B-17 Flying Fortress/44-83735 ~ the Duxford resto thread

sgt hawk · **Posted:** Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:12 pm

bomberflight-I think they should loose the chin and make it look like an "E", OD on the upper and grey on the bottom with a white square with a black "D" on the tail and right upper wing, with a BS-LD squadron code painted yellow and paint (also in yellow) "Rosie's Riveters" on the nose. An aircraft with Captain Robert Rosenthal as pilot and Harry Crosby as navigator would be the most historical representation anyone would ever want to see.

B-17 guy · **Joined:** Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:43 pm **Posts:** 153

I dont know ho I've missed this thread but I've just spent the last 2 hours going from post number 1 to here. I love this thread! All the details are a modelers dream, I've been waiting for along time to find something like this, thank you, thank you for your time in doing this, it is much appreciated!

I do have a few pic requests though. Seeing as how the engines are off and at eye level with no props, can you please take a series of pics of the front of the engine. Then around the wiring harness and lower part of the engine front. I really really need pics of the prop governors on the upper part of the engine front, especially multiple views (front, left and right sides). I've got 24 1/48 monogram B-17G engines on my bench right now that I'm trying to add the prop governors to as well the ring parts of the wiring harness for the spark plugs. This is the best opportunity to get good pics of these areas I've ever come across! Maybe the landing light also?

Alot of the pics you have on here are very helpful to modelers because you have angles that are next to impossible to get just by going to an airshow. The overhead shots you took show the blue lights on the tail fin above the waist area. The close up of the little white light on the vertical fin before it was stripped of paint, great pic. I again thank you for taking the time to post all these pics for the rest of us to see. The vast majority of us would not be able to see these things happen.

Inspector....Unless you've heard something differant, I thought the 1/32nd B-17G kit was all but dead and wasnt going to be produced because of tooling problems. Plus, if it does get produced, the backwards props and alot of other problems have been corrected from what I've read. And alot of those issues were limited to the one test model that was shown in the initial set of pics that was out.

One last thing, I was also one of the folks saying "they'll never get her out through those doors".
I now humbley return to my corner and wait for more pics. :drink3:

bomberflight · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:19 pm

B-17 guy ~ I'll see what I can do picture wise for you over the next week !

Stay tuned :wink:

The Inspector · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:20 pm

B-17Guy;
I have no info, I'm still P.O.ed that 21st Century went out of business. I reallly wanted to spend my retired years building and detailing the proposed B-25 kit they were going to make. But in these days of $100.00 1/48th kits of airplanes that have been done to death, I'm not hopeful.
In the end, it's probably due to not enough pattern maker trained political prisoners where the molds are made.

B-17 guy · **Joined:** Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:43 pm **Posts:** 153

bomberflight wrote:

B-17 guy ~ I'll see what I can do picture wise for you over the next week !

Stay tuned :wink:

Thank you sir! I'll be tuned in!

RAMC181 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:21 pm

B-17 guy wrote:

Thank you sir! I'll be tuned in!

I've left you a present in the Reference section of the B-17 Group Build.

All the best,
PB

B-17 guy · **Joined:** Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:43 pm **Posts:** 153

Thank you sir, please see afformentioned thread.

Also, PM inbound good sir.

RAMC181 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:31 pm

No problem mate.

bomberflight · **Posted:** Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:27 am

And now for a look at some 1/1 scale modelling

This is part of the "kit". I don't think it came in a box .....

Some assembly is needed

but no adhesive is required

In fact ~ even without an instruction sheet ~ the experienced 1/1 scale modeler should have few problems putting it together

The construction of these frames will be completed next week and the inner wing sections will then moved from the
American Air Museum across to the Conservation Hangar

More coming soon ! :wink:

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:33 am

Love the 'Arkansas Speed Socket' so prominent in the first photo :lol:

B17news · **Posted:** Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:07 pm

I might have missed it, but why again was this not ever considered a candidate for an airworthy restoration?

Keep up the excellent posts!

RAMC181 · **Posted:** Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:16 am

Good to see you at DX on Friday Peter, and all the others too.

Here's some quick snaps for the B-17 detail fans:

AS-26 Antenna mounting location for the AN/APR-2 RCM receiver set, just aft of the nose hatch.

More stencilling beside the aft RDF fixed antenna mast:

Drift Meter port.
Does anyone know what the small bracket/loop on the left is for? There is a matching one on the other side of the nose.
Retaining points for a canvas cover for the nose perhaps?

All the best,
PB

bomberflight · **Posted:** Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:35 am

Time for a few words about working in the Conservation Hangar .....

All the chemicals used for cleaning, treating corrosion, aircraft protection, etc are carefully chosen by the qualified professionals ~
to allow safe use by volunteers. So the are safe to use by people like me !

They are also chosen to allow the hangar to remain open to the public so they can view the restoration work from the walkway that runs through the middle of
the building. The primary purpose of the Imperial War Museum is to educate ~ and what better way than see conservation in action !

While stronger chemicals are available and could be used to do some of the tasks much quicker ~ they would not be suitable for use by people without the
relevant level of training / experience and it would need the hangar to be closed to the public. :wink:

And the question about why isn't the B-17 being restored to fly .....

The IWM's aim is to preserve artifacts ( in this case it's a B-17 ) in as close to original condition as possible. An airworthy restoration of say the flight deck
would require compromises in authenticity in terms of modern instruments, navigation equipment, radios etc, etc. Which would mean taking out some of
the WW2 equipment sourced during the original restoration !

We have to get into the mid set of thinking of this airframe as an artifact and not a warbird. :wink:

Stay tuned ~ the next picture post will be coming soon

rwdfresno · **Posted:** Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:09 am

bomberflight wrote:

And the question about why isn't the B-17 being restored to fly .....

The IWM's aim is to preserve artifacts ( in this case it's a B-17 ) in as close to original condition as possible. An airworthy restoration of say the flight deck
would require compromises in authenticity in terms of modern instruments, navigation equipment, radios etc, etc. Which would mean taking out some of
the WW2 equipment sourced during the original restoration !

We have to get into the mid set of thinking of this airframe as an artifact and not a warbird. :wink:

Peter, again thank you for posting and keeping us up to date on this process. I would like to respectfully disagree though with the premise that a lot of compromises have to be made that sacrifice authenticity in a flying aircraft. I think the many flying FHC examples support the fact that you can have it both ways. I think it is fine for a museum to just say that it isn't their mission to have flying aircraft. There are plenty of good reasons for having static museums including costs and risks associated with flying aircraft (real or assumed). I just don't think authenticity is is one of those reasons. Anyway, I'm glad it has a good home under cover and folks that care enough to re-restore her.

Ryan

Tiger Tim · **Posted:** Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:38 pm

rwdfresno wrote:

I would like to respectfully disagree though with the premise that a lot of compromises have to be made that sacrifice authenticity in a flying aircraft. I think the many flying FHC examples support the fact that you can have it both ways.

Sorry about the thread drift but are there many vintage airplanes out there with only equipment that would have been installed at the factory? I have always just assumed you make those little modifications (and try to make them as invisible as possible) to ensure your now non-original airplane goes on flying as long as possible, or go 100% original and just park the thing. This isn't necessary in every case, I would tend to think the simpler the airplane the more easily you can keep it 100% period correct and airworthy but take a look at what's been done to Fifi vs. every other museum B-29 out there to see what I'm talking about.

Like I said, I have no idea of exactly what's out there but I bet even the FHC has had to make some concessions.

-Tim

P.S. Bomberflight, this thread is AWESOME. I have recommended it to anyone I know who has even as passing interest in warbirds. Threads like this are what makes the WIX so great in my eyes.

Warbird Information Exchange

B-17 Flying Fortress/44-83735 ~ the Duxford resto thread

Who is online