B-17 Turret Question

[Second Air Force]

Pooner, I am in agreement with installing turrets if you have them to install. I also have to agree with Tom that funding has to be a prime consideration in many cases. Several WIXers have brought up a point about how cramped a Fort gets when all the machinery is installed and how awkward it becomes for visitors. To me, that is the essence of a warplane--it was a cramped, noisy, smelly device designed to break things and kill people, not an airliner. I vote for complete turrets!

Scott

[Pooner]

Tom and Scott are correct. It's as juggling act we all seem to face on these projects - the desire for historical accuracy and the real need to make them "sing for their supper" when it comes to entertaining and educating the public.

I need to be a realist, in that 99.99 percent of the public isn't going to give a flying fig whether or not a turret on the ship is just a dome or if somone stuck a Martin 250 on a B-25 instead of the Bendix A-9. And if we want to continue to fly these airplanes and have visitors contribute to offset some of the sky-rocketing operating costs, well, sometimes originality isn't number one on the priority list. I'm obviously stubborn and thick-headed, but even I acknowledge this.

I know I came across as horribly abrasive and sarcastic to Tom in my barbed missive last night (sorry about that one, sir). That was certainly not the intent. I think my comments were the result of many years of frustration - I'm a product of the "warbird movement" of the late 1970s early 1980s when the goal was to put an airplane into the air and show it off, and the "parts whores" such as myself always seemed to butt heads with the weekend bomber captains.

In short, the acquisition and restoration guys always seemed to be at odds with the guys who just wanted to fly something big and shiny with a few .50 cal barrel shrouds sticking out here and there. One side of the coin was passionate about radios, racks and turrets, and the other side had no problem with indoor/outdoor carpet on the fuselage walkways...

But fast-forward to 2008 - and I think we're all finally finding that wonderful middle-ground. The bar has been raised on the caliber of restorations and the use or display of original equipment is at an all-time high.

I'd like to think that although the pool of hidden treasures is indeed getting shallower over the years, there's still booty to be had. Now and then a rarity presents itself on eBay, a ball turret shows up in the pages of Auto Trader, or guys like Albert Stix buy truckloads of parts and saves 'em from the scrapper (yeah, he's one of my heroes!). Some of the best times in my life outside of an airplane have been digging turrets out of junkyards or breathing dust and risking injury in rotting warehouses ferreting out parts.

I'm obviously getting older and crankier, but sure would like to challenge this new generation of warbirders coming on to the scene to keep digging for those parts. Once the old goats like me get out of the way, they'll be the ones stewarding these airplanes, and when the last flying warbird is grounded and hits the museums (a sad day) perhaps all of the correct bits and pieces will come together for a final display.

'Nuff said. No beer bottle tossing at anyone's head needed (and I'm a miserable shot, truth be told...).

[Second Air Force]

I agree that the general public won't know the difference between styles of turrets or even if there should be a turret on a given airplane, but I would love to see a further trend toward accuracy when airplanes are being refurbished in the future. As Pooner said, eventually there will be an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will shepherd these old birds, and it's our generation that needs to correct the many flaws that have crept in over the last fifty years. Revisionist history doesn't just pertain to the geopolitical arena--if an airplane is wrong for long enough, the next operators may just think it's correct. That pertains to paint schemes, equipment, and all the rest. Again, money is a restricting factor in how much can be done at any given time, but I'd hope that people restoring/refurbishing these machines would consider accuracy in their decision-making process.

[tom d. friedman]

pooner, no need for the apology..... your 1st reply was quite humerous!!

[JimH]

Everyone involved with aircraft restoration works with the same manuals that they used back in the 40's. A part number is assigned to every piece of equipment installed. It isn't a mystery when you can go to a parts book or erection and maintenance manual for a particular a/c and see it illustrated just as it came from the factory. I can't think of an American made warbird that doesn't have this luxury. The days of the "aerosol overhaul" I think are over. The continuing trend toward more authentic restorations is growing. Modern radio equipment is a necessity in today's flying environment and a consession to originality that is acceptable in my book. These aircraft are living breathing machines that don't care if they have original metal, a complete turret, or the right paint job...enjoy them while they still fly cause it ain't getting easier to keep them running.

jim

[Second Air Force]

Pooner,

Do you have any Cheyenne parts in your inventory? A certain B-17 I know of needs most of the internal workings to get things back ship-shape. PM me if you do, I'd like to start collecting pieces.

I like the term "parts whore"--I've always known I would never have an actual warplane to tinker with, but trying to find parts and pieces that may someday be used in a restoration or display is nearly as satisfying. Guys like you, Taigh, Jon Peters, Albert, Questmaster and a few others keep me looking in piles and abandoned buildings for that little pot of gold that is waiting to be discovered.

Scott

[Pooner]

Neon made some good points in his observation - there's a point in any restoration where common sense outweighs the call for originality. Case in point - I've got hand-held radios that beat the living pants off of the 1940s technology found in say that BC-375 command set when it comes to communicating with ground or air traffic, and I'd rather use a GPS any day of the week instead of flogging it out with the tube fired, high voltage ARN-6 directional system.

Ditto my thoughts on tire technology over the old nylon shoes... or the Kevlar fuel tanks in Bob's B-24 which sure didn't give me the heebie-jeebies like some of the old wet-winged or rotten rubber fuel celled fire bombers I had the opportunity to be around years ago. Caveman nod to this one - technology good.

And we've agreed that the bar standard on today's warbird presentations has been raised, and the days of "rattle can restorations" are truly behind us.

But I might take a little umberage to the thought that everyone is working off of the same manuals and it's a merely a matter of looking into the books to determine what's correct for a restoration and going for it. Is it?

I still work with a variety of museums throughout the country and I'm continually perplexed at how often those wonderful TO's out there are still not consulted. In my early days around this stuff, there was enough living talent out there working on these airplanes on the weekends that consulting a TO was almost looked upon as someone having a character flaw if they had to look up an answer to a query. Manuals were consulted as a last resort. The few reference manual copies hidden in museum collections by and large were not made available to restorers unless someone specifically asked for them, and I still see this in place today.

A California-based aviation museum told me less than 6 months ago they weren't working off of manuals to get a derelict Navy bird ready for ferry flight because "they didn't exist and nobody could find any originals to copy." Geez.

Some of the late war reference material to armament, radio and radar systems was either restricted material and NOT made available as part of the standard manual publications as printed by the aircraft manufacturer. Our Lockheed PV-2 "Harpoon" library has everything you'd ever want to know about powerplants and airframe, but ALL of the radar data in this pig as of early 1945 factory printing carries a "INFORMATION WLL BE FURNISHED LATER" series of blank pages. Sames with non-sensitive stuff - like oxygen equipment, albeit what little they used in this ride. Go figure.

Curious about the Rebecca or Pathfinder systems in the later war B-17s and B-24s? Or wonder about the camera installations in the photo-recon Lightings? Or Navy mods to AAF equipment? Me, too. But it's a bugger finding published data about this stuff - and with great irony, as many of our surviving warbirds are of these unique late-war types. To do an accurate restoration incorporating this type of stuff isn't just as easy and finding the book and bending a page and coming up with part numbers, nomenclatures or pictures.

Splitting hairs, I know... but as some of you know I'm a guy that has an awful lot of 'em to split (that's hairs, not manuals, for you literalists...).

I do know that we should all enjoy seeing warbirds fly, as one day it'll all come to a close. So by no means is this even a disguised attempt whatsoever to slap down any operators or restorations out there. I've been acused of being one of those guys who can't see the forest for the trees. I just about peed myself when I found a set of original armor plate for our PV-2 in a junkyard. Yeah, I know, MDF or plywood facsimiles will look just as good, and who needs all of that extra weight? Who cares? Well, I do. And I guess part of the down-side to a quest for originality is that I'm still getting excited about finding oddball crap like this and we're not flying in any airshows this season, nor probably the next. Ain't no revenue stream coming my way because of this attitude...

But Scott hit dead-on what I used a thousand words to get at... in a nutshell, history re-writes itself to some degree. I wonder if 50 years from now someone will indeed look at a museum airplane and just take it at face value that all of the mil-looking stuff put back into an old firebomber, meat hauler or executive transport is as it should be. If it is, it must be so?

And then again, 50 years from now, will it even matter?

[Second Air Force]

I tried (once) to get the attention of a museum director that was preparing to paint a certain large bomber aircraft for static display. I pointed out that we had the EXACT pedigree of that very airplane, photos of it when it was in service throughout it's AAF/USAF life, and even offered to help prep it. In addition, the airplanes that rolled off the assembly line one serial number ahead and behind it had a combat history late in WWII. I suggested that if the original scheme was too lackluster for him, he could use a bit of artistic license to replicate the combat birds that were her siblings (these particular airplanes were sans turrets as well). His reply was a form letter that simply blew me off as a crackpot. So.....there will be another airplane with no turrets, combat equipment, bombsight, etc. in a paint scheme from a Bomb Group that had the full complement of turrets on their aircraft. Now, WE all know the airplane may not be right but at least is being cared for, but future generations are going to think that this is the stuff that great-grandpa fought the war in. That is a disservice to the guys who manned the turrets, armed them in the combat zone, and the men and women who built them and installed them in the factories. Little by little, history is changed to match what you see in front of you.

Rant over.

[astixjr]

with fuel economy factored in it only makes sense with all the needless weight of useless hardware.

So why am I doing this!?!?! I could have spent the day flying my Stearman instead of trying to find a Sperry upper turret junction box for the AFM's Memphis Belle! I had to tip over six drums of Sperry Ball Turret junction boxes just to find one lousy Sperry upper junction box. AND IT HAS THE NERVE TO BE THE WRONG ONE!


There's just gotta be a complete ball turret down here somewhere!


They need one from an A-1 Sperry upper and this one is probably from an A-1B.

And yes, that is in fact my best side. I should probably post it in the "let's put a face with the name" forum topic.

[astixjr]

Pooner Wrote:
"or guys like Albert Stix buy truckloads of parts and saves 'em from the scrapper (yeah, he's one of my heroes!)"

Wow, thanks Pooner. That's very nice of you to post but I probably don't deserve it . I'm usually described as the North end of a South bound horse!

In case anyone was wondering what five drums of ball turret spiders and one drum of A-15 spiders looks like, here you go. The sad part is that nearly every one of these represents a turret that got melted. Some of the junction boxes are NOS, they never made it into a turret before the war ended. The other bit of odd news is that two of the paper drums that that this stuff was loaded into at the scrap yard originally contained coils of electric motor and appliance wire. The labels on the drums are dated 1999. It's possible that this scrap yard salvaged a few WWII turrets as late as 2000.

[Second Air Force]

There was a time my lovely wife used to ask me why I saved every little thing I picked up. Now that she's seen your stuff, Albert, I don't look quite as insane as she thought! Again, we're in your debt for saving every bit you and all the other "parts whores" find. I'll have to ask Spanner if they have the J-box for TR's upper and ball--we may be calling.

Here is a photo of what hard work and ingenuity has accomplished at the GCW hangar:


The turret folks in Houston had a problem. They had acquired a complete turret, but both side support stanchions were broken. A new set of stanchions were engineered and fabricated, and now we have a complete assembly instead of a box full of spare parts. Ingenuity and cunning save the day.

[SPANNERmkV]

There is a possibility of us having a spare junction box, BUT I don't know what I am looking for.

IF we do it is YOURS to pass along to a worthy cause.

We are scrambling at the moment so remind me after whatever Tropical Storm Eduoard does what it's fixing to do. ( fixing = "about to"-for all y'all nawtherners.)

Wish us luck.

Surfin SPANNER