B-17D

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Here's an idea, and I'd like to know what others think about it.

Wouldn't it be far more interesting and exciting if the Dyers Lake B-17
was modified and rebuilt as a "D" model?

How many "G" models do we need?

If you think it would be more interesting as a "D", let the Brooks people
know how you feel.

http://nwrain.net/~newtsuit/b17labrador/lostbomber.htm

[DryMartini]

Mr. Brooks is said to not like the look of the shark tailed B-17s.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

I don't like the looks of the P-40Q, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good aircraft. And, the only thing that really makes the B-32 interesting is the fact that so few were produced, but it too was probably a fine aircraft.

History is full of aircraft that some people don't like the looks of, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented in some way when the chance arises.

As I told Mr. Brooks - during the first months of the war, the guys in the Pacific had more "Sharktails" than big tail B-17s and, since the "Swoose" will never fly again, wouldn't it be exciting to see a B-17D in the air.

And wouldn't that be an outstanding tribute to the guys that flew into a war at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, or the guys from Clark Field and the other bases where they took the war to the Japs during those early months of 1942?

I wonder if Mr. Brooks ever watched the movie "AIR FORCE"?

And before anybody says anything - YES, I know that the aircraft used for the movie was a B-17C.

[aerovin2]

A great idea. The airplane is an ideal candidate. It needs a tail, engines, and extensive fuselage work. Rebuild it as a "D". It would be very different and add much to the warbird world. I had floated an idea to do the same with the remains of s/n 44-83722 owned by Kermit Weeks. Same deal, an airplane that needs very extensive work. All it would take is a couple million. It would be interesting to see if a non-profit group could be started to finance such a project. Its a realistic idea with enough money, but aren't they all?

[Tom Crawford]

I like the idea for a D model or earlier but the logistics of finding the vertical and horizontal stabilizers to restore would present a problem. Maybe the original drawings from Boeing would be available but there are other differences like the side blisters and the dorsal gun position. I don't know if a D or earlier model even exists anywhere, the finder doesn't list any anywhere.
I happen to see "Air Force" the other day and it may be the only really good piece of film of this type remaining. It would be a
good project but we're spending someone else's money. Besides where would we find a John Garfield.
Kind Regards, Tom Crawford

[aerovin2]

The Swoose stored by the NASM at Dulles is a B-17D. The aft fuselage would have to be scratch built, including the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. There would be other fuselage changes required also to bring a "G" back to a "D" configuration.

You're right, we're spending other people's money, but it's cheaper that way.

[originalboxcar]

anythng left of this bird to pattern?

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/B17Ctoday.htm

regards,

t~

[DryMartini]

Not having been to that wreck (yet), I cannot say.
I believe that it would be invaluable even in its current
state, but for one major problem: The U.S. Government

That wreck is protected under some Artifact Archeology Act,
which prohibits the removal of any of those parts for any means.
They are still looking for the guy who sawed-all the wing spar,
wanting to bring charges against him. Monty Hendricks (good man,
BTW) is a Ranger, and he posted occasionally to the old board
on this subject. Getting permission seems to be a long, uphill battle.
I made some inquiries, and became disenchanted almost
immediately.

[DryMartini]

What was the outcome of floating the idea to transform
44-83722 to a 'D' model? Did Kermit offer up some $$$
(and the plane) to do it?

[aerovin2]

With regard to 83722, through a interested third party I did float the idea to Kermit. He said it was intriguing but not worth the money. He noted that most folks at an airshow wouldn't be able to tell a B-17D from a C-54, or some such thing. To do something like this purely from a "wouldn't that be cool" aspect requires both the drive and the deep pockets, sinking money into an project that would not provide anything close in monetary returns. By the way, Kermit no longer owns that airframe. He sold it to Tom Reilly and rumor has it that Tom sold it to a Canadian group. It still appears to be for sale, though, but I'm not sure if the web site that shows it is current.

As noted above, I thought about organizing a non-profit museum to raise the money and direct a reconstuction of that airframe. That's a lot of money, and realistically that small percentage of enthusiasts really interested in such a project probably wouldn't be enough to make it work.

As for the B-17C crash site, I have been there and a friend who is an A&P and restores old airplanes said there was nothing airworthy and little that could be used as patterns. The most intact part are the wings, and folks already know what B-17 wings look like. The tail section from the radio room aft is crushed flat and quite mangled. The control surfaces are gone (probably ripped off during the breakup) and the horizontal tail is mostly crushed. The forward fuselage was never located despite several attempts. Aside from securing the rights, which is extremely doubtful, the amount of money to recover the wreckage would not achieve a whole lot.

If there was an effort to build up a B-17D, it would be of better use to go to see the Swoose with a good camera and measuring devices. From a good source I understand that some or all of the B-17C/D drawings still exist at Boeing, but they are paper records and probably have not been opened in at least 50 years. It is doubtful that Boeing would make those drawings available, so one would be left to work from the existing airplane and good photos.

I spoke with a expert in such efforts, one who has done many of them in the past. His comment: interesting, do-able, but it would take much much money to put it together. A conservative estimate would probably be about $2 million, plus the base airframe.

I think that Dry Martini can probably give an idea about trying to rebuild an airplane such as the B-17. I think he's been involved in the XC-108/B-17E restoration which started with all the big parts. It has been at least a fifteen year effort to date and they are working a bit on a shoestring. Frankly, I had my doubts about whether that airplane would ever come together but I have been surprised and impressed with the slow progress they have made. Still, it looks like it has been hard trying to find funding and volunteers to do the job.

I actually am still interested in the B-17D project but I think a professional restoration shop would have to do the work...thereby doubling (at least) the cost. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to organize a non-profit tax-deductible air museum to restore and operate such an aircraft. A few big grants, a thousand enthusiasts donating money, and presto, whamo, you have a B-17D. Piece of cake.

[DryMartini]

Actually, the drawings are available for even the Y1B-17 - on microfilm.
That adds yet ANOTHER obstacle, in using film readers, and in some
cases, the film is not in good (or even readable) shape. I've been
scanning the film at a high resolution, and then image processing
the file to get something more readable, but in the large assembly
drawings, we are approaching the film's limits for resolution.

I hear that Tom Rielly is packing up and moving to Douglas, GA.
Much of his aircraft "stash" is up for sale, and it is said that he
wants $200K+ for all his spare B-17 parts.

The "Rat" is actually in good shape, considering we have most of the
main parts. We're getting our large bulb angle extrusions (BAC1515-507)
in a few weeks, and that will allow us to re-string and skin the bottom of
the aft fuselage. We've made some good progress in the last year, and
will hopefully hang the nose back on the plane later this summer. My
web site should be more than a "Under Construction" page in the
near future.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Considering the shape of "MY GAL SAL" when it was retrieved and the shape it's in today, I'd say that rebuilding the "C" tail section wouldn't be that much of a problem.

I too am an A&P, since 1977, and I've worked a lot of sheetmetal. And like any project, it only takes time and money to do something like this.

Another thing to remember, the time and money going in to rebuild the Dyers Lake bird is going to happen, as a "G", it's just a shame that it couldn't be done as a "D".

[aerovin2]

As good as My Gal Sal looks, and it looks incredibly good, I don't think it's airworthy construction. I know some of the problems that the Kellner B-17E group has had getting the proper extrusions and other components. Without having any direct knowledge, there must be a considerable number of sign-off points and documented processes to satisfy the FAA airworthiness certification folks, even flying in the experimental category. Can Dry Martini shed some light here?

[DryMartini]

I don't know a lot about the FAA signoffs and stuff.
We do have someone who comes in and directs us from
the FAA standpoint, making sure we're not doing something
we'll need to rip apart later just appease an FAA inspector.
I'm sure the FAA will take more notice after we get more
completed, and the plane starts to look flyable. In the meantime,
we keep all the metal certs and heat-treating documents well
protected.

As far as My Gal Sal, it does look nice - but the reconstruction is
not airworthy. I doubt it could ever be made airworthy now.
Since it was meant ot be a static display, certain liberties seem to
have been taken in the material used to reconstruct it.
But it does look great.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

How is airworthy construction being defined here?

Did the "MY GAL SAL" restoration people use pop-rivets?

Did they use T-0 aluminum?

The pictures look pretty convincing that they did all the right things.

Just what is it about the rebuild that would make anyone think that the airframe isn't airworthy?