Read the forum code of contact
By: 12th May 2005 at 01:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-..we have a winner for the "nonsense post of the month" here :rolleyes:
Alex
By: 12th May 2005 at 02:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Sorry, I'm new at this. I'll edit my post. (I wrote "smiley face" as a note to self in Word to insert smiley faces). You may have noticed that the now deleted paragraph was a condensation of stuff I read on the Sally B threads/most overrated bomber threads that I was making fun of. Everything else is serious--I tried to answer questions people had asked. As I work on Doc, expect the fact that I'll take offense at anything bad about Forts/Superforts.
By: 12th May 2005 at 02:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I actually found the statistics of the B-17s alive very interesting. :)
TNZ
By: 12th May 2005 at 02:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hello Scarecrow,
Don't worry, it takes a bit of getting used to, this forum lark. (Question is if it's worth it :rolleyes: )
Good point re-Boeing supporting the restoration of 'Doc'. I'd fotgotten that.
The over-rated issue has a lot to do with what you want to make of it. For me, the strategy of the British Commonwealth forces and the US bomber forces were utterly different. Both initial bomber expectations were flawed, modified, and then, in their own way effective. (The RAF believed that powered turrets would see off fighters; were forced to switch to night bombing. The US believed the same, but rather than switching beefed up the gun defences. The B-17 and B-24 were intended as transociean strategic bombers; the RAF's big three intended to be used in Europe. We never saw how Tiger force got on.
The British bombers were meant to be used off grass airfields and be catapultable(!) and carry torpedos. These decisions resulted in unexpected benefits and restrictions.)
The B-17 and Lancaster were designed to do, and did do, different jobs. Comparrison is IMHO pointless. They were both more than adequate. There were a number of inadiquate or deathtrap bombers, such as the Fairey Battle, Blackburn Botha, and Short Stirling
You don't get the choice. Your (deleted remarks about what you'd choose...) You use the equipment your armed forces have. So let's be greatful we weren't Blenheim or Battle crews.
By: 12th May 2005 at 03:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Would this be a good place to mention that according to the WIX forums the B-17 'Chuckie', which was thought to be stagnant and unflown for the last couple of years, is up and flying again and headed for Michigan and later the CAF show at Midland in October and possibly even Wings over Houston?
Thought it might be...
Mark
By: 12th May 2005 at 04:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Here's some information from Scott Thompson...author of "The Final Cut" a great history of the surviving B-17s...
I'd take this list as very accurate....
Summary
Operational 11
Long Term Maintenance (back to operational) 2 (Texas Raider & EAA's)
Static Display 21
Under restoration to operational 2
Under restoration to static 2
In Storage 6
Total Complete Airframes 44
Partial Airframes 8
Total Recovered Airframes 52
For more go to his site:
http://www.aerovintage.com/b17news.htm
Enjoy...
By: 12th May 2005 at 04:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Yes, Chuckie is one of the 13 flying B-17s I mentioned. When Aluminum Overcast had the gear collapse, we only had 12 flying. Chuckie made it number 13. If you noticed, I had 53 (complete and partial airframes). One cockpit section was reported to be in PA.
Posts: 70
By: Scarecrow - 12th May 2005 at 00:31
Recent discussion on Sally B got me to thinking and I have come up with several points in which you might (or might not) be interested.
1) Would Boeing operate Sally B?—No. Due to the decline of sales (not related to Airbus, actually globalization and “diversity”), Boeing could not afford to keep a B-17 flying in Europe. However, they might consider it in the US. Doc, the B-29 under restoration here has been given a temporary hangar and equipment by Boeing. Boeing also encourages its employees to help restore Doc.
2) How many B-17s survive?
Here’s my current tally (please note that not all are complete airframes)
53 B-17s in existence
23 B-17s on static display
13 B-17s in flying condition
11 B-17s under restoration (Texas Raiders, etc. are categorized here although not technically being restored)
6 B-17s in storage
If you would like, I could go into great detail on this. (such as “No, the Seattle Museum of Flight’s B-17 is in flying condition but will not fly, etc)
Now, as far as complete wrecks go, there are
1 in Black Cat Pass in PNG
1 in a swamp in PNG (Swamp Ghost)
1 in a bay (name of the bay fails me right now)
1 off the coast of Corsica or Sardinia or something like that
2 in fjords in Greenland
NO, THE LOST SQUADRON B-17S ARE POINTLESS TO RECOVER; THEY ARE SIMPLY PARTS AS ONLY A FIGHTER WITH A SMALL CROSS-SECTION COULD SURVIVE THAT KIND OF PRESSURE!!!!! After all, the first plane they located was a B-17, but when they got to it, it was exactly what I said. It was a mangled mess of parts. (trust me, I’ve seen the pics) SO DON’T EVEN BRING THEM UP!!!!!
3) Why do many (not all) of you say the B-17 was overrated and then turn around and scream and rant and rave when Sally B is grounded? In defense of all Forts, no other WWII bomber could bring its crews home after horrendous amounts of damage.