Warbird Information Exchange

I still just don't get it, she never really made it to being a bomber. She is so cool the way she is and the story she can tell is great. What the factorys did in ww2 was amazing. But all this coming from a guy that would still love to see a few mustangs painted in civilian paint schemes. I learned her history 25ish years ago, when i got to fly in her and FiFi on the same weekend. Either way keep up the great work on her!!!!!!

_________________
I once got a ride in FiFi, that i can never forget.

Thanks again for the straight poop, Brad. But I'm curious: if you can't go back to the early short nose (and yeah, I clearly understand it ain't happening and why not), then why try to make her a bomber at all, and not just stick with Diamond Lil/Ol' 927, the One-Off Perpetual Prototype That Resembles a B-24? I only wonder because to me, the feature attraction of a B-24 A is the funny looking stubby front end. But maybe that's just me.

There's one other thing I also very clearly understand: that if you ask ten warbird enthusiasts, you'll get eighteen opinions. I'll be behind the CAF with whatever it decides to do with her.

_________________
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas

PIC, Ford 6600 pulling Rhino batwing up and down the runway

Because the short nose wouldn't change anyone's opinion about being a bomber or not, and much like the PBY QECs, there isn't ten people in the world that will know the difference at any public appearance. The bomb bay is a different story. Diamond Lil is very hard to market and make any money with (which is how she is supported) if she is stuck somewhere between a bomber and a transport, as she has been all these years. B-24s will always suffer in comparison to B-17s and bombers with no bomb bay will suffer even more.

_________________
Brad

Not my airplane, not my money, so take my opinions for what they're worth...

Given the scarcity of flying B-24s, it would be nice if the ship was configured as she was built and better represented the vast majority of her type.

If a passenger configured B-17 (or a Lancaster or B-29) was still flying, I doubt we'd be Having this discussion. It would be a no-brainer.

Having said that, I'm not sure it being more representative of combat Liberators would result in selling more seats.

Given the complexity and cost of any work and the fact that money might be better spent on long term efforts to keep it flying, perhaps we should just be happy that an airplane that was once, and still looks like, a B-24 is still flying.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Based off of our experience, it very likely would.

_________________
Brad

Really?

From what I've seen at shows where the Collings Foundation have been, most of the general public don't seem to care about technical details, they just want a warbird flight.

If course, aviation buffs would be different.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

For most people a "bomber" without bomb bay doors isn't a "bomber" and thus it's of no interest to them. That's the point.

Most punters don't know the difference so just riding and having the pic in front is it. The cost of modifications and downtime would never be recouped. REmember it's not just the enthusiasts that keep 'em flying...it's the general public!

Can't see that the bomb bay would make that big of a difference - Most people just see a large, vintage four-engined military aircraft that looks like/is a bomber. I would think that the turrets and gun positions would make more of an impression (especially with the kids), but then again, I could be wrong.

a number of years ago the B-24 and B-29 came to a local airport near me, I went out to see them off and what I saw was kind of sad, everyone but 1 person was pre-flighting the B-29, the 1 guy was trying to do the pre-flight on the B-24 so I went over to help him and when we were done I was told that it was a everyday occurrence, everyone wanted to work on the 29, and the 24 was just there to act as a transport hauling the B-29s stuff around.
I never could understand why the other CAF heavies never had a "permanent" home. Sentimental Journey has been in Mesa since it joined the CAF and has funded a very nice hangar for the AZ wing, and all the other heavies seem to move when ever the winds blow.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

I believe Texas Raiders has had a stable home (CAF squadron, not necessarily the same airport) for a long time.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Disagree. See my earlier post.
Recently, we've had three B-17s pass through here selling rides...one of which was pretty well stripped (no upper turret mechanism, etc. ) and fitted with a bunch of ride seats, in other words not very stock. The others were much more authentic. I didn't hear anyone complain.

You could show up with a carbon fiber new-build B-17 look-alike powered with PT6s and most people wouldn't notice or care.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Respectfully John, did I say anything about turrets? Did I say anything about stock interior?

No. I said bomb bay doors. ONLY bomb bay doors.

Personally, the few times that I've been at airshows where 'Lil was, at least a few people asked some version of the "where are the bomb bay doors" or "where is the bomb bay" question. Especially when it is sitting next to other airplanes with their doors open. They wonder why it's called a Bomber when it doesn't have bomb bay doors. I doesn't help that for years certain parts of the Collings Foundation put out there every chance they got that they were the "only real B-24" flying and the CAF didn't do much to combat it.

Also, I find it funny so many people automatically discount Brad and others who've actually spent months and months with 'Lil on the road and seen this first hand time and again, and especially the B-29/B-24 Squadron as a whole who have been the operators of the airplane for so many years as if they didn't hear or see the effects of not having the doors enough to put it high on the list of "major changes" to be made. Gary had a plan to take 'Lil off the circuit after the B-29 was back in the air and flying reliably to put the doors on. He went as far as getting the parts. All he needed was time and money to do it. Unfortunately, since then, there's been other issues (like needing to replace 3 engines) that have gotten in the way, but I'm glad to see it's still on the list.

Can't you'z confed's just change it to an RLB-30? Seems all ya's need to do is stick some old TV antenna's here and there, add some paint and there ya go!

_________________
Zero Surprise!!...

Except it still has its bomb bay doors...

The caption says "Before Conversion", what was it converted to that they wanted to take pics of?