I had thought of doing a B-17 Coast Guard aircraft, but then I found it was done for real(SB-17). So now I'm back to the drawing board - any ideas? Maybe an overland SAR plane?
Matt :ph34r:
You could streamline it by removing turrets, etc. and turn it into a very early turbojet version, maybe with the engine nacelles removed and slip-through-wing jets in their place (ala the Comet). Wings sure look thick enough (with a slight addition over/under the locations of the "engines").
Just another wacky idea. :wacko:
Note: at NO time did I even mention a T-Tail!!!
:D
Biplane :wacko:
Primitive ASM carrier - the US was working on such, and actually used radio-controlled bomb-laden fighters in the Pacific. Put one under each wing and make up some antenna. B)
I like the Japanese production B-17.
sounds good.
Lots of people actuallyflew small numbers (Dominica, Israel, France, etc.,) but what about Argentina?
Why not a Free French bomber squadron in a French 3-colour camo?
:wacko:
Move to Aircav's scenario and do a huge floatplane in the USN 3-colour blues?
Why not a coastal patrol/commercial raider along the Norwegian coast, with underwing rockets, lots of radar and a splinter white/dark grey camo?
:wacko:
Hey,
the floatplane version could be pirate?
:wub: :wub: :wub:
Hey, you could do a B-17 Mistel. I know, it was tried, but not as a Mistel configuration as tried by the Luftwaffe was it? Swap out the nose with a large warhead nose ala Mistel S2. Stick a fighter on top. A P-47C perhaps?
The RAAF nearly received B-17s instead of B-24s, so you could do either OD/NG B-17F or natural metal B-17G with Aussie roundels.
The Japanese did capture and evaluate several B-17s (a D and an E/F, I think) - they look pretty amazing in hinomarus! Try j-aircraft.com under captured aircraft to see what they looked like.
I have also seen a photo (could dig it out if you're keen) of a B-17 with a round Erco nose turret (as on US Navy PB4Ys) ins some sort of trial installation - certainly looks different.
How about a stripped down B-17 - no turrets, guns or gunners. Would be lighter, more aerodynamic and faster! It was actually put forward by the USAAF, but the pilots wanted none of it, they felt "safer" with all those guns, even though they flew 100kts slower :huh:
Certainly by 1944 with the arrival of the Mustang the need for defensive armament was not there, the biggest threat being flak.
QuoteCertainly by 1944 with the arrival of the Mustang the need for defensive armament was not there, the biggest threat being flak.
Well, I'd certainly like guns on any heavy I was flying if any fighters got through the defensive screen.
Well, you could do the Fort that was fitted with the Fulton system:
http://www.laahs.com/art77.htm (http://www.laahs.com/art77.htm)
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/95unclass/Leary.html (http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/95unclass/Leary.html)
B-17 launching Northrop JB's:
http://ww2aircraft.virtualave.net/images/b...7flyingbomb.jpg (http://ww2aircraft.virtualave.net/images/b17flyingbomb.jpg)
Vega XB-38:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bo...mbers/b38-2.jpg (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b38-2.jpg)
http://www.angelfire.com/ak3/DamselsandDue...elists/B38.html (http://www.angelfire.com/ak3/DamselsandDuelists/B38.html)
Borate bombers:
http://winjack3.com/b-17_borate.html (http://winjack3.com/b-17_borate.html)
http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Miss%20...10%20Engine.htm (http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Miss%20US/Allison%20V1710%20Engine.htm)
Note the mention that thought was given to an escort version of the XB-38!
Cheers
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dataviewbooks.com (http://www.dataviewbooks.com)
Whatever modification in terms of nosewheel and turboprops you might do, I think the B17 is way to small to have lasted longer. There wouldn't have been much room to enlarge the bombbay either or to give it nuclear capability like the B 29.
To bad though as it is a beatifull aircraft.
:cheers:
Patrick
Folks,
Earlier this year I got to doodling & imagining whilst attending one too many boring meetings. I struck upon the idea of Boeing having tried to squeeze more life out of its B-17 production contracts by incorporating as much of the B-29 technology as it could.
To this end, the flight deck would've been cut down. Too much weight and too much drag. Remove that so that it's now in line with the rest of the fuselage and have each pilot have his own little bubble canopy, a la the B-42/ B-43, and replace all the manned turrets with remote control ones from a B-29. Add a few sighting blisters for the remaining gunners and certainly delete that ball turret on the belly! Then they'd replace those big Wright radials with their built-in headwind and slap on a brace of turbosupercharged Packard built Merlins - similar to the XB-38 installation.
What's result would be a faster, lighter, smoother, longer ranged, and decidedly unique looking bird. It would also come in a poor second best to the B-29 but it would be cheaper and quicker to have on hand.
Now, if only my modeling skills were up to my imaginings!
Oh, and B-17's did remain in service for decades after WWII. They were handy machines and carried a useful load to a great distance. Air / Sea Rescue used them and I recall seeing an elint machine with huge radomes both on the belly of the plane and mounted _atop_ it as well. I believe this was actually used off of Vietnam!
Madoc
VB-17 was used for a personal transport during the early stages of the Vietnam war, and the use by the CIA has never been truly documented....perhaps it never will. The CIA used black (what else?) B-17s and they had red serials on a number plate.....easy for changing you see. They were used in SE Asia at least up to the mid-60s I believe.
:lol:
QuoteVB-17 was used for a personal transport during the early stages of the Vietnam war, and the use by the CIA has never been truly documented....perhaps it never will. The CIA used black (what else?) B-17s and they had red serials on a number plate.....easy for changing you see. They were used in SE Asia at least up to the mid-60s I believe.
:lol:
I've heard that too, and that they had a leather-covered, badded drop hatch in place of the bottom turret for dropping off agents.
With the gunner postions removed, I've heard the weight savings alone increased the B-17 cruise speed by nearly 100mph. With light weight avionics and no turtle deck, the speed would increase somewhat. Conceptually, what was in my mind was a fast(ish) medium/light bomber or alternate payload altogether. (Molsen's Canadian, anyone?)
The Evergreen Aviation museum used to fly their B-17 above rural Forest Grove, OR (USA) and really toss that thing around. It's amazingly maneuverable when pressed. They'd head right for the Coast Range foothills, stand it on a wing, and would ''bounce'' it 180 degrees around in no time at all. One could tell when they were about to do that because the engines would throttle up significantly, speed up, pitch up, wing down, and just like that it was heading the opposite direction. Right then and there I decided it must have been every bit the amazing aircraft history says it was.
Nocturnal CIA personell delivery sounds interesting.
With contraprops, one could revert to the B-17B/C/D tail too.
Were there ever nuclear antisubmarine air drop torpedos developed?
The only jet I'd put in the tail would be an APU.
Firefighter perchance? Load too small for that?
Anyhoo.........have a great weekend guys!
Daryl J.
I plan on building a ground attack version of the B-17. The basic idea behind this is a cross between B-26 counter invader and an A/C-47 spooky. The concept being something that could pound the crap out of the hochi-min trail replacing two different airframes.
I plan on a few upgrades like a martin b-57 style rotary bomb bay. I also plan on using the ball turret all a moving spotlight. She'll be heavily load with guns on the left side of the plane just like good ol' spooky. Because most if not all of the usaf's b-17 would have already headed to the bone yard the modified airframes would have had to come from other countries like Israel and brazil. Can you guys thinks of any other modifications that might have been made. How bout clipped wing for increased low level handling?
:ar: casey :ar:
Hi Casey, that's a very interesting project you have in mind there. Allow me to suggest you add RATO bottles to the rear fuse for short-field take offs (a'la Antarctic C-47s), underwing napalm or cluster bombs and replace the tail, top turret and waist gun positions with dual gatling guns or chain guns. I'd think swiping the guns and rocket launchers off Huey kits would be a good idea.
Brian da Basher
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.braynededesigns.com%2FBOEING%2F298_01.jpg&hash=1f0942ff6739102e985caf3fa931cfccd1aab8e6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.braynededesigns.com%2FBOEING%2F299J_01.jpg&hash=dabc417fb37a7733b65e21577105208e1a8fa56a)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.braynededesigns.com%2FBOEING%2F299_01.jpg&hash=c02000f2e0ef7f94aac15dd98ac68f0feab29625)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.braynededesigns.com%2FBOEING%2F299_02.jpg&hash=c3a4a72f06db1507e413bd13089f68e9f8f891bc)
Jon
Hey, Jon.
That 299J looks like a cool conversion project. What all needs to be done to a regular Fort? Just the high wing, extend the inner nacelles, and the gear? You could get creative and incoporate features from some of the other drawings as well. Thanks for sharing.
Jon
That twin-fin tail is a drawing I've been looking for. The only place I've ever seen it before was in a 1943 book on the Flying Fortress. Thanks, muchly.
QuoteThat twin-fin tail is a drawing I've been looking for. The only place I've ever seen it before was in a 1943 book on the Flying Fortress. Thanks, muchly.
The drawing is indeed from the 1943 book by Thomas Collinson. :)
I found a near mint copy with immaculate dust jacket at a local book shop a couple of years back.
Cheers, Jon
QuoteQuoteThat twin-fin tail is a drawing I've been looking for. The only place I've ever seen it before was in a 1943 book on the Flying Fortress. Thanks, muchly.
The drawing is indeed from the 1943 book by Thomas Collinson. :)
I found a near mint copy with immaculate dust jacket at a local book shop a couple of years back.
Damn, I envy you. OTOH, I picked up the matching volume on the B-29 some 12 years ago while browsing the stall of a used aviation book dealer at the Hawthorne Air Show (same one that had the specially marked Ukraine MiG-29UB).
PS. Just a whiffy thought, how about a cross between the Model 299j and the XB-38?
Quote
PS. Just a whiffy thought, how about a cross between the Model 299j and the XB-38?
Or a four engine Model 298?
:D
Cheers
Quote from: Radish on November 03, 2005, 09:07:30 AMVB-17 was used for a personal transport during the early stages of the Vietnam war, and the use by the CIA has never been truly documented....perhaps it never will. The CIA used black (what else?) B-17s and they had red serials on a number plate.....easy for changing you see. They were used in SE Asia at least up to the mid-60s I believe.
Quote from: elmayerle on November 03, 2005, 06:35:21 PMI've heard that too, and that they had a leather-covered, padded drop hatch in place of the bottom turret for dropping off agents.
The use of a B-17 for the clandestine insertion of agents into North Vietnam is not far from the truth. The Vietnamese government had actually recommended the use of a B-17 for this purpose based on the fact that it did not look like an American aircraft. Which then makes you ask where were they during WWII? I had also been told that there was a B-24/PB4Y that was used for this purpose as well. Either way, an all black aircraft with small easily removeable number plates on the sides would look pretty convincing regardless of the type. The bottom turret would have been removed from either type for the mission. There were real B-24 aircraft used for this purpose during WWII that were modified for agent drops into occupied territory in Europe by the OSS and SOE.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 18, 2008, 01:18:10 AM
The use of a B-17 for the clandestine insertion of agents into North Vietnam is not far from the truth. The Vietnamese governemet had actually recommended the use of a B-17 for this purpose based on the fact that it did not look like an American aircraft. Which then makes you ask wwhere were they during WWII?
They could always claim that B-17s were retired in droves after WII.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 18, 2008, 01:18:10 AM
I had also been told that there was a B-24/PB4Y that was used for this purpose as well.
ROCAF did with PB4Y until Burma decided they didn't like that (the clandestine flights were done via Burmese airspace) and started sending fighters to shoot the bombers down.
I forgot to provide some supporting references for the agent dropping missions. The following links provide some background on the "Carpet Bagger" missions performed during WWII and later:
- National Museum of the United States Air Force Fact Sheet on the Carpetbagger Missions
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1502 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1502)
- Harrington Aviation Museum
http://www.harringtonmuseum.org.uk/CarpetbaggerMuseumHomePage.htm (http://www.harringtonmuseum.org.uk/CarpetbaggerMuseumHomePage.htm)
- Wikipedia entry for Carpetbagger Missions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carpetbagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carpetbagger)
- 801st BG(P)/492nd BG(H), Harrington (Mark Jackson)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6483/ (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6483/)
- Air Resupply and Communications Service (ARCS)
http://www.arcassn.org/hq-arcs.htm (http://www.arcassn.org/hq-arcs.htm)
- 801st Bomb Bomb Group (Provisional) and 492nd BG (H) ''The Carpetbaggers'' (Kim Juhler)
http://juhlerdenmark.tripod.com/kimjuhlerdanishrepresentiveforthecarpetbaggers801st492ndbombgroupusaaf/index.html (http://juhlerdenmark.tripod.com/kimjuhlerdanishrepresentiveforthecarpetbaggers801st492ndbombgroupusaaf/index.html)
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 24, 2003, 11:15:58 AM
How about Nationalist Chinese? Dominican? French navy? Argentinian (if the US weren't so against the Peronist regime - don't see why, because there were more Nazi war criminals in the US than Argentina at that time due to Project Paperclip!)?
Or maybe Japanese - the Chinese revolution started ten years early, so the US and the UK were arming the Japanese? Actually have a B17F to do this option! Or how about the Japanese copied the B17 (as they did with the DC3) and were using that to bomb the west coast in 1942? Means giving it new engines and messing about with the turrets, but it wouold look really different, especially in Japanese Army colours with all the paint chipped and weathered.
Why new engines?
The Japanese would have loved the technology and capability of the B-17's engines!
No, if they were going to copy/reverse engineer the B-17 design (as the Soviets did with their impounded USAAF B-29's), they would most likely be doing the same with the radial engines!
But if this failed – you may have seen a 6-engine variant Japanese B-17.
M.A.D
Quote from: MAD on March 20, 2008, 01:16:46 AM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 24, 2003, 11:15:58 AM
How about Nationalist Chinese? Dominican? French navy? Argentinian (if the US weren't so against the Peronist regime - don't see why, because there were more Nazi war criminals in the US than Argentina at that time due to Project Paperclip!)?
Or maybe Japanese - the Chinese revolution started ten years early, so the US and the UK were arming the Japanese? Actually have a B17F to do this option! Or how about the Japanese copied the B17 (as they did with the DC3) and were using that to bomb the west coast in 1942? Means giving it new engines and messing about with the turrets, but it wouold look really different, especially in Japanese Army colours with all the paint chipped and weathered.
Why new engines?
The Japanese would have loved the technology and capability of the B-17's engines!
No, if they were going to copy/reverse engineer the B-17 design (as the Soviets did with their impounded USAAF B-29's), they would most likely be doing the same with the radial engines!
But if this failed – you may have seen a 6-engine variant Japanese B-17.
M.A.D
The Japanese knew all about the Wright Cyclone that powered the B-17, there was nothing special, new, secret or technologically advanced about that engine.
The Japanese license produced the SGR-1820 Cyclone powered Douglas DC-2 (the DC-3 was also license produced BTW not
copied), they also purchased 1820 powered Lockheed Model 14-38, along with other 1820 powered aircraft.
Nor would there be any need for 'reverse engineering' as the Japanese had very good radial engines of their own, and they were very
aware of radial engine engine developments in the rest of the world.
They were also aware of the turbo-supercharger (its development was pretty much an open "secret" from its origins in the latter stages of WWI) and produced their own copies of the GE designs, however, they ran into the same metallurgical problems that beset the Germans.
Furthermore, why would they copy an early/mid-1930s design? Nakajima made a major mistake using the late-30s Douglas DC-4E prototype they purchased as the basis for the G5N, they realized their error and went back to the drawing board when tasked to design the G8N attack bomber, but it was too late. The G8N was truly a world-class aircraft design.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1000aircraftphotos.com%2FAPS%2F2000L.jpg&hash=0307453079f0874b6390edfb850462dfc4c50add)
DC-4E
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warbirdphotographs.com%2FNavyJB%26amp%3BW3%2FG5N-10s.jpg&hash=8a299e49b733059823bf7ec70974d29f957e2718)
G5N
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1000aircraftphotos.com%2FContributions%2FKleinBernhard%2F5264L.jpg&hash=32b801722e91f393c57a595622a92153097ac115)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warbirdphotographs.com%2FNavyJB%26amp%3BW%2FG8N-5s.jpg&hash=e62907b989275af05174ed01ca5315499cc82396)
G8N
B-17B swinging 4 Merlins, turtle deck removed and a bubble canopy similar to the Canberra B(I) 8, and the nose loaded up with machine guns, depth charges underwing.
Daryl J.
OK, so it doesn't fly.
I took parts from a 1/72 B-17, a 1/200 B-17, and a Horsa (rear observation) to make this concoction. Originally, this was a Bond Drive vehicle. (NO, James Bond is not driving!) The propeller in front is an engine cooling fan. the top turret is a toilet-with-a-view. There is a "sidecar" seat in the engine nacelle (hard to see clearly) with a windscreen. There is a boy waving a red hat in it. It's a three-wheeler, with the nose turret a steering wheel, and large landing-gear tires for main wheels. The normal radial engine powers the drive wheels through a truck-style differential. The ventral ball turret is a castoring wheel so the rear doesn't scrape on driveways or other weight-shifts. It's a roadhog, and needs "wide load" pilot cars.
I had some other pics of it somewhere, but they're unavailable right now.
A REAL "whif"--a turbo-prop on the nose of a B-17 (with more power itself than all four of the normal engines combined!).
Naw---too simple! :lol:
Well, I still plan to do a single engined turboprop B-17 - got the kit in the stash too:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatifmodelers.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D13473.0%3Battach%3D8076%3Bimage&hash=fdf8088e2fd5ef602140c77beebbb9aa9ef995d0)
Regards,
Greg
How many guns do you think you can fit in that wing?
Quote from: tinlail on June 07, 2008, 12:37:46 PM
How many guns do you think you can fit in that wing?
Well, if twelve .303's could fit in the 40ft wingspan of a Hawker Hurricane, think what you could put in a 103ft wingspan!!!! Plus, near the roots where the wing is very thick, some machine-guns could be mounted "over-and-under"---I'd say you could get forty of them altogether easily!
Call it the "Colander" for what an enemy aircraft would look like after one firing pass!!
Folks,
I'm actually planning on the single engined B-17 to be a bomber still with no wing guns.
Regards,
Greg
What a shame, I was going to suggest 75mm cannons inboard.
Sorry... :lol:
Here's somewhat what it will look like:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FB17H1.jpg&hash=2f19f22986ec5952a77113f121d96b6e1157a9ea)
My plan is to do it up in full operational markings, possibly as a diorama.
regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on June 08, 2008, 03:57:51 PM
Sorry... :lol:
Here's somewhat what it will look like:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FB17H1.jpg&hash=2f19f22986ec5952a77113f121d96b6e1157a9ea)
My plan is to do it up in full operational markings, possibly as a diorama.
regards,
Greg
I do not know if I would have been comfortable as a crew member, flying the distance of Germany, through the world heaviest defended skies and return – with only one engine!
How many B-17/B-24 were able to make it back the Britain on 2/4 out of their 4-engines?
Or should I say how many Fariey Battle returned to their bases, after battle damage?
But then again that's why I like 'What If's'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
M.A.D
Oh, don't worry - the back story will be something along the lines of the USAAF leaders hoped the new lighter, sleeker, faster turbo-prop (one engine being more powerful than than 4 piston engines) B-17H would be able to survive. Unfortunately they were wrong...
Regards,
Greg
or You could do it as a test bed for steam powered B-29 that was rushed into operational service , though it would be necessary to put some remote control turrets like the Italian '108 had for frontal defence.
(after seeing Sisko's B-36 , its guns would be allright too.)
Quote from: r16 on June 09, 2008, 12:37:27 AM
or You could do it as a test bed for steam powered B-29 that was rushed into operational service , though it would be necessary to put some remote control turrets like the Italian '108 had for frontal defence.
(after seeing Sisko's B-36 , its guns would be allright too.)
Err, the B-17G had a remote control turret for frontal defense.
Speaking of the B-29 and frontal defense, how about cheek turrets like those tested on a B-29?
Jon
Quote from: sequoiaranger on June 07, 2008, 10:37:53 AM
A REAL "whif"--a turbo-prop on the nose of a B-17 (with more power itself than all four of the normal engines combined!).
Naw---too simple! :lol:
Second photo shows Wright owned aircraft with R-3350 mounted in the nose.
jon
>I do not know if I would have been comfortable as a crew member, flying the distance of Germany, through the world heaviest defended skies and return – with only one engine!<
That's what the P-51's and others did over Germany! Plus all those carrier aircraft in the Pacific! I can't make up my mind which would be worse--coming down on "dry land" where there is some food and shelter but hunted by Nazis as I tried to walk to Spain/Switzerland, or floating in the ocean amongst sharks and hoping to be found/rescued before the brutal sun and thirst/starvation got to me!
One of the reasons four-engine aircraft HAD four engines is because that many engines were necessary to keep the plane aloft under load! But under light loads and low speeds (and usually losing altitude at various rates) fewer engines could keep the plane aloft. I suppose having only one engine makes the anxiety shorter and simpler--when one engine goes out there is no wondering IF--you KNOW you're out of buisiness!
ı had always thought the bombardier being on top of it , the frontal turret was "directly controlled" , while a remote would have extra calculators , aiming mechanisms etc to compensate the difference between the gunner's sight and the turret's place . No problem .
returning to the subject the fictional turrets could be in place of the engines , probably the inboards where they would help resist the wing bending and probably they could share the local strengthening for the landing gear.
and after hearing the BP CEO talking last night on the news , it seems obvious to me that coal burning steam technology has to come back . He says 22 trillion dollars is needed for energy needs until 2030 . I guess he expects me or you to pay .I wonder what is the brand of his car ?
Some comments on the recents posts
- the Turboprop-nosed B-17 really looks like a Dewoitine 332/338 !
- GTX single-engine projects looks like these long-range tupolev ANT- of the 30's
- What about a B-17 with a single Northrop Turbodyne turboprop in the nose, around 1942 ? It could be an ultra-long range recon/ bomber...
- The B-29 with "cheek turrets" looks like a Hamster ;D
The nose turret control on the B-17G sent electrical signals to the turret to control the motors and gun firing, there was no direct mechanical connection.
Steam technology never went away, the majority of fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas) powered electrical plants burn the fuel to heat water to produce steam to turn turbines that drive generators. Nuclear power plants are little more than fancy kettles.
Jon
Using Monogram's 1/48 B-17G:
Cloth outer wings, remove chin turret, PBY-5-like waist blisters, twin-blade props, no dorsal turret.
External British built torpedos.
Painted in the Atlantic or Coastal Command schemes
Anyone crazy enough to have a go at this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fiddlersgreen.net%2Faircraft%2FBoeing-B17%2FIMAGES%2Fb-17-cartoon.jpg&hash=93e633c93389d490e5981a39257c896e2b15736f)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: nev on October 28, 2003, 12:03:15 PM
How about a stripped down B-17 - no turrets, guns or gunners. Would be lighter, more aerodynamic and faster! It was actually put forward by the USAAF, but the pilots wanted none of it, they felt "safer" with all those guns, even though they flew 100kts slower :huh:
Certainly by 1944 with the arrival of the Mustang the need for defensive armament was not there, the biggest threat being flak.
This principle worked on the latter and more advanced B-29 when the USAAF started removing all but the tail guns whilst carrying out missions over Japan!
Also if its faster speed you are after you may have to go with a more modern thinner aspect ratio wing to cut down on drag! But this will effect your wing tank capacity!
M.A.D
With so many B-17 being built - why not develop a dedicated airborne tanker version to ferry aircraft from the United States to Europe, Pacific, and North African theatres!
This could lead to an operational KB-17F variant which is used to support special long-range bomber and recon missions!
This could have gone a long way in supporting the massive and almost unproductive B-29 self supporting mission to establish themselves for operations (just as many B-29 being used to dry carry fuel, bombs, spare engines and support equipment into their new operation bases, before they could carry out bombing missions against Japan!)
M.A.D
Although I didn't find anything like that in this thread...... I'd be surprised if nobody thought about how cool a zwilling version of B-17 would have looked......?
Quote from: GTX on January 16, 2010, 02:25:51 PM
Anyone crazy enough to have a go at this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fiddlersgreen.net%2Faircraft%2FBoeing-B17%2FIMAGES%2Fb-17-cartoon.jpg&hash=93e633c93389d490e5981a39257c896e2b15736f)
I don't remember any four-engine competitor to the B-17...... did I miss anything?
Take that competitor...... maybe turn it into a strafer of some sort using side-mounted cannons?
Quote
I don't remember any four-engine competitor to the B-17...... did I miss anything?
Nope - I was simply looking at the pic and daring anyone to make a model like it.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on January 16, 2010, 09:19:34 PM
Nope - I was simply looking at the pic and daring anyone to make a model like it.
No no no, I don't mean there being a B-17 competitor
because of the picture you posted.
I meant that I think we could have based the comic airplane on a scaled-up version of the B-18 but am wondering if I wasn't awared that a four-engine competitor of the B-17 existed because I did not read history of the B-17 hard enough.
Or was the B-18 indeed the only competitor to the B-17?
Quote from: dy031101 on January 16, 2010, 10:00:41 PM
I meant that I think we could have based the comic airplane on a scaled-up version of the B-18 but am wondering if I wasn't awared that a four-engine competitor of the B-17 existed because I did not read history of the B-17 hard enough.
Or was the B-18 indeed the only competitor to the B-17?
:
According to Wikipedia (not always accurate I know):
On 8 August 1934, the U.S. Army Air Corps (USAAC) tendered a proposal for a multi-engined bomber to replace the Martin B-10... Boeing competed with the Douglas DB-1 and Martin Model 146 for the Air Corps contract.
Douglas DB-1 (B-18):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd2%2F00910460_121.jpg%2F800px-00910460_121.jpg&hash=4bc46452578433433a3db508027b0e50eba5bc05)
Martin Model 146:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb1%2FMartin_Model_146.gif&hash=01b4c16b2379f81be5abeabaedc6587c010413cc)
Both were twin engined. Mind you it might be interesting to see what a 4 engined version of each might look like.
Regards,
Greg
The 1935 contest was for a twin-engine aircraft bomber, and Boeing bringing the four-engine Model 299 (designated B-299 for tests)
to the competition was not greeted with open arms from the two official competitors. However, it was make it or break time for Boeing
as the 299 had consumed almost all of the companies cash reserves.
Four-engine B-18 look to the DC4E or B19 for basic layout /concept.
A four-engine Model 146, look to the Martin M-130 flying boat for family/period design elements.
>With so many B-17 being built - why not develop a dedicated airborne tanker version to ferry aircraft from the United States to Europe, Pacific, and North African theatres!
This actually happened in one instance -a B-17E was used as a tanker to refuel a Liberator - this was a test for a plan to bomb Tokyo from the Aleutians, using B-17s refueled from B-24s (reversal of the test) Obviously not carried out...
The trouble you'd get with a B-17 refueling B-29s is the performance disparity between the two types - the Superfort would have to slow down and come down from altitude to link up with the KB-17, increasing the fuel burn in exchange for the limited amount of transfer fuel that the Fort could hold. A better solution might have been for a tanker version of the Boeing 307, but by the time you'd have Superforts needing tanking, you could probably have an earlier-than-real-world KB-29 or KC-97.
But for the WHIF world, a tanker Fort coupled with say an all-black B-24 Carpetbagger receiver for special missions or something along that line is indeed a neat idea!
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------
B-17G 909 (http://www.dataviewbooks.com/909.html)
Quote from: MAD on January 16, 2010, 06:43:56 PM
With so many B-17 being built - why not develop a dedicated airborne tanker version to ferry aircraft from the United States to Europe, Pacific, and North African theatres!
Mmm, perhaps because B-17s regularly flew to the UK anyhow without aerial refueling?
Ditto to Hawaii and then points West and South.
Would it be possible to couple two Cyclone engines together?
Okay I admit that I ask this question so that the attempt to "zwilling" two B-17 airframes, for a heavier fuel and bomb load, wouldn't potentially look to unwieldy......
Quote from: dy031101 on January 20, 2010, 07:44:12 PM
Would it be possible to couple two Cyclone engines together?
Yeah, its called the R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone. ;D
A twinned B-17 powered by three R-3350 engines would be amusing.
A Zwilling-Tri-motor, two whiffs with one model. :ph34r:
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 20, 2010, 11:25:32 PM
Yeah, its called the R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone. ;D
A twinned B-17 powered by three R-3350 engines would be amusing.
A Zwilling-Tri-motor, two whiffs with one model. :ph34r:
Didn't realize it...... a competition with the B-29 for the engine......
Could the engine production have been ramped up if there was a need?
Hey guys, I came across this photo gallery of a restored B-17G "Aluminum Overcast". Figured this was the best place for it. She's fully flyable and 100% restored inside and out. Even has some ultra rare K-17 lead computing gun sights on the waist .50s!
Enjoy!
http://home.comcast.net/~szee1a/Al_overcast/Al_overcast.html (http://home.comcast.net/~szee1a/Al_overcast/Al_overcast.html)
I'd love to Scale-o-Rama the Academy shark fin C/D model into a 1/48 single seat twin radial with fixed gear.
Since I bought those two Academy kits, I've been half-arsed looking into this aero. I'd like to do the SAR example up as one from Harmon Field in Newfoundland, and came across this site. It's rather dated and I'm having trouble finding where/ what is going on with her now. Interesting stuff tho, and the first I've heard of it.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nwrain.net%2F%7Enewtsuit%2Fb17labrador%2Fb17001.jpg&hash=5c476723744b90eb4dd930f701455b1b7e8b2815)
http://www.nwrain.net/~newtsuit/b17labrador/history.html
Sounds like it's owned by Don Brooks of Douglas, Georgia.
http://www.thetelegram.com/Business/2009-01-27/article-1441313/Rebuild-to-begin-soon/1
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetelegram.com%2Fmedia%2Fphotos%2Funis%2F2010%2F06%2F30%2F2010-06-30-09-25-59-4c2beea7499aens1jan27.jpg&hash=a955216bd3ac3117b137fd48f837cfee3064e6ad)
nev linkQuoteHow about a stripped down B-17 - no turrets, guns or gunners. Would be lighter, more aerodynamic and faster! It was actually put forward by the USAAF, but the pilots wanted none of it, they felt "safer" with all those guns, even though they flew 100kts slower :huh:
Firstly: They'd fly that much faster if they removed the weight of the guns, gunners, and the protrusions of the turrets?
Secondly: How much farther could it fly?
Thirdly: I thought at the time they were still using mph.
A little more research reveals
B-17G 44-83790
Still not finding a lot and most of it is 2-4 years old !
A quick note on B-17 interior colours that may be of use to folks building a B-17.
Contrary to the instructions on the majority of B-17 kits the interior was unpainted. This includes the
aft and forward fuselage, bulkheads, bomb-bay, bomb doors, interior of engine nacelles/undercarriage
bays, interior of the cowlings and firewalls. The nose compartment and the radio operator compartment
were lined with dark green or olive green insulation blankets, but these were often removed exposing
the unpainted aluminum. The only exception was the flight deck which was painted Dull Dark Green or
Bronze Green, not green zinc chromate or interior green. Wooden decks, doors and table-tops were to
receive two coats of clear lacquer. The metal parts of interior fixtures and seating, aside from that on the
flight deck, were also unpainted per the directive, but that depended on the sub-contractor as some painted
the items before delivery. The toilet and surrounding area were to receive two coats of acid resistant paint.
These interior finish directives applied to all B-17s, from the beginning until the end of production. It was
not, as I've seen some state, a matter of interior painting being discontinued when the exterior camouflage
was discontinued.
Even the restored ones have a lot of green inside. But yes, I've heard the part about only the fight deck being painted several times before. It makes sense as painting would add more manufacturing steps and everything was about building as many as you can as fast as possible.
The order concerning paint predates the war and other USAAC types from the late '30s had similar
orders, especially multi-engine types i.e. the B-18 also had an unpainted interior.
One possible reason I can think of straight up; Weight.
A single coat of paint over an entire aircraft adds a significant amount of weight, which reduces its performance. I have seen the discussion re: external paint possibly having a positive impact on top speed but that doesn't apply to internal paint, which simply adds weight.
Quote from: Old Wombat on April 29, 2024, 12:31:46 AMOne possible reason I can think of straight up; Weight.
A single coat of paint over an entire aircraft adds a significant amount of weight, which reduces its performance. I have seen the discussion re: external paint possibly having a positive impact on top speed but that doesn't apply to internal paint, which simply adds weight.
It was purely a matter of cost, particularly in regards to inspections and repairs as stripping off the paint was required in order to inspect the skin for corrosion etc. The USAAC had determined that any weight saving was minor, only 25 lbs for a pursuit and about 80 lbs for a bomber.
As the all-metal aircraft in development and coming on strength were built using Alclad sheet, which was corrosion resistant due to the surface layer of pure aluminum that it had, it was determined that paint was unnecessary. The USAAC originally applied the new standards to tactical aircraft only - fighter, bomber, recce and transport. Light Blue and yellow was still to be used on primary/basic trainers, advanced trainers and amphibians. The decision was made in March 1935 but tactical aircraft wouldn't be accepted in bare metal until 1937 because they had all of that Light Blue and yellow paint to use up. The change to the Technical Orders wasn't made official until March 1938. Aluminum dope was applied to fabric covered parts and airframes.
Tactical aircraft that had originally been delivered in paint were changed to the new standards when they came into a depot for major inspection/maintenance, if they had Alclad skin it was cleaned back to bare metal, in the case that the skin wasn't Alclad the aircraft was finished in aluminum paint. As a result in squadron photos of the period aircraft from the same unit can be in both blue/yellow and aluminum.
In Sept. 1938 the Aluminum finish was extended to
Advanced Trainers, by July 1942 Aluminum finish was
the standard for all classes, but for tactical aircraft
only this would be superseded by any camouflage
requirements.