Last B-17 project sold

[DryMartini]

I heard that Tom Reilly sold his B-17 parts/project.
As far as I know, that was the last project available.

Anyone for digging through 250+ feet of ice?

[DIK SHEPHERD]

After having been around warbirds for the last forty years, I've come to know that you never say the last anything. Because, before you know it, someone shows up with another "unknown" whatever. So, let's just say that it was the last "known" B-17 project.

[DryMartini]

There is still 2 mangled B-17's under 250 feet of ice.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

I believe that there are also, supposedly, some others in the waters off Greenland.

[DryMartini]

"SOONER", a B-17E, is in the water off Greenland.
An expedition found just some mangled wreckage, and
figured that since the area was relatively shallow, that
icebergs had crunched it. A B-17G dubbed "Later"
is also in the waters off Greenland, supposedly around 1500
feet, but I don;t know if that had been found. There was
a guy in N.Y. who thought he found the location, and was
looking for $$$ to mount an expedition to look, but that
was a few years ago.

Recently, on Barnstormers, a guy advertised a B-17 that
he would recover for a price. That one is in brackish water.
I'm awaiting pictures to see if it is a plane, or just a pile
of aluminium oxide.

[wittpilot]

Could you possibly be referring to this project? It just got started here in my hometown.... They just opened up a website either today or yesterday....Please check it out...

www.b17project.com

-adam

Let me know if anyone has more questons...

[aerovin2]

Well, I must say that this project is a surprise. I heard rumors but had no idea it had progressed to this point. Very exciting indeed.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

How much of the aircraft is there? I only see the forward fuselage. Are there any wings or tail surfaces? Is there an aft section?

It looks like a viable candiate for reconstruction as a "D" model, unless of course the owner doesn't like the looks of the early B-17s and wants to keep it as a "G".

Once again, a lot of money is going to be spent anyway, so why not do something unique?

[wittpilot]

There is indeed more; however, this is the largest selection currently at this location. The rest will arrive soon. As for the comments about the model, it will probably be restored as a G model. I believe the choice should be up to the restorers and I do not think that the world will be worse off with another G model flying....

[DIK SHEPHERD]

The world may not be worse off with another "G", but it would be far better off with a flying example of an earlier "D".

Just as there was a time when the only P-51s that anyone saw flying were bubble top "Ds" people were really wanting to see a flying "Razorback". Now there are a few flying "A", "B" and "C" model P-51s, and some of these are modified from "D" airframes.

It's all a matter of imagination. It takes imagination to do something different and not just the same old crap. That's how you keep things interesting and alive for future generations to learn.

I love the B-17 and have been around them for forty years, but I don't go out of my way to see another "G" when one is in my area. You see one or two, you've seen them all. However, I would travel a hundred miles to see a flying "D" model, if there ever is to be one, and I know that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of B-17 lovers just like me.

So, build this airframe as a "G", and it will surely receive a nice response from many people, in the beginning. But, build it as a "D" and you'll see a major response from many more people for years and years to come.

Imagine that.

[DryMartini]

Dik,

While I share the love for the looks of the early model B-17s,
as undoubtly does many on this forum, but the general public
does not have the knowledge of the different models of '17s,
and as such, they wouldn't really care. Several B-17 owners
have commented on this.

As a point, was it "Modern Marvels" or "Heavy Metal", a show
on the History channel, which went on about all the Y1B-17s
that initially fought WW2 until the big tailed B-17s came along.
You and I know this is incorrect, but obviously the guys writing,
proof reading, directing, and producing the show didn't!

Why not build your own? I hear someone is making
bulkhead 3 frames....

[DIK SHEPHERD]

You have obviously confused the many morons in the movie and television business with the general (warbird) public.

As demonstrated by the farsical Disney Studios movie "Pearl Harbor" those people don't care about what's correct, they only care about making money.

Like I've stated before, the general (warbird) public isn't as un-informed, stupid or disinterested as some people (including those egomanical B-17 owners who enjoy being the center of attention whenever they show up with there multi-million machines) would like to think. And, I too have talked to many people, and they all say that it would be outstanding to see a B-17D up close and flying.

And to make comments like "Why not build your own?" seems to indicate that you have little interest, or imagination, for such a project.

[DryMartini]

Dik has so eloquently stated:
And to make comments like "Why not build your own?" seems to
indicate that you have little interest, or imagination, for such a project.


You must have missed that smiley.

If you only knew.

Keep berating those egomanical B-17 owners,
and those who work hard and dream of having
a B-17 because they are not building something
YOU think would be a cool.

[Chuck Giese]

There is still 2 mangled B-17's under 250 feet of ice.

Well, at this time it's probably closer to 350' down and sinking yearly.

[Chuck Giese]

...those egomanical B-17 owners who enjoy being the center of attention whenever they show up with there multi-million machines...

Wow, a wee bit of latent hostility there, eh? I guess we travel in different crowds. I am acquainted with a couple of the current owners, and know most of the rest of the individuals and organizations that fly B-17's, and there *might* be one who fits your description, if you stretch egomanical to fit classic type A personalities. And yeah, B-17's attract attention - what's your point? That they should be ashamed of owning them?

Like I've stated before, the general (warbird) public isn't as un-informed, stupid or disinterested as some people would like to think. And, I too have talked to many people, and they all say that it would be outstanding to see a B-17D up close and flying.

You need to separate the general public from the (very small) warbird public. If someone knows the difference between a D model and an F model, the're typically not part of the general public. The warbird crowd is not the bulk of the support (either through donations, flight experiences or air show attendance) or the future for the B-17's. The warbird crowd is too narrow of a base to keep them flying.

Personally, I don't care for the looks of the pre-E models, they look somewhat unbalanced. However, I do appreciate their history in the Pacific, and it would be good to have one flying as a tribute to those who flew them. The major problem with building anything other than an F or G model is getting it approved by the FAA to offer "flight experiences" Those were the only models to make it into the Limited class after the war.

And to make comments like "Why not build your own?" seems to indicate that you have little interest, or imagination, for such a project.

Actually, all it takes is money to build your own - although I guess it's always easier to bitch about things not going the way you want them to. Having spent a fair amount of time in the last 6 months going through the blueprints, there is no real technical challenge to building one. After all, it's only 1930's technology....