USAF: "Memphis Belle" Is Going to Dayton

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, therefore the discussion on the subject of the Swoose is both interesting and diverse.

Several of you have batted around the argument of which timeframe the Swoose should be restored as, the wartime fighter of December 8, 1941 or the transport of later war years with all of the "modern" equipment upgrades. Some say the latter is just as much a part of her history as the previous timeframe. To that, I say "yes it is." But never-the-less, the transport simply doesn't hold the historical interest that the early war bomber does! (my opinion, I know).

Look at the Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby. She too was a bomber turned transport. The airliner life is every bit a part of her history as the bomber, but lets all face it, we would be disappointed to travel to the USAFM and view a "transport" B-17 that had a storyboard describing how she once fought along side other 91BG B-17's and sat before you now as the less-than-impressive Swiss airliner that was the most recent of her time-line.

Again, my opinion....and you know what they say about opinions!

[Mike]

Swiss airliner?????

And there was me thinking that it was a French survey aircraft!

[mrhenniger]

But never-the-less, the transport simply doesn't hold the historical interest that the early war bomber does!

I certainly respect your opinion but I couldn't disagree more. I would very much like to see Swoose preserved and reassembled (I assume it is stored disassembled) as it was when it left service. It would be a tribute to the ground crews that kept them running and the designers that came up with such a robust design. It would also recognize the inginuity of the mechanics in the field. I would suggest a significant artifact would be lost if it were to be converted to anything else.

The airliner life is every bit a part of her history as the bomber, but lets all face it, we would be disappointed to travel to the USAFM and view a "transport" B-17 that had a storyboard describing how she once fought along side other 91BG B-17's and sat before you now as the less-than-impressive Swiss airliner that was the most recent of her time-line.

Again... I disagree. I for one would not be disappointed to see the Baby preserved as a Swiss transport as it is a valid part of its history and tells the story of the Baby much better than a standard G model. There are so many B-17Gs preserved around the U.S. that one more really doesn't add much value to the pool of preserved airframes. A transport B-17 would be a valid type to restore as the transports had their own important role in history, we just often regard only combat related airframes as important. Too bad in my opinion. However, it makes sense to have a G model in the USAFM collection as it the G model was the definitive version of the B-17. As far as the Baby is concerned it is water under the bridge now.

BTW... I think it would be very cool to see a B-17 on the airshow circuit marked to represent one of the patched together B-17s from major components of many airframes that Steve Tournay mentioned in another post. That would be very cool. That too would go along way to telling the COMPLETE story by including stories of ground crews and flying crews that kept "rolling with the puches no matter how hard the punches" were (metaphorically speaking).

Regards,

Mike

Swiss airliner?????

And there was me thinking that it was a French survey aircraft!

Here is the history of the aircraft. It was apparently was Danish airliner before it went to France.

91st BG, 401st BS March to May 1944 24 combat missions
Sweden October 1945 SAAB flight test (SE-BAP)
Danish Air Lines November to October 1947 Stig Viking (OY-DFA)
Danish Army March 1948 to December 1949 Store Bjorn (672)
Danish Navy December 1949 to October 1952 Store Bjorn (672)
Royal Danish Air Force October 1952 Store Bjorn (672)
French National Geographic Institute May 1955 to July 1961 F-BGSH

[Mike]

Indeed.

Danish

Then French

Never Swiss

So why would anyone want to display it as a Swiss airliner?

Indeed, my mistake....It started out in Sweden, but became a Danish airliner. Please forgive me1:oops: As if I was the first to make a mistake

Never-the-less, we seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

I love the responses I generated! Seems everyone would go their own unique direction if responsible for these fine machines.

For those who are B-17 transport fans (and there seems to be many), you must all be horrified by the XC-108 that is being rebuilt as a B-17E in Illinois.

[TimAPNY]

Give me a bomber anyday. Any word out there on that B-17E?

Not to get off subjest but if the CAF's LB-30 has all the turrets mounts still in it why not put some on it? That is another a/c I would love lose its Cargo MOD. (IMO)

[mrhenniger]

For those who are B-17 transport fans (and there seems to be many), you must all be horrified by the XC-108 that is being rebuilt as a B-17E in Illinois.

Well yes but... even I would suggest that at least it is being restored. A restoration is no small undertaking, and my hat is off to those take on such tasks where otherwise it would not be done at. Better restored as something rather than rotting.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

Couldn't agree more. Keep'em fly'in! The fact that it is in restoration is quite enough for an "at a boy!"

The plane was chopped up for scrap and simply didn't make it all the way to the smelter! The guy who owns it now saw the potential and the need to save the plane and restore it to it's former glory. And the choice was his as to which of her "former glories" it would be (the plane started out as a B-17E.....I made a mistake in the airliner the Baby use to be...but this I do know is true)

Regards