hbtcoveralls wrote:
The article in my paper today said that a restoration to flying condition would have cost "a million dollars" and every piece would have been replaced. I doubt the million dollars price tag but, if it was restored to fly it would have been a different story all around.
Well, I can say that there is some truth to the idea that a restoration would require virtually everything being replaced.
The A/C was pulled from Lake Greenwood in 1983 because the USAF Museum was seeking a B-25 and it was well known that there were some in our Lakes. The organizers started the operation without consulting the museum, in the end raising a bomber that the USAF was not interested in (they did not want a large restoration project). So, in the end the bomber sat in Greenwood for nearly a decade before any work was done to it. I already explained how when it was "restored" it was completely gutted, with engines taken from Piedmont Airlines and it landing gear welded down. (The nose gear collapsed towing it through Columbia, which is why the undercarriage has ever since had those bars holding them together.)
What opportunity there was to restore the bomber has been lost since the early 90s (at the latest). Conservatively, I would estimate that 15 to 20 percent of the airframe is salvageable. Any restoration would render it a new airplane, but the time to "conserve" what they have (a major point of contention with the board) has long passed. I for one don't mind static restorations, if only because a good static is often more accurate than a flyer, but anything is better than nothing in this case.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
