B-17 My gal sal

[res6kgcr]

I do not want to belittle the work of the volunteers of The Ultimate Sacrifice Memorial Foundation but “My Gal Sal” is painted wrong.

The ships of the 97th Bomb Group were originally intended not for Britain but for the AAF to hunt down U-boats during the shipping sinking crisis of early 1942.

They were painted in an ad hoc rush fashion by Boeing of the then in effect Air Ministry Temperate Sea Scheme for patrol aircraft of an disruptive pattern Extra Dark Sea Grey and AAF Shade 41 Dark Olive Drab, in lieu of Dark Slate Grey for the upper surfaces and Sky under surfaces. By the photographs the paint crews eye ball the pattern and at least two different crews did the painting, one crew did a “straight” edge pattern and one did a “wave” pattern for the disclamation between the upper and lower surfaces.

Here are some color photos of this scheme:

The well repeated landing of 41-9020 piloted by Lt. Dempsy after its collision with Lt Wiley’s 41-9051.





And 41-9023 ALABAMA EXTERMINATOR II about a year later in 1943 as seen in the movie “The Memphis Belle” note how the Extra Dark Sea Grey has by then fade out across the rudder or is a different color.



I think that the Extra Dark Sea Grey and Sky was painted over the Dark O.D. and Neutral Gray in the rush to get them out for in this photo of the 1965 Society of Automotive Engineers expedition to the crash site the top layer of paint has been ice blasted off leaving behind the Dark O.D. underneath.



The Star insignia along with the under wing U.S. ARMY were painted on during sub-assembly and mask off during final painting thus the neat edge.

As far as the blue shade of the under surface I think again this is the Neutral Gray that is left from the years of ice blasting, some paint manufactures made a very blue Neutral Gray.

I think that the volunteers followed the reasonably assumptions of now some 50 years that if it was a British day bomber they were painted in the A.M. Temperate Land Scheme but the A.M. did ordered Catalinas, some Hudsons and some Fortresses in the Temperate Sea Scheme for anti-submarine patrol work and the air force said to Boeing “paint them the way the Brits are doing and make it quick”.

Best regards to you all

Tom

[runninwild]

<< Comment removed by WIXMOD-Charlie due to personal attack. If you can't take some constructive criticism, this is not the forum for you. >>

[Jerry O'Neill]

I regards to he paint on the B-17. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was painted in those colors by the previous owner not the WWII Museum.
I'm glad it's in New Orleans. It's a great home for it!
Jerry

[Dan Johnson II]

Tom,
Who gives a rats ***! You don't want to criticize, but that is exactly what you do. How about the fact that they spent 12 years saving a piece of history. I don't care how they painted it. It was their aircraft. Now it is ours and the paint will stay the same. I also restore Muscle cars and always there is some know-it-all who wants to tell me what I did wrong. Well, it is MY CAR!!! I will build it like I want. Now I am re-assembling "Sal". It is a magnificent aircraft, it looks terrific and it will make an outstanding display. If you don't like it, get your own and you can paint it however you like.

Considering he presented the information very respectfully and clarified what the historically correct paint would be for a B17 with a documented scheme being presented in what is considered a world class Museum, I hardly call it criticism. I would think the museum would welcome the information.

How you presented yourself however was very rude and disrespectful. This isn't some private owner who gets to do however they please with their warbird. This is a Museum that is representing the history of WW2 and in that regards it's efforts should be to educate people. And as the information is readily available about the correct paint, I would hope in time they get the funds to get it right.

So I suggest you back off with your commentary and try again.

[bdk]

Tom,
Who gives a rats ***! You don't want to criticize, but that is exactly what you do. How about the fact that they spent 12 years saving a piece of history. I don't care how they painted it. It was their aircraft. Now it is ours and the paint will stay the same. I also restore Muscle cars and always there is some know-it-all who wants to tell me what I did wrong. Well, it is MY CAR!!! I will build it like I want. Now I am re-assembling "Sal". It is a magnificent aircraft, it looks terrific and it will make an outstanding display. If you don't like it, get your own and you can paint it however you like.

And here I thought this was the Warbird INFORMATION Exchange... I guess some people just don't want information around here, they just want some free advertising.

[groundpounder]

Here we go again....Waaaahbird information exchange. I gotta laugh when i read posts like these.

[WIXMOD-Baker]

Let's all take a deep breath. Words on a screen are devoid of the subtle nuances that are found in face-to-face speech. I'm sure that nobody deliberately sets out to offend anyone else.

I really don't want to have to lock what is a very interesting thread.

Play nice, gents. Please.

[JDK]

A general comment by a museum watcher here;

There's currently a fashion (or the current 'best idea' if you prefer) in museum circles for placing objects 'in context', i.e. full size dioramas, as demonstrated by the IWM in London looking to return several of its large objects to new displays when the main hall opens again. This is a reaction to the 1980s sterile display in a 'gallery' environment they had before.

Relevant comment here:
http://blogs.iwm.org.uk/transforming-iw ... that-real/

Context:
http://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-london ... iwm-london

Both styles have pluses and minuses, as does suspending aircraft vs ground display. However what's not often noted is these change as much for fashion- rather than real analysis-driven reasons as the lengths of women's skirts*.

Regards,

*These skirt-length changes actually were shown by a very clever fellow to follow economic trends rather than any of the more logically expected social and moral factors...

[lmritger]

I'm going to join in here, because I am very intrigued by the comments regarding the camo being in Extra Dark Sea Grey over OD. I've got a fairly decent collection of 97th BG B-17E photos (courtesy our friends at Fold3.com as well as other great sites), and have long noted the two-tone colors applied to the uppersurfaces; and as memory serves, there is a very famous and oft-published photo of a B-17E in a peculiar scheme of (I believe) Dark Earth, OD, and Mediterranean Blue. (The serial might be 41-9101, don't hold me to that though).

This is the first time I've heard of the EDSG/OD uppersurface colors, and the photos provided are certainly noteworthy... does anyone have any further information on that? In the meantime, I'll reach out to my friend Dana Bell to get his thoughts; I am sure he'll be interested in this discussion as well.

Thanks much for sharing that information, Tom... this is quite intriguing!

Lynn

[JDK]

Guess this book from us might be of interest then - accurate careful research, and covers RAF Coastal (Bomber Command, and others related) colours, and discusses the colour details of examples taken back by the US forces etc. I wasn't involved in editing this one, and the discussion on colours is extensive and I don't wish to summarise with potential mistakes. Serious research questions by PM (or e-mail: JKightly AT yahoo.com.au ) will be happily answered though.

http://mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=123

HTH.

[JimH]

Other than the Belle, this is probably the most historically significant 17 out there...and...it's painted...not only is it painted, but it is painted brown. This is one Fort that should have been kept intact and trucked to Dayton. I am pretty sure that 909 has the #3 nacelle and I think Mike Kelner has the rest of the wing parts. ATLEAST it was saved, and I will take that any day. Unfortunately it was restored during a different era of restoration philosphy. I would like to see it restored to NMF in my lifetime but I doubt it. As for MGS, it is a great display airframe and will be a great addition to New Orleans.

JH

[APG85]

I've seen "Shoo Shoo" and I didn't register that it was painted brown. Looked green to me...

[Mike]

I've seen "Shoo Shoo" and I didn't register that it was painted brown. Looked green to me...

Green, brown, whatever. It should be NMF, which is Jim's point. I believe he wants to keep his polishing skills up by giving it a quick shine now and again.

[mustangdriver]

SSB is restored to the correct color for a B-17 G. They did a ton of work getting the colors right and thanks to the folks at Dover, who did the restoration, we were able to get it for our C-47. As for painting it wrong...well the story I get is that there was a good bit of patch work needed to restore it from it's airline configuration. It was basically a wreck. Crew members from SSB that were on hand stated that they thought it had been painted OD at one point. So the museum went with that to kill two birds with one stone. The problem with taking it to NMF is that the nose art was painted by Tony Starcer. If it means risking that art work, then leave her OD.

Jim, ill have to check but I don't think SSB's parts actually went on 909. I believe the NMUSAF sent parts to be copied to Air Heritage and the copied parts went on 909. I still have pieces of SSB nacelles. I'd have to check on that though.

UPDATE: Just talked to Rob who was involved with the whole rebuild. One SSB nacelle was used on 909. Pieces of other nacelles were used for patterns and not used.

[Chris Brame]

Crew members from SSB that were on hand stated that they thought it had been painted OD at one point.

I see the data block on the old photo looks like O/D with black stenciling - was that factory original?