Warbird Information Exchange

Why would the owner want to do that?

Too well preserved? There are holes corroded in the wings and the entire bottom of the fuselage has been ripped out. One of the horizontal stabilizers is nearly ripped off, the nosecase fizzed away and the prop fell off and is still at the bottom of the lake.

So what do you recommend- displaying it flipped upside down in the mud as it was found on the bottom of the lake? Sitting on the gear wouldn't have any context in a conserved/unrestored condition.

The paint and markings are well preserved enough to duplicate, but I'm not sure how good it would look after a simple cleaning. Just that act alone would likely cause much of the paint (and especially any stickers or decals) to peel off. The airplane also has a strong smell about it of a rotting mackerel. How would visitors to the NASM feel about that?

did the nose case of the engine "fizzle" away or was it ripped off when the prop departed the airplane?

I say restore it and fly it if possible, i doubt the advance of corrosion can be stopped at this point without a complete disassembly, cleaning and replacement of much metal. Or we could just leave it and have a nice pile of dust in 75 years.

Corroded, the propeller is still at the bottom of the lake sitting right where the airplane was for sixty years, the prop now has 64 years.

PS, it needs to fly, it would be a shame to put it on static display. An airplane with that history can teach, look at Glacier Girl.

Good point, like I said put zerba stripes on it, and race it at reno!

If we used that scenario, then the Confederate submarine Hunley would be a total loss. I'd like to see this one a static...

_________________
"Everyone wants to live here (New Jersey), evidenced by the fact that it has the highest population per capita in the U.S..."

Yeah, it's not like there are enough Thunderbolts on static display. This one has too much to say to leave behind a hangar door. Make it fly, it's good enough, and you can use a lot of what is already there.

Besides, the Hunley was in salt water, if you could make it float, wouldn't you?

I don't want to change the subject, but...

Not for love or money, even if it was in "as new" condition. It killed every man who ever crewed her.

Open to the interior ballast tanks, awkward keel release, non-operational snorkel and hard to open hatches come quickly to mind.

It was the first to do what it was designed to do, but the concept and technology had a ways to go.

Apples and oranges. If the Hunley technology was as refined as the Thunderbolt, you probably would be singing a different tune, the point is; People all over the world have enjoyed and learned from watching rare aircraft in action. This airplane has a history to tell that can't be told from the ground.

PS, I think it could take the gold with a few modifications!

Couldn't have said it better, well maybe I could have but it would probably require insulting someone .... just kidding. But I also really like the idea of swapping T-bolts with a static example in a museum. I could see that being done.

Well heck, you are the one who compared them.

It was used as an example of preservation process before.

As for the P-47, its not my choice. Who ever owns it gets to make that choice.

Then it wouldn't be the Dottie Mae and it couldn't tell the story. It would be another post war airplane that never saw action. The 909 and the Memphis Belle (Tallichet's) pay respect to those airplanes, but they do not have the character of the aircraft they represent.

After a couple beers, insults are hard to tell from compliments!

Actually, APG85, started the Hunley comparison. I merely would like to make the case for making it fly. And, I would not argue that Jack Crouls gets to make the choices with it.

Can we start Sub races? A little Nitrous and the Hunley could win!