Warbird Information Exchange

n/t

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

So is that plane flying again? I thought it was just a static display.

I'm guessing this is David Tallichet's 'Memphis Belle' from the movie of the same name, as opposed to the one at the Wright Patterson Museum that is in pieces and parts right now while being restored, the REAL 'Belle'.

Mark

_________________
Mark Morris

It's not the real "Belle"

Phil

And this is why the museum doesn't want David's airraft to carry the name anymore.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

My goodness lets not get into that debate again.

I didn't mean it as a smart a#$ reply, but it is the truth.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Seeing as it is a privately owned and operated aeroplane, I can't see that what anyone at the NMUSAF thinks has any bearing whatsoever on how Mr Tallichet chooses to paint his B-17.

It's every bit as real as any other. It must be, I saw it in a movie!

Perhaps that's why certain people take so much trouble over allocating unique serial numbers and registrations, which can be used for accurate reporting...

What's the difference between a US and a UK warbird enthusiast? The Brit uses the type's name and serial number while the Yank uses the service designation and the aircraft's name.

B-17G Flying Fortress 44-83546, N3703G 'Memphis Belle' was involved in the incident, not B-17F 41-24485 Memphis Belle. It's not hard, is it?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

For us that are die hard aviation people, we all know which B-17 it was that was involved in the accident. But for the common person, all they know is that there is a B-17 named memphis Belle. As far as the belle nose art on the aircraft, the NMUSAF has stated that they have the rights to them both. We can sit here and argue for ever, but usually if the original warbird is around, you don't see another painted the same way. This airplane is time and time again advertised as the real Belle, and I don't think it is right. I have family members who have told me about being in the real Memphis Belle and they were in David's aircraft. NOT the real thing. The people that advertise it at shows, sometimes don't go as far to tell people that this is not the real thing as well. I just think that it is a respect thing. I have worked on both of the aircraft. And would just prefer to see David's painted in a different paint scheme so that it is a non issue.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

My late father-in-law flew the real "Belle" when she was nothing but a TB-17 "hack" with 815th BS 483rd BG in stateside training before going to war. He thought it was cool that she was also remembered as a flying machine as well as her 'old-self'...

How many people have played Abe Lincoln?????

_________________
..defeat is never an option!

I agree that we seemed to have beaten this horse to death already! Now that the Big Boys at the NMUSAF have trademarked the name, they want everyone from all over the world to travel to them to see the "real" Belle if/when she is put on display. How much of the original Belle is going to be left for the die hard enthusiasts to say that they saw the real Belle???

If a young person goes to an airshow and is enthused into learning more about WWII aircraft history due to seeing an aircraft with the paint on it that Mr Tallichet has on his, what is the harm in that? Other than that young person did not have to walk through the NMUSAF gift shop and buy a bunch of baubles and trinkets to support a museum that is supported by us taxpayers?

IIRC, there are many more chances of igniting interest in young people by them seeing WWII aircraft at airshows than going to a musty, poorly lit museum.

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.

Umm what? So if some guy has a poster of the declaration of independence in his cube at work, there is no reaason to go to a museum and see the real one. A musty dark light museum is how you describe one of the largest aviation museums in the world? Nice. As for the museum wanting people to come to it to see the Belle, isn't that the idea? Like it or not, for the average person that is slightly into warbirds, they don't know the two aircraft apart. See the first few comments on this thread.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Ummm, OK. If I am reading your response correctly there mustangdriver, it sounds as though you agree in a roundabout way There is no valid reason for the NMUSAF to copyright the name of the Belle other than greed. If they can stop Mr Tallichet from having the name on his plane, then the only place anyone can see the "real" Belle is your darkly lit museum that is basically accessible to people east of the Mississippi river. Same as the Declaration of Independence being accessible to people on the east coast.

Please read what I originally wrote and then your response. I think that we agree. More people see Mr Tallichet's aircraft each year than visit the NMUSAF, the museum is poorly lit (read some of the other posts about this!)... I would almost think that the Big Boys would want to leave the "other" Belle painted that way as to encourage people to come and see the "real" one

I think that we can agree that the NMUSAF is a wonderful place to visit and see the vast collection on hand. Please don't think that it is a perfect place with no room for improvement though.

_________________
Earn my respect and never lose it.
Demand my respect and never gain it. -Me

...just another plane dreamer.