From: Robert Barber (rbarber41@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 08:15:27 PDT
Well as one who participated in the restoration and flying
of both, I believe I can speak to the subject...
The 17 restoration was easier since we started with a flyable
aircraft. The plane was purchased from Globe aircraft and
had been used as a fire bomber. It was a stripped out mess
but was in tact as to airframe and engines ..
It received a complete overhaul and retrofit of all the parts
(Turrets and military parts ect) at Tom Reilly's Bombertown
in Fla to its first restored condition .. It was severly dammaged
in a landing accident at Beavers Falls PA. ( BTW I was not flying
her that day, I had turned the Aircraft over to the other crew
after the Detriot show )It was then rebuilt to the condition you
see today..
The 24 was a different story. It was acquired from an UK collector
(Doug Arnold I believe) who had acquired it from the Indian Air force.
It was the parts plane that they used to keep their other 24's going
during the 60 and 70's. So when we got it, it was just the fuselage
shell, the wings engines, nacelles and tail feathers all in separate pieces.
There was not a single cable or Hyd line at all in her ..
All the cockpit instruments, throttles, yokes and parts were missing.
This plane was so bad that the Smithsonian had first dibs on it and turned
it down as too rough and would be too difficult to restore as a on the
ground static display !!
4 1/2 years latter, 1.3 million dollars invested, 97 thousand man
hours, and a ton of direct effort performed by Nate Mayo and Tom
Reilly the plane flew again ..
Don't get me wrong, I love and prefer the 17 over the 24 as to a
number of reasons as a pilot and wrench turner, but the 24 was a
100 times more of a monumental effort to get it airworthy. The list
of people responsible for that happening is way too long and I'de
miss to many.
Next time you see the 24 duck under the bomb bay and have a quick
look at the cables and hydrologic lines running theu it. And they are but a
portion of the ones in the aircraft.. Then look at all the
other parts like the turrets, all the military parts and peices many
of which had to be fabricated. You will then just begin to get an
inclination of how extensive the restoration effort was.
If you get the chance go see them. At my last count, there is only
12 flying 17's right now and the 24 is the only flying one until
Kermit Weeks gets done re-doing Dave Taleches old one..
Bob B
>From: DDoyle9570@aol.com
>To: <mil-veh@mil-veh.org> (Military Vehicles Mailing List)
>Subject: Re: [MV] Collings Foundation B-17
>Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:45:14 EDT
>
>Jess,
>While I am not an expert in WWII anything, or aircraft of any period....I
>will offer my opinion....
>That 9-0-9 is one of the best restored (representations) military vehicle
>anyone will see anywhere. (I say representation since the original 9-0-9
>was
>scrapped)
>The Dragon and his Tail are impressive, but can't hold a candle to the B-17
>(9-0-9)...ESPECIALLY when you consider that the Fortress was restored, then
>almost destroyed in a mishap on the ground, and basically had to be
>restored
>again!
>
>For those who think that HMV are only ground vehicles, check out the
>STUDEBAKER engines on the Fortress, and isn't Colling's B-24 a FORD built
>example?
>
>Enjoy these guys while you can.
>
>My .02,
>David Doyle
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 21 2002 - 23:24:57 PDT