Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:16 pm
Anyone have an official release / quote from either NMUSAF or NASM in regards to this? I'd like to include it on Warbirds-Online if so.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm
mustangdriver wrote:Nope, she is staying where she is.
Wow! Imagine all three planes (Swoose, Memphis Belle, Shoo, Shoo Baby) on display side by side. That would be neat some day....
Last edited by APG85 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:09 pm
That would be cool, but I had heard there are plans to display them in seperate areas. There is a chance that the Swoose would end up in the pre-war area, or Pear harbor area in the WWII Gallery. The Belle will be where the Shoo Shoo Baby is in the WWII Gallery and the Shoo Shoo baby will be the center piece in the Air Force Conference CEnter bing built at the Museum. It will feature a very elegant hallway that will be open to the public and in the hallway is where the Shoo Shoo Baby will be on a slow moving turntable. Now that is one of the plans. The other I heard is that the Shoo Shoo Baby will be right next to Memphis Belle when done in the WWII Gallery. I am not sure how the hangar would be stacked if that is the case. I think the first is the one that will more than likely happen.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:57 pm
This might be a dumb question, but is this a trade betweeen the two museum's or just a transfer of ownership? Is NASM receiving an aircraft or money out of this deal? Seems odd to me that they would just "give up" the Swoose. But hey, I'm not complaining, NMUSAF is the nicest museum I've ever been to, and even better it's a closer drive for me 
It will be nice to see all those B-17s at the same facility, even if they can't be displayed together. This would make NMUSAF the only facility in the world with multiple B-17s, I think?
It will be nice to see all those B-17s at the same facility, even if they can't be displayed together. This would make NMUSAF the only facility in the world with multiple B-17s, I think?
Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:58 pm
well if the Swoose goes to the Air Force Museum at least i can drive there to see her in 3 hours.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:08 pm
We would be one of the only museums to own three B-17's. Kermitt will have two when his other one is done, and the CAF has two, but they are in different locations. That is all I can think of.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:58 pm
For the Swoose, it also was unpainted in its last actual AAF usage. It has a set of "B" wings, or did at some point have its "D" wings replaced with "B" wings. The tail section, possibly aft of the production break aft of the wings, is from another B-17D. So what is original and what is not?
The bigger question to me: is this airplane famous because it carried Gen. Brett around Central America, or is it famous because (before it was named the Swoose) it survived the early, dark days of the Pacific War and flew combat missions until it was withdrawn as a flying wreck?
It should be restored and displayed as one or the other: either as the Swoose in NMF with "G" nose glass, transport configuration and interior, and no armament, or as an Air Corps B-17D in something close to a production state, which is not really the Swoose. Put the bathtub belly gun in, the waist guns, the framed nose, and finish it in polished NMF with rudder stripes and underwing insignia. Hard question to answer but I'd vote for the latter.
The bigger question to me: is this airplane famous because it carried Gen. Brett around Central America, or is it famous because (before it was named the Swoose) it survived the early, dark days of the Pacific War and flew combat missions until it was withdrawn as a flying wreck?
It should be restored and displayed as one or the other: either as the Swoose in NMF with "G" nose glass, transport configuration and interior, and no armament, or as an Air Corps B-17D in something close to a production state, which is not really the Swoose. Put the bathtub belly gun in, the waist guns, the framed nose, and finish it in polished NMF with rudder stripes and underwing insignia. Hard question to answer but I'd vote for the latter.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:18 pm
Chris, Will the NASM be getting anything in return for the Swoose?
Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:20 pm
If the NASM is not getting Shoo Shoo Baby maybe they will make plans to put their G model on display. What a novel idea!
Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:56 pm
So does that mean they have another B17- I thought the whole idea here was to get a B17 that the Smithsonian could display. I have to say that is one aircraft that they really do need to have on display at Udvar.
Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:21 pm
Steve, The NASM does have a B-17G in storage in a seperate building at Dulles. This plane has been in storage since the early 80's and up untill now they had no plans on displaying it but with the Swoose leaving maybe that will change. see www.warbirdregistry.org/b17registry/b17-4483814.html
Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:33 am
I have to be honest and say that no one has mentioned what they are gettting. I heard the General say that it was nothing from the colection at Dayton. I wonder if they might get a B-17 that is out in the cold right now like the Tulare one.
Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:42 am
Sighbax101 wrote:well if the Swoose goes to the Air Force Museum at least i can drive there to see her in 3 hours.
it is only 20 hr drive for me but Well worth it ! 
We will be spending at least two days next summer on our way to MI from Central Texas. I cant wait to see it all .
Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:52 am
At least its only a 12 hr. drive to Midland from central Texas!
Swoosw
Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:57 am
aerovin wrote:For the Swoose, it also was unpainted in its last actual AAF usage. It has a set of "B" wings, or did at some point have its "D" wings replaced with "B" wings. The tail section, possibly aft of the production break aft of the wings, is from another B-17D. So what is original and what is not?
The bigger question to me: is this airplane famous because it carried Gen. Brett around Central America, or is it famous because (before it was named the Swoose) it survived the early, dark days of the Pacific War and flew combat missions until it was withdrawn as a flying wreck?
It should be restored and displayed as one or the other: either as the Swoose in NMF with "G" nose glass, transport configuration and interior, and no armament, or as an Air Corps B-17D in something close to a production state, which is not really the Swoose. Put the bathtub belly gun in, the waist guns, the framed nose, and finish it in polished NMF with rudder stripes and underwing insignia. Hard question to answer but I'd vote for the latter.
The restoration of the finish of the Swoose has been a problem since it went to Silver Hill. In it's post war years it was repainted in a number of silly schemes that all but destroyed the unique qualities of the a/c. While she didn't look in 1945 like she did in '42, at least that was an evolutionary process, much like early B-24s and LB-30s that were kept around. While a prewar natural finish sounds appealing, the condition of the exterior is too far gone to get an appearance, say, of the P-35 in Dayton. As to what the color(s) were after it was hastily painted is anyone's guess. Some period photos show what appears to be a crude two tone upper surface which has been suggested in print. Others show what appears to be a a poor try at OD. At least parts of the underside look like they were black. Even if the correct colors were established, it seems to me that duplicating a shabby worn look is not a great idea for restoration. Bottom line, when the Swoose got back to the 'states in mid '42, it was just a bigger mess than right after it was painted. Then there is the issue of the Swoose logo. The one on the a/c now is not the original, so keeping it and painting around it, so to speak doesn't work.
If the idea is to represent three chapters in B-17 evolution, then perhaps the best solution is to restore it to standard B-17D finish in OD. as a basic representation. It'll never be Godman's Old Betsy or Kurtz's Swoose again.