"Shoo Shoo Baby" at NMUSAF

[OD/NG]

They should have ITRAN'd her and flown her to the NASM. A little more patina would have made her that much better, and SSB tells an additional story over and above her wartime one and it would have been nice to see that maintained; the story of how the Air Force and a group of enthusiasts and technicians took what was not much more than a battered, forty year old hulk and returned her to her almost former self to be preserved and remembered by a grateful nation.

As much as we would have loved for that to happen, it would never ever be considered. The reason is due to the ill-fated Boeing Model 307 flight and the avoidable pilot errors in that accident. If Boeing Test Pilots, supposedly some of the best in the world, can screw up, anybody can. As is usual, liability is a huge issue here and the NASM lawyers would never allow that to happen again.

In my opinion, that single accident will ensure that no aircraft under NASM's control will ever fly again - even for a one-way ferry flight.

[JohnB]

My gut feeling is that SSB will be in storage for 5 years or more. That would make it ten years that she will be in storage. A sad state of affairs given her combat history.

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
They had the Swoose since the late forties (that's about 75 years) and never touched it, the G for a couple of decades and never touched it, so having the Shoo Shoo Baby for a decade (or more) before displaying it is right up their alley.

I have a feeling they are pretty ambivalent about having a B-17 in their (make that our) collection.

Why the hostility?

[old iron]

JohnB wrote:

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
They had the Swoose since the late forties (that's about 75 years) and never touched it, the G for a couple of decades and never touched it, so having the Shoo Shoo Baby for a decade (or more) before displaying it is right up their alley.

Big difference. The D and G held previously both arrived in poor condition (the G was flown in, but the insides were gutted), with at least ten years of work ahead of them. Except for the Enola Gay, with so many to restore, work was focused on smaller projects.

The SSSB will arrive ready to be displayed, with some assembly and cleaning required. I think this will go straight to the Baker Restoration Facility, and maybe to the UH floor within a year or so.

Yea, I would rather that they flew it in too, but I am sure that the cost and insurance of being prepared for the flight exceeded the cost of transportation in parts by truck. Simple matter of economics.

[17f]

My gut feeling is that SSB will be in storage for 5 years or more. That would make it ten years that she will be in storage. A sad state of affairs given her combat history.

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
They had the Swoose since the late forties (that's about 75 years) and never touched it, the G for a couple of decades and never touched it, so having the Shoo Shoo Baby for a decade (or more) before displaying it is right up their alley.

I have a feeling they are pretty ambivalent about having a B-17 in their (make that our) collection.

Why the hostility?

I've said more or less the same thing in another thread. Their M.O. (at least as it applies to B-17's) seems to be to have one always on the back burner.

Given the Smithsonian's restoration standards, the fact that SSSB wears OD paint instead of being natural metal like in WWII probably makes their skin crawl. Doesn't matter how nice she is or that she is a combat veteran; she doesn't look like she did in service, so somehow she is "less than". I would wager they want to do another restoration on her to natural metal finish, but again, B-17's don't seem to be their thing, so she will gather dust in a warehouse off public display.

[Ken]

Another factor at U-H is space; things are getting crowded. If a B-17 were to be put behind the Enola Gay, even shuttled in pieces, that's a major effort. Even the end spaces are filling up. Has there been any hint at fundraising for a new building?

As an aside, I know that NASM was given a recent promising lead to acquire a flying C-130; i.e. fly there in lieu of the boneyard. So, here you have a time capsule airplane directly off the flightline and, arguably, there's a strong case for our National Museum to have an iconic Herk. It only needed to be drained and pickled, and I believe that AF manpower would have been available to assist in the effort. They declined.

If anyone here, or a big gun like Boeing, wants to donate $X million earmarked for the B-17G, then it'll get displayed more quickly. Absent that, I don't think the restoration/preservation/display queue choices are as personal as some here assume. Rather, I think there's a confluence of bureaucracy, academia, and budget that have created the situation at hand and there is no influence, beyond funding, that will change it.

Ken

[Dan Jones]

My gut feeling is that SSB will be in storage for 5 years or more. That would make it ten years that she will be in storage. A sad state of affairs given her combat history.

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
They had the Swoose since the late forties (that's about 75 years) and never touched it, the G for a couple of decades and never touched it, so having the Shoo Shoo Baby for a decade (or more) before displaying it is right up their alley.

I have a feeling they are pretty ambivalent about having a B-17 in their (make that our) collection.

Why the hostility?

I've said more or less the same thing in another thread. Their M.O. (at least as it applies to B-17's) seems to be to have one always on the back burner.

Given the Smithsonian's restoration standards, the fact that SSSB wears OD paint instead of being natural metal like in WWII probably makes their skin crawl. Doesn't matter how nice she is or that she is a combat veteran; she doesn't look like she did in service, so somehow she is "less than". I would wager they want to do another restoration on her to natural metal finish, but again, B-17's don't seem to be their thing, so she will gather dust in a warehouse off public display.

Yes, but the reason it was painted in the first place is that, being a large mixture of old and new metal, it never would have looked right in her natural metal finish when finished.

[k5083]

Yes, but the reason it was painted in the first place is that, being a large mixture of old and new metal, it never would have looked right in her natural metal finish when finished.

But NASM is under no obligation to agree with that assessment. "Never" is just a word to describe the restorer's capabilities and resources at the time, and "looked right" doesn't mean much at all. If I were NASM, I think my first decision would be that no matter what, the inaccurate paint has to go. Once the plane is stripped and they see what they have, they can decide what to do next. Even if new, never-before-used restoration techniques have to be developed to make it "look right" in natural metal, that would be far from the first time NASM has done such a thing.

August

[Ken]

If August chimes in, it typically elevates the thread. Well said.

It may or may not be a coincidence, but NMUSAF is currently pondering how to present Swoose in natural metal and faces many of the same challenges. I’d be shocked if there were not collaboration between the teams on this.

Ken

[old iron]

SSSB fuselage now at UH restoration building.

[Pat Carry]

SSSB fuselage now at UH restoration building.

Good news. Thanks for the update.

[sandiego89]

Glad she arrived!

Wow, lots of arrow slinging at the Smithsonian is this thread, so I just want to say what a fantastic place UH and the main Mall are. While we all want things to move quicker, and have particular airframes we want moved out of deep storage or the restoration que, they have done a great job. Seeing the sole survivors is a particular treat for me.

I have seen plenty of B-17's, so my particular vote is finish Flak Bait, and pull the Pogo, Sageburner F-4 and the Arado 196 out of deep storage- dust and all.

[mustangdriver]

One of the biggest things I’d be afraid of losing is the nose art. The nose art on the plane was painted on it again by Starcer.

[Steve Birdsall]

Yes, but the reason it was painted in the first place is that, being a large mixture of old and new metal, it never would have looked right in her natural metal finish when finished.

My recollection of that decision is somewhat different. The original pilot, Paul McDuffee, was convinced that the aircraft was camouflaged when it first arrived at Bassingbourn. He would not be persuaded otherwise, no matter how much evidence was provided. He wrote angry letters to various higher-ups, demanding that "his" airplane be painted as he remembered it. He made a lot of noise.

At the time nobody knew the exact point when Boeing ceased painting B-17Gs, and McDuffee got his way. The fact that they would not have to somehow deal with the mismatched metal was a sort of silver lining (pun intended) to the restoration crew.

A bit later some Boeing paperwork was found that confirmed the last painted B-17G was 42-32044, but by then the die had been cast.

[old iron]

The SSSB fuselage is now - already! - moved into the UH Hangar, adjacent to the Sikorsky JRS and F-100.

[StangStung]

The SSSB fuselage is now - already! - moved into the UH Hangar, adjacent to the Sikorsky JRS and F-100.

Pics or it didn't happen.