Aero Vintage Books

A local B-17 crash in the mountains.

https://trailwiki.org/hike/crown-point- ... wers-trail

This is B-17F 42-30891 http://www.americanairmuseum.com/aircraft/4933

I'm thinking that I may go chasing after paperwork, and possibly use this wreck as a base for a restoration, to be painted up as 43-38083. I would even consider changing the project completely, to a B-17F instead of G. There isn't much left- Wingtips, parts of number 2 nacelle, and a few tail parts, but that would be just about perfect for a majority new build project such as the one I am undertaking.

I think that this would be similar to the B-17C project, as far as getting the paperwork and then rights to remove the wreck.

-EJ

Am I reading this correctly. Are you going to recover the B 17 c d in the Sierras?

suzyQ194 wrote:Am I reading this correctly. Are you going to recover the B 17 c d in the Sierras?

No, this is a B-17F in the Rocky Mountains, in Pingree Park, Colorado. I mentioned the B-17C because it is a similar situation.

Would rather see the 2 SB-17's that crashed recovered and restored then to see these wrecks broken-up for bits and pieces.

It's improbable any of the B-17C wreckage will be 'legally' recovered. It's been picked apart a bit already through the years but there are several major roadblocks to a complete recovery, legal and otherwise.

A little farther away from you is Hobbs trainer B-17F 42-29563 which crashed in the forest near Potlatch, OR on December 2, 1943. This was a bailout with no losses, so no potential issues about wartime graves. The wreck was mostly buried on-site; an archeological team went up there and uncovered a lot of material including a large piece of the port wing with its star-and-bar:
http://www.aerovintage.com/229563_crash.pdf
Not sure what hoops would have to be jumped through for a recovery.

I did a little more research-

This crash is located in the Comanche Wilderness, part of Roosevelt National Forest. I tried to look up laws about recovering artifacts from national forests, which I assume this would be considered, but I could only find information about artifacts OVER 100 years old. This crash is from 1943, so it is only 73 years old. Is this something to contact the Forest Service about, or someone else?

That would be step #1.

Step #2 would be to consider whether this wreck is viable for a restoration in the eyes of the FAA. I'm not sure where to start on this. There is VERY little of the main fuselage left, from what I recall. There may be parts of bulkhead 3 4 or 5, and part of the tail gunner enclosure (a stinger). I've been told that wings are interchangeable so a restoration cannot be based off them. SO the real question is, is there enough of a paper trail and remaining parts to get a restoration?

And a final point, I believe 5 of the 11 crew were killed in and resulting from the crash (citation needed-). This may be sticky, but I'm hoping that because the majority of the crew survived, it may not be as hard as it would otherwise be.

EDIT: Looking back at a few photos I took, there are also parts of rear bulkhead, I believe bulkhead 8 may be half intact. There are also some hefty parts of wings or stabilizers, which could be rebuilt. The engines are all toast, but some parts may be salvageable (?). I couldn't see if the engine mounts were still there, they may be corroded beyond use but it would be worth checking. Didn't mention this earlier, but there most likely are no data plates. They would have either been hauled off when portions were scrapped, OR they were stolen.

Hopefully I can get some more input about it. There ARE other options for wrecks, probably much better options if I'm honest, but I would like to make this a more local endeavor rather than shipping in parts from, say, Alaska, or Oregon.

FoCoB17G wrote:I did a little more research-
Step #2 would be to consider whether this wreck is viable for a restoration in the eyes of the FAA. I'm not sure where to start on this. There is VERY little of the main fuselage left, from what I recall. There may be parts of bulkhead 3 4 or 5, and part of the tail gunner enclosure (a stinger). I've been told that wings are interchangeable so a restoration cannot be based off them. SO the real question is, is there enough of a paper trail and remaining parts to get a restoration?

EDIT: Looking back at a few photos I took, there are also parts of rear bulkhead, I believe bulkhead 8 may be half intact. There are also some hefty parts of wings or stabilizers, which could be rebuilt. The engines are all toast, but some parts may be salvageable (?). I couldn't see if the engine mounts were still there, they may be corroded beyond use but it would be worth checking. Didn't mention this earlier, but there most likely are no data plates. They would have either been hauled off when portions were scrapped, OR they were stolen.

Hopefully I can get some more input about it. There ARE other options for wrecks, probably much better options if I'm honest, but I would like to make this a more local endeavor rather than shipping in parts from, say, Alaska, or Oregon.

As long as you have some identification -- even just a single dataplate with the serial number on it, you can register it with the FAA.

Plenty of dataplate Hurricanes floating around.

There are three different B-17 wings manufactured -- Boeing early (heavy wing) -- Upto the early B-17G's -- then Boeing switched over to what was called the lightweight wing.

Douglas and Lockheed wings were sightly out of tolerance to Boeing. Southern California being much hotter I am told has made the Lockheed and Douglas parts difficult to fit to Boeing ships

Dave

terveurn wrote: As long as you have some identification -- even just a single dataplate with the serial number on it, you can register it with the FAA.

Plenty of dataplate Hurricanes floating around.

There are three different B-17 wings manufactured -- Boeing early (heavy wing) -- Upto the early B-17G's -- then Boeing switched over to what was called the lightweight wing.

Douglas and Lockheed wings were sightly out of tolerance to Boeing. Southern California being much hotter I am told has made the Lockheed and Douglas parts difficult to fit to Boeing ships

Dave

Dave,

It is possible that there is a plate buried up there, but I highly doubt one would have survived up there for so long without being found and taken. Where would I look to find one? The one on bulkhead 4/on the instrument panel would be gone (basing the location off of "Nine-O-Nine" so it's possible these are wrong). I'm not sure about the plate in the rear, but I suspect it is missing too, probably hauled away still mounted, as scrap. Locals hauled a large portion of the wreck out for scrap in the 50s. However, supposing it's still up there, where would it have been mounted? I'm not very familiar with the rear of the aircraft yet.

Paperwork should be enough to identify the plane, if there's enough of it left (but maybe not. That's the chance). I'm hoping to be able to do something similar to the Sandbar Mitchell, where paperwork can identify the plane and a new plate can be manufactured to match. I've been told this will likely not work, but I don't know enough to be able to say for sure.

FoCoB17G wrote:
It is possible that there is a plate buried up there, but I highly doubt one would have survived up there for so long without being found and taken. Where would I look to find one? The one on bulkhead 4/on the instrument panel would be gone (basing the location off of "Nine-O-Nine" so it's possible these are wrong). I'm not sure about the plate in the rear, but I suspect it is missing too, probably hauled away still mounted, as scrap. Locals hauled a large portion of the wreck out for scrap in the 50s. However, supposing it's still up there, where would it have been mounted? I'm not very familiar with the rear of the aircraft yet.

Paperwork should be enough to identify the plane, if there's enough of it left (but maybe not. That's the chance). I'm hoping to be able to do something similar to the Sandbar Mitchell, where paperwork can identify the plane and a new plate can be manufactured to match. I've been told this will likely not work, but I don't know enough to be able to say for sure.

There are other more knowledgeable about the locations of the plates, but there should be three major -- cockpit, radio room and one on the bulkhead where the tail gunners compartment mounts

There also should be smaller plate that can be directly traced to the aircraft as well.

Worse come to worse you register it as Experimental -- problem with experiment aircraft is if you want to fly passengers as this severely limits what you can do.

And then there is always B-17G 43-38978, N4960V: currently FAA registered with all the paperwork and maybe even a dataplate. Everything but the airplane. Well, no airworthiness certificate either. But, owned by Jay Wisler in Florida, a dealer in aircraft parts. It could be had, but it will cost some $$$.

terveurn wrote:
There are other more knowledgeable about the locations of the plates, but there should be three major -- cockpit, radio room and one on the bulkhead where the tail gunners compartment mounts

There also should be smaller plate that can be directly traced to the aircraft as well.

Worse come to worse you register it as Experimental -- problem with experiment aircraft is if you want to fly passengers as this severely limits what you can do.

Thanks for the locations.

Yes, Experimental is the backup plan, but as you said, no passengers (Or perhaps no passengers for compensation, AKA giving rides like most of the B-17s that tour around).

Experimental isn't a sure-fire plan, though. Tom Rohr from the Sandbar Mitchell team was talking to me at Oshkosh about one of his friends who built a P-51 but was then unable to fly it, even under experimental. His suggestion was to have the paperwork ready to go BEFORE starting any construction, because otherwise you might be stuck with an airworthy display and empty pockets.

aerovin2 wrote:And then there is always B-17G 43-38978, N4960V: currently FAA registered with all the paperwork and maybe even a dataplate. Everything but the airplane. Well, no airworthiness certificate either. But, owned by Jay Wisler in Florida, a dealer in aircraft parts. It could be had, but it will cost some $$$.

Yes, I have talked to him on the phone. He seemed reluctant to give information about the plane, such as serial number and a complete list of remaining parts. I think I did ask for a price, but I don't remember what he said. This would be a good aircraft to work from, but it is definitely $$$ for what's there. It may have even less than this crash. If I remember, it has the paperwork and plates, landing gear, and propellers. I don't think there is any fuselage left, but I can't remember what he said exactly.

Here are a few photos of the crash I took two years ago. At the time I was focused on the radio equipment, so these are all I have of the other wreckage. There is much more than what is pictured, almost all is in the same condition.

http://imgur.com/a/1la6d

Oh hell - just buy a blank, stamp-it, then distress using a hammer, torch, dirt etc....

terveurn wrote:Oh hell - just buy a blank, stamp-it, then distress using a hammer, torch, dirt etc....

I have heard of people who have done this, but these days the FAA is really cracking down on fakes. The Mitchell team also mentioned a few P-40s built this way, and the FAA denied them.