Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:26 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2023 12:00 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1569
Chris Brame wrote:
Hope the B-17C Project gives us a good re-creation of a shiny new Sharkfin instead.


...a good restoration of a patinated, largely "as-retired" Sharkfin would be my preference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:13 pm
Posts: 280
Location: Virginia, US
My guess is that, since they have added the bathtub, they will restore it to its 1942 transport configuration. Also, to be historically accurate, restoring it to combat configuration would mean it couldn't be called "The Swoose". That name was bestowed after the rebuild as a transport.

_________________
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:47 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:43 pm
Posts: 1175
Location: Marietta, GA
raconnel wrote:
My guess is that, since they have added the bathtub, they will restore it to its 1942 transport configuration. Also, to be historically accurate, restoring it to combat configuration would mean it couldn't be called "The Swoose". That name was bestowed after the rebuild as a transport.


Me? I'd clean the dust off and present it as is. If there are structural issues, obviously you fix 'em. The bathtub could be part of a neat display about field modifications. You'd locate it right by the Swoose.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:54 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1569
Kyleb wrote:
raconnel wrote:
My guess is that, since they have added the bathtub, they will restore it to its 1942 transport configuration. Also, to be historically accurate, restoring it to combat configuration would mean it couldn't be called "The Swoose". That name was bestowed after the rebuild as a transport.


Me? I'd clean the dust off and present it as is. If there are structural issues, obviously you fix 'em. The bathtub could be part of a neat display about field modifications. You'd locate it right by the Swoose.


Nice idea; similar case with Flak Bait. It looks promising from what I've read so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 844
Location: DAL glidepath
JohnB wrote:
StangStung wrote:
The original bits are only original once.


The problem is the Swoose hasn't been original in 80 years. :)
To make it "original" it needs to be a bomber as it left the factory.

That term "it's only original once" started with the antique car crowd, as a way of saying some artifacts should not be restored, in other words don't replace old but serviceable paint or interior To make it perfect.
So if we take that term at it common definition, with a much modified aircraft like the Swoose, there isn't much factory original left, so that ship sailed long ago.

So if we mean that it means to be kept in its 1942-spec. That's fine, but that is not original, original (if you get my meaning).
Post delivery service use modified "original" yes, but not original in the strict sense of the word.

I can see where they are coming from, the major history of the Swoose is as a transport.

The problem comes with the fact that it is pretty much the world's only chance to have a STOCK early model B-17 on display.

The fact is that airframe achieved a measure of period fame as a transpirt. Yeah, and I guess several VIPs flew in it.

Does that trump the need/desire to have a representative of the model of B-17s that initially saw combat?
I have a hunch the powers that be figured it would be easier to keep its passenger mods than return it to a combat configuration.

Personally, I'm good either way.

My only issue is it is too bad it wasn't done when some WWII vets who flew or serviced it could have appreciated it.


You're misconstruing me. By original, I did not mean "as it left the factory." As I understand it, it was pretty much parked after the war and that was that. So it is more or less as it was during a significant part of its history (we can argue if that is more or less significant than its combat history). In any case, that is a unique thing. There is but one Swoose. It is a unique airframe with a unique history and as it sits is mostly as it was. This is not a non-combat airframe that went straight from the factory to storage in AZ, then on to be a firebomber before being re-dressed as a combat aircraft.

In short, if you did something other to it rather than conserve it as Swoose, in the last configuration in which it was used, you'd kinda be erasing Swoose and replacing it with some modern version of something...different. Kind of like if you took the P-38 or P-61 at NASM and decided, "these are too old and weather beaten, we should restore them to look like some famous ace flew them." That would be a tragedy.

In any case, looks like we'll have some time to discuss considering the potential time line of the restoration.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 274
Location: Minnesota
Here's my two cents for whatever is worth. I can see both arguments, but to me, I would love to see a bomber come out of it. That was is purpose for being built and that's what B-17s are famous for. I'm not going to cry if it's finished as a transport, perhaps a little disappointed, but I'll be happy that she's finally on display. I do think that saying that most of her history as a transport and should be restored as one is a bit like saying that Sentimental Journey should have her military equipment stripped out and she should be flown as a fire bomber. After all, she was in that configuration much longer than a stock G model in the USAAF inventory. And yes, I know that the Swoose was a military transport, whereas the fire bombing was a civilian operation, but that's how I see it. Bottom line is, no amount of arguing on the page is going to have an ounce of influence on the USAFM decision, we're all just sharing opinions here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:47 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1569
Sharing opinions is fine, but I do see a tendency for some folks to simplify military history (when it comes to aircraft) into "bombers" or "fighters". Sometimes even "pilots" and "the rest".

Folks served and died working in all manner of trades, theatres, aircraft and on all types of equipment: it's important that we strike a balance when it comes to accurately representing our heritage. Maybe even more so when it comes to the more esoteric side of it.

You could also argue that simply because the B-17 is well-known as a bomber, it's more important to showcase her other roles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2023 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 844
Location: DAL glidepath
quemerford wrote:
Sharing opinions is fine, but I do see a tendency for some folks to simplify military history (when it comes to aircraft) into "bombers" or "fighters". Sometimes even "pilots" and "the rest".

Folks served and died working in all manner of trades, theatres, aircraft and on all types of equipment: it's important that we strike a balance when it comes to accurately representing our heritage. Maybe even more so when it comes to the more esoteric side of it.

You could also argue that simply because the B-17 is well-known as a bomber, it's more important to showcase her other roles.


All of this. Moreover, the NMUSAF already has one of - if the THE - most famous bomber configured B-17 in history. And - relative to their overall numbers - there are a significant amount of combat configured B-17s in museums across the country. While I understand none of them are "D" models, that's really not the issue here as I see it. The issue is the museum has an artifact that is unique to time and place in the Air Force story. Why wouldn't that want to focus on that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2023 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:02 pm
Posts: 300
I think that the AF museum is doing the right thing. It's important to reflect this particular airplane's distinguished history.
"They also serve who only stand and wait", as John Donne wrote long ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "The Swoose"!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:42 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm
Posts: 1569
Mark Sampson wrote:
I think that the AF museum is doing the right thing. It's important to reflect this particular airplane's distinguished history.
"They also serve who only stand and wait", as John Donne wrote long ago.


It was Milton.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], OD/NG and 325 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group