanted to. Why not go the other way for a change ? What a refreshing difference that would be ! After all, whose fault is it that we have so few of anything in the first place ? Hmmmm ?
Robbie, I have driven by the Savannah museum but have been unable to stop. Limiting factor on putting a B-17 indoors is the 104 ft wingspan and 20 ft heigth. Only a few existing buildings will handle those dimension, not to mention the ability to remove a wall to get it in. The display aircraft will be effectively entombed in the existing building if that is the plan.
Mustangdriver, once again you miss my point. OK there are B-17s owned by private entities that don't currently fly. The point is that if the reason they don't fly are local circumstances or money issues, those things can be resolved should the owner decide that they want to fly. As we've all discussed, any aircraft, owned, by whatever govt entity will NOT fly, even if the museum staff wanted to. Why not go the other way for a change ? What a refreshing difference that would be ! After all, whose fault is it that we have so few of anything in the first place ? Hmmmm ?
Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:29 pm
It's all of our fault. Anyone that was alive back then that did not try to save a warbird. The government was willing to sell them, but no one wanted them. So let's not try to rewrite history. Also, the G model at NASM is a fire bomber. It has not in any where near military condition. The ones I named elsewhere, although would require work, have at least bare bones military look to start with.
Rick H you missed my point. Just because it goes to a private owner, or flying museum, does not mean that we are going to see it flown, or seen at all for that matter. B-17E cough cough.
Rick H you missed my point. Just because it goes to a private owner, or flying museum, does not mean that we are going to see it flown, or seen at all for that matter. B-17E cough cough.
Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:16 pm
mustangdriver wrote:... Shoo Shoo Baby staying where it is, and NASM B-17 is going to the 8th and being placed indoors during and after restoration. There has been no verbage what so ever of Shoo SHoo baby going anywhere from Dayton ...
That's awesome - but was it not said in previous threads on how SSSB was not only going to Hazy, it was discussed on how it was being trucked vs. flown? I'm baffled by your statement.
Don't get me wrong - I want to see Swoose, Belle, and SSSB stay together in Dayton. And, as much as I respect the efforts at Barksdale, barring the contruction of an indoor museum, the airplanes (B-17 & B-24) at Barksdale should be placed indoors somewhere - and Hazy would be top of the list.
So, assuming Chris is right, things may turn out okay in the end.
Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:10 pm
Ken wrote:Don't get me wrong - I want to see Swoose, Belle, and SSSB stay together in Dayton.
Well, I don't. Not if it means there will be no combat vet B-17 at Hazy. And I don't see a lot of other candidates.
August
Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:05 pm
I'll probably get flamed for this, but I'd like to see at least one Fort air tanker preserved as-is. Firefighting is a significant part of the B-17s history.
SN
SN
Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:11 pm
NASM has passed on to NMUSAF the Avrocar, XP-75 and Swoose in just the last year. Surely that should count as a good trade for SSSB.
Kevin
Kevin
Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:08 pm
NASM has passed on to NMUSAF the Avrocar, XP-75 and Swoose in just the last year
Isn't the XP-75 the Fisher Eagle? If so, that has been at the museum since the 1980's over in the restoration hangar.
Isn't the XP-75 the Fisher Eagle? If so, that has been at the museum since the 1980's over in the restoration hangar.
Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:11 pm
wacoykc wrote:Isn't the XP-75 the Fisher Eagle? If so, that has been at the museum since the 1980's over in the restoration hangar.
And it's the kind of aircraft you should get a refund for.
Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:38 pm
the Dora is also on loan from the NASM
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:38 pm
IMHO, the NASM displays two kinds of airplanes, 1st, one-of-a-kind machines due to an event or record and 2nd, representative machines like the P-51D, Concorde or DC-3. I realize you can nit-pick this point and that it can't be accurately summed up in a brief post here, however, I don't see where the charter of Hazy dictates that its B-17 need be a combat vet.
SSSB was returned to the USAF, restored by the USAF, and is where she is today because of the USAF. It's my personal opinion that Hazy would be equally well-served by restoring an airframe (like the Barksdale B-17) and displaying it proudly. The average visitor goes to the NASM to see aviation history ... while the average NMUSAF visitor is more interested in Army/Air Force military history - my feeling is that SSSB's significance is better appreciated in Dayton. Not to stir the flames, but I hope that Flak Bait also makes her way to Dayton eventually.
One man's opinion - and you can disagree. And if SSSB ends up at Hazy I won't lose sleep - it just wouldn't be the result I would have chosen.
Ken
SSSB was returned to the USAF, restored by the USAF, and is where she is today because of the USAF. It's my personal opinion that Hazy would be equally well-served by restoring an airframe (like the Barksdale B-17) and displaying it proudly. The average visitor goes to the NASM to see aviation history ... while the average NMUSAF visitor is more interested in Army/Air Force military history - my feeling is that SSSB's significance is better appreciated in Dayton. Not to stir the flames, but I hope that Flak Bait also makes her way to Dayton eventually.
One man's opinion - and you can disagree. And if SSSB ends up at Hazy I won't lose sleep - it just wouldn't be the result I would have chosen.
Ken
Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:43 pm
Ken wrote:IMHO, the NASM displays two kinds of airplanes, 1st, one-of-a-kind machines due to an event or record and 2nd, representative machines like the P-51D, Concorde or DC-3. I realize you can nit-pick this point and that it can't be accurately summed up in a brief post here, however, I don't see where the charter of Hazy dictates that its B-17 need be a combat vet.
It's a hierarchy - the most preferred it 'the' historic machine - Wright Flyer, Spirit of St Louis. Next down the list is an aircraft with 'a' history; combat veteran. If that's not available, then a representative example is better than nothing at all. So a 'combat vet' B-17 is going to be preferred to a less historic machine. Pretty standard national collection practice, really.
Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:24 pm
I haven't kept up with the current rumors, but could the true destination of the Swamp Ghost be the NASM? Not many other combat vet B-17s and if the NMUSAF keeps SSSB it would be an option.
Tim
Tim
Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:33 pm
Ken wrote:mustangdriver wrote:... Shoo Shoo Baby staying where it is, and NASM B-17 is going to the 8th and being placed indoors during and after restoration. There has been no verbage what so ever of Shoo SHoo baby going anywhere from Dayton ...
That's awesome - but was it not said in previous threads on how SSSB was not only going to Hazy, it was discussed on how it was being trucked vs. flown? I'm baffled by your statement.
Don't get me wrong - I want to see Swoose, Belle, and SSSB stay together in Dayton. And, as much as I respect the efforts at Barksdale, barring the contruction of an indoor museum, the airplanes (B-17 & B-24) at Barksdale should be placed indoors somewhere - and Hazy would be top of the list.
So, assuming Chris is right, things may turn out okay in the end.
Everything that is being talked about right now are all rumors, even what I know, is still rumors at this point, but I did hear that there is some wanting in keeping the SSB in Dayton with the other two. They are all representative of much different time periods in the war. I don't know the deal worked out, but I haven;t heard that SSB is going anywhere yet, from anyone I consider a in the know person. I guess we will all just have to wait and see. I would love to see them all together, but if SSB does go to UH, it will be cared for very well.
Also to answer n5151's question, no, it will be trucked.