reality or fantasy?

[mickleson]

just for clarifications sake, is there actually a movement or an organization that is ramping up to make this project a reality? i have read about the POSSIBILITY of this happening but havent heard of any definate plans or commitments. can anybody confirm or deny this i going to happen? thanks.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

This is an absolutely, positively, definately, maybe.

[gary1954]

Dik, you are so funny......... the man wants to know if somebody is going to bust out with a Charlie model B-17. I think Bill Gates is into puters and softieware, but not aeroplanes

[DryMartini]

The B-17C/D project is indeed a reality.

There is work going on to make microfilm
assemblies readable, and parts are being
gathered (slowly). Realize that this effort is
in its infancy, and with only one shark-tail B-17
left in the world (and that one is tucked away
at the Smithsonian such that one has little hope
of seeing it, let alone getting inside it) it makes
things even more difficult.

There are MANY hurdles ahead of this project,
but there are some dedicated and driven
individuals who want to make it happen.

[gary1954]

Well now, I guess I'll just shut my mouth.
It would seem (at least to me) that the NASM would welcome some folks into the hidden confines of the museum so that the crew would "copy" the B-17 and assist where needed to put an example back in the air........Oh excuse me, the NASM is owned by the "government" by the People for the People of the People, or is it of the people, for the people by the people- Void Where Prohibited by Law

[mickleson]

thanks for your responses guys. am i correct in the impression that the smithsonian would be less than co operative in allowing access to the swoose for research into this project? could a g model be utilized and modified to get this project rolling or would this be a completely scratch built unit? i would imagine that some later model parts would almost have to be utilized at some point. thanks again.

[gary1954]

I would say, that should you utilize a G model airframe and components, and modified it to resemble a Charlie or Delta model, you'd have noting more than a modified G model.
If you would want to build a C/D model and have a C/D model, then I believe you would have to jig it and then build it. But this is just my opinion, and we know how opinions are.

[DryMartini]

The airframe would be new - not an existing one.
At least not a complete existing one. Using the
"F" and "G" sub assemblies where it makes sense,
such as 24V electrical systems, engines, etc., helps
as there are more F and G parts out there, as well as
them being stronger. I've read where the early models
(like landing gear struts) had problems - they were
mostly worked out by the later models.

All I was saying is that we'll take the best components
and turn them into a 'C' airframe.

[menards]

If people were going to commit 2 million dollars to scratch build a B-17C why not pledge the funds to the Swoose restoration? If NASM starts feeling pressure and the funds are in place for restoration. It will be some pretty bad press if the plane remains rotting away in its hanger.

Priorities--

How about seeing some effort to get the funds together to see Desert Rat in the air again?

[menards]

Arent the wings and fuselage the same? Obviously the nose, and from the radio compartment back is different. This project would be more feasable if B-17 wings and center section were used, and a nose and Tail were scratch built.

I would say, that should you utilize a G model airframe and components, and modified it to resemble a Charlie or Delta model, you'd have noting more than a modified G model.
If you would want to build a C/D model and have a C/D model, then I believe you would have to jig it and then build it. But this is just my opinion, and we know how opinions are.

[aerovin2]

Arent the wings and fuselage the same? Obviously the nose, and from the radio compartment back is different. This project would be more feasable if B-17 wings and center section were used, and a nose and Tail were scratch built.

I would say, that should you utilize a G model airframe and components, and modified it to resemble a Charlie or Delta model, you'd have noting more than a modified G model.
If you would want to build a C/D model and have a C/D model, then I believe you would have to jig it and then build it. But this is just my opinion, and we know how opinions are.

I think the idea would be as you say...use "G" wings and a "G" centersecton if they can be found, and rework those components as necessary. There are not really any "G" wings waiting out there right now, but there may be some mix and match opportunities. 20 years ago there was the perfect start for this project in the SB-17G, s/n 44-83722, in desert storage. However, that is no longer the case so it will be more difficult.

As for using the money for "The Swoose" instead, I'm not sure how the NASM treats specified donations and whether it would push that airplane up in their priorities is debateable. As you say, it is all in the priorities, and for some people, myself included, a priority is to get an early B-17 back in the air as a living, breathing airplane. It is entirely doable with a good organization and a funding stream. Putting that together is the tough part, and that is where we are right now.

We will need some very able leadership with organizational skills and fundraising knowledge to put it together.

I cannot believe that there are not 10,000 people in the world who would and could donate $20 a month as a subscriber/supporter in an effort to complete this project, as a tax deductable donation to a non-profit B-17C Flying Museum. This museum would be run as a non-profit with all the constraints that demands, with full accountability and very low overhead. That would raise $2.4 million in one year. I know those folks are out there. How do we find them? There are many groups out there begging for money. The best way in my book is a purely grass-roots organization that is run very professionally.

[aerovin2]

And, I for one, will throw my hat in the ring.

I have some working knowledge of non-profits, probably enough to be dangerous. But with a core group of people to start, those with a common vision and the ability to work closely and well together, a serious proposal should be prepared that involves a realistic idea of what we are looking at: i.e. what existing structure is out there, is it available, what is involved in the new structure, estimated ball-park costs, etc. etc. etc.

We need some people here with great vision.

[aerovin2]

One more post and I'll shut up, at least for awhile.

There are some reality checks available. The one that smenard mentioned is Desert Rat, and that example is probably indiciative of the difficulties to be encountered in fund raising.

The other is the P-40 restoration group at Torrance, CA, which I believe is a dedicated non-profit group. They are doing, or have done, a similar thing. Both efforts, and similar projects, are underfunded, so there are the big red warning flags. The funding is the key, and that needs to be solved before we can get serious.

Possibly also an indicator, this series of posts and topic in general has not even created a blip anywhere, such as the WIX site. There may just not be the interest that we think there is.

How do we assess the actual interest in getting a B-17C (or D) back into the air?

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Scott has some good ideas . . .

"I think the idea would be as you say...use "G" wings and a "G" centersecton if they can be found, and rework those components as necessary."

. . . an idea I suggested last year, concerning the Dyers Lake B-17.

Also, . . .

"As for using the money for "The Swoose" instead, I'm not sure how the NASM treats specified donations and whether it would push that airplane up in their priorities is debatable."

. . . you could throw all the money in the world to restore the Swoose, and it would still never fly again.

And, . . .

"We will need some very able leadership with organizational skills and fundraising knowledge to put it together."

. . . I don't see this as a single person position. People that are good at fund raising seldom know much about what they are raising money for. And people that know how to get something like this built seldom know how to smooze prospective (big time) donors. If any of this was easy, then The Air Museum would have had the Piccadilly Lily flying, again, years ago.

Something else to consider is the location where the project is to be done. A place will be needed whereby people can visit to see the progress of the venture all year. A place that's not going to be subjected to extremes in weather conditions (such as snow in the winter, or excessive heat and humidity in the summer) so that a constant pace can be maintained.

I think that the main emphasis in the beginning should be the construction of the aft fuselage section, and not necessarily the acquiring of the rest of the structure. Once the aft section is completed, it would show everyone the seriousness of the whole project. If, by then, the rest of aircraft could not be located and acquired, then it too would have to be built from scratch. But at least it would already be proven that the people involved would be quite capable of doing it.

Scott also wrote . . .

"as a tax deductible donation to a nonprofit B-17C Flying Museum. This museum would be run as a nonprofit with all the constraints that demands, with full accountability and very low overhead."

I think it would be better to call it something like a foundation, rather than a museum. People are getting a little leery about so many museums popping up everywhere. And as for a low overhead, what's that? Costs aren't just paying people to do the job, but everything else including material (this alone can be monumental), rent, utilities, insurance, etc, etc. However, people that will donate the needed money will always understand these costs as long as they can see progress being made (another reason why the aft section should be the first priority). And who's to say that once the proper jigs are built, more than one airframe can't be constructed.

And as far as this idea not "creating a blip anywhere, such as the (PC-)WIX site", I wouldn't hold that site up as a standard for anything.

Just some of my thoughts, more later.

[Chris Brame]

There are not really any "G" wings waiting out there right now,

The wings from CP-588 come to mind... were any other substantial pieces recovered from Bolivia?