Was this one of the Be2c replicas used in the BBC TV series “Wings”?

What happened to all those replicas?

it still doesn’t make it a British aircraft.

I never said it was a British aircraft – not once. I said it is a part of Britain’s heritage. The word heritage means ‘things inherited’. Britain has certainly inherited this B17 and it has become one of your own I’d say, a cherished member of both the nation’s war memorials and warbirds fleet.

Well of course it won’t, as it has yet to be returned to the air. Is that a reason not to fund it??

Of course not, but I have not said they shouldn’t fund the Vulcan!! Why would I say that?

I said they’ve given a heap of money to the Vulcan. I never said they were wrong and shouldn’t have done so. I used the Vulcan to support the reason why I thought lotteries might help save the B17, I never said ground the Vulcan and use their money!

The money needed for the B17 is a mere “handful” compared with the Vulcan funds. And the returns are instant.

Trying to make this a “Sally B versus the Vulcan” thing can only harm both groups when in reality they want the same thing – removal of this new insurance burden.

I agree. It is you that seems to be the one twisting it that way though.

Sally B is an aircraft that was built, owned, operated and flown by Americans. I really don’t see how it’s in any way British.

I’m sorry if I got it all wrong Damien, I thought since Sally B had been in Britain for three decades or more, and has operated at British airshows throughout that time thrilling and educating millions of people, and has been kept flying by its supporters club of over 10,000 people who must surely be largely from Britain, that the aircraft would have some sort of place in the hearts of British people and they might consider it part of their heritage.

I was of the understanding that Britain was the base for many thousands of young men who operated these aircraft, and that is what this particular aicraft remembers and educates people about – is it not?

Regarding its owner, I did not know that Elly Sallingboe was an American. I apologise for my error there.

Also, National Lottery funding simply will not go to fund the operation of a privately-owned aircraft. You’d have to convince Elly Sallingboe to sell Sally B to a charitable trust first of all, and then convince the Lottery bods that it was a bit of our national heritage – and not the national heritage of the USA. That will no doubt be easier than convincing Elly to get shot of it!

Fair comment – I did not know they only funded “nationally owned” heritage as such. Our own lottery system’s charitable donations are far more wide reaching and funds all sorts of public, club and private projects. I am sure you’d find other lotteries that are like this too, particularly in the USA, where I’m sure many would be sympathetic to the plight of this aircraft..

As for the Vulcan being much much less important than Sally B… why? The Vulcan is an all-British piece of engineering excellence that was our front line nuclear deterrent for a good portion of the Cold War.

[thinks… wind up??]

For one thing, this B17 can fly, it is a going concern. It has immediate impact, flick them the money and they’ll be flying at the next airshow/memorial flypast on the schedule. Will the Vulcan???

Also, Sally B is a memorial to tens of thousands of airmen who died. It was a combat aircraft type that represents a huge part of the war, and of history, including Britain’s history.

Sure, the Vulcan has it’s own place in history too, but I am sure most would rate it much less importantly than the B17. How many men died in combat in the Vulcan? How many combat operations did the type see? How many countries did it help to liberate? And how many are flying today that can be kept flying next week with a few thousand pounds??

The Vulcan is not going to be a memorial if it ever gets flying, it is merely an airshow crowd thriller. A commercial entity to get people along to airshows, that’s how I see it. Not a reminder of the sacrifice and glory of thousands of young men.

Do I detect a bit more of the usual tiresome ‘hairdrier’ bias?

Well, I happen to be quite a fan of and am interested in jets. Especially combat jets – even if they were not in any combat. I have worked with them and watched many at airshows, they are exciting, thrilling, interesting. But none have the impact that seeing an airborne B17 would I’m afraid. Sadly, I have not had the privilege that many of you have to have seen a B17 flying, the closest I have seen is a DC3 I guess. Even that to me is much more important and more thrilling than any jet I’ve seen. They have great emotions attached, whether jet or piston engined, but, for me at least, they are different emotions. I find piston warbirds much more spiritual objects.

My passion for WWII aircraft is higher than any other era, but I certainly don’t have a bias against jet aircraft. And I never call them hairdryers – a term I’d never heard till I came to this board – and one that I think is just plain stupid, like eggbeaters.

Viewed from a distance as part of the nation’s history, the B-17 was just one of many types of bomber used in WWII, and the UK’s use of the type was minimal. If you were talking about the Lancaster, I’d agree with you.

The RAF may not have used as many B17’s as the USAAF, but the aircraft of the Royal Air Force certainly flew alongside the B17’s almost daily as escorts. And the British lived with them for a long time in their back yards, with the men who flew them becoming part of their lives over sixty years ago. Face it, they ARE part of YOUR heritage if you’re British.

Fantastic photos Ian, especially the Rapide landing on the beach – that one is stunning!

I see the Queen had her Morris Dancing hat on.

Those are cool pictures Paul, well done. Are you able to see the places on the moon where the astronuats have landed? Is it possible to even pick up such detail from earth?