The B-17 at Tulare, Calif

[hang the expense]

I wonder what ever happened to all the interior of the cockpit to that B-17?Anybody know?

[JohnB]

If you ask them for one, they'll provide it.
However, the NMUSAF doesn't control all the aircraft...back in my day (admittedly 20 years ago) D-M maintained the files on many display aircraft...the more common stuff at VFW halls, schools, and city parks.

[hang the expense]

So nobody knows for sure who owns the plane?

[Steve Nelson]

I think it's owned directly by AMVETS. Considering the multi-million dollar essentially scratchbuilt B-17 projects going on these days, I'm surprised no one has offered them an irresistibly fat check for it. Seems like it would be a better starting point than some projects have started with, and would cost less in the long run.

SN

[aerovin]

I can't state it with certainty but given that the aircraft was placed by the USAF at the request of Gen. Preston in 1958 for display purposes, I think it can be presumed that the USAF retains title to the aircraft. Whether anyone in the USAF knows it or not is another question. I have seen a listing of USAF displayed aircraft many years ago (and I think it was a Davis-Monthan file) and it was on that list. I had heard second or third hand that all of those aircraft were transferred to the jurisdiction of the NMUSAF many years ago.

One might remember that twenty or so years ago the B-17 was moved from the Tulare airport several miles northwest (next exit up Highway 99) to a hotel/restaurant facility where it was placed on display. The AMVETS group had worked out a display deal and it was going to allow a bit of funds to take care of the airplane. However, when the USAF or NMUSAF or someone in charge of the airplane learned of the aircraft being displayed on private property, the AMVETS group was instructed to bring the airplane back to the airport for display (presumably as per the original loan agreement), and it was subsequently moved back to its current location. That in itself indicates that the AMVETS group does not "own" the airplane.

Bottom line to me is that the USAF retains control of the Tulare B-17 and it won't be moved until or unless the USAF pursues that course.

[hang the expense]

It has been 20 years for sure and I had forgotten about that episode.What a shame.

[Steve Nelson]

Thanks for the info, Scott. As for the interior, since the USAF stil owns the plane, I wonder if it was stripped for parts for other restorations. I understand most of the "guts" from Grissom's B-17 ended up in "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby."

SN

[Ken]

Many things in the USAF are overlooked because leaders typically only have 2-4 years in any one job. As a result, priorities get "racked and stacked" and most of us realize (as much as we don't like it) that vintage airplane preservation is at the bottom of the list. Add to that wartime, a tight budget, and the many constrictions of red tape - even a well-meaning officer will likely not tackle a project due to the uphill energy required.

I once spoke with a museum director who had a small staff and small budget. He was proud that they had recently repainted a few planes, were updating bird screens, and had procured some hardware store plexiglass to make some of the windows look better. While the sad fact is that those airplanes are still deteriorating at a disturbing rate, I had a hard time feeling anything but empathy for the guy ... he was doing the best he could, given the rules and real world constraints he had to work with.

The issue lies at the highest levels. I'm left to think that a decision has been made that, for instance, "There are already X B-17's at indoor museums, all the outdoor examples are expendable." Months ago, IIRC, someone on WIX stated that we should be prepared to see big movement on the preservation of USAF statics, but I don't know that anything tangible has happened.

What's my answer? If the SecAF would authorize it, the simplest answer would be for the AF to authorize the sale of an airplane like the one at Tulare. Allow potential buyers (bona fide museum groups in the US) to bid and then let it go, no strings attached. It would generate some income and remove all hassle associated with maintaining that airframe. Will that ever happen? I doubt it.

Ken

[Chris Brame]

Thanks for the info, Scott. As for the interior, since the USAF stil owns the plane, I wonder if it was stripped for parts for other restorations. I understand most of the "guts" from Grissom's B-17 ended up in "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby."

SN

According to Scott Thompson's Final Cut, most of the innards had been stripped out by vandals by the late '60s. Might want to check out garage and estate sales around the San Joaquin Valley...

[maxum96]

One might remember that twenty or so years ago the B-17 was moved from the Tulare airport several miles northwest (next exit up Highway 99) to a hotel/restaurant facility where it was placed on display. The AMVETS group had worked out a display deal and it was going to allow a bit of funds to take care of the airplane. However, when the USAF or NMUSAF or someone in charge of the airplane learned of the aircraft being displayed on private property, the AMVETS group was instructed to bring the airplane back to the airport for display (presumably as per the original loan agreement), and it was subsequently moved back to its current location. That in itself indicates that the AMVETS group does not "own" the airplane.

This was the first B-17 I'd ever seen in person almost 35 years ago. It's in the same location now as it was then. Just no fence around it then. I have slides I took back then. I'll have to find an scan them.

[aerovin]

For what it is worth, I checked my file. The episode of moving it to a local restaurant occurred in 1981 (there went ten years). Aero Nostalgia at Stockton got a bunch of parts in return for restoration work. In the 1960s the engines went to an air tanker company in exchange for some run out cores. Maybe the same with the props. I'm sure it has been picked over for both good (B-17 operators) and bad (vandals), though the two might blend a bit here and there.

[maxum96]

For what it is worth, I checked my file. The episode of moving it to a local restaurant occurred in 1981 (there went ten years).

It think it was 1982 when I first saw it. So that would fit.

[hang the expense]

Many things in the USAF are overlooked because leaders typically only have 2-4 years in any one job. As a result, priorities get "racked and stacked" and most of us realize (as much as we don't like it) that vintage airplane preservation is at the bottom of the list. Add to that wartime, a tight budget, and the many constrictions of red tape - even a well-meaning officer will likely not tackle a project due to the uphill energy required.

I once spoke with a museum director who had a small staff and small budget. He was proud that they had recently repainted a few planes, were updating bird screens, and had procured some hardware store plexiglass to make some of the windows look better. While the sad fact is that those airplanes are still deteriorating at a disturbing rate, I had a hard time feeling anything but empathy for the guy ... he was doing the best he could, given the rules and real world constraints he had to work with.

The issue lies at the highest levels. I'm left to think that a decision has been made that, for instance, "There are already X B-17's at indoor museums, all the outdoor examples are expendable." Months ago, IIRC, someone on WIX stated that we should be prepared to see big movement on the preservation of USAF statics, but I don't know that anything tangible has happened.

What's my answer? If the SecAF would authorize it, the simplest answer would be for the AF to authorize the sale of an airplane like the one at Tulare. Allow potential buyers (bona fide museum groups in the US) to bid and then let it go, no strings attached. It would generate some income and remove all hassle associated with maintaining that airframe. Will that ever happen? I doubt it.

Ken

I agree,I would also add individuals who have the money.Years ago I spoke with an individual that stated they would never give up a B-17 regardless of how bad the airplanes state fell into.That to me says arrogance coupled with stupidity.Time to get congressmen involved before it too late.

[davidwomacks]

Instead of taking their plane away why not just help keep it up? After all the plane would be a soda can if it wasn't for these same guys at least help them get the cash to build a roof over her. If I lived close to a sad looking display plane Id love to help but the only display plane near me is an A-7 on a stick that the city of Tuscaloosa maintains and its in good shape

[Left Seat]

There is a thread called "List of aircraft on loan from the NMUSAF" on WIX here:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52236

The National Museum of the Air Force maintains a list of aircraft they have on loan by description, AFD-130115-047
The list is categorized by Aircraft Type, Serial Number, Organization, City, State
The list was last updated July 2013. -trojandi

It is amazing how many [planes] they claim to have!. 2164 aircraft on the list! -trojandi

The AmVets' B-17 in Tulare, California is on the list... -Warbirdnerd

So... I guess the NMUSAF claim to own the plane and have it loaned out to AMVETs.

According to Wikipedia, Major General Maurice A. Preston secured and flew the B-17 from Davis Monthan in August 1958 for his hometown of Tulare.

DB-17 (-VE), 44-85738, "Preston's Pride", AMVETS Chapter 56, Tulare CA can be found on page 5 of the NMUSAF list.

The "NMUSAF list" can be found here:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130115-047.pdf

According to warbirdregistry.org, it was assigned to "Operation Crossroads" in February 1946 and used as a drone controller for atomic tests, Summer, 1946. That is some fairly significant history. I wonder what its designation was during the tests?

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b17registry/b17-4485738.html