Whats happening with B-17D 'Swoose'?!

Was this the B-17 named after the daughter of the Colonel who flew this B-17, american actress Swooise Kurtz? I heard her one night on a talk show speaking about this. Said she was named after a B-17 her father flew in WWII.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001436/

Judging by her birthday…she was named after the plane, not the other way around.

IMHO…I do wish thew NASM would quit messing around with other other less historical planes and restore the Swoose…it might be nice to restore it while WWII vets are still around to enjoy it.

RAF Fairford in the UK is also a Shuttle emergency landing site. But can only be used for the first 30 seconds or so after launch.

B-17s

From this morning’s

http://aero-news.net

Glacier Girl and Liberty Belle at the Paul Tibbets birthday party.

Yes

Cheers

Cees

Was this the B-17 named after the daughter of the Colonel who flew this B-17, american actress Swooise Kurtz? I heard her one night on a talk show speaking about this. Said she was named after a B-17 her father flew in WWII.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001436/

Challenger and Columbia were both lost so the survivors are Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. Of course, Enterprise still exists as a museum piece.

A number of airfields around the world are designated as emergency landing fields for Shuttles – the most important ones are Lajes in the Azores, Torrejon in Spain and there is also one in West Africa (Gambia?). The expected scenario is an abort in the climb to orbit as the Shuttle heads out over the Atlantic so that is why these primary diversionary sites exist in those locations. In reality, as the Challenger and Columbia accidents showed, a Shuttle accident tends to be catastrophic, resulting in total destruction of the vehicle and the diversionary sites are largely academic.

As for Homer and Buzz Aldrin, I don’t recall seeing that episode. In reality, the only pre-Shuttle era astronauts who flew on earlier generation American spacecraft (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) and on the Shuttle were John Glenn (Mercury), John Young (Gemini and Apollo), Jack Lousma (Apollo – Skylab) and Owen Garriott (Apollo – Skylab). A number of astronauts who joined NASA in the 1960s expecting to fly to the moon decided to stay in the agency even when the moon landings and follow up missions were cancelled. These guys were obviously very patient, some having to wait 14 to 15 years before making their first space flights (Storey Musgrave, Gordon Fullerton and Bob Crippen for example).

Thanks for that info Eric. Very interesting. So which ones are still flying? I see one is going up in May (despite Bush cancelling the shuttle programme apparently :confused: )

You mention the runway barriers in case of emergency. A few years ago Dad and I went with a group from the Royal Aeronautical Society up to Auckland International Airport, Mangere, for a look around. We were told by the control tower manager on the tour that Mangere has one of those special barriers set up and a Nasa team comes to the airport during every launch because if a shuttle gets into trouble over the Pacific we might be the first emergency strip.

Imagine the buzz if a shuttle landed at Auckland!! I guess they chose Mangere because it’s an ismith (sp?) in a harbour so the shuttle could be barged out later.

Sorry about the off-topic stuff – B17D’s are interesting too. Thanks for the stories Jules.

One last question, which of the shuttles was the one Buzz Aldrin and Homer Simpson went up in? 🙂

099 (Challenger) was never intended to fly in space – and was retrospectively given a c/n when it was selected over Enterprise for refurbishment into a space going Shuttle. Up until that point, it was usually referred to as “The Shuttle STA” (STA stands for Static Test Article). The STA was used to ensure that connections, weights, and pad and Vehicle Assembly Building compatibility was sorted before the final design of “real” Shuttles were completed. It was also suspended in a vibration test rig where launch vibration and resonances were tested on the structure. Ironic as Challenger was destroyed when these launch stresses were exceeded.

From sci.space.shuttle FAQ Part E, General Shuttle Questions:

“Note that the code number refers to “series” and “vehicle” number, so OV-101 was series 1, orbiter 01; OV-099 was series 0, orbiter 99. There is no OV-100 since that would mean series 1, orbiter 00.”

Any idea why there was no OV-100?

Moggy

I don’t want to deviate the thread too far from the discussion on the B-17D but for the record, the Space Shuttle fleet was/is as follows:

Challenger c/n OV-99
Enterprise c/n OV-101
Columbia c/n OV-102
Discovery c/n OV-103
Atlantis c/n OV-104
Endeavour c/n OV-105

Enterprise was used as a glide test aircraft in 1977, being launched from the back of NASA’s Boeing 747. It was intended that she would be refurbished and used for actual spaceflight. However, it was decided that the static test machine (orginally given the c/n STA – 099) would be easier and cheaper to convert and so this was the route taken. STA-099 became OV-099 Challenger. Enterprise was allocated to the Smithsonian in the early 1980s although she was loaned back to NASA after the Challenger accident to be used in runway barrier tests, which were conducted at Dulles Airport.

The Shuttles are not “registered” as such – the numbers quoted above are c/n’s (or probably more accurately) NASA fleet numbers.

I hear there are no plans to restore “Swoose” any time soon (for many years that is).

Which is very SAD, I’d love to see it all together and restored as a B-17D bomber and not a Cargo or Brass Personal Hack.

Since it served in the war as a bomber turned transport….most of the time as a transport (where it achieved its fame), it probably will be restored as a transport.

Thanks Jules

I was clearing out some old magazines and came across a head-on shot of this one – the lack of glazing and the dark background make it look very eerie!!

I hear there are no plans to restore “Swoose” any time soon (for many years that is).

Which is very SAD, I’d love to see it all together and restored as a B-17D bomber and not a Cargo or Brass Personal Hack.

B 17

When I flew Cs and Ds in transition training, I do recall that they were faster then Es and Fs. Cs and Ds didn’t have the dorsal fin, I also recall that i was able to get one over 30.000 feet.
As for ops it was the greatest. easy to fly and we were able to fly very tight formation when under attack by fighters, We loved having B24s flying with us because enemy fighters would attack them and leave us alone. I flew mostly Fs, before I finished my 50 flights I flew Gs a few times, most of my tour was in 1943

Jules – I’m sure ANY account you give us of flying B-17s on ops will be fascinating!

Agreed. Certainly would be interesting.

Jules

Would you be able to give us your opinion of the differences flying characteristics between the two marks?

I’m sure it would be fascinating reading.

B17 D

When I took transition training at Sebring, FL I flew Ds and Cs, This was Dec 1942 and Jan 1943