Warbird Information Exchange

Rich I couldn't disagree more, with all due respect. it is important to see the real deal, the items and aircraft that actually flew the missions. If it didn't matter than why is a combat veteran anything(plane, vehicle, gun) worth more than one that never saw action? it is important also because to honor the men you need to come and see the flack damage, and bullet hole patches that are in the real one. The one that led the group many times to bring the fight to the enemy. In my book there is a huge difference between one dressed up to look like the Belle, and then seeing the real deal.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

The Mustang Gathering event was in 2007. I have seen it done in the late 1990's as well. I just value actually seeing what I am told I am looking at.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Maybe Tallichet's volunteers were using the word "REEL" when talking about it being "The Reel Memphis Belle"?:wink:
I could see where the confusion would happen, but the description would, in fact, be accurate.

I agree with Richard, if it sparks someone's interest to learn more, then it has done some good regardless of the aircraft's name.

Also, the Movie B-17's history does include it being painted as the "Memphis Belle", hence that name will always be part of that aircraft's history, regardless of whether it's the "real" Belle.
This is similar to the B-25 at Grissom AFB. "Passionette Paulette" was it's movie name, not it's original name in service. I don't hear anybody complaining about that one.
I actually like the fact that "Paulette" honors part of that aircraft's history, and it was probably that B-25's involvement in the film that saved it, along with a bunch of others, from destruction.

I'm tired of the argument. Tallichet's "Belle" was painted as the "Belle" for part of it's life, so let them keep it that way if they want!
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

Me too.

For the record Grissom's B-25 no longer carries that name. it was repainted.

I am not sure how we can say on here that we are honoring the vets by having a fake B-17F pretend to be the Belle. If it was the other way around and the NMUSAF was saying that they have the real Belle and they did not, people here would be having a melt down. Although most of it would be for the simple fun of having something to bash the museum on. Which has been proven here time and time again that a reason doesn't have to be based in fact, just a good rumor will do.

I believe that is important to see the real deal. Which no one yet has addressed. I have worked on both aircraft. I can tell you that I get a feeling being near the real one that I never had working on the B-17G.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I am too, but I am also tired of the NMUSAF being painted as the bad guy, when I just don't feel that it is right.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I might have to give that a try. I'd need some really really good pics of the original nose art. Can't hurt, right? Chris, think we would even stand a chance?

The movie Belle IS the real Memphis Belle... from the movie. Taken in that context, they are correct. Wouldn't that be more noteworthy for a civilian ("Wow, this is THE plane from the movie!"), until they start to ask more questions and learn the real truth? Just a thought.

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

I totally agree with you.
I don't like to see general bashing of the museum. It's an easy target. They were in the collecting business long before most other museum's were even thought of, and doing the best they could with what they had.

If I had a nickel for every museum out there that has a "perfect record", I'd have no nickels!

Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

I think we stand an excellent chance based upon a conversation I had two days ago in the shop. I will shoot you a PM with contact info.

As for the D.T. Belle, I have no problem with them saying that this is the airplane from the movie, I just have issues when people are told that it was the combat aircraft.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I heard about this, all of us here at the museum did, and everyone finds it hard to believe. We have always been honest about what our Belle's history is, we make sure the first thing we tell people is that it was in the movie. Besides, it's hard to miss now with the "tramp stamp" on it that says "The Movie" Memphis Belle. In my opinion, if the USAF museum has such a problem with warbirds flying the way they are meant to be seen, why don't they man up and do it themselves? Again, just my opinion

Judging by your ID I am going to guess you live in New York. No one has a problem with the museum at all, but it did happen, and it has happened alot in the past. I was there and would try and set people straight all the time back in the 1990's. The museum has NO issues with the aircraft flying, and before this event didn't care how it was painted. I think if some one else painted their B-17 like the movie Belle and claimed that is was the movie Belle, you would have an issue with it as well.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Haha, yeah I know what you're saying, at the museum it's just hard because we get criticism from all sides. We are just fortunate to have a flying B-17 in my book, doesn't matter what it looks like

You guys have a great facility. Always have. In my book your museum is aces man.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

The Tallichet Belle seems to catch a lot of heat for the scheme shes wearing, but isn't every B-17 flying today masquerading as something they're not?

I think the resaon the Movie Belle takes a lot of (figurative) flak is because the original Belle still exists. The other flying B-17s are either painted in semi-fictitious markings, or the markings of wartime Forts that are long-gone.

I have no problem with a B-17 flying around in the Belle's markings as a tribute, as long as it's made clear that she isn't the original. After all, there are a bunch of P-51s on the airshow circuit in various aces' markings, and no one seems to mind.

SN