Switch to full style
This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

How many B-17s could fly?

Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:55 pm

I picked up a copy of Scott Thompson's "The Final Cut" and am enjoying it immensely (especially when cross-referencing it with Larry's great posts and pics). I do have a question...of the B-17s that are on display as static aircraft, how many of them are still airworthy, or could be airworthy with a little bit of work?

Re: How many B-17s could fly?

Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:31 am

SaxMan wrote: I do have a question...of the B-17s that are on display as static aircraft, how many of them are still airworthy, or could be airworthy with a little bit of work?


Non are airworthy, they are static... :wink:

And I suspect very few, if any, could be airworthy with 'a little bit of work'.... :wink:

For a start, those on static prior to the 2001 FAA wing spar AD, would have to undergo this without taking into account anything else, and that's not a little bit of work.

Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:08 am

the seattle mof BOEING BEE and the Evergreen aviations b-17 both come to mind. how about shoo shoo baby? i would think that there might be a couple more but opinions are like........

Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:23 am

Bob Pond's. :(

Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:07 pm

Remember that there is a difference between flyable and "non-flyable" storage.

Just because something is on display does not mean it is non-flyable. Static does not mean not airworthy.

Shoo shoo shoo baby is in long term flyable storage. She was delivered by air, hangered in a controled hanger and could be put back into operation (AD issues aside-besides this a/c is never gonna fly anyway)with a minimum of fuss.

Just my two cents.

B-17

Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:48 pm

SAXMAN,
The B-17 in the hangar of the 390th BG Museum, Tucson, probably could be made flyable in very short order. "I'll Be Around" was flown into DM, towed over to the museum site, inside the hangar. The remaining wall was put up and there she sits. Even drip pans under the engine to catch an occasional drip.
Regards,
Hugh

Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:43 pm

Do you include the water bomber airplanes that were exchanged with the Air Force in the 1980's and were flown to their locations? They were "flyable until parked."

Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:16 pm

airworthy
909
Sentimental
Fuddy Duddy
Miss Angela
Chuckie
Belle
Yankee Lady
Thunderbird
Aluminum Overcast
Pink Lady
Sally B
Liberty Belle

Near Airworthy
Raiders
Evergreen

Restoration to Airworthy
Planes of Fame
Desert Rat
Urbana
Brooks 2nd B-17

Potential Airframes
Kermit Weeks Suzie Q
Gas Station Bomber

Any other potential airframes that could be restored quickly are under Air Force incarseration
Tulare
Castle

There are of course many other airframes out there that will never see air under thier wings no matter how much wishing we do.

Jim Harley

Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:37 pm

Of course, if the engines were not "pickled" properly, you are probably looking at some significant engine work for four R-1820s. We had a DC-3 that sat in a hangar for ten years. Pulled it out, did all the proper engine checks, ran 'em up, all that stuff. Both engines failed in the first few hours of trying to fly it, first one and then the others. Reputable engine guys (Basler) attributed it to the way the engines were (not) prepared for storage.

17

Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:55 am

Dont forget Swamp Ghost.She will cost a truckload of money to restore once she is out of png.If it were mine i would trade it to the airforce for one of the gate guard 17s of my choice.I would bet the AF would jump all over that.

Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:27 am

That makes sense. You recover Swamp Ghost, ship it to the USA. Have a combat loss B-17 that is one of the first B-17E models built and saw action in the South Pacific and you trade it for a roadside attraction B-17 with no combat history, all kinds of postwar USAF mods and a hundred coats of paint. So you restore your "G" and have to find something to do with it and the USAF puts the Ghost near a highway at a base in nebraska painted as "2nd Patches" and starts looking for a chin turret to make it "representative". Priceless.

Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:42 am

Or you could spend $10 million restoring the B-17E. Only three times the money. Where's my checkbook?

Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:46 pm

As has been oft-repeated, Shoo-Shoo Baby flew into the NMUSAF. I'm sure she could be made airworthy again.

Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:35 pm

Joe Scheil wrote:That makes sense. You recover Swamp Ghost, ship it to the USA. Have a combat loss B-17 that is one of the first B-17E models built and saw action in the South Pacific and you trade it for a roadside attraction B-17 with no combat history, all kinds of postwar USAF mods and a hundred coats of paint. So you restore your "G" and have to find something to do with it and the USAF puts the Ghost near a highway at a base in nebraska painted as "2nd Patches" and starts looking for a chin turret to make it "representative". Priceless.


I am not sure that the NMUSAF would try and convert Swampghost into a B-17G. :? However there is a G model that has been made to look like an F model, but that one is flown.

17

Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:08 pm

Hey joe i would bet swamp ghost would go right in between the swoose and the Belle at AFM.What a coup for them.then take that ole ragged g model and convert it to an F model during the rebuild.That is what we are doing to Brooks second G model.One of the reasons for this is we will have to manufacture so much of the fuselage so we might as well make Miss Carry of the 390 BG.This was his dads first bomber and Liberty belle is the last his Dad flew on as crew.
Post a reply