Paul Allen B17 For Sale

[Firebird]

I was under the impression that Paul Allens' family had decided to dispose of the entire collection, has this changed?

Unlikely.

They (or rather the sister) won't be silly enough to dump the whole lot onto the market in one go. Likely drip feed the entire collection of aircraft and armour onto the market gradually over the coming years.

[JohnB]

Who wants to see the B-17E stay in storage for another 50 years?

This is a debatable question. There have been airframes that have sat in long term storage, only to come out and be needlessly destroyed soon after.

That's a bit like saying "We better not have a child, he/she might die".

And is there a point in preserving an airframe (unseen and untouched by "us") for say, 300 years so in 2341 some kid named James T. Kirk can fly it?
And then, after being safe for all those years, he might wreck it.
In that case we ought to keep It locked up for 500 years!
And so it goes.

[EW439]

I talked with a high ranking CAF member that told me he heard that they don't seem to be selling anything from the primary collection. They do have a secondary collection and lots of aircraft in storage. Some of those seem to be for sale. I think it's okay for a collection to make adjustments from time to time. Who wants to see the B-17E stay in storage for another 50 years?

High ranking? Isn't everyone in the CAF a Col. ?

[JohnB]

Has anyone made a shortlist of warbird owners or organizations who have the money and capability to finish the project?

Perhaps, CAF, EAA, Yagen..and others of that ilk.

I would imagine it would be a very short list.

Then there would be a list of groups that under different circumstances, could buy it but can't or won't at this time due to restoration backlogs or other issues...Weeks, Collings.

Finally, is there any chance of a new dedicated group like the team that rebuilt Doc?
It would be nice to see a Seattle-area group buy and operate the B-17.

[menards]

Who wants to see the B-17E stay in storage for another 50 years?

This is a debatable question. There have been airframes that have sat in long term storage, only to come out and be needlessly destroyed soon after.

That's a bit like saying "We better not have a child, he/she might die".

And is there a point in preserving an airframe (unseen and untouched by "us") for say, 300 years so in 2341 some kid named James T. Kirk can fly it?
And then, after being safe for all those years, he might wreck it.
In that case we ought to keep It locked up for 500 years!
And so it goes.

Nah, you're way off with your analogy. If you choose to have a kid, that kid WILL die. Death is a guarantee.

As to your other points. The longer something preserved, the more of a tragedy it is when it is needlessly destroyed. Do you see anyone walking around wearing King Tuts jewels for a personal fashion statement? No, you don't.

[JohnB]

Nah, you're way off with your analogy. If you choose to have a kid, that kid WILL die. Death is a guarantee.

Good to see you got my joke.
Still, would be parents could put off having a child or the fear the child would predecease them.
It might happen or it might not.
So we are left with the dilemma of not restoring a potential flyer because it might crash.
Guess what, the hangar might burn down, Seattle might get destroyed in a tsunami, or rioters might burn it for some sort of political statement.

[JohnB]

Nah, you're way off with your analogy. If you choose to have a kid, that kid WILL die. Death is a guarantee.

Good to see you got my joke.
Still, would-be parents could put off having a child or the fear the child would predecease them.
It might happen or it might not.
Are we not going to do anything because of various fears?
Better sell the cars and get a job working from a very secure home. And don't go near people, I hear there is a nasty virus going around!

So we are left with the dilemma of not restoring a potential flyer because it might crash.
Guess what, the hangar might burn down, Seattle might get destroyed in a tsunami, or rioters might burn it for some sort of political statement against the military or carbon fuels. :)

And your comment about King Tut's jewels is interesting but missed the point.
Of course they won't let someone wear them for fear of loss...but they very wellcould have been lost in shipment (plane crash, boat sink) during one of their international exhibitions.
So the Egyptian government thought the risk was warranted.
After all, a historic treasure that is not seen or enjoyed by people isn't doing anyone much good.
Whether they be ancient artifacts or a 1941 bomber.

[menards]

Nah, you're way off with your analogy. If you choose to have a kid, that kid WILL die. Death is a guarantee.

Good to see you got my joke.
Still, would-be parents could put off having a child or the fear the child would predecease them.
It might happen or it might not.
Are we not going to do anything because of various fears?
Better sell the cars and get a job working from a very secure home. And don't go near people, I hear there is a nasty virus going around!

So we are left with the dilemma of not restoring a potential flyer because it might crash.
Guess what, the hangar might burn down, Seattle might get destroyed in a tsunami, or rioters might burn it for some sort of political statement against the military or carbon fuels.

And your comment about King Tut's jewels is interesting but missed the point.
Of course they won't let someone wear them for fear of loss...but they very wellcould have been lost in shipment (plane crash, boat sink) during one of their international exhibitions.
So the Egyptian government thought the risk was warranted.
After all, a historic treasure that is not seen or enjoyed by people isn't doing anyone much good.
Whether they be ancient artifacts or a 1941 bomber.

Your parenting analogy is still off even after you changed the parameters. Choosing to *not* have kids because of a fear that said kid may predecease you still doesn't follow. The people that choose that will never know what wasn't created. So there is no "loss".

If you want your parenting analogy to work, I'll help you out. Remember "preservation" is the operative word. You would be comparing the parents who say their child can not play youth football because Will Smith made a movie about concussions, and they don't want their child to get brain damage, or they cant play little league because that one kid from NJ took a line drive to the chest and was killed a while ago. The inverse of these parents are for sake of example, the parents of a child who races motocross, and their 7 year old is jumping the 65cc dirtbike over 30 ft gaps. You have two sets of parents with two different views on how to raise a child. They will argue, wont see eye to eye on many of the issues, but neither of them are "right" and neither are "wrong". Remember, my original point was "its a debate"

Skipping over your off topic remarks about cars and viruses that are also off, You make one valid observation, "the dilema (or debate) of not restoring a potential flyer (to flight status) out of fear it may get destroyed in a crash (from flight operations)."
This is the point yes. Guess what, there are many many many more airframes being preserved in storage than there are being restored to airworthy condition. Preservation is the name of the game. yes there is risk of a hangar fire, or other natural disaster that MAY destroy an airframe, but the risk of this happening is LOW compared to flight ops (talk to an insurance guy on this point)

Finishing up on king Tuts jewels, you dont know much about historic artifacts. When there is a shipment to international events, copies are shipped. not the originals. Most of the items on display in many museums are fakes, with the originals preserved in storage. Hard to do with a Bomber. That said, when the Boeing Bee was restored to airworthy condition by Boeing and went to the MOF, the Richardson Family had to approve ALL flights the Museum wanted to do. Preservation.

All that said, If some Bitcoin Billionaire coughs up the appropriate amount of crypto to purchase the airframe, gets it to fly and subsequently augers in, it was their $ to spend and that's what they chose to do.

[Tony C]

I was under the impression that Paul Allens' family had decided to dispose of the entire collection, has this changed?

Unlikely.

They (or rather the sister) won't be silly enough to dump the whole lot onto the market in one go. Likely drip feed the entire collection of aircraft and armour onto the market gradually over the coming years.

Thanks for the reply, sort of understand that philosophy as it will provide a greater income, it's still disappointing that the collection will be broken up and possibly the '262 and the '87 will not be finished anytime soon!

[old iron]

menards wrote:

Finishing up on king Tuts jewels, you dont know much about historic artifacts. When there is a shipment to international events, copies are shipped. not the originals. Most of the items on display in many museums are fakes, with the originals preserved in storage.

I have seen a couple of traveling King Tut exhibits, including the burial mask (in New Orleans): These were the real things. The paperwork, security and insurance must be considerable, but the major museums do not exhibit "copies."

About the "Most of the items on display in many museums are fakes," please give examples. I think most everything that you see in the major museums is real; there are restorations to be sure, but I know of no good museum that shows "fakes" in place of the real things. The only example of what you say that comes to my mind is a T. rex skeleton that includes a skull that is a cast because of the considerable weight of the original (which is displayed in a separate case nearby). Still on the topic of dinosaurs, those skeletons are seldom found complete; portions of the skeleton that are not original are usually presented in a somewhat different coloration.

I understand that the displayed Langley Model 5 (1895 unpiloted but fair-sized flyer) now has copies (reproductions, not fakes) of the wings because the originals are now too fragile and are indeed kept in storage, but there is a valid reason; also, this is stated plainly in the label.

Frankly, this debate about the appropriateness of an analogy is way off-topic.

[Mike]

Finishing up on king Tuts jewels, you dont know much about historic artifacts. When there is a shipment to international events, copies are shipped. not the originals. Most of the items on display in many museums are fakes, with the originals preserved in storage.

Utter nonsense

[tulsaboy]

Getting back more on topic, I can't see any reason not to restore the Allen B-17 to flight. There are plenty of B-17 airframes extant, and this is not even the only E model still around. Swamp Ghost is recovered and displayed, the Greenland example is in New Orleans fully restored and on display, the Black Cat Pass E model is there for recovery if someone can work out the politics and gather the funds, and Desert Rat/Tangerine is under restoration to flight. Compared to other bomber types from WWII, the B-17 as a type is well represented in both static and flying collections. Rather unusually the B-17 has extant intact examples for the D, E, F, and G models, a group that comprises all of the models of B-17 that were regularly used in combat. We have both combat veterans and non-combat veterans in a variety of stages of restoration. We have privately owned examples and government-owned examples. Of all of the types of WWII, 75 year old aircraft that we could choose to continue restoring and flying, the 4 engine B-17 is probably the best choice.

I get the preservation argument. That's why we have the Memphis Belle, the Swoose, and the NMUSAF's other combat vet B-17 all safely preserved for the future. Not to mention those examples on static display in other museums. The Allen B-17 isn't particularly special. It's not a combat vet. It wasn't flown by any particularly significant WWII figures. It wasn't assigned to any important units (like stateside atomic bomb training units.) It spent its life bouncing around as a training aircraft and then worked as a cargo hauler in South America. Paul Allen's ownership is probably thus far the historical highlight of its career. If there was a historic, preservation-oriented argument about why it is too precious to fly, I'd be the first in line to support that decision. But there just really isn't a good one.

The next purchaser will not be me, absent an unexpected great uncle leaving me his 1/3 stake in a Fortune 500 company. (But here's hoping!) I do wish the next purchaser well, and hope that he or she chooses to finish out an outstanding restoration to flight, and then that I get to see that flying airplane someday.

kevin

[JimH]

It's all about money. What they are asking and who is willing to spend it. The list is short. The money he spent on restorations was far and above any restoration in the last 25 years. I would guess the "A" list types, the FW-190, the 262, and the Stuka are going to be north of $10m ea.. The American fighters, when compared to the current market value, tack on another $1-2m or more. Probably true for the British fighters as well. It boils down to how bad and how fast they want them gone. I seriously doubt the B-17 will find a buyer at that price. The economy is tanking, inflation is here and warbirds will diminish in priority. If gas and insurance prices continue to soar it will be even more prohibitive except or the uber wealthy. I hate to be negative but I saw it back in 2008-9 the last time the market took a 'correction'. We rolled in to Reno with the tour and gas was $7 a gallon. It took 3 years for that to calm down...we may be facing the same type of event now...I hope. The push to eliminate fossil fuels makes owning a flyable B-17 less attractive as a long term investment. Buy low, sell high isn't just a concept for the stock market.

[old iron]

And your comment about King Tut's jewels is interesting but missed the point.
...
So the Egyptian government thought the risk was warranted.

There is another aspect of this that might not be fully appreciated: The King Tut travelling exhibits, as an example, cost the hosting museums BIG BUCKS - I would assume millions of dollars. The museums make this back on entry fees, sales from the gift shop and from the "Friends of" donor groups.

But then, the same must be true of the Air Shows. I have no hand in the details of how these work, but am sure the Collins Foundation does not send their planes in just to support education - they make money! Can someone provide general insight into what the fees are for individual travelling "exhibits" at the major airshows?

So our person with deep pockets to buy and restore the Paul Allen B.17 does not need to be a lottery winner. Could be a businessperson who would market the plane to airshows. I am sure that is a tough business (and getting harder as the government restrictions and insurance rates increase), but can a flying B.17 still be a player in that arena?

[menards]

Finishing up on king Tuts jewels, you dont know much about historic artifacts. When there is a shipment to international events, copies are shipped. not the originals. Most of the items on display in many museums are fakes, with the originals preserved in storage.

Utter nonsense

Google it. You'll find the results fascinating.