b17 swamp ghost poll

earnie · **Joined:** Fri May 21, 2010 3:23 am **Posts:** 66

hi all
now that swamp ghost is FINALLY home back in the states

lets start a poll

#1) restore her to fly
#2) restore her to a static display and look like she did before she crashed
#3) restore her to look like she did in the swamp

any input on this idea
thanks

Editors Note: I made this into an actual poll, just to make it easier
- Scott

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:46 pm

#2 works for me.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:49 pm

Doesn't matter. The owners, who invested their money, blood, tears, and sweat have said they want to return it to flying. #1 it is.

Ryan

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:54 pm

Anyone know where S.G. is headed for now? Still Pima?

planenutti · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:54 pm

#1 She was meant to fly, return her to where she belongs

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:07 pm

FLY,
More will see her flying, than would see her in a museum.

A flying B-17 is a living, breathing, part of history, a static B-17 is a hunk of metal that is a B-17.

A example is something that I experianced today. I have seen alot of 30 40 Krag rifles, but they were in museums, I heard how nice the actions were, but never experianced it until I took my newest addition to the range and shot a Model 1896 Springfield 30 40 Krag. It ceased to be a museum piece and now is a living link to history.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

You know, I'm normally an advocate for restoring airplanes to flying condition most of the time, but Swamp Ghost is so rare and unique I think she ought to be "lightly restored" and conserved. She ought to be traded to the NMUSAF in exchange for one of the numerous B-17's they have on outside static display at Air Force Bases across the U.S. That would be a fitting tribute at Dayton - one early model, one mid model and one late model - all to tell the story of probably the most pivotal airplane in Air Corps/Air Force history.

#2 or #3 - I don't care. Just don't destroy her historical integrity by replacing 75% of the metal to get her airworthy.

This is one case where it wouldn't bother me if the out-of-control General Metcalf "repossessed" Swamp Ghost.

*Dang, did I just say that?* :shock:

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:19 pm

warbird1 wrote:

You know, I'm normally an advocate for restoring airplanes to flying condition most of the time, but Swamp Ghost is so rare and unique I think she ought to be "lightly restored" and conserved. She ought to be traded to the NMUSAF in exchange for one of the numerous B-17's they have on outside static display at Air Force Bases across the U.S. That would be a fitting tribute at Dayton - one early model, one mid model and one late model - all to tell the story of probably the most pivotal airplane in Air Corps/Air Force history.

#2 or #3 - I don't care. Just don't destroy her historical integrity by replacing 75% of the metal to get her airworthy.

This is one case where it wouldn't bother me if the out-of-control General Metcalf "repossessed" Swamp Ghost.

*Dang, did I just say that?* :shock:

I like the idea of it going to Dayton in exchange for one of the gate guards rotting away.

Pogmusic · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:51 pm

To restore her to flight would be to lose her true identity. I vote #2 at the most.

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:03 pm

1 All the way

Jarink1 · **Joined:** Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:21 pm **Posts:** 117

As much as I'd like to see #1, I think it really should be #2.

There are very few remaining B-17s that actually flew combat missions. When they are found, I think they need to be preserved intact as much as possible. That seems contrary to requirements for making her airworthy.

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:25 pm

I think a more interesting question would be- if the Black Cat Pass B-17 was also recovered and brought back to the states for restoration, and you had two Pacific theater combat veteran B-17E aircraft, would you change your answer? Especially for those who think that it is a rare aircraft worthy of static preservation- having two aircraft that participated in the same part of the same war, are essentially the same model and represent the same period of history, would that change your answer? Would it be worth the risk to leave one static and restore one to flight?

Just a question...

kevin

Mudge · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:41 pm

I'll make the final decision.

FLY IT

End of discussion.

Mudge the decisive :drink3:

Yeah...yeah...I know....INCOMING :hide:

Dave Lindauer · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:45 pm

I like the Air Force Museum trade suggestion, static restoring her with as much of her original structure and components as possible. Then have the museum trade another outdoor B-17G to the NASM to get Shoo Shoo Baby back. Then rename the museum the "Air Fortress Museum" because of their dream lineup:

B-17D The Swoose
B-17E Swamp Ghost
B-17F Memphis Belle
B-17G Shoo Shoo Baby

The other half of my split personality would love to see Swamp Ghost fly, but I'm afraid that too much of her would have to be replaced.

(Regardless of what happens to her, I hope that she doesn't end up with some glitzy out of character nose art.)

DaveM2 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:29 pm

Rebuilding it to fly would give you the best of both worlds- a replica airworthy 'Swamp Ghost' and with the actually airframe (in the main) headed for the skip-you could retrieve it all before the scrap man, reassemble it, and have the original static Swamp Ghost as well . WIN-WIN! :finga:

Warbird Information Exchange

b17 swamp ghost poll

Who is online