Not for the squeamish: Kingman AAF photo essay from LIFE

[Django]

I'd be happy just to have a few more of these to have been produced.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11975

Way more fun than pots, pans and serving trays.

[Garth]

all we are asking for is a time machine and a large underground bunker to store.., just a few!!!!!!!

Okaaaayyyy ...

Lets say your wish is granted. You also have the money necessary to buy 10 each B-17 and B-24 aircraft (assume that a couple/few B-32s will be preserved as well, along with the B-15 and B-19, so no worries about those particular types) and save them from scrapping. Which ones do you choose?

Caveat: they MUST be aircraft that are available at the post-war boneyard.

I'd bet that "5 Grand" is on just about everyone's B-17 list. I'd add to that my personal salvage wish: 41-24444 "Red Gremlin" - Paul Tibbet's B-17 and notable for a number of things, including leading the first North Africa B-17 mission, and transporting Generals Eisenhower and Clark.

B-24s, I'd probably start with Dragon and His Tail.

Also, is that bunker big enough to hold an aircraft carrier? As much as our blood boils over the loss of some of these aircraft, at least there are lots of their brethren still around. Not the case with a certain Yorktown-class CV that finished the war with 20 out of 21 possible battle stars ...

[ZeamerB17]

Sad ... Here's one of 5 Grand in all her color glory

[Merlin540]

As much as I hate to, let's put ourselves in their positions.

We Americans are a practical bunch. The WWII planes had served their use, and so it was time for people to put the war behind them. Most wanted to get on with the years of missed living-for the tens of millions of people' lives that were disrupted or damaged (not to mention the incredible loss of life). All this equipment cost LOTS of money and hardship- and at the time, most of it was better served being recycled to fuel our economic futures.

That being said, I wish that someone had done a little more to preserve all that fantastic history and our wartime legacy. It was the greatest, highest point in U.S. history- IMO. The achievements and sacrifices cannot be overestimated. It was just too close for them to see it in proper perspective at the time.
But the sentiments just weren't there. My parents-like most Americans (and most anyone else alive back then) were very anxious to put the war behind them, and to start living again.

P.S.
Personally, the sight of all those beautiful, historic aircraft being pulverized for pots and pans just brings tears to my eyes-and pain to my heart!
Luckily though, we lived next to a Navy and Marine reserve air base. While playing or walking to school, our childhoods in the 1950's were full of the sights and the sounds of Corsairs, Skyraiders and Navy blimps-as well as early Grumman Panthers and Cougars. Our school occasionaly visited the base, and we got tours too. The blimp hangar was so huge that it sometimes used to 'rain' inside it -we also used it for our drum & bugle corps marching practice! The base hosted many air shows with the Blue Angels and some warbirds- all during the '50s and '60s. It is all empty now and is sadly missed.

[mustangdriver]

A few that would have been cool to save:

B-17 "5 Grand"
B-24 "V Grand" it was sitting right next to the Belle at Altus, OK
B-25 "Bones"
P-38"Marge"
P-51B Shangri La, well at least the remains
P-51D "Old Crow"
The B-32 that the USAF Museum saved and a salvage crew accidentally scrapped.

[the330thbg]

are these preserved panels still around? How come we have never seen them or heard of them? I haven't.. has anyone else?

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/noseartaahm.html

[the330thbg]

snagged this off of aerovintage.., looks like another nightmare I have had before

[astixjr]

It's interesting to note that Kingman was not the largest post WWII a/c salvage yard but it seems to have been the one that was photographed the most. One of the things about the post WWII a/c scrapping drive that has always puzzled me is the speed with which it took place. I've also found it a bit strange that many of the larger salvage locations were given to single companies and the awarding of the contracts had more to do with "how fast can you melt these a/c" than "who can give the government the most money in return for the scrap". The government was in a hurry to get rid of this stuff and they were ready with a plan that they had started working on well before the war ended. I've recently become very interested in the details of that plan and its principle architect. More on that subject in the future, I'm still doing research on it and I'm not quite ready to stick my neck out yet.

Here's one for you B-24 vs B-17 freaks: Why did more B-17s make it from the salvage yards to private owners? Was it because the B-17 was a better plane than the B-24? Seriously, I'm looking for some independent verification of something that turned up in my research.

[the330thbg]

i would think because the B-17 was a much better aircraft. I have never heard a B-24 pilot have good things to say about flying a B-24.., other than it made one arm larger than the other.. like a hermit crab!!!

Again.., the B-24 was the packing crate that the B-17's were shippped in!!!

[mustangdriver]

One thing I heard that the B-17 guys like about the B-24. From an actual WWII B-17 ball turret gunner that I interviewed, "Oh I loved B-24's. You see we would fly above them in the B-17, and the B-24's would catch all of the flak."

[the330thbg]

I just noticed that B-17 up above here has RADAR in her chin!!!

[Django]

i would think because the B-17 was a much better aircraft. I have never heard a B-24 pilot have good things to say about flying a B-24.., other than it made one arm larger than the other.. like a hermit crab!!!

Again.., the B-24 was the packing crate that the B-17's were shippped in!!!

Pfft. Don't make me dig out my books and type up some quotes...

[Second Air Force]

I just noticed that B-17 up above here has RADAR in her chin!!!

If memory serves that was a lifeboat equipped Air Sea Rescue airplane before it went to the test range.

S

[astixjr]

i would think because the B-17 was a much better aircraft. I have never heard a B-24 pilot have good things to say about flying a B-24.., other than it made one arm larger than the other.. like a hermit crab!!!

Again.., the B-24 was the packing crate that the B-17's were shippped in!!!

"much better aircraft"? Ok, so the gloves are off! Be careful or you might find yourself being visited by the ghost of Rhodes Arnold this evening!

I don't have a dog in this fight but I have to admit, I enjoy the back and forth on the B-17 vs B-24 subject. No doubt the B-17 won the public relations battle durring WWII and has continued to dominate the B-24 to this day in the minds of the public. Still, you have to explain the production totals of 12,761 B-17s vs 18,481 B-24s and BP4Ys. If the B-17 was really "a much better aircraft" then why did the government focus so much energy on turning out B-24s at five different plants?

Let's go back to my other question. Why did so few B-24s find a life in the civilian market after WWII? Compared to the B-17, only a few B-24s ever made it out of the salvage depots. In fact I can only come up with one but there must be others, right? I don't count the CAF's B-24 or any of the Indian Air Force B-24s and if you take those out of the survivor count, the number of existing B-24s that came from the salvage yards is vanishingly small.

I'll bait the hook. What if there was a potential legal problem with selling B-24s after war to civilian operators? What if the guy that headed the company that built thousands upon thousands of bomber turrets during WWII was hired by President Truman to run the organization that would be charged with disposing of surplus military gear? What if that same guy knew or at least had a clue that he might wind up being the person to run the newly formed Air Force? Would you want to inherit 25,000 piston engined bombers knowing what a bunch of Me-262 like jets could do to your bomber formations?

[JimH]

From a pilots perspective I don't really understand the B-24/B-17 debate, they both fly great. They have their own personalities and quirks but from a veterans point of view they are generally biased towards the ones that brought them home. Much like the P-51 was a better airplane over the P-40 in the evolution of fighters, the 24 was the logical answer to the 17, then of course the 29. The PB4Y enjoyed success after the war in limited numbers but it seems the B-17 was more versatile to various roles. Try strapping a lifeboat to a 24. The 24 is a much more difficult airplane to maintain and it is not as strong as a 17 but I can't think of a single reason why more were not saved for tanker operations?? System wise the 24 is also more fragile than the 17, particularly the prop governors, and the maze of hydrualic plumbing.
.02
jim