Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Wed May 30, 2012 8:57 pm
From their facebook page
"incoming new aircraft! Our plans are underway designing the perfect exhibit to house our new B-17E "Swamp Ghost" Serial Number 41-2446 arriving in a couple weeks."
Someone asked if she was gonna fly...
"Unfortunately, due to its nature of sitting in a swamp- the airframe is in a state where the resources needed to fully restore the aircraft are far beyond most financial feasibility. We will display the aircraft just as it lay in the swap for all to see and learn the entire story."
I wish Ken, Jim and the gang out there the best of luck with her. Its' a really interesting museum display they are creating.
"incoming new aircraft! Our plans are underway designing the perfect exhibit to house our new B-17E "Swamp Ghost" Serial Number 41-2446 arriving in a couple weeks."
Someone asked if she was gonna fly...
"Unfortunately, due to its nature of sitting in a swamp- the airframe is in a state where the resources needed to fully restore the aircraft are far beyond most financial feasibility. We will display the aircraft just as it lay in the swap for all to see and learn the entire story."
I wish Ken, Jim and the gang out there the best of luck with her. Its' a really interesting museum display they are creating.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Wed May 30, 2012 9:03 pm
Just saw the post on FB, glad to hear it will be reassembled and on display indoors. 
I think that is an appropriate place to display it too. I bet it will get alot of visitors in Hawaii.
The "in-swamp" display will make a nice compliment to the Niihau Zero display.
I think that is an appropriate place to display it too. I bet it will get alot of visitors in Hawaii.The "in-swamp" display will make a nice compliment to the Niihau Zero display.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Wed May 30, 2012 9:57 pm
I agree that it is a VERY appropriate place for Swamp Ghost. A place near Pearl Harbor and all the original material being conserved. Part of me wishes it could be rebuilt to static, but I think the preservation of the original material will make for an impressive, appropriate, and poignant memorial to the history of the airframe and the aircrews of the Pacific. It doesn't hurt that it will be in a visible and popular tourist location alongside a nice collection of its contemporaries.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Wed May 30, 2012 10:54 pm
Great location, horrible idea, IMHO. Yeah, I know I don't have the money to restore her so my opinion doesn't matter, ect, ect.
However I just want to point out that she was rescued from the swamp to save her. If you want to preserve her for the LONG term then you will need to do a considerable amount of corrosion control. So much so that you might as well rebuild her to a Museum Quality static display.
Lots of Museums have scrapped aircraft over the years. What happens a hundred years from now when the corroding mess of non preserved aluminum that was Swamp Ghost becomes an eyesore for the then current Museum director that needs the space for a B-189A?
I can't speak for anyone but myself. But in a California Museum is a Huey that I crewed south of the border in the early 80s. The question i ask myself is; "would I rather take my children to see that complete and restored ( even in its Vietnam markings!) or would I rather take them to see a wrecked Huey that was pulled from the forest and dumped on the floor of a Museum in a Diorama?
That's a no brainer. My kids appreciated the painted and restored planes but looked at me kinda crazy when I wanted to go look at the "unrestored" aircraft in the storage area.
BTW my Grandfather was at Pearl during the attack. He was in charge of the Boat House on Ford Island and had two boats sunk from under him during the the attack. If they found one of the boats on the bottom of the Harbor and displayed it 'as found" I'm not sure that I would consider that a respectful display.
Just one mans views.
However I just want to point out that she was rescued from the swamp to save her. If you want to preserve her for the LONG term then you will need to do a considerable amount of corrosion control. So much so that you might as well rebuild her to a Museum Quality static display.
Lots of Museums have scrapped aircraft over the years. What happens a hundred years from now when the corroding mess of non preserved aluminum that was Swamp Ghost becomes an eyesore for the then current Museum director that needs the space for a B-189A?
I can't speak for anyone but myself. But in a California Museum is a Huey that I crewed south of the border in the early 80s. The question i ask myself is; "would I rather take my children to see that complete and restored ( even in its Vietnam markings!) or would I rather take them to see a wrecked Huey that was pulled from the forest and dumped on the floor of a Museum in a Diorama?
That's a no brainer. My kids appreciated the painted and restored planes but looked at me kinda crazy when I wanted to go look at the "unrestored" aircraft in the storage area.
BTW my Grandfather was at Pearl during the attack. He was in charge of the Boat House on Ford Island and had two boats sunk from under him during the the attack. If they found one of the boats on the bottom of the Harbor and displayed it 'as found" I'm not sure that I would consider that a respectful display.
Just one mans views.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Thu May 31, 2012 12:11 am
Nutts.Should have gone to the AF museum in trade for a gate guard B-17 that could be made to fly again.I would like to see swamp ghost but I wont travel to hawaii to see it and I'm not alone.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Thu May 31, 2012 12:14 am
Good news all around, IMHO.
To pick up on some of the very reasonable points:
The choice isn't to either only rebuild or decay, but to use well-established conservation techniques to retain what original material can be saved (which in this case is most of what's there).
It's a different technique for a different result, and neither is 'right' or 'wrong'. However the concept of conservation is a standard, basic, museum and heritage approach, and I'm continually surprised at how often it seems a surprise to some on WIX. We're all familiar with it when we hit a heritage building, art gallery or even sporting relics.
In the case of the Swamp Ghost, conservation is (in museum mandate terms) the right way to go; it requires less intervention, cost and work that anything else (it'll be much cheaper and less demanding technically than restoration. The other alternative is 'later intervention'. Whoops) and any other approach would cause a justifiable castigation of the museum.
'Dumping' an aircraft on the museum floor whether direct from either the flight line or the wreck site is the problem. In both cases, the aircraft (or artefact) must be prepared and conserved for display. If the museum thinks restoration or reconstruction is needed, that's an additional step, not an alternative.
Secondly there are a number of aircraft wrecks in museums - to take a few, the Betty at Planes of Fame and the Halifax, Hurricane and Gladiator wrecks at the RAF Museum Hendon, or the Great Lakes recoveries in dioramas at NMUSNA Pensacola. In all cases they cause some aviation buffs to throb at the temples; however personally I find they provide a moment's thought about the human cost of war and the fragility of us and our much vaunted technology. That 'pause for thought' which isn't brought out by the 'as new' shiny approach is one of the things many people want and today most museums recognise as part of their required offering.
In fact the 'shiny new' is often a problem. I've been asked, sceptically, if the fully restored aircraft is really the one that saw that action in the battle (in this case, also Vietnam). The answer comes by pointing at the period bullet hole patch is perhaps the most important item on the aircraft for that audience and if replaced with a new metal panel, wouldn't have any resonance.
Without it being some kind of judgement (it's not, it's an observation). I think that says a lot about the values your kids have got from their modern, built-in obsolescence and disposable hardware culture - (and in a different, perhaps more positive way, your interest and understanding.) This isn't meant to be a nationalistic remark, but from personal observation, the need for 'new' looking history is a particularly (modern) American thing. Certainly in Europe the concept of 'patina', and that old stuff is (by the nature of its very survival) bearing witness marks means that the story of the artefact is often in the damage it has. Whether that's a fair comment on American mores or not, most Americans have no problem with the aging marks on stuff; and I don't think anyone would suggest the Liberty Bell should be repaired. Do your kids not appreciate the bell because it's cracked? I'm sure not. So it's just a question of transferring one aesthetic appreciation to another environment.
Interesting point:
I'm sure we agree the Australian War Memorial shouldn't remove the bullet holes in this boat from Gallipoli? (Notably, partly due to the over-emphasis on that stupid debacle in Australian culture, and partly because of the boat's damage, it's in the first area you come into.)
Perhaps a certain 'boat' at Pearl today should be raised and rebuilt; after all it's leaking and decaying right now. But most would agree the USS Arizona memorial is absolutely the right approach.
Good thing to discuss! FWIW, I like seeing a flying B-17; but for me the Ghost must be desplayed as a recovered wreck, ideally in a diorama, which will tell us something of the cost of war, not fake-up the 'durability' of technology.
(And in response to another point, I have zero interest in Hawaii, but the Ghost would be a reason to stop there for me, now.)
Just some museum theory and views...
Regards,
To pick up on some of the very reasonable points:
jmkendall wrote:However I just want to point out that she was rescued from the swamp to save her. If you want to preserve her for the LONG term then you will need to do a considerable amount of corrosion control. So much so that you might as well rebuild her to a Museum Quality static display.
The choice isn't to either only rebuild or decay, but to use well-established conservation techniques to retain what original material can be saved (which in this case is most of what's there).
It's a different technique for a different result, and neither is 'right' or 'wrong'. However the concept of conservation is a standard, basic, museum and heritage approach, and I'm continually surprised at how often it seems a surprise to some on WIX. We're all familiar with it when we hit a heritage building, art gallery or even sporting relics.
In the case of the Swamp Ghost, conservation is (in museum mandate terms) the right way to go; it requires less intervention, cost and work that anything else (it'll be much cheaper and less demanding technically than restoration. The other alternative is 'later intervention'. Whoops) and any other approach would cause a justifiable castigation of the museum.
I can't speak for anyone but myself. But in a California Museum is a Huey that I crewed south of the border in the early 80s. The question i ask myself is; "would I rather take my children to see that complete and restored ( even in its Vietnam markings!) or would I rather take them to see a wrecked Huey that was pulled from the forest and dumped on the floor of a Museum in a Diorama?
'Dumping' an aircraft on the museum floor whether direct from either the flight line or the wreck site is the problem. In both cases, the aircraft (or artefact) must be prepared and conserved for display. If the museum thinks restoration or reconstruction is needed, that's an additional step, not an alternative.
Secondly there are a number of aircraft wrecks in museums - to take a few, the Betty at Planes of Fame and the Halifax, Hurricane and Gladiator wrecks at the RAF Museum Hendon, or the Great Lakes recoveries in dioramas at NMUSNA Pensacola. In all cases they cause some aviation buffs to throb at the temples; however personally I find they provide a moment's thought about the human cost of war and the fragility of us and our much vaunted technology. That 'pause for thought' which isn't brought out by the 'as new' shiny approach is one of the things many people want and today most museums recognise as part of their required offering.
In fact the 'shiny new' is often a problem. I've been asked, sceptically, if the fully restored aircraft is really the one that saw that action in the battle (in this case, also Vietnam). The answer comes by pointing at the period bullet hole patch is perhaps the most important item on the aircraft for that audience and if replaced with a new metal panel, wouldn't have any resonance.
That's a no brainer. My kids appreciated the painted and restored planes but looked at me kinda crazy when I wanted to go look at the "unrestored" aircraft in the storage area.
Without it being some kind of judgement (it's not, it's an observation). I think that says a lot about the values your kids have got from their modern, built-in obsolescence and disposable hardware culture - (and in a different, perhaps more positive way, your interest and understanding.) This isn't meant to be a nationalistic remark, but from personal observation, the need for 'new' looking history is a particularly (modern) American thing. Certainly in Europe the concept of 'patina', and that old stuff is (by the nature of its very survival) bearing witness marks means that the story of the artefact is often in the damage it has. Whether that's a fair comment on American mores or not, most Americans have no problem with the aging marks on stuff; and I don't think anyone would suggest the Liberty Bell should be repaired. Do your kids not appreciate the bell because it's cracked? I'm sure not. So it's just a question of transferring one aesthetic appreciation to another environment.
BTW my Grandfather was at Pearl during the attack. He was in charge of the Boat House on Ford Island and had two boats sunk from under him during the the attack. If they found one of the boats on the bottom of the Harbor and displayed it 'as found" I'm not sure that I would consider that a respectful display.
Interesting point:
I'm sure we agree the Australian War Memorial shouldn't remove the bullet holes in this boat from Gallipoli? (Notably, partly due to the over-emphasis on that stupid debacle in Australian culture, and partly because of the boat's damage, it's in the first area you come into.)
Perhaps a certain 'boat' at Pearl today should be raised and rebuilt; after all it's leaking and decaying right now. But most would agree the USS Arizona memorial is absolutely the right approach.
Good thing to discuss! FWIW, I like seeing a flying B-17; but for me the Ghost must be desplayed as a recovered wreck, ideally in a diorama, which will tell us something of the cost of war, not fake-up the 'durability' of technology.
(And in response to another point, I have zero interest in Hawaii, but the Ghost would be a reason to stop there for me, now.)
Just some museum theory and views...
Regards,
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Thu May 31, 2012 12:43 am
Seventy lousy miles away and I can't get to Chino until maybe the second week of June. How much longer will it be there?
Also, maybe they could compromise and display it on its gear? It'd be a shame to have the last known B-17E remote bottom turret and sighting windows to be stuck in a hole in the hangar floor.
Add to that the "jungle" display they'll have to make if they ever get that B-18 off its perch...
Also, maybe they could compromise and display it on its gear? It'd be a shame to have the last known B-17E remote bottom turret and sighting windows to be stuck in a hole in the hangar floor.
The "in-swamp" display will make a nice compliment to the Niihau Zero display.
Add to that the "jungle" display they'll have to make if they ever get that B-18 off its perch...
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Thu May 31, 2012 12:47 pm
My perfect scenario for the Swamp Ghost:
So I guess I cant be too upset. At least the end result of my idea is actually happening.
1. Restore her to fly on the mainland.
2. Begin to fly her on an aggressive ride program for 5 to 6 years across North America to attempt to recoup the restoration costs.
3. Retire her to Ford Island where she would become the flagship of the museum there and continue to give rides around the islands.
So I guess I cant be too upset. At least the end result of my idea is actually happening.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Thu May 31, 2012 6:36 pm
I think this is fantastic. A full up restoration would only result in a...replica.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:37 am
I'm sorry, I really don't understand this mindset of leaving a pile of corroded metal as a display piece. How is not restoring this aircraft beneficial to future generations? How is restoring it making it a "replica"??? Will todays and future generations look at it and say "Wow look at that 1942 metal the same as it was when the crew touched it!" or will they just say "Wow look at the crashed airplane son!" How will an airplane crash diorama teach them about the B-17's contribution and the early days of the war when it is just a pile of parts.
Recently Independence Hall in Philly had some much needed major restoration done.
http://www.nps.gov/inde/preserving-the- ... e-hall.htm
If you apply the same logic as Swamp Ghost, maybe we should say don't restore it for future generations. If you replace all that wood it will only be a replica of Indy Hall right? It won't be the same wood that George Washington and Ben Franklin looked up at. Let it rot and fall in on itself and put up a barrier around it, so at least what you see will be all original.
Saying it will be a "replica" just boggles my mind.
Recently Independence Hall in Philly had some much needed major restoration done.
http://www.nps.gov/inde/preserving-the- ... e-hall.htm
If you apply the same logic as Swamp Ghost, maybe we should say don't restore it for future generations. If you replace all that wood it will only be a replica of Indy Hall right? It won't be the same wood that George Washington and Ben Franklin looked up at. Let it rot and fall in on itself and put up a barrier around it, so at least what you see will be all original.
Saying it will be a "replica" just boggles my mind.
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:11 am
I have to ask a question here - and I am not trying to be sarcastic.
How many of you have seen what is left of the aircraft? I saw it earlier this year, and was very disappointed in its condition. That is not a statement about its current location or the folks who rescued it - it is simply the reality of its location since its crash landing. What is left of the aluminum skin has corroded so much that it looks like paper.
There isn't much left of it, and what there is is mostly corrosion. I have never restored a warbird, but to the untrained eye, there was nothing there that could be restored to anything close to flying condition. One of the responses above referred to a restoration as being a replica - in this case, I think there wouldn't be anything left of the original, unless they could salvage a data plate or something. Basically, you'd have to build a B-17 from scratch.
Keith
How many of you have seen what is left of the aircraft? I saw it earlier this year, and was very disappointed in its condition. That is not a statement about its current location or the folks who rescued it - it is simply the reality of its location since its crash landing. What is left of the aluminum skin has corroded so much that it looks like paper.
There isn't much left of it, and what there is is mostly corrosion. I have never restored a warbird, but to the untrained eye, there was nothing there that could be restored to anything close to flying condition. One of the responses above referred to a restoration as being a replica - in this case, I think there wouldn't be anything left of the original, unless they could salvage a data plate or something. Basically, you'd have to build a B-17 from scratch.
Keith
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:23 am
CH2Tdriver wrote:I'm sorry, I really don't understand this mindset of leaving a pile of corroded metal as a display piece.
It is not a pile of corroded metal. It is in remarkably good shape and easily recognizable as a B-17.
How is not restoring this aircraft beneficial to future generations?
Most of the benefit to future generations comes from preserving the artifact. Restoration may add a little value, or it may take value away, depending on the artifact and how you conceive of the value.
How is restoring it making it a "replica"???
Calling it a replica is an exaggeration. But it could no longer be called original either. It would be in some ambiguous nether world in between. Over time, as restoration records are lost or forgotten, it would become increasingly difficult to know what it is.
Will todays and future generations look at it and say "Wow look at that 1942 metal the same as it was when the crew touched it!" or will they just say "Wow look at the crashed airplane son!"
Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. What's the point of the question? If it is restored, many will just say "Wow look at the shiny airplane son!"
How will an airplane crash diorama teach them about the B-17's contribution and the early days of the war when it is just a pile of parts.
It will not. But neither will a restored airplane. Artifacts don't teach such things. For that you need words, pictures, booklets, displays, tour guides, etc. to explain them. The real question is, can the displays and tour guides do their job just as well using a damaged airplane (to reiterate, it is not a pile of parts) as with a restored airplane? The new owner obviously feels the answer is yes, maybe better.
August
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:28 pm
quote "Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. What's the point of the question? If it is restored, many will just say "Wow look at the shiny airplane son!"
Actually I imagine they would say "Look son there is a B-17." "See these are what they called radial engines. They are like that because at the time it was the most efficient way to design an engine with high horsepower and keep it small and light. Look in that window, that is where the radio operator sat. Do you see the old radio equipment? How big it is? See up there is where the pilot sat. Look at the control wheel, it says Boeing, that's who made this plane. The symbol represents a totem pole, and was used since Boeing was from Seattle and took that heritage from the native americans who lived in the area."
or
"So this airplane crashed a long time ago?" "Yes it did."
Actually I imagine they would say "Look son there is a B-17." "See these are what they called radial engines. They are like that because at the time it was the most efficient way to design an engine with high horsepower and keep it small and light. Look in that window, that is where the radio operator sat. Do you see the old radio equipment? How big it is? See up there is where the pilot sat. Look at the control wheel, it says Boeing, that's who made this plane. The symbol represents a totem pole, and was used since Boeing was from Seattle and took that heritage from the native americans who lived in the area."
or
"So this airplane crashed a long time ago?" "Yes it did."
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:44 pm
It seems like you have a vivid imagination when it comes to what can be asked and said about a restored plane, but less so about a damaged preserved one. Just to get you started, there would be all kinds of questions raised by a crash diorama about when it crashed, why, what kind of mission was it on, did anyone get killed, what was going on in the war at the time, etc. that would not be raised (literally "glossed over"!) by a pristine specimen. The wreck would be much better for starting conversations about the war, which is what this museum is about, versus the details about the plane itself, which in the end are mostly buff-trivia. Although often a damaged/incomplete airframe exposes internal details that make it a good conversation piece about the hardware as well.
August
August
Re: Swamp Ghost going to Pacific Aviation Museum
Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:32 pm
*facepalm*
Putting the question of preservation versus restoration aside... I am glad to see that this ship will finally be on display somewhere for folks to see.
Fade to Black...
Putting the question of preservation versus restoration aside... I am glad to see that this ship will finally be on display somewhere for folks to see.
Fade to Black...
Last edited by CWBuff on Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.