[ARC5] More on the "No HF" Myth

[Sean Barton]

Re: Aircraft being returned,

I have an issue of Warbirds magazine or the like that has a listing of 
various aircraft that were parked at airfields across the U.S. waiting 
to be scrapped.  I'll try to dig that out this afternoon to see if they 
have a listing of B-17 and B-24 numbers.  However I think most were 
training and transport aircraft.  If anyone has seen the film "The Best 
Years of Our Lives", the scene at the end takes place in one of these 
salvage yards full of B-17's.

Sean

Paul H. Anderson wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Mike wrote:
> 
>  > Todd Bigelow - PS wrote:
>  >
>  > > I realize it's long after the fact and things could have been changed
>  > > since the 1940s, but I've been through two B-17s in the last decade 
> and
>  > > both had BC-348/BC-375/SCR-274N gear installed. I looked the aircraft
>  > > over pretty well(spent two days in one) to see if anything was
>  > > missing(any large gaps, patterns of holes where shockmounts could've
>  > > been mounted, etc), didn't see anything to indicate any other gear had
>  > > been installed.
>  >
>  > I have read that *very* few B-17s and B-24s were returned from the UK
>  > back to the US following the war.  Apparently they weren't worth the
>  > effort and cost to reclaim.  The B-29 had come on the scene for Pacific
>  > Theater use.  I wonder how many of the surviving B-17 and B-24 airframes
>  > now in the USA actually served in the UK.  This would be critical,
> 
> I agree: from what I've read, only one or two of the surviving B-17's on
> the airshow circuit were used in WWII combat.  The history of most B-17
> airframes indicates they were produced, sat around in the US for awhile,
> then were purchased by either government agencies for transport or
> research use, or were sold directly to commercial interests, who
> presumably used them as fire bombers.  I've got some books (commonly
> available) that talk about the history of the airframes in detail, and
> this might shed some light on the subject.
> 
> If it is true that aircraft were produced new without radios (which I
> _though_ was the case), then the first, apparently stock installation in
> many of these airframes would be whatever was most appropriate for thier
> immediate use.  If the survivors were mostly US based govt research and
> firebomber use, then the choices might well be more skewed in that
> direction rather than what was used in the ETO.
> 
> Returning the aircraft really would be difficult to do.  It was hard
> enough to get them over there in the first place (i.e. landing midway in
> Greenland at a relatively small airstrip).  Dunno if the B-17's all
> stopped over or not - just remembering the story of the Lost Squadron.
> 
> Hope this helps... I'm very interested in reading all these observations
> and theories.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> ARC5@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>