Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:32 pm
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.
Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:34 pm
Garth wrote:mustangdriver wrote:That can't happen when the G model Belle is being presented as the real deal. I saw it being done with my own two eyes.
How long ago was this? The last time I saw the G model Belle (this past May at the Andrews AFB/DoD Open House) her name on both sides of the nose read "The Movie Memphis Belle" (albeit with with "The Movie" bit in much smaller typeface).
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.
Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:54 pm
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
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
Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:52 am
Jerry O'Neill wrote:I'm tired of the argument.
Me too.
Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:10 am
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.
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.
Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:11 am
Ken wrote:Jerry O'Neill wrote:I'm tired of the argument.
Me too.
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.
Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:44 am
JDK wrote:Django wrote:mustangdriver wrote:retroaviation wrote:Get WIXer, Django, to do it!!!
That would be awesome if he would want to do it. I think he has done amazing work on the B-24.
Wow! I would be honored to even be considered by the Museum when they get to that point!
Why not send them a sample and a write up of how you'd do it if invited?
Can't hurt, and why they'll probably say no (I'm sure they'll have in house people) it would be a good exercise for you for the next time, next project and the portfolio.
And then there's the outside chance that they already like your work...
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.
Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:14 am
mustangdriver wrote:
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.
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
Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:34 am
Django wrote:JDK wrote:Django wrote:mustangdriver wrote:retroaviation wrote:Get WIXer, Django, to do it!!!
That would be awesome if he would want to do it. I think he has done amazing work on the B-24.
Wow! I would be honored to even be considered by the Museum when they get to that point!
Why not send them a sample and a write up of how you'd do it if invited?
Can't hurt, and why they'll probably say no (I'm sure they'll have in house people) it would be a good exercise for you for the next time, next project and the portfolio.
And then there's the outside chance that they already like your work...
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.
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.
Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:06 pm
mustangdriver wrote:Some high ranking people including museum staff that were not wearing anything that identified them with the museum were given a walk around by someone at the "movie belle" They were informed several times that it was indeed the real "Memphis Belle" I have also seen it done several times when it was at BVI(where I spent most of my time with it).
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
Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:25 pm
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.
Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:28 pm
mustangdriver wrote: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.
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
Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:37 pm
You guys have a great facility. Always have. In my book your museum is aces man.
Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:11 pm
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?
Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:30 am
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
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