[Milsurplus] TCS-12

[Bob Camp]

Hi

Actually the difference in configurations is even more significant. 
When originally flown a B-17 had:

1) Weapons (more than a dozen real 50 cal's...)
2) Ammunition for the 50 cal's
3) Armor (over a thousand pounds as I recall ... )
4) A full fuel load

I severely doubt the issue is takeoff weight. You simply can't strap 
enough people into the seats go get a B-17 over weight in the 
configuration they are flying them.

Bottom line is still that they have to pay for the whole thing somehow. 
Those beasts are *very* expensive to fly. I doubt they haul around 
anything that is not justified on a bang for the buck basis.

Don't get me started on the restoration process involved with an 
airplane. The answer to the question "how much of this is original?" is 
always very depressing. On the last plane I asked about the answer was 
"this piece over the door and that's about it.".

	Take Care!

		Bob Camp
		KB8TQ




On Mar 11, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:17:29 -0800, Dan Arney <hankarn at pacbell.net> 
> wrote:
>> Having flown in a B-17 would some one please tell me how you are going
>> to get enough people inside it to cause a weight problem.
>> Even if the bomb bay area, and everything was gutted and you put in
>> canvas seats you would not gross out the plane even with full fuel,
>> which when they are carrying PAX they have to meet FAA rules for 
>> safety
>> and restraint.
>>
>> So that makes the excuse so much BULL S***.
>
> Keep in mind too, that these planes flew with a 10-man crew *plus* a
> bomb load. So flying 10 people in the plane plus whatever else really
> shouldn't be an issue at all. Sure, they want a safety margin and all,
> but even 1000 lbs of bombs is another 5-7 passengers. When I flew with
> the Collings Foundation on Nine-O-Nine, the actual crew was only 5 as
> I recall, including a rude high school kid 'helping out'. There were 5
> passengers as well as all of the touring equpiment split between the
> B-17G and B-24 All American. No combat gear either, although I did
> wear appropriate flight gear just for the helluvit. BOTH aircraft were
> outfitted with the appropriate radio gear, although it wasn't cabled
> up in Nine-O-Nine. All American was a more recent restoration in 1992,
> so they went further with it by the looks. Unlike the pCAF, this group
> does indeed value accuracy.
>
> Someone touched on the best approach to the original PT boat issue:
> turn it into an opportunity to get working gear on the boat while
> educating the folks as to its importance. I seem to recall the
> original post mentioning that a working transmitter was not required
> since they wouldn't use it, but it sounds like it would be accepted?
> As long as the group is not AGAINST having authentic, working gear on
> board like the pCAF seems to be, it might be an perfect chance to do
> it 'right'. Same with the RADAR.
>
> It certainly can't hurt to try. If they clearly state they do not want
> correct or working gear, that's another story. I suspect part of the
> problem with many of the newer groups is not having knowledgable
> people involved to address the issue, nothing more. Get someone
> involved who can and will 'use' the gear at public displays, I bet
> most groups now would welcome this. You'll always have the ones like
> Dave and Larry ran into, and while we can all hope they'll wake up and
> die right, warning others not to donate gear is the wise thing to do
> in that situation. Some not only have no appreciation for it, they
> don't want to have. Donating gear to groups like this is the same as
> dumping it yourself.
>
> ~ Todd,  KA1KAQ
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>