Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:46 pm
Talking of A&P schools.... The one at VNY is looking to trade their Beech18 for something a bit newer... But ya have to speak with ther right guy there. 
PM if interested
& no, it doesn't run & has corrosion issues etc.. but if the price is right...
PM if interested
& no, it doesn't run & has corrosion issues etc.. but if the price is right...
Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:47 pm
Well, let me rephrase what I said then......IF I'm involved with moving this airplane, it will NOT fly out on only three engines, legal or not.
Gary
Gary
Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:25 am
Shay wrote:More pics of 52-3417 (interior)
http://www.dean-boys.com/52-3417/interior/interior_of_52-3417.htm
What a nice time capsule. If there's a guy who can do it, it's Gary.
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Wow! That thing is a time capsule. From the pictures it doesn't look all torn up like a lot of A&P school aircraft. Hopefully this will all work out.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:51 am
Wow, what a fantastic plane. 3 engine take-off...umm, no thanks (nobody will approve that anyway). Hopefully the word will get out and someone will save this gem. Dismantling is probably the likely option to get it out of there. There are companies that can easily handle that for the right $$...
Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:09 am
retroaviation wrote:Well, let me rephrase what I said then......IF I'm involved with moving this airplane, it will NOT fly out on only three engines, legal or not.
Gary
Gary,
I hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting to ferry this bird on 3 engines. I think that would be a very bad idea. Just pointing out that it is legal and possible in some cases. I did a 3 engine ferry on a Jetstar and my company used to 2 engine ferry the 727.
On another thought, what ever happened to the EC-121 at Camarillo, CA? I know a few years ago, they were trying to solve a big corrosion problem.
I would be willing to help out on this airplane if you need assistance turning wrenches or flying her.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:30 am
John, Check Ralph Peterson's website www.conniesurvivors.com for information about the Connie at Camarillo and all other surviving Connies.
Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:55 am
John Cotter wrote:retroaviation wrote:Well, let me rephrase what I said then......IF I'm involved with moving this airplane, it will NOT fly out on only three engines, legal or not.
Gary
Gary,
I hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting to ferry this bird on 3 engines. I think that would be a very bad idea. Just pointing out that it is legal and possible in some cases. I did a 3 engine ferry on a Jetstar and my company used to 2 engine ferry the 727.
On another thought, what ever happened to the EC-121 at Camarillo, CA? I know a few years ago, they were trying to solve a big corrosion problem.
I would be willing to help out on this airplane if you need assistance turning wrenches or flying her.
I'm getting a quote on moving it as we speak, so stay tuned. I'll be sure to put out an all points bulletin for mechanics/volunteers to help with the move, IF we work out the funding to move it and IF it gets awarded to us. There are apparently several museums interested in this bird, which is great news!
Gary
Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:51 am
retroaviation wrote:John Cotter wrote:retroaviation wrote:Well, let me rephrase what I said then......IF I'm involved with moving this airplane, it will NOT fly out on only three engines, legal or not.
Gary
Gary,
I hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting to ferry this bird on 3 engines. I think that would be a very bad idea. Just pointing out that it is legal and possible in some cases. I did a 3 engine ferry on a Jetstar and my company used to 2 engine ferry the 727.
On another thought, what ever happened to the EC-121 at Camarillo, CA? I know a few years ago, they were trying to solve a big corrosion problem.
I would be willing to help out on this airplane if you need assistance turning wrenches or flying her.
I'm getting a quote on moving it as we speak, so stay tuned. I'll be sure to put out an all points bulletin for mechanics/volunteers to help with the move, IF we work out the funding to move it and IF it gets awarded to us. There are apparently several museums interested in this bird, which is great news!
Gary
Geneseo would be a good home for it.
Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:43 am
Nathan wrote:
Geneseo would be a good home for it.
Well......get after it.
Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:54 am
excuse my ignorance - what engine does this plane have? is it that far beyond the realm of possiblity to find 2 operable engines and swamp them out to fly it out? again, after having just moved an F-86 that was in "good" condition I realize that there is a TON of work to do other than just "swapping out the engines"
Tom P.
Tom P.
Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:03 am
The question is less about finding suitable engines (which isn't a huge deal in all reality as there are quite a few R3350s out there that would be acceptable for a ferry flight), but the big issue is someone (like Gary) has to go out and inspect for corrosion and other issues and ensure that the aircraft is sound. Then, at minimum an annual needs to be performed to ensure the aircraft is up to standards for the flight because the annual covers things like the fuel tanks, oil tanks, and fluid lines, all things that may be rotted or damaged. By trucking it, you don't have to find engines, you don't have to do the ferry/annual inspection, and if it does turn out that there's not any major corrosion, there's nothing to prevent restoration to flight in the future by some organization with the funding to do so. Knowing Gary (and anyone else who'd move the plane), the plane would be disassembled instead of cut, and so there would be nothing done to prevent restoration to airworthy status in the future.
Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:02 pm
Not to poo on the parade, but what CAPflyer says is absolutely true. But trucking, as "easy" as it sounds, is a pain in the butt as well. To completely disassemble the aircraft properly (see the former OKC fairgrounds B-47 now sitting in Wichita as an example of what NOT to do) takes know-how and lots of time and big equipment, which all has to be rented or donated. Then the trucking services have to be secured. To move a B-47 from OKC to Tulsa, just 100 miles, and have it disassembled and then reassembled, the quote we received from a well-known and established firm that I respect was over $100,000. To move a derelict DC-3 this summer required 5 guys a week to disassemble and load on three flatbeds, and then required a trucking company two days to truck from Wisconsin to Tulsa with two of the three loads being permitted and requiring about 200-300 extra miles of travel to avoid overhangs, rush hours, certain highways, etc. That required three experienced drivers, their cabs, fuel, etc. Trucking is a great option, a safe option, but an expensive option as well. The annual and engines, along with fuel and oil, might add up to six figures, but I can guarantee that without significant donated equipment, trucking etc., it will cost six figures to truck that Connie almost anywhere.
kevin
(the jaded but now educated about trucking things that weren't meant to be trucked)
kevin
(the jaded but now educated about trucking things that weren't meant to be trucked)
Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:21 pm
Kevin,
There is a reason why wings are cut off to move a B-47. If you unbolt them at the milk bottle/coke bottle fittings (assuming you can even get them apart), they will no longer line up on re-installation. There is a B-47 in South Dakota that is being scrapped for this very reason. The air force took the wings off and now cannot get them back on.
Getting the wings on and off was a huge challenge when these aircraft were going through PDM when they were relatively new. Boeing needed extensive tooling to be able to do it. That kind of space, engineering support, and especially the hardware does not exist anymore.
So, for a static display cutting the wings on a B-47 is about the only option, especially when that airframe has been gutted/stripped completely.
Other B-47's have been moved using this technique. The wings are reattached with engineered splices for static display.
Please don't condemn the folks at the KAM for what they did; they had their reasons. And yes, to move a B-47 costs close to six figures., though the moving company discounted heavily because of their longtime support of the KAM.
Edward
There is a reason why wings are cut off to move a B-47. If you unbolt them at the milk bottle/coke bottle fittings (assuming you can even get them apart), they will no longer line up on re-installation. There is a B-47 in South Dakota that is being scrapped for this very reason. The air force took the wings off and now cannot get them back on.
Getting the wings on and off was a huge challenge when these aircraft were going through PDM when they were relatively new. Boeing needed extensive tooling to be able to do it. That kind of space, engineering support, and especially the hardware does not exist anymore.
So, for a static display cutting the wings on a B-47 is about the only option, especially when that airframe has been gutted/stripped completely.
Other B-47's have been moved using this technique. The wings are reattached with engineered splices for static display.
Please don't condemn the folks at the KAM for what they did; they had their reasons. And yes, to move a B-47 costs close to six figures., though the moving company discounted heavily because of their longtime support of the KAM.
Edward
Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:28 pm
Also, the issues that included wing removal were consulted heavily with personnel that actually built and maintained the B-47's at Boeing during new production and the later PDM's, as well as former Air Force B-47 personnel. The decision to cut the wings was reached in agreement that this is the only option due to reinstallation.
Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:50 pm
Edward,
I'm not condemning the Wichita folks at all, only commenting on what appears to have been a poorly executed attempt at removing the wings. What you said is exactly right about the folks that have moved other B-47s for the NMUSAF, but who did NOT move the OKC bird. (Case in point, the beautiful B-47 on display at the NMUSAF). The difference is in something you said- the "engineered splice." When that firm executes an engineered splice, as it did on the NMUSAF display bird, holes are predrilled when the wing is still attached for the bolts that will ultimately hold the wing after reassembly. The wing is then separated at precisely the middle of the wing, on top of the fuselage, allowing for demating of the wings. When reinstalled with a proper splice, the wing (if I remember correctly) maintains about 97% of its original structural integrity. It has been computer modeled and tested, at great expense, to make sure that it is done properly. That is NOT what was done with the OKC bird, as the pictures that have been previously posted show. (see the linked thread)
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... ty+wichita
The OKC bird's wings were just sawed off outboard of the fuselage, without any apparent regard for how they will be reinstalled. For those wings to actually stay on the B-47 will require some pretty clever structural modifications to the inside of the wings at the newly created attach points, along with the original outrigger gear to support the weight of the wingtips.
The wings on a B-47 can be removed, in one huge piece, and then reinstalled. It's just a matter, as with most things, of time, tooling, equipment and money. With the relative abundance of B-47 survivors out there, and the fact that they are almost all owned by the NMUSAF and will not fly again, there is little incentive to go to such trouble and expense on someone else's airplane. The wing could be removed in one piece, transported by helicoptor (don't laugh, it's been done several times with other aircraft) and then reinstalled. But it is an incredible headache and would cost lots of $$$.
Again, I am not condemning the Wichita folks. I am thrilled that the B-47 was saved, and that it was not scrapped. I also think the Wichita folks will be excited to know that two preserved B-47s are in their city, which (I think) is a unique situation. Oklahoma has two, and we're proud of them both. I wish the Wichita folks well, and am jealous of the original terminal building they've got for the museum!
Not to derail the topic, I just wanted to point out that trucking an aircraft is something that is a little more difficult and expensive than "oh let's just truck it."
kevin
I'm not condemning the Wichita folks at all, only commenting on what appears to have been a poorly executed attempt at removing the wings. What you said is exactly right about the folks that have moved other B-47s for the NMUSAF, but who did NOT move the OKC bird. (Case in point, the beautiful B-47 on display at the NMUSAF). The difference is in something you said- the "engineered splice." When that firm executes an engineered splice, as it did on the NMUSAF display bird, holes are predrilled when the wing is still attached for the bolts that will ultimately hold the wing after reassembly. The wing is then separated at precisely the middle of the wing, on top of the fuselage, allowing for demating of the wings. When reinstalled with a proper splice, the wing (if I remember correctly) maintains about 97% of its original structural integrity. It has been computer modeled and tested, at great expense, to make sure that it is done properly. That is NOT what was done with the OKC bird, as the pictures that have been previously posted show. (see the linked thread)
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... ty+wichita
The OKC bird's wings were just sawed off outboard of the fuselage, without any apparent regard for how they will be reinstalled. For those wings to actually stay on the B-47 will require some pretty clever structural modifications to the inside of the wings at the newly created attach points, along with the original outrigger gear to support the weight of the wingtips.
The wings on a B-47 can be removed, in one huge piece, and then reinstalled. It's just a matter, as with most things, of time, tooling, equipment and money. With the relative abundance of B-47 survivors out there, and the fact that they are almost all owned by the NMUSAF and will not fly again, there is little incentive to go to such trouble and expense on someone else's airplane. The wing could be removed in one piece, transported by helicoptor (don't laugh, it's been done several times with other aircraft) and then reinstalled. But it is an incredible headache and would cost lots of $$$.
Again, I am not condemning the Wichita folks. I am thrilled that the B-47 was saved, and that it was not scrapped. I also think the Wichita folks will be excited to know that two preserved B-47s are in their city, which (I think) is a unique situation. Oklahoma has two, and we're proud of them both. I wish the Wichita folks well, and am jealous of the original terminal building they've got for the museum!
Not to derail the topic, I just wanted to point out that trucking an aircraft is something that is a little more difficult and expensive than "oh let's just truck it."
kevin