I’m sure some on the forum will cry heresy but I think she was better off where she was; the group that wanted to salvage the plane apparently planned to “restore” it, which would have meant completely destroying the historical signifigance and information that the intact wreck had. Now that it’s been carted to Lae, I seriously doubt the government has the funds, or the political will, to do anything to protect it.
Well, considering that the article refers to the machine guns as “Bendix”, I would not expect a lot from the restorers anyway. [V]
This looks like one of those schemes, where a group of treasure-hunting mucks grab an historical wreckage under the guise of “restoring”, and intended to cart it off and see who would give them the most money to go along with their proported intention to “restore” it or sell it to the “party most interested” (highest bidder).
If you remember the B-29 those guys found in the Anartic ice and then tried to fly out, they had to go to the trouble to actually get a set of new engines after it sat as long as it did. Then the geniuses wound up burning the plane down, when someone forgot to shut off the emergency/start-up generator.
I doubt if these guys could even replace one engine for the B-17.
It is probably just as well the government seized it.
Sorry, but the article is correct. It refers to the “Bendix turret machine guns.” The turret was indeed manufactured by Bendix.
I was involved in the original hunt for his airplane many years ago, when I was still a member of TIGHAR (The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery), so I know it well.
Do you have any idea how little a website costs? Pennies, basically, particularly in relation to the amount of money it can, for better or worse, raise. Forgodsakes, my wife has a website for the books she’s written, and a very good one at that.
I find it amusing that awhile ago I got all sorts of flak on this forum for suggesting that a Brit Vulcan bomber should be left on the ground rather than being restored to flight status so that some octagenarian ex-wing commander could crash it, and here we are suggsting that a very rare B-17–indeed those “Bendix machine guns” (i.e. turrets) are some of the rarest pieces on it–shouldn’t even be dragged out of the jungle.
If the aircraft can be restored to flying status that would be great. The best place for a plane like this is in a museum where people can see it. The point is it should be preserved for its historical value. From what i gather none of the crew died in the crash so there seems no reason not to attempt to salvage it, its not as if the wreck serves a memorial purpose.
If you read some of the stuff on that site, it sounds to me as if that Goverment realized it was worth some bucks. Held up the export so they could figure out how much to get for the wreck? And the museum director is in some hot water too…stay[8D]
Almost every Aviation magazine published has had this subject within their news sections within the last couple months. Not all of them say the same thing, some are even contradictory! You can tell politics of some sort are involved. Where do I cast my ballot?
I think it should be returned to the states where it can be fully restored. Even if it never gets back in the skys (although I think that would be even better), its far better than being left to rot away where only a few people would ever get the oppurtunity to appreciate what it is and what it represents. How many at this forum would ever make it to the swamp in PNG to see this bird?
Imagine a nose to nose display with "Memphis Belle", a pair of combat veterans from the early days of WWII that fought on opposite sides of the globe in the two major theatres the U.S. was in during that time frame.
I’m the kind of person who believes that airplanes were built for one reason, first and foremost- to fly. Barring that, I think they deserve more that just to sit where they crash and slowly decentigrate. If the wreck resulted in the death of anyone, then by all means leave it as it is. But if not, I find it almost insulting to “let it rot”, as it were.
Of course, these thoughts are only my own, and are not meant to influence anyone else. Yes, this issue of “to restore or not to restore” is complicated, and very, very political at times. This is simply my view of the issue.
There’s a difference between “an airplane” and a historical artifact. There are plenty of airplanes around that we can have fun flying, from Cessnas to Boeings. But there’s only one of this model B-17 remaining in any condition, so it should be saved. It shouldn’t be flown, because guess what’ll happen if it is? It’ll eventually crash, or be landed gear-up, or be taxied into the side of a hangar by some old fart who thinks he can still fly the way he used to in the '50s but who in fact can’t see past the propeller. Who knows what. This has been proven by a wide variety of absolutely original Bf-109s, Mosquitos, Beaufighters, F-82s, Spitfires, F-86s, Hunters and others, to name only the most recent crashes.
Of course, there’s another way to look at it, and it’s pretty much the way the European vintage racecar crowd looks at its cars, historic as they might be: they were pieces of crap when they were new, designed to be crashed and rebuilt however many times it took to keep them competitive,s o what’s the big deal about being super-careful of them today, even if it is the only aluminum-body XKE that has survived? What the hell, let’s go out and race the things, and if they get balled up, we can always build another one. Interesting attitude, quite different than that of the American vintage-racecar crowd, where bending metal gets you banned from the track for a year or more.
And then there’s the whole question of “restoration,” which also has its parallels in the collector-car hobby. Used to be, 10 or 15 years ago, that an impeccable “restored” Duesenberg, every surface chrome-plated or painted with polyurethane that didn’t even exist in the days of Duco lacquer, was hugely admired. today what’s admired is the 1934 Mercedes 540K that is found with its original paint job–looks lousy, but it’s untouched–and the original interior. Do we restore, replicate, or preserve?
The “airforce museum,” if by that you mean the museum at Wright-Patterson, does not restore anything to “flying status.” It’s conceivable that some of their historic aircraft could conceivably be flown, if you spent thousands of hours replacing all the seals and hydraulic lines, etc. etc., but none of them are ever intended to fly again. They are historic artifacts that the Government is preserving.
Just because an aircraft has an engine (or engines) that could conceivably be started and run, with a substantial amount of work, does not mean it is in ready-for-flight status. Far from it…
The only way this will become a “tragedy”, is if it ends up rotting in some hangar tied up in politics and is lost forever in red tape. I would like to see it restored to flight condition, tour the US airshow circuit for a season, and then put on static display after that. That way both sides get their way. My side is I believe to truly appreciate a warbird is to see and hear it live and breath as a tribute to those who flew them.
Stephan your a smart man and I respect the things that you have accomplished in your life. I say why not try all three, and may the best man win for us all. Fly or no fly. Drive or no drive. Sail or no sail. It’s a big money game these days and he who can and does should be respected for if nothing else The Effort. Let’s just hope we all win…stay[8D]
Interesting discusion. I think it all boils down to one thing , that being money . Whatever condition the aircraft ends up in will depend on how much interest there is in the aircraft and how much money can be spent to remove and restore it . I enjoy seeing old "warbirds "fly over but i am saddened to hear about the loss of one also . Whats really sad is that so few of them are left today after so many thousands were manufactured. Its sickening to think of the thousands that were destroyed for salvage . No foresight as to their future historical value .But thats why the few that are still around today are so valuable and important to restore to either flying or static display condition. I suppose the option to make the aircraft either flyable or not depends entirely on the person or persons that own it .It is their right to make that decision IMHO.
Bingo! Crab Cakes you called the ball on that one. The owner bless his/her hart is doing us all a favor by investing in this crazy bit of history, fly or no fly…staying way cool…[8D]
Nice Idea but who’s paying your idea of moral obligation? Who pays the taxes that provide the “custodians” of your idea of a historical item? Who decides that an arrow head is less of "value than an Apache head…no disrespect…, all about [:D]
Just to add to my point of view: First off, I never met any warbird owner or pilot who did what they did to “make money”. They normally lose money at it. They do it out of dedication and passion to preserve history and share it with future generations. The problem with museum aircraft, is that there is very limited exposure to the public. A person actually has to go to that state, and that city, and that museum to see the aircraft. When the aircraft travel around the country/world, 100’s of 1000’s or more people can see them and learn about them. In todays world where most people are clueless even about what Pearl Harbor or D-Day are about, it’s important to get history out for people to learn and remember. Recently the B-17 Liberty Belle was restored to flying condition. It just so happens that it is in the markings of the 390th BG 570sqd which was my dads unit. He likely actually had worked on the original Liberty Belle. When my daughters and I saw Liberty Belle fly, I was able to tell them that this is what Grandpa worked on and this is something he would see everyday, only 15-20 taking off and landing at a time. I think there is no better way to learn history than experience it. I fully understand there is always a risk of loosing these great aircraft, but I feel the impact of truly experiencing, seeing, and hearing these aircraft and inspiring and teaching future generations of what they represent, far outways the risk. And one of the great freedoms these aircraft and the men who flew them give us, is the right to have different opinions and to disagree
A buddy of mine back in the 70’s was over there working as a helicopter mechanic and they flew to the wreck of the “Swamp Ghost” and checked it out. He sent me 3 or 4 pictures I have buried somewhere. I have to look for them. It’s a shame there is such controversy over the salvage and restoration of an historic aircraft. Politics and greed rear their ugly heads one more time.
I don’t understand why everybody is saying “politics and greed” over and over again. What has happened is simply that the government of Papua New Guinea has said, “Hey, leave that airplane alone. It’s ours. It’s part of our history. We’re not letting it leave the country. You can’t simply come in here and take government property.” That’s not “politics,” and I don’t know where greed comes into the picture. PNG unfortunately can’t even afford to do anything with the airplane.
You can argue whether it’s theirs or whether the USAAC (which it was at that time) retains ownership, but imagine if some wealthy Japanese came to Hawaii and hired a helicopter to jerk a Zero off a mountaintop where it had crashed on 7 December. I suspect the State of Hawaii (and the Federal Government) would say, “No you don’t. You leave it alone. It’s ours now. We’ll decide what to do with it.”
When I was active in TIGHAR, in the mid-1980s, we looked into retrieving the airplane–not for restoration but to preserve it archivally in exactly the condition in which it was found. The Governmetn of PNG told us then, 25 years ago, that they wouldn’t allow it out of the country and we cropped our plans. I don’t know why these people weren’t aware of that.
Unfortunately, the people who wanted to restore the airplane got it as far as Lae, in pieces, at which time PNG stepped in. It will now quickly corrode into scrap, whereas its location in the jungle, half submerged in fresh water, had surprisingly preserved it for 65 years.