Warbird Information Exchange

In respect to NMUSAF B-17's in bad shape, I will point out the B-17 at the AMVETS post in Tulare, CA... subjected to repeated collisions by cars and trucks from the nearby highway and a pretty much vacant maintaining crew, that plane I would safely say is in horrid shape.

Lacklands B-17, though in fair cosmetic static shape, has been juried up so much that I would hardly call a lot of the parts metal these days...

Eglin AFB... though the plane is in great shape cosmetically and has a staff of folks to maintain her... the fact is that she is still outside in a very harsh somewhat tropical environment near salt water. Though SG was IN water, it was totally freshwater... not even brackish. The air/water mix at Eglin is about the worst you can have for corrosion sake.

I think saying that Tallichet's B-17 is in the worst shape is a pretty harsh statement. Granted that it does have the roughest appearance of the fleet of flyers and does have a bad reputation for maintenance problems, but it is a FLYER... not a post relegated plane that has seagulls for flight engineers. NMUSAF doesn't pay anything to him to keep her going... so it's all his own money that makes those wings lift. David does spend money on the plane, as anyone who keeps an airplane in flyable condition does, and though his practices may be disputed and spoken ill of, he still keeps it going. The wing spar fix that she went through a few years ago was not cheap... and he made arrangements to get it done in fairly short order compared to other planes like Texas Raiders, who is still undergoing repairs as we speak. Each time she drops an engine, that's at least $25,000 that is being spent on an OH unit... upwards of $40,000 if you want a good engine from a reputable shop (which he has been using as of late). He has some full time staff even, and I know that even Joe Kaminski comes out from MARC in CA to Geneseo every now and again to work on her too...

I know it is hard to seperate personal feelings when looking at our favorite warbirds, but I commend David for doing what he has done along the way... there are so many aircraft that are with us today thanks to his efforts in the early days.

_________________
Ryan Keough
Stow, MA

They own the aircraft, true. But anytime we try to make anyone fix something we get bad P.R. saying that we are just beating up on the little guy. When we moved the Belle, you would have thought that were going to burn down Memphis, according to some. And by the way, Prestons Pride is in better shape thatn Tallichet's B-17. PP is a static B-17 and that has to be remembered. Tallichet's is supposed to be a flying one, but is always in need of a repair that David says were are full of it on. It never even got a proper paint job. He painted it right over the fire bomber colors. When I worked on it, the tail was turning orange as the paint was wearing off of it. Since it has been in New York, it looks as if it got some much needed care. But we are getting off topic. Preston's Pride is in much better shape than the Swamp Ghost. I just don't see why it is such a big deal to go and get an airplane for restoration and preservation from a part of the world where they could give a rat's a*& about a B-17, until $ is involved. Then it is a whole new ball game.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

There is a big difference here. Preston's Pride id a"G" model. A great bird in her own right to be sure. And as I'm sure you are aware the "G" models are the most prolific of the type

Where as Swamp Ghost is a rare "E" model and is the oldest "E"model. A significant stage in the evolution of the B-17.

It would seem logical to me that she is worth saving.

Just being blunt here but a few posts back you were saying that the people of PNG don't care about SG and now you're saying why should we care? I don't understand your point of view.

If you would, please explain, perhaps I misunderstood you.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

No SHay, I meant I can't understand why people don't want to do it. As for the the NMUSAF, I agree with you that some of these birds need to be cared for alot better. But this discussion started wit hSwamp Ghost, and is now on USAFM aircraft. You can not comapre the two. One needs some TLC, and the other is a wreck laying in a swamp. The two should never be put together in the same sentence. As for Mr. Tallichet, he has indeed saved some rare tpyes of aircraft, and numerous warbirds. I have seen him do many things that will not allow me to speak good of him. I talked to people right after they finished restoring a P-38. He told them he was going to take it up for a test flight, then flew it to antother airport where they couldn't work with it. I was there in person as I watched him take a p-47, and P-51 that I had been working on for three years becasue the Thunderbolt was almost ready to fly. He stole the Mustang off of us, and the PA ANG wants his head for it(it belonged to them). He promissed people rides in the B-17 for all of their hard work, and then left early in the morning before we were open to avoid seeing these people. He has done alot to preserve warbirds, but he has done alot to harm the warbird community. I worked on the spar problem, and helped replace the fuel tanks in his B17. I like him as a person to talk to, but I have seen him do some not so nice things.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

...talking about B17's that need some TLC...

How about "Lacey's Lady" at The Bomber Restaurant in Milwaukie, OR. I am definitely not knocking the owners, but, it needs to have the restoration project kick-started with some $$. I'm sure they would welcome our contributions.

IIRC, at least two flying B17's have parts (turrets & more?)from "Lacey's Lady" helping them to appear more authentic on the Warbird Circuit.

We do have several candidates right here in the USA that can use some TLC. Previous posters have identified a few.

And, lest we forget, NASM has a B17G in storage at Dulles that flew there under its own power a while ago (OK, a relatively long while ago). So there is one potential flyer that is not even on static display. I know NASM's plate is pretty full right now and God Bless them for the ever increasing impressive collection on display at Udvar-Hazy.

But, I believe there is still just a wee bit o room at Udvar-Hazy for that B17G to be displayed and it wouldn't cost too much to tow it over there from the Dulles storage, would it??

I can hope, can't I?

Also with respect to the NMUSAF aircraft. When you enter an aggreement to display an aircraft, you are in charge of it's upkeep. The museum will send someone out, and tell you this need sto be done, and that needs fixed. If the plane needs painted, it is the AMVETS that should be painting it. The museum will supply anything needed to do the job. Now the museum is in a pickle because where would you put Preston's Pride? It would have to be a place where you can store a fully assembled B-17, and alot of museums don't have that kind of room. I am not arguing with the point that some of them need attention, my point is that they are not as bad as SG(the point of this tread), and that there are sometimes not many options open for the museum. When we take back an airplane because it is not being cared for the local media gives us all kind of bad P.R. I am not saying the museum is without it's flaws, but come on.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

You are correct John, but Lacey's B-17 restoration has started. Also the NASM has two B-17's. They have the G which an official at that museum told me "Will more than likely never see display", and they have a B-17D "Swoose".

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

OK, I can see that we all may be getting a little mixed up in words and emotions and hopefully I can summarize so we can all agree... gosh, this is why typed words are so tough... it's hard to get emotion and meaning through.

SWAMP GHOST::::

Generally we all agree that the Swamp Ghost was rotting away in the swamp as it was and at least the movement to get it out of there was a start.

We all generally agree that the initial removal was done in a fashion to not physically harm the plane and was the best for the long term preservation of the plane.

Where we all differ is the method the arrangements to remove it were made.

Some of us feel that skirting around the government was not the best method and a more concerted effort to work with authorities on a national level should have been attempted.

Some of us feel that the local arrangements that were made in PNG should be sufficient and that the recovery was well within legal bounds. Furthermore, this group of us feel that the PNG national government is getting in the way of valid transaction that was made at a local level.

Some of us feel that no matter what is done or how it is done, Swamp Ghost should have been recovered and should come back to the US no matter what.

The questions that remain are: How was the aircraft taken apart to put into shipping containers? Who has control of the plane? Who took the two shipping containers... PNG or the US company?

As for the philosophy behind "why" Swamp Ghost was recovered, it is (mainly) agreed that the plane is better in the US in any state than in PNG unprotected and deteriorating.

In respect to NMUSAF comparisons... yes, there are many B-17s that need work to get them preserved or adequately displayed here in the US, but that should not justify the opinion that "the US has enough B-17's to restore, why should anyone care about Swamp Ghost?" It is agreed that Swamp Ghost represents a rare model B-17E with combat history and that a relic of this type, because it represents a crucial piece of US aviation history, should be recovered no matter what.

In respect to accountability for the NMUSAF B-17s scattered around the US, it is agreed that the local groups sponsoring currently have the responsibility for upkeep of them. The NMUSAF merely acts as an overseer of the planes in the same way a security guard is looks over a factory... the bests interests of the plane are with them, but the actual work is not what they do.

I guess the only thing I am confused with is how and why we got Tallichet and the B-17 "Memphis Belle (movie)" involved. Was it because Tallichet is involved in some way with Hagan and the recovery of Swamp Ghost? Or is it just because it was an example of a non-as-well-cared-for B-17 out there?

As for the politics of Tallichet... yes, I have heard many of the things you mention mustangdriver, and have even experienced some... NWM losing the P-47 that came to Air Heritage (then was taken away from them too)... the P-39 projects and B-26 projects as "trading cards"... and the swapping of pole mounted planes for fiberglass models that never arrive do indeed come to mind... but that is another topic for another day.

Please let me know if any of this isn't kosher as you see it... I am just a moderator here

_________________
Ryan Keough
Stow, MA

It has???
Are you referring to the nose?

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Yeah the last I saw, the nose all the way back to the cockpit has had new metal put on it, and all new skin. You have to start somewhere.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

O.K. guys well I just wanted to say that hopefully what ever happens to the B-17, it is what is best for it. As for our debates, I hope you guys don't think I meant anything personally by any of this, as I tried to state everything as politely as I could, and still get my point across. The B-17 is my favorite airplane, and I just want to see this rare variant saved. As for the NMUSAF, I guess I am a little biased toward the museum I volunteer for. So understand when I am a little quick to jump in and defend it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I do not dispute for one minute that the 'Swamp Ghost' deserves a better fate than being in the swamp. However what worries me is that the deal as such seems to have broken down so easily to the degree that you wonder how much if anything did the PNG government know about the recovery intentions. If I was planning to recover an aircraft from a foreign nation I would make sure that I had discussed it in the days before and that there was no element of doubt on either side.
As for her combat history - yes she is a very interesting Fortress - I do wonder though if her value is as a static or 'Flying' Fortress . If flying you really do start to wonder if it's being done for historical purposes or
just to put a Fortress in the air. Either way you start to get to the point where large amounts of her history will be effectively replaced to get her into what is judged as a displayable airframe.
Bringing her to the U.S would not enormously add to what the U.S already has - you could argue with a large degree of justification that she should stay in the region even if it meant restoration and display in a country like Australia in the short term.

That was years ago and it's is/was just a shell. The rest is just a noseless-lifeless rotting corpse. A great tribute to neglect, decay and rot.
Jack the brutally honest

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

We could probably have an 8 page thread with Tallichet horror stories. Of this I am taking the 5th.

JH

_________________
-Bill
B-17E 41-2595 "Desert Rat" Restoration Team