Fort Collins, Colorado B-17 Project – New Build B-17G

I would like to know how much “new old stock” B-17 (or 24 for that matter) airframe parts are still out there.

1batfastard:…… I would have thought a B-24 may have been a better choice to build from start ? I only say this as there are already a number of airworthy B-17’s across the US.

Could there decision be based on the B-24 a more technically challenging aircraft to build ? Could the amount of old new stock items available would make that an even greater challenge as B-17 parts are more available ? I bring this up as there is only two airworthy Liberators….

My guess is that the B-17 has the iconic status that the B-24 does not. Rightly or wrongly there are certain WWII aircraft that are iconic: B-17, P-51, Spitfire, Me-109, Zero, Lancaster, and others that are less so, regardless of record, numbers built etc., or even the dreaded “better” debate. Same goes for Mustangs and Corvettes in the car crowd.

As an enthusiast yes I would rather see another B-24 built, but there does not seem to be the same level of enthusiasm for the B-24. Having more B-17 parts an expertise will indeed help. Seems B-24 parts are quite rare.

Of course I wish this group well, but like others here I see challenges. But maybe some older guys working for years on dream is not such a bad hobby….

And still nobody has answered the question regarding whether it is at all possible to operate an experimental, homebuilt aircraft of this size; which is what it is going to be in the unlikely case that it’s completed, as it has no identity or provenance….[/QUOTE]

I think with the numbers of Hurricane, Spitfire, P-40, P-51’s, etc that are honestly nothing more than built around a dataplate, that this project is really legally the same concept. Lots of dataplates available for any type, so for the aspects of being able to register and fly such a project I don’t think that is a barrier.

The logistics of undertaking such a project are certainly another thing….

No, there is indeed no harm in letting them try. But to have the audacity to welcome donations from other people for their dream, is, to put it mildly, cheeky for such a grossly unrealistic undertaking. In other words, they are not putting their money where their mouth is. Might as well throw the money out of the window, or even better, donate it to something which a chance of succeeding. There are presumably also people reading that website who do not know what it is that they are throwing their money at!

This is not just a case of online nitpicking, but simply pure facts from someone who has been actively involved in aircraft restorations (= time donation) and who has actually donated money to a realistic project. I do however shake my head when I read the enthusiastic outbursts in this thread regarding the perceived prospect of an additional flying B-17…

The comparison with the magnificent Halifax replica is not valid. This was never intended to be airworthy, so compromises could be made, and large chunks of structural components were or became available. All in all, a realistic project.

And still nobody has answered the question regarding whether it is at all possible to operate an experimental, homebuilt aircraft of this size; which is what it is going to be in the unlikely case that it’s completed, as it has no identity or provenance….

Pretty sure there’s a zero missing from that cost estimate.

I also took a look at the GoFundMe page, they aren’t even registered as a 501c3 for tax purposes.

Hi All,
Whether your a fan of any project no matter what it’s someone’s dream whether that comes off is another question ? Dream big and start small ? At least
these people who dare try are putting their money where their mouths are. I would say one of the easiest way to get involved if only in a minor way with
any project is buy some merchandise.

After all I have said it before on the forum without these visionaries who put the money were their mouths are we would not be witnessing flying
restorations let alone walking around the statics at museums I would say they need all the help they can get no matter how small….:eagerness:

Geoff.

The work by Ray Moore is stunning – I’m very impressed there are five (new build?) B17 projects in the USA. How amazing. It makes you wonder if similar projects could ever happen here.

Ray Moore is building components for FIVE of the airworthy B-17 restorations in the U.S. Including his own. This machine is practically from scratch (lucky 13)
His work is amazing!

Here is a link
http://www.aerovintage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1889

Andy

I too see some naivety (as seen in their cost estimate) but I won’t rain on their parade.
I wonder if the group has looked at Scott’s Aerovintage website and looked at the various rebuild efforts underway? If they do, they’ll see the basic fuselage looks to be the easy part, if you’ve ever seen a B-17 center section which will probably require material to be specially made….not just “off the shelf” “top hat” longerion stock. Aircraft Spruce and Univair (two supply houses for homebuilders/restorers) won’t be of much help.

No harm in letting them try.
No one is making anyone donate money, time or materials.

Like the Halifax recreation in the UK, you can either spend your free time in a pub or online nitpicking them or help them. Your choice.

Unfortunately I agree with the comments, with the information on the website, having a go fund me campaign for something like an autopilot panel is not really going to work out to build a flyer. The only ‘built from scratch’ B-17 is that of Tom Moore over in the US, but he is collecting as many parts as he can first to see if it was viable.

If you look on the Aerovintage Books website, you can see how serious he is.

I can’t get excited about this.

I have been actively involved in the restoration of aircraft to static condition, and have first-hand knowledge of the cost of restoration and running airworthy aircraft.

No project of this sort will succeed without money. Lots of it. Time, enthusiasm and volunteer workforce alone has never – and never will – restore, replicate or fly any aircraft.

They intend it to be airworthy. What does the FAA think about a homebuilt, experimental B-17? Where’s the money for fuel, maintenance and hangarage going to come from? For the raw materials? For four, airworthy engines? For workshop space? For electricity? For the coffee for the coffee machine?

The only comparable – and very admirable – replica project which appears in these pages, and which is taking form, is the Hornet cockpit replica. Realistic goals and small size. And I bet that a lot of money has been sunk into that too (castings, materials, parts acquisition), but not at all comparable to what the recreation of a huge B-17 to airworthy standards from scratch is going to cost.

Sorry for being a spoilsport, but that’s reality, like it or not.

…at the end of the day another airworthy B-17 is great news….:applause::cool:

Geoff.

Unfortunately it will take a LOT longer than that. Best wishes but having looked at the website I detect a level of naivety.

Hi All,
A very interesting project indeed I can only admire the people who set themselves up for these goals as more often than not the end project is 1st class. Having said that I would have thought a B-24 may have been a better choice to build from start ? I only say this as there are already a number of airworthy B-17’s across the US.

Could there decision be based on the B-24 a more technically challenging aircraft to build ? Could the amount of old new stock items available would make that an even greater challenge as B-17 parts are more available ? I bring this up as there is only two airworthy Liberators, although Kermit Weeks example is meant to be airworthy although spending it’s time as a static since it last flew in the late 90’s but as wiki states it will need a complete restoration before she fly’s again.

I just wish all involved all the luck in the world with their B-17 project because at the end of the day another airworthy B-17 is great news….:applause::cool:

Geoff.

“After the autopilot, the next step is either the main instrument panel, or the throttle quadrant. The instrument panel will cost an excess of $1,500, and the throttle quadrant will need to be new manufacture. I highly recommend taking a look at B17Panels.com for more information. These drawings will also be a great aid for us constructing the cockpit. Also on b17panels.com, is a man who has already built the majority of a cockpit in England. I intend to contact him for information.

I wonder who that is

I think there is a point where the reverse is true Graham. As suggested above, the engines and props will quickly consume the estimated spend. Even with purely volunteer labour (difficult to find in sufficient quality), there is a lot of ‘stuff’ to buy.

There is an understandable, and probably usually unconscious, bias to make an “optimistic” estimate at the start of a project. This is partly because of an inability to accurately foresee all the relevant matters, but also because a higher, possibly “pessimistic”, estimate will be less likely to attract backers. Once a project is up and running it can ask again for more. I’m sure that we can all point to examples of this.

Reading the site, it is intended to fly, so $500,000 seems very much on the low side. I would have thought that four airworthy engines and props would eat much of that figure.

I just think it is amazing that there are B-17s being built from scratch, recovered from swamps, lakes and ice floes, when there are several examples in the States that are rotting away on outdoor display because the USAF won’t let them be released to private groups for restoration.

I must admit that in my initial post I assumed that it was to airworthy standard, but perhaps not ?

I wish them luck.
At that price, I’ll assume it’s a static display.

Perhaps they can get the jigs from the soon (or at least sooner than this group) to be completed Champaign Lady.

There are 2 or 3 other B-17s being rebuilt (including the Liberty Belle and the forward fuselage of the one recovered in Canada) from more or less scratch, so it can be done and there is tooling and expertise out there.