Memphis Belle update

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:09 am

StangStung wrote:

Misterg97 wrote:

However, in order to display all 3 B-17's in the WWII gallery, what should be removed? The gallery is about as filled as I would like.

quote]

Jerry, I was thinking the exact same thing. As big a "wow" factor as it would be to see them all together, how much difference would it make to overall mission of the NMUSAF to have "G" model B-17 sitting next to an "F" next to a "D"? My guess is probably not much. And if you're going to do that, why not pull in the B-24J from Barksdale, park it next to SB so you can have a "D" and "J" there? Same result, right? As much as we "purists" might like to see it, I'm not sure how practical that is. Especially when there are large chunks of the USAF story that still need better telling (read: more money) at the museum (airlift anyone?).

But of course I think the glib answer would be, "Perhaps the NMUSAF should build another hangar?"

Your other observation is also well taken. When I first went to the museum as a kid, it was two hangars joined by a restaurant and the off-site hangar. It has really grown in a positive way in the interim and is a first rate institution.

Bringing the B-24 from Barksdale would be very cool I think.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:20 am

I think what you may see is the WWII hangar acually extended. That said, my personal opinion (and it is nothing more than that) is that they will just have the Belle in the WWII Gallery and the Swoose in pre-war hangar.

StangStung · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:26 am

Swoose in Pre-war and Belle in WWII would seem to be the most logical thing to do. Though the pre-war hangar is pretty full itself as I recall...

But seeing the WWII hangar extended would be pretty cool, and also fitting, considering how important those few years were to the birth of the AF. My wager is, that it will be a VERY long time before we'd see that happen considering how long the Presidential/ Airlift hangar is taking. But who knows, if the right person with an interest and a deep pocket shows up anything's possible.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:29 am

Yeah I agree. And the aircraft taht will need that space are years away from being restored. Keep in mind there is already a space in the WWII hangar for the Helldiver.

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:32 am

mustangdriver wrote:

Yeah I agree. And the aircraft taht will need that space are years away from being restored. Keep in mind there is already a space in the WWII hangar for the Helldiver.

Chris, any idea when the Shrike/Helldiver restoration will be finished?

Misterg97 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:20 pm

OK Guys ... dig deep ... 6 million to 10.8 million to 25.4 million and the one yet to be built is at 47 million ..

StangStung · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:37 pm

Great graphic! Pretty much what I'd expected/suspected.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:39 pm

Actually, the price isn't as inflated as you think.

According to "The Inflation Calculator", the FY2010 cost of the hangars were -

$31.9 Million for the original museum
$19.7 Million for the Cold War Hangar
$30 Million for the Modern Flight Hangar

Considering that the Cold War hangar is a bit smaller than the Modern Flight hangar, the difference in price means they ended up paying about the same per square foot for each of the 3 existing hangars. The new hangar (as I understand it) is supposed to be bigger than the previous hangars, so I would venture to say that the increase in cost is proportional to the additional square footage and different materials they're using.

6trn4brn · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:53 am

Hmmm.....not sure how one is to compare the outside display B-24 that would need a ton of work/dollars to bring it inside for display beside SB to an already restored, combat veteran in SSSB?!?

I guess my point that I was trying to make was that for all of the Joe Beercan types (like me) visiting the NMUSAF, having a combat veteran "G" model on display alongside The Belle would be a great "wow factor". I have no doubt whatsoever that if SSSB does go to Udvar-Hazy, she will be well looked after. Having visited the NMUSAF more times than I can count, the actual combat veteran aircraft of display seem to hold my attention a lot longer. If SSSB does end up at Udvar-Hazy, then they will now have to deal with my droolings as I oogle her and Enola Gay far longer than some of the other glamor girls there :twisted:

In my best Rodney Dangerfield impression....."I tell ya...this is a tough crowd here".....

(Any more hangar talk of Flak Bait going to the NMUSAF for display "as-is"?)

wingman1 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:26 am

6trn4brn wrote:

(Any more hangar talk of Flak Bait going to the NMUSAF for display "as-is"?)

so Flak Bait is still "incomplete"? :wink:

Ken · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:49 am

The truth is that politics and budgets will determine the fates of these airframes. I'm not saying that curators and historians don't have a say, but even the most starry-eyed of our group must realize that a simple suggestion like "Let's send Flak Bait to Dayton" would set in motion a months-long project costing a tidy sum of money. The manpower and money has to come from somewhere ... that's similar to saying that "the WWII exhibit is full, what must go?" ... money to move one airplane would likely take away from something already budgeted. I don't care for that answer, but that's the truth.

The devils advocates might say, "Well, if it has to be trucked from Silver Hill to Hazy, then load it up and truck it to Dayton." That's not a bad argument - and one I'd personally support. Just remember, adding a jewel to one museum's crown is often seen as removing one from the other's. And, once it arrives, it has to be cared for and placed amongst the existing collection. Beyond the love we have for these birds, those day to day constraints still exist.

The best news is that Flak Bait, Swoose, etc are currently indoors and cared for. The real problem is with aircraft like the Barksdale B-24 and other outdoor B-17s. Every day they are one step closer to fatal corrosion. How long will it take? I can't say, but I do know that when the B-24J is gone, that's something that can't be replaced. I'd selfishly like to see it get the Memphis Belle treatment, but, being realistic, I'd be happy if it were brought indoors, even if that means in a crate for now.

Maybe as the newest building goes up at Dayton, the current Presidential/Research hangar could serve as shelter for such airframes as they sit in the display queue. Time will tell.

Sharing thoughts on WIX are fine, but if you want to influence the outcome, I suggest politely and professionally contacting the folks who hold the political and financial strings in these organizations - they are the only ones who will eventually affect the outcome.

Ken

Misterg97 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:42 pm

[Maybe as the newest building goes up at Dayton, the current Presidential/Research hangar could serve as shelter for such airframes as they sit in the display queue. Time will tell.

Ken[/quote]

I have nothing to back this up ... however, with the R&D (next to the Presidential) being so packed that one can hardly walk thru it ... it may be, only my thought, that they may use that area for R&D as well

Jerry

Dan Johnson II · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 1:49 am **Posts:** 659

Wouldn't it be something though, to see all three 17s together. 40-45 as you go D, F, G. Talk about a real history lesson.

Ahh one can dream

Chappie · **Joined:** Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:40 am **Posts:** 987

When Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby comes to Dulles would they fly it?

Chappie

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:51 pm

No, it would be trucked.

Warbird Information Exchange

Memphis Belle update

Who is online