Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Modify the B-17 into night bomber/low altatude streak bomber?
45-Shooter    2/14/2013 3:55:59 PM
Given the multiple lines of debate; B-17 Vs Lancaster Vs Mossy, I post the following question; To convert the B-17 from a day bomber into a night/streak bomber, remove the top, bottom and chin turrets, remove the waist and cheek guns and gunners, relocate the flight deck to just behind the bombadier's space so that there is onlythree or four crew! Install large spinners on the props and install a single 20 mm auto-cannon on a flexible "X" bow mount in the plexi nose. Reduction in frontal area, weight and increases in streamlinning make flight both much faster and much more efficient! Since there is room for four 4,000 pound MC bombs in the bomb bay, the shakles should be modified to hold those four heavy bombs if the larger shakle does not fit now. Otherwise eight 2,000 pound bombs should be the standard load. Given the 210-220 knot cruising speed of the Mossy required to make the placard range, the new faster B-17N/S should offer more of everything that makes the Mossy so neat?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       3/5/2013 6:53:54 AM
Shooter you have been told that what the bay size is so posting a plan from a paper model site is not going to change that, whilst the fins might have been loaded X wise you still have to allow for the rotation of the bomb being dropped and if the bay isn't  big enough it will hit the sides not something you want with a 4000lbs bomb
 
I do like the fact that the drawing you posted clearly shows the wing fillet and supports my measurement not yours
 
I have provided source for my measurements and all you can counter with is a drawing one without source or author that does not even claim to be scale
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/5/2013 2:00:26 PM
and you have yet to explain how you can get 34 500lbs in there
No, I posted a statement that I had seen a picture labeled B-17s drop 440 pound cluster fire bombs and that I had counted the sting of bombs beneath each of the three planes. They had 34 bombs in each string! The bomb was easy to ID because of it's flat nosed with fuse shape.
 
well as you have never provided that pic its impossible to verify however it is possible to say BOLLOCKS, the above statement is a pack of lies, firstly no 440lbs bombs were used by the usaaf, their is no way of fitting 34 bombs of the  size needed for a weight of about 500lbs into a B17 bay, jus how many pics of a B17 with 6 500lbs do you need to see to get this into your thick skull, you had no idea about the fuse until it was pointed out to you, so in short in didn't happen even if the picture exists it will almost certainly 30lb bombs non 440lbs
 
an I see you have provided evidence that a 4000lbs would fit
If the bomb is only 34" in diameter, how much excess room is there in a bomb bay 8' wide?

Problem is its NOT 8' wide its 2x4' and as the the 4000lbs is actually 4' wide across the fins you would need a bay with nothing between the skins but bomb bay and you clearly dont have that 
 
Yes I am wrong I gave an EXTRA foot that you don't have
        
Wrong on both counts. As the bomb is carried in the bay, the fins are arrainged as a "X" not a cross!
 
 
 
 As such the box they fit into is  only 34.08" on a side, either horizontally,          or vertically! While the diagonal dimention is 48", that is not realivant! See these three scale drawings;
 
but they are drawing and your iffy numbers do not match the dimension's provided from a published source and yet NONE of the sources you provide give internal measurements which is the important ones
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/5/2013 11:35:16 PM

Shooter you have been told that what the bay size is so posting a plan from a paper model site is not going to change that,
I have also posted copies of other sets of plans, five different sets so far. In every single one the bay is 8' X 9'9" split into two halves length ways. No matter how you slice it up, the bomb fits! I have also told you exactly what size the bay was and the bomb fits. The bomb is dropped from a shackle and does not rotate on the way out and even if it did, there is much more than enough room for the fins as the bay gets much wider the closer you get to the bottom.
 
 
I do like the fact that the drawing you posted clearly shows the wing fillet and supports my measurement not yours
No, it does not. You are smoking some great stuff if you believe that after you measure the span at whatever scale and then the bay and multiply it out from the 103.75' wing span and nominal length! It always comes out to 8' X 9'9"!
 
 I have provided source for my measurements and all you can counter with is a drawing one without source or author that does not even claim to be scale
That is an out and out lie! List the number of said post where you stated those dimentions and how you got them!
All you have ever done is dispute my posts WO ever stating why or more importantly you got yours!        
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 12:09:07 AM

If the bomb is only 34" in diameter, how much excess room is there in a bomb bay 8' wide?
   
Problem is its NOT 8' wide its 2x4' and as the the 4000lbs is actually 4' wide 47"! across the fins

Yes I am wrong I gave an EXTRA foot that you don't have
            
Wrong on both counts. As the bomb is carried in the bay, the fins are arrainged as a "X" not a cross!
 As such the box they fit into is  only 34.08" on a side, either horizontally, or vertically! While the diagonal dimention is 47", that is not realivant! See these three scale drawings;
 but they are drawing and your iffy numbers do not match the dimension's provided from a published source and yet NONE of the sources you provide give internal measurements which is the important ones
What sources? All the sources I posted agree with me. What are your sources that dispute those I have posted?
You keep stating that I lied, but you never post a source to back up your claims. Not the dates and targets, or the bomb bay dimentions, or the bomb measurements. So who is fibbing?
 



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/6/2013 2:43:51 AM
If the bomb is only 34" in diameter, how much excess room is there in a bomb bay 8' wide?
   
Problem is its NOT 8' wide its 2x4' and as the the 4000lbs is actually 4' wide 47"! across the fins

Yes I am wrong I gave an EXTRA foot that you don't have
           
Wrong on both counts. As the bomb is carried in the bay, the fins are arrainged as a "X" not a cross!
As such the box they fit into is  only 34.08" on a side, either horizontally, or vertically! While the diagonal dimention is 47", that is not realivant! See these three scale drawings;
but they are drawing and your iffy numbers do not match the dimension's provided from a published source and yet NONE of the sources you provide give internal measurements which is the important ones
    What sources? All the sources I posted agree with me. What are your sources that dispute those I have posted?
You keep stating that I lied, but you never post a source to back up your claims. Not the dates and targets, or the bomb bay dimentions, or the bomb measurements. So who is fibbing?
 
I gave you the source
 
a published verifiable source not unauthored drawing that has NO relavent measurements on it 
 
and as for the targets I gave you hints to do your own untainted research yet you completely fail to do it so why should I bother if all you are going to do is say the figures are wrong without any effort?
 
as to who is fibbing the answer is you, I am still waiting for the pic of the 34 bombs I amd still waiting for a source for the INTERNAL measurements of the bomb bay and I am stil lwaiting for you to actualy support any of your claims
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 10:55:20 PM

What sources? All the sources I posted agree with me. What are your sources that dispute those I have posted?
You keep stating that I lied, but you never post a source to back up your claims. Not the dates and targets, or the bomb bay dimentions, or the bomb measurements. So who is fibbing?
 
I gave you the source
 
a published verifiable source not unauthored drawing that has NO relavent measurements on it 
That does not state a single thing you claimed except the title "15 ton Flying Fortress"! Which as the text inside states was the 1934 version of the plane, not the 18.25 ton plane it became! You found the title on line, but obviously have not read the book as there are no quotes at the sorce you linked to! It is however availible at a local library, so make the trip and actually read it for a change! 
and as for the targets I gave you hints to do your own untainted research yet you completely fail to do it so why should I bother if all you are going to do is say the figures are wrong without any effort?
I do not want any hints. It's not worth my time to putz around. It's your claim, now support it or shut up. 
 
 
As to the sorce of at least one set of measurements of the inside of the B-17G's bomb bay, I made them myself. So unless you can make the same claim to dispute me, you are the one with the defficet of knowledge! Not me!
Am going back to Daton next month, how about you meet me there and I'll get us both in to the archives to search and to physically measure the B-17's bomb bay?

 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    No you didn't.   3/6/2013 10:58:07 PM
You lied.
 
That simple.
 
OBNW proved that, I proved that, Giblets proved it also.
 
Three separate people. Three separate ways.
 
B.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 11:26:40 AM
 
a published verifiable source not unauthored drawing that has NO relavent measurements on it 
That does not state a single thing you claimed except the title "15 ton Flying Fortress"! Which as the text inside states was the 1934 version of the plane, not the 18.25 ton plane it became!
 
not unless you now claim the B17G is a 1934 version as it clearly states the G model when doing these comparisons 
 
 You found the title on line, but obviously have not read the book as there are no quotes at the sorce you linked to!
 
Try the FINAL CHAPTER - called comparisons it clearly states the above facts, his show you have not read it (if you had you might have also caged your mind on the engines)
 
It is however availible at a local library, so make the trip and actually read it for a change!
 
No its not I had to BUY it from amazon which I did
 
and as for the targets I gave you hints to do your own untainted research yet you completely fail to do it so why should I bother if all you are going to do is say the figures are wrong without any effort?
I do not want any hints. It's not worth my time to putz around. It's your claim, now support it or shut up.
No its you that dispute it I dont NEED to do anything especially as its just ONE person that is disputing the data
 
As to the sorce of at least one set of measurements of the inside of the B-17G's bomb bay, I made them myself. So unless you can make the same claim to dispute me, you are the one with the defficet of knowledge! Not me!
 
does not look like does it as ALL sources but you says no

Am going back to Daton next month, how about you meet me there and I'll get us both in to the archives to search and to physically measure the B-17's bomb bay?
 
Fine send me the airfare (its about £1200 presently)   and I will be more than happy to ensure you cannot cheat and lie again
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 3:44:36 PM
a published verifiable source not unauthored drawing that has NO relavent measurements on it        
That does not state a single thing you claimed except the title "15 ton Flying Fortress"! Which as the text inside states was the 1934 version of the plane,
Had you read past the dust cover you would have realised that it takes the story from the prototype though to post war H right up to the L's and N's
it even covers the F9s
 
not the 18.25 ton plane it became!
not only does it cover it, it details the changes made between models  it also covers its operations its engines and compares it to the competition B24s PE 8, P 108 B, He177A, Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster, wow a bit more than you though eh!
 
 You found the title on line, but obviously have not read the book as there are no quotes at the sorce you linked to!
no it because you need to READ THE BOOK and not just comments
 
 It is however availible at a local library, so make the trip and actually read it for a change! 
take your own advice I don't need to I bought it and can read it at leisure again  and again I also got The B17 the flying forts By Martin Caidin
 
and as for the targets I gave you hints to do your own untainted research yet you completely fail to do it so why should I bother if all you are going to do is say the figures are wrong without any effort?      
I do not want any hints. It's not worth my time to putz around. It's your claim, now support it or shut up. 
 
 
As to the sorce of at least one set of measurements of the inside of the B-17G's bomb bay, I made them myself. So unless you can make the same claim to dispute me, you are the one with the defficet of knowledge! Not me!
Am going back to Daton next month, how about you meet me there and I'll get us both in to the archives to search and to physically measure the B-17's bomb bay?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/7/2013 11:19:32 PM

That does not state a single thing you claimed except the title "15 ton Flying Fortress"! Which as the text inside states was the 1934 version of the plane, not the 18.25 ton plane it became!
 
not unless you now claim the B17G is a 1934 version as it clearly states the G model when doing these comparisons 
On which page? Parragraph, line? What comparisons? You have posted no comps, only a vague reff to the "15 ton Flying Fortress." 
 You found the title on line, but obviously have not read the book as there are no quotes at the sorce you linked to!
 
Try the FINAL CHAPTER - called comparisons it clearly states the above facts , his show you have not read it (if you had you might have also caged your mind on the engines)
What "above facts"? You never posted any facts 
I do not want any hints. It's not worth my time to putz around. It's your claim, now support it or shut up.
As to the sorce of at least one set of measurements of the inside of the B-17G's bomb bay, I made them myself. So unless you can make the same claim to dispute me, you are the one with the defficet of knowledge! Not me!
does not look like does it as ALL sources but you says no
Then list a source, including page # and the realivant facts thereon!
Am going back to Daton next month, how about you meet me there and I'll get us both in to the archives to search and to physically measure the B-17's bomb bay? Fine send me the airfare (its about £1200 presently)   and I will be more than happy to ensure you cannot cheat and lie again
Not inclined to do that because it is against my moral code to give charity where none was earned. Get a real job that pays well enough so that you can take a decent vacation. If not to the USA, then to any of the B-17s on display out your way.

See this one it should be close enough for a day trip, if you have a car?

http://www.sallyb.org.uk/
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics