Warbird Information Exchange

If anyone has any suggestions for what we should add to the Aluminum Overcast's interior, please send them on to me. We just put in the bombardier's instrument panel this spring, and I'm working on the ball turret electrical system this winter.
Thanks
Chris

Great thread topic Holedigger. I'm enjoying the trend in restorations toward more complete and accurate interior restoration of warbirds. No doubt, eBay and other websites on the Internet have really made the task of finding parts and sharing information a much less time consuming task. The bar has really been raised in the last decade. What used to pass as a grand champion at Oshkosh in the early 1980s would probably not make it into the finals today.

I wish I had joined Evergreen in 1988 rather than 1989. I might have had a chance to change the interior paint color. Oh well, a good horse is never a bad color. Even on the inside, right?

What all you bomber restoration guys need is to find more guys like "Mike" at this website.

http://aafradio.org/

This guy needs more than a twelve step program, he needs medication. Still, you gotta love a guy that can do this kind of work. Think of the increased bomb load a B-17G could have carried if had not been lugging all these boat anchor radios around?

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"

So, what does the "standard" vintage radio gear on a B-17 weigh? somewhere between 1000-2000Lbs? Huge and Heavy! Then you take a flyer and tour the country with it....Hmmmmm...milage may vary, but that has GOT to add to the cost of operating. And again we run into that old "authentic" vs "operationally economically feasible"! Has anyone installed empty cases just to keep the weight down but to keep the look accurate?

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

As to the question of what should be added to aluminum overcast, i would say quite a bit, starting with an upper turret instead of that big empty hole. I think that the apu was missing as well. As much as i can appreciate the need for lightening up the aircraft for touring, i think that this is taking away from the overall effect and lessening the experience. If its crowded in there, so what? It was crowded back then. I have flown on Fuddy Duddy, Aluminum Overcast and 909 twice, as well as the B-24. I think that the best by far was the B-24, followed closely by 909. The b-24 seems to be quite complete and very cramped to move around in. Getting into the turrets was a real bonus, along with the open gunners doors. 909 was pretty much the same. Fuddy Duddy was a stripped out shell with basically nothing inside it, while aluminum overcast was very nice but just had a "sanitized" feel to it. If these planes are going to be touring, in my opinion they should be made to re-create the experience as accurately as possible. If there isnt enough room for someone to get around, maybe that should be a sign for them to watch their diet. I am 6 foot and 200 lbs with a bad back and i can get around just fine. Leaving things out that are available to be installed is just cheating. The average person wouldnt even know that these things are missing, yet the person that pays the 400.00 plus dollars to go on a flight would probably be a bit more aware of what should be, and what isnt, in the aircraft.

I'd love to add the top turret to the Overcast, but that's a no-go. They have the flight deck arranged for two extra seats and for ease of mobility for ground tours and the pilots. It won't happen until the plane is permanently retired (which I hope is a long time as I intend to fly it someday).

Othewise, we've added the armor plate for the waist gunners, we're hooking up the ball turret so that it will function again, added the cheek gun springs, and a few other bits in the bombardier compartment. As with any airplane, it's a work in progress. The mechanics have enough to do to keep her flying, while the volunteers get to do the restoration work.

I'd love to get the chin turret working again, but the added weight will take the airplane out of the CG range that the current pilots prefer.

Any other suggestions are welcome!!! I need another project lined up for when the ball turret is done.

So, will it cost extra to ride in the operable ball turret?!?! Bet it would be a great view as you could swivel around and see the world , all out that little bitty window!

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

No disrespect intended, but you confirmed my intended point. The turret cant go in because there are two extra seats on the flight deck. WTF?? Is it a bomber or a cruise ship ? All of that aside, it is a very well restored aircraft and you guys have done a fantastic job with it. I just think that the operators of this and other bomber are selling the paying passengers short by leaving available things out. Other aircraft have the turret in place and seem to get by fine.

Sorry Holedigger, but I don't believe anyone is going to get the chance to ride in the ball turret. Too much liability, etc... I would like to re-engineer the B-17 Fantasy Camp a little bit and let people ride in the ball turret and tail gun, but I don't think the powers that be would like that too much.

At this point, I'd say that the Overcast is a cruise ship more than a bomber. The only reason she's still in the air is because people pay to fly in it. If we took out all of the seats that weren't originally there, then the plane wouldn't pay for itself, and she'd be a hangar queen. I understand and appreciate your desire for originality groundpounder, but there are trade-offs that have been and need to be made to keep her out there.

That being said, we still want to put as much original equipment into the plane as possible. We just picked up an autopilot, and we're going to install that (inoperative) when she gets home in December. I'd love to make it operable someday. I'll check into the APU.

Chris

Figured as much!!! It is a tough call as to what to put back in and what to leave out. I would rather see a stripped Fort fly than have a fully equipped static on the ground. Don't get me wrong, any preserved Fort is a good thing and the effort that goes into preserving and restoring them should be applauded. Unfortunately it usually does boil down to making enough money to fill the tanks. And a fully decked out fort, I would almost be afraid to let the "Public" in as there are so many things that can be broken or "lifted" or them hurting themselves upon. It is a shame really, but finding the right balance for the situation IS the game. Don't like how some organization operates their fort? Buy one and run it the way you want too!!! It's only $$$$$$$'s!!!

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

Points understood and appreciated. Good job !!

I've flown aboard various Forts, with and without the top turret in place. I love authenticity, but it gets very crowded trying to do tours with a top turret installed. One of the great things about doing tours is that WW2 veterans can go aboard a Fort for what might very well be their last time. Many of them are so frail that they can barely make it up the ladder into the airplane, so it's better that they don't have too many obstacles to overcome. Our guests often ask me about the turret and why we don't have one installed. I just tell them it's because we can't afford it, and that tends to be a good enough answer. As it is, we can have four guests standing in the flight deck while our tour guide sits in the right seat and describes what they're looking at. More "bang for the buck", I guess.

Chuckie has two extra seats in the fight deck, and obviously no top turret other than the replica dome tacked onto the top of the fuselage. Those two seats are occupied by our Flight Engineer and our Crew Chief when we're on an air show mission. It's nice that those crewmen don't have to stand up for an entire mission! When we're doing a Flight Experience mission, one lucky guest gets to sit behind the pilot, which is an added thrill for them (I assume it is, because it sure is for me!) .

Cheers,

_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Port Charlotte, Florida

During our "Worlds Last Flying B-24J fantasy camp" every crew member that wanted to get in the ball turret during flight did so...and did very well. Taigh has a ball turret mounted on his truck which was used as a trainer. Once airborne people knew exactly how the turret functioned. I am not sure how many flew in the turret but I know it was over 50% of the passengers.

Jim

Very interesting thread.

Why stop with a complete aircraft? Make them wear the flying kit (underwear as well) then have W.W.II 8th AF chow, and don't forget the flack and to kill a few of the tourists pretending to be crew while injuring others... Make sure you take out the pilots occasionally for that extra dose of terror.

While it's a great thing to be touring with these aircraft and giving rides, we must remember it's always ONLY a partial experience. Pushing for authenticity is to be commended, and new ideas like the 'fantasy camp' etc. are great and to be commended. But it isn't the real thing however many widgets you carry. It's just pretending.

We hear a lot of talk of 'honouring 'and 'respecting' the experience of those who really went through war in these, and I'm sure the intent's good. But a ride's a ride, not recreation of the experience in any degree. It's as fully authentic as walking through a hole in the ground for five minutes is a 'trench experience'.

Interesting point. I'd like to believe there's a correlation between $400 and knowledge - does the ride provider's experience back this up?

Errrr... It's a cruise ship. It's certainly not a bomber. It was a bomber, but it's very, very very obsolete.The war's over.

Two extra seats on the flight deck? Sounds like a good deal to me. I'd rather sit there for a take off and look at a turret on a static B-17 than get all puritanical about pretending.

It's interesting that each B-17 operator has come to a different level of originality that they think works for them as 'best compromise'. and that's the point, it's not 'right' or 'wrong' but the best compromise between the needs.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Thunderbird has a full top turret assembly with all the head knockers and shin bangers.
As for weight, current warbird B-17's are not carrying a bomb load. The Bird has six dummy bombs for looks. Nor do they carry a full ammo load. Thunderbird's guns are replicas that I have been told are a few pounds lighter than real Brownings. No oxygen gear except a few pieces. Probably no armor plate either. We do fly with max ten people aboard and most of us are larger than than our WWII USAAF predecessors but we're not wearing and carrying full war kit. Fuel load varies with the need of the moment. The radio room contains seats. The radio desk has a bundle of coffee stained sectionals and a telegraph key.
There are plenty of correct static planes, do what you have to do to keep flying, I say.

blue skies& tailwinds
Canso42

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."

Whats B-17 is this
[URL=http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2957797610105157113kfYfyj]
[/URL]
[URL=http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2595177820105157113KhayFd]
[/URL]



Answers please