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
Topic locked

Tue May 13, 2008 11:49 pm

And for the record, that whole line of "The memphis Belle Memorial Association asked us to paint the name on the ship" is well.......She was in 100th BG markings first. The name change took place when the movie was to be shot, and there was money to be made.

Wed May 14, 2008 2:37 am

The MoF's BOEING BEE will most likely never leave the ground again as the Museums sworn policy is 'now why should an aviation museum have flying airplanes?' They are scared out of their minds that someone will sue the crap out of them if the thing crashes while on a flight-yet they still drag the 247 out and fly it around !??! :? :roll:

Wed May 14, 2008 5:48 am

I don't understand if the good general has the backing of the US Gubmint behind him to strongarm anyone blaspheming The Belle, wouldn't that mean if he needs funds for anything he can get those funds from Uncle Sugar? How lucrative can the trinkets, baubles and beads sales at the museum gift shop be? Where do the owners of The MOVIE Memphis Belle get their funding from? Here is an idea: see if the good general can get funding from Uncle Sugar to just repaint the entire MOVIE Memphis Belle and be done with it :roll: Only problem with that is how many of us have seen The MOVIE Memphis Belle in person and loved the way it looks...all war-weary lookin with the faded paint and oil drippings?!?

Just one more example of "I said so and that's good enough" mentality. Never question authority comrade :roll:

Wed May 14, 2008 6:28 am

mustangdriver wrote:...The NMUSAF was upset that the movie Belle is being presented as the real deal. It is not. I walked around it at the GOML and I heard people walking away saying, you would think a museum like the NASM or NMUSAF would have the Belle". These people don't realize that the real thing is just down the road, in restoration. I have seen the Belle presented as the real one to people that don't know anybetter time and time again. I have worked on the aircraft more times than I can count. I don't blame the people trying to learn, but to someone not as in the loop as us with warbirds, I can see how they might think it. The NMUSAF wants to sell items with the Memphis Belle logo on them, to support the restoration of the plane. It's like putting a replica Liberty Bell (yes the bell not the plane) right next to the real one, and not understanding why the owners of the real one are upset.



Sorry to sorta hijack the thread here, but that sounds much like the "other" B-24 operator in this great Country saying it has the ONLY flying B-24, when in reality, as we all know, there are two of them. Do I get tired of hearing their statement when we go places and people are surprised to see another one (ours) flying? Yes. Am I going to ask the other operators to get over any problems they have with us and start telling the truth? Already have. Has it made a difference? No.

The point is that, in my opinion, people are going to say what they want. Is the NMUSAF going to go broke because the folks with Tallichet's B-17 are telling folks that he has the real Memphis Belle? Um, no. Certainly nothing against you personally, Mustangdriver, but I too, tire of the "flexing of muscles" from Gen. Whats-his-name at the NMUSAF and wish he'd get the burr out from under his saddle. That, of course, is purely my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

Now, back on topic...
This is an interesting thread regarding the B-17's. I had no idea so many were in the works to fly again.

Gary

Wed May 14, 2008 7:32 am

6trn4brn wrote:I don't understand if the good general has the backing of the US Gubmint behind him to strongarm anyone blaspheming The Belle, wouldn't that mean if he needs funds for anything he can get those funds from Uncle Sugar? How lucrative can the trinkets, baubles and beads sales at the museum gift shop be? Where do the owners of The MOVIE Memphis Belle get their funding from? Here is an idea: see if the good general can get funding from Uncle Sugar to just repaint the entire MOVIE Memphis Belle and be done with it :roll: Only problem with that is how many of us have seen The MOVIE Memphis Belle in person and loved the way it looks...all war-weary lookin with the faded paint and oil drippings?!?

Just one more example of "I said so and that's good enough" mentality. Never question authority comrade :roll:


For the record, we don't get funding from the Government. No tax dollars are used in the museum either. How much do those trinkets help us out? Have you seen our new Cold War Gallery? They helped pay for it. You talked in another thread about not honoring the ground crew because the real Belle will be restored to look new, but mean while the movie Bell flies along looking like it does. THe real Belle was kept very clean during it's tour. Joe Giambrone and his crew worked very hard on her. I am also pretty sure that the real Belle didn't have orange fire bomber colors showing under it's camo. I find it interesting that no one seems to care about the fact that people are kind of fooled into thinking that they were in the real Belle and no one really seems to mind here. In my opinion the Gen. shouldn't have asked them to change the name. BUT without asking the name should have been changed right after the movie tour, since the REAL one still exists. When I was working on it, I suggested a name change, and they said, "Oh yeah there is one in the works." Well that was like 8 years ago. How would you feel if you were the owner of the real P-51D Old Crow. The ral one flown in combat. Then three other guys paint there P-51's like that. It takes away from yours because alot of people are not going to know the difference. This reall dooesn't have as much to do with selling things as it does respect for the real aircraft, and the real heroes.

Wed May 14, 2008 8:17 am

warbird1 wrote:
TimAPNY wrote:
Pat Carry wrote:Now that David Tallichet has passed, does his Memphis Belle still fly?


Yes, for now. Lets hope that it stays that way!

By the way it is now know as “The Movie Memphis Belle" under threat of the US Air Farce. :roll:

Tim


Do tell, Tim! What have they threatened? Not to open up a can of worms, but I thought that nobody could hold a copyright on warbird noseart unless it had commercial applications, i.e. - Disney characters, etc.

Have they repainted the name on Tallichet's bird to say "Movie Memphis Belle", instead of just "Memphis Belle"?


The nose art now reads "The movie Memphis Belle". And the art is in the form as when it was seen in the movie. :lol:

Wed May 14, 2008 9:53 am

I think the effort to stop misinformation being spread at airshows is even above the mission capabilities of the USAF Museum or the Air Force for that matter. I highly doubt that the "the Movie Memphis Belle" is being advertised as the real Memphis Belle at airshows by the operators. We all have heard folks that don’t have a clue talking to someone else like they know everything about everything, that is the problem. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve heard that the Tora Zeros are real Zeros.

I don't care for the threatening tone that is put across in the letter. My question is what would they have done if the nose art was not changed?

Tim

Wed May 14, 2008 10:53 am

I have indeed seen and heard this aircraft portrayed as the real Belle on several events. It took place more back a few years ago. I am sorry but it's not the real aircraft, so why even bother having it painted that way? Why does it wear that scheme. Because it was used in a movie that no one here seems to like. For me it is a respect issue. There is only one B-17 that should carry the name Memphis Belle, and that one is in Dayton. If an aircraft no longer survives, then sure paint up a survivor to honor the real one, pilot, and crew. But if the real aircraft survives, why have another painted that way. Ther were 3,405 B-17F's produced, why not recreate one of them? Was the General correct in sending that letter? Depends on how you look at it. I just went around a room of 12 people that are not aviators, adescribed to them the events, some of which had seen the movie, and they all agree that the name should be changed not out of fear of the government, but out of respect to the real guys. I did that because I was wondering what a person not so into warbirds would think.

Wed May 14, 2008 11:13 am

Mike wrote:I believe that the late Bob Pond's is another which is technically airworthy but not intended to be flown, like the Seattle one.

Being worked on -

Don Brooks' second one
Paul Allen's B-17E (?temporarily halted)
Ex-Greeley bar B-17
XC-108 'Desert Rat'
Urbana B-17 N3154S

Intended to be rebuilt in the future -

Planes of Fame


There are two other B-17 projects in addition to these.
One is not public yet, and the other would result in the oldest
B-17 in existence, although that is a fledgling project with plenty
of good intentions, but not a lot of $$$ right now.

With all the new-build material available, scratch building a B-17
is not out of the question, if there was enough $$$ behind it.
Last edited by DryMartini on Wed May 14, 2008 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed May 14, 2008 11:14 am

Why did the EAA and Weeks make a replica of the Spirit of St.louis? I think they should repaint it as H@ll's Angels and tell the real story!

Steve

Wed May 14, 2008 11:17 am

planeoldsteve wrote:Why did the EAA and Weeks make a replica of the Spirit of St.louis? I think they should repaint it as H@ll's Angels and tell the real story!

Steve


Right, a replica. And advertised it as such. Now these aircraft are in museums. There is a big difference between these two aircraft.

Wed May 14, 2008 11:28 am

mustangdriver wrote:
planeoldsteve wrote:Why did the EAA and Weeks make a replica of the Spirit of St.louis? I think they should repaint it as H@ll's Angels and tell the real story!

Steve


Right, a replica. And advertised it as such. Now these aircraft are in museums. There is a big difference between these two aircraft.


Should we make them change the names on the sides of the Spirit of St louis or just tell the MOVIE Memphis Belle not to fly?

Steve

Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am

Neither. The Spirit of St. Louis is a complete replica aircraft. and it is advertised as such on signs that are with the aircraft on display. As a matter in fact the most recent Spirit of St. Louis replica doesn't carry the art work on it. At least it didn't when it was parked at Oshkosh. The movie Belle is not a replica, and there is no signage to tell you it is not the real belle.

And for the record, if you want to go see the only Spirit of St, Louis, you need to go D.C. Atleast the EAA spirit flew the route. That is a little different. I might be better with the idea if the movie Belle did some more touring of Europe other than just what the movie needed.

Wed May 14, 2008 12:21 pm

mustangdriver wrote:For the record, we don't get funding from the Government. No tax dollars are used in the museum either.


You are kidding right?

The Air Force Museum Foundation website states:

The National Museum of the United States Air Force is an Air Force facility funded by the Air Force for normal Operations and Maintence costs.


Of course tax dollars are used for the Museum, that is simple common sense. Unless of course I missed the memo and the United States Air Force became a private corporation recently. All USAF funding comes from the government and tax dollars. To state otherwise is just silly.

Jim

Wed May 14, 2008 12:42 pm

So, I take it the Swamp Ghost is out of the running? :roll:

As for the "Movie" Belle, yeah, it should be repainted to represent a different bird.

Just my crazy thoughts
Topic locked