Current status of Swamp Ghost???

[Chris Brame]

Hey, I don't mind if a cargo cult builds the replica as long as we get the real thing!

(OK, just kidding, but actually a cargo cult replica might be a neat display, albeit maybe embarassing to them nowadays)

[Pat Carry]

If and when Swamp Ghost does come back to the US, do we know exactly what its destination will be?

[hang the expense]

YES!

[daveymac82c]

I guess now that things are looking positive about having Swamp Ghost leaving PNG, I thought about its restoration.

Is she going to be a flyer?

And, regardless of whether it is a flyer or not, I have thought about what she'll be painted up like.

In all honesty, I really hope that they paint her up exactly the way she looked when she went into the swamp. And to be truthful I really don't want to see "SWAMP GHOST" painted on the nose or anywhere else on her. The name swamp ghost has nothing to do with it's WWII service, but only what happened after she made her emergency landing. I just think that putting the "Swamp Ghost" name on the side of her nose would be tacky.

I'd prefer people to look at the airplane at an airshow, or in a museum and say, "look at that airplane, that is 41-2446, It crashed into a swamp in Papua New Guinea and gained the nickname swamp ghost."

Well, that's just my opinion. I really like having airplanes painted as they were.... and not all jazzed up. Uh oh.... I think I'm turning into a detail nerd.

Peace,

David

[Lightning]

The question we should be asking is will 'hang the expense' (Tom) be working on this project ?

Lightning

[mustangdriver]

I'm torn as to whether I'd like to see this aircraft be static or a flyer.

[kalamazookid]

I'm torn as to whether I'd like to see this aircraft be static or a flyer.

I'm just happy we can now debate whether it should be static or a flyer. Congratulations to all involved for working everything out so Swamp Ghost can come to the US. For a long time, recovery of this aircraft was nothing more than a pipe dream, and I salute those who worked to realize the dream of recovering Swamp Ghost.

As for how it should be preserved, I think it should be restored to the highest quality it can be while conserving its original materials. IMO, the significance of this aircraft is it's history and keeping that in mind, conserving the most original material would be the best way to tell the story of it. If it can be made airworthy using this sort of mentality that would be great, but if not I think it would still make an incredible historic display and one I would be more than willing to travel to see. I just think it would be a shame to see so much originality discarded to achieve a particular type of display.

[Pat Carry]

I'm torn as to whether I'd like to see this aircraft be static or a flyer.

My 2 cents worth, static at the NMUSAF. Think of it, nothing but B-17 combat veterans at the museum.

[Steve Nelson]

Which brings to mind another question. While the basic airframe appears intact, how thoroughly was she stripped of internal fittings by souvenier hunters over the years? Whoever ends up restoring her, their biggest challenge may be finding all the missing parts to make her a complete aircraft.

Like everyone else here, I'm just thrilled she's coming home!

SN

[mustangdriver]

Yeah I wouldn't mind it if ended up static, as there are other E's on the way that will fly, and only one other E for static. It would be sweet to see the NMUSAF restore it and have a B-17 lovers dream. Think of it:
B-17D "Swoose"
B-17E "Swamp Ghost"
B-17F "Memphis Belle"
B-17G "Shoo Shoo Baby"

It would be cool , but I think that Swamp Ghost is bound for somewhere else. I just hope that they give the preservation first priority over whether it needs to be airworthy or not.

[Pogmusic]

Isn't Shoo Shoo Baby headed for the NASM?

[mustangdriver]

I have heard that the B-17G that is going to the NASM may or may not be Shoo Shoo baby. Just because it was in print a few places doesn't mean it is set in stone. Some consideration was given to bringing in one of the b-17's on ot door static display to the NASM. I am all for that route. I would love to see the Tulare B-17 go there or even the F model on outdoor display. I just love Shoo Shoo Baby, and hate to see it go. I just would love to see the Belle Swoose and SSB together

[Second Air Force]

Which brings to mind another question. While the basic airframe appears intact, how thoroughly was she stripped of internal fittings by souvenier hunters over the years? Whoever ends up restoring her, their biggest challenge may be finding all the missing parts to make her a complete aircraft.

Like everyone else here, I'm just thrilled she's coming home!

SN

From the photos I've seen over the years, most everything above the waterline that could be removed has been. I don't know what remains in the bottom portion, but I'd suppose a lot of those bits have gone missing also. Thankfully the ventral turret is still there!

Though I would LOVE to be wrong, I'd bet that restoring the airplane to airworthy without replacing much of the wing primary and secondary structure would be questionable. Those spar and carry-through tubes, sitting in that swampy environment for all those years, are most likely full of silt and probably corrosion.

Scott

[Jesse C.]

From the photos that have been posted over the years, it seems that the interior has been pretty well ransacked. Most, if not all, of the cockpit has been stripped, the guns are gone, wiring torn out and such.

It would nice if some of those souvenir hunters would return the stuff back or at least let them borrow the stuff to make copies. But, we can only hope.

[Django]

It would nice if some of those souvenir hunters would return the stuff back or at least let them borrow the stuff to make copies. But, we can only hope.

We have a comedian in our midst!

Why should the NMUSAF get it? They have plenty of their own aircraft. And why would a private collector go to all the trouble to get Swamp Ghost, and let it go to the NMUSAF?

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but this is the 2nd oldest B-17 in existence, right? Or is that incorrect?