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
45-Shooter       7/17/2013 11:41:29 PM

 (it was taller but it tappered and you could only mount 2000lbs at the bottom of the bay) The bottom of the bay is over 42" wide on each side at the bottom and about 35" wide at the top. in fact based on the space round the bombs I would say that the Lancaster bay was acryually wider As a single unit of distance, the Lancaster bay is wider than either side of the two halves of the B-17's bay, but only about half as wide as both together. (although this may be optical due to the B17 losing so much for the central walkway)The very bottom of the walkway is about 8" wide!
4, the Lancaster had no problem carrying 6x2000lbs (two rows of 3) so this makes your argument on bomb placement disproved
This is as I stipulated! Six with bulged doors, three down the center WO the bulged doors. 
5, why would buldged bay door restrict the amount of 2000lbs carried? Because the bomb was so large in diameter that it does not fit if hung from the part of the bay near the edge where the elliptical shape of the door reduces the clearance between the door and floor. The 1000 pound bomb barely fits on the outside station. The 2000 pounder not at all from that station!. the lancs bombbay was of uniform depth, No, it was not! The roof of the bay was flat, but the bottom was curved and had very much less depth near the edges! if 1 2000lbs could be carried in a non buldged bay then the full 6 could be - very faulty logic there shooter  Not at all. WO the bulged doors, the 2000 pound bombs can only be mounted on the CL, or the doors do not close. See this three view and note the rounded bottom of the fuselage and the very small space between the floor which is below the wing carry through and the inside of the doors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_Lancaster.png  
Now look at this three view of the B-17 and note the width of the bomb bay in comparison to the wing span. The bay is 8' wide! Then look at the cross sections to find the height of the bay at over 7' tall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_B-17G.png  

you have NEVER provided evidence that the load you claim was possible  Janes aircraft of WW-II, Wagner's American Combat AC and Wiki with numerous foot notes, etc... ALL state 17,600 pounds of bombs. All that is required is the reconfiguration of the racks/shackles in the B-17's Bomb bay!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress 
But wait, based on the larger difference between the EEW and the MTO, the B-17 could be configured to carry a larger load than the Lancaster. See those Wiki links and subtract the EEWs from 72,000 pounds. That is the weight that is available to load crew, ammo, fuel and bombs!

You need to get past your need for the B17 to be a better bomb carrier that it was and embrace the fact that its bomb bay was tiny
You need to do the math and find the difference between the EEWs and MTOs of the two planes! They had identicle MTOs at 72,000 pounds that they rarely used, but could if they chose to. So which ever of the two has the smallest EEW will have the largest margin to carry a load!
As to the total volume of the two bomb bays, the Lancaster is less than 264 Ft^3, 2'X4'X33' because of the rounded doors, and the B-17s bomb bay is 8'X10'X7', or 560Ft^3 or over twice the total volume of the Lancaster's bay! Learn to live with it.


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/18/2013 3:17:42 AM

t was taller but it tappered and you could only mount 2000lbs at the bottom of the bay) The bottom of the bay is over 42" wide on each side at the bottom and about 35" wide at the top.

you have been gived the correct sizes that show you could only fit a 2000lb at the bottom of the bay that is a fact and you cannot change the physiscal size

 in fact based on the space round the bombs I would say that the Lancaster bay was acryually wider As a single unit of distance, the Lancaster bay is wider than either side of the two halves of the B-17's bay, but only about half as wide as both together.

the Bomb bay on the Lancaster was over 5foot wide so it is bigger than your B17 even with your excessive size

 (although this may be optical due to the B17 losing so much for the central walkway)The very bottom of the walkway is about 8" wide!

but it is a lot wider further up where the bombs were actually carried

 

4, the Lancaster had no problem carrying 6x2000lbs (two rows of 3) so this makes your argument on bomb placement disproved
This is as I stipulated! Six with bulged doors, three down the center WO the bulged doors.

no 6 x 2000lbs WITHOUT buldged doors the door were for the 8000lbs and 12000lbs cookies

5, why would buldged bay door restrict the amount of 2000lbs carried? Because the bomb was so large in diameter that it does not fit if hung from the part of the bay near the edge where the elliptical shape of the door reduces the clearance between the door and floor.

have you actaully looked at a Lamc bay it is rectangular in section and could esy carry 2000lbs three abreast

 The 1000 pound bomb barely fits on the outside station.

 yet they could carry 2000lbs three across the bay

 The 2000 pounder not at all from that station!. the lancs bombbay was of uniform depth, No, it was not! The roof of the bay was flat, but the bottom was curved and had very much less depth near the edges!

check again the only narrowing was right at the edge and restricted nothing

 if 1 2000lbs could be carried in a non buldged bay then the full 6 could be - very faulty logic there shooter  Not at all. WO the bulged doors, the 2000 pound bombs can only be mounted on the CL, or the doors do not close.

rubbish, just not true

See this three view and note the rounded bottom of the fuselage and the very small space between the floor which is below the wing carry through and the inside of the doors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_Lancaster.png  
Now look at this three view of the B-17 and note the width of the bomb bay in comparison to the wing span. The bay is 8' wide! Then look at the cross sections to find the height of the bay at over 7' tall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_B-17G.png 

your measuring skill either stink or you are delivbrately lying, the bay on the B17 was small and this have been proven many time here

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/18/2013 3:25:03 AM

you have NEVER provided evidence that the load you claim was possible  Janes aircraft of WW-II, Wagner's American Combat AC and Wiki with numerous foot notes, etc... ALL state 17,600 pounds of bombs. All that is required is the reconfiguration of the racks/shackles in the B-17's Bomb bay!

yes 17600lbs in theory, that is 6x 1600lbs internally and 2x4000lbs externally not that this was ever carried, and it is of note that the B17 was forbidden to use its tokyo tanks with external loads, so no extended range - oh and two huge bombs hung of the wings now thats going to make a mess of you earodynamics isnt it


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress
But wait, based on the larger difference between the EEW and the MTO, the B-17 could be configured to carry a larger load than the Lancaster. See those Wiki links and subtract the EEWs from 72,000 pounds. That is the weight that is available to load crew, ammo, fuel and bombs!

based on the fact that the Lancaster carried more wieght further throughout the war I will say that you are wrong in your assertions


You need to get past your need for the B17 to be a better bomb carrier that it was and embrace the fact that its bomb bay was tiny
You need to do the math and find the difference between the EEWs and MTOs of the two planes! They had identicle MTOs at 72,000 pounds that they rarely used, but could if they chose to. So which ever of the two has the smallest EEW will have the largest margin to carry a load!

which aircraft actually carried those weights? which aircraft needed to hang bombs off the wings to get even close to that weight? the Lancaster was never considered to carry wing bombs but it could have done, so by your own argument of "might be" we could hand a pair of 4000lbs off each wing on the Lancaster and look we are above the B17 again

As to the total volume of the two bomb bays, the Lancaster is less than 264 Ft^3, 2'X4'X33' because of the rounded doors, and the B-17s bomb bay is 8'X10'X7', or 560Ft^3 or over twice the total volume of the Lancaster's bay! Learn to live with it.


Bull pure bull, you cannot acept the fact that teh B17 could only carry 2x2000lbs can you? despite me providing written proof that you are wrong you still argue with discredited numbers, as I said before either you discount the evidence or you are stupid and cannot understand which is it?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/18/2013 5:31:35 PM

was taller but it tappered and you could only mount 2000lbs at the bottom of the bay) The bottom of the bay is over 42" wide on each side at the bottom and about 35" wide at the top. you have been gived the correct sizes that show you could only fit a 2000lb at the bottom of the bay that is a fact and you cannot change the physiscal size
No, I have been shown the tactical loading diagram which specifies how the brass wants it done, not a blueprint that shows the size and load restrictions. Given that the B-17 has separate racks and movable interchangeable shackles, it is a very minor thing to alter that loading diagram.
in fact based on the space round the bombs I would say that the Lancaster bay was acryually wider As a single unit of distance, the Lancaster bay is wider than either side of the two halves of the B-17's bay, but only about half as wide as both together. the Bomb bay on the Lancaster was over 5foot wide No, it is between 48" and 52" wide depending on were and how low you measure it. so it is bigger Not in your wildest dreams! than your B17 even with your excessive size
(although this may be optical due to the B17 losing so much for the central walkway)The very bottom of the walkway is about 8" wide! but it is a lot wider further up where the bombs were actually carriedThis is true, but at their narrowest point that will stow a 34" in OD bomb, Ie a 4000 pound MC bomb, there is sufficient vertical room to carry TWO of them, one above the other on each side!
4, the Lancaster had no problem carrying 6x2000lbs (two rows of 3) Only with the bulged doors! so this makes your argument on bomb placement disproved
This is as I stipulated! Six with bulged doors, three down the center WO the bulged doors. no 6 x 2000lbs WITHOUT buldged doors Is not possible. the door were for the 8000lbs and 12000lbs cookiesBut the original intent was to carry two torpedo's, both on racks very close to the CL. When they changed to the 14/15 shackle configuration early, or the 17/18 shackle configuration for later bombers, they made the two shackles close to the CL into one in the CL and two nearer to the edge. It is those shackles near the edge that can not carry a 2000 pound bomb WO the bulged doors.
5, why would buldged bay door restrict the amount of 2000lbs carried?
Because the bomb was so large in diameter that it does not fit if hung from the part of the bay near the edge where the elliptical shape of the door reduces the clearance between the door and floor. have you actaully looked at a Lamc bay it is rectangular in section No! It is rectangular in planform, but the doors are rounded!
The 1000 pound bomb barely fits on the outside station. yet they could carry 2000lbs three across the bay Only with the bulged doors is this even remotely possible.
if 1 2000lbs could be carried in a non buldged bay But only on the three CL stations! then the full 6 could be - very faulty logic there shooter  Not at all. See this three view and note the rounded bottom of the fuselage and the very small space between the floor which is below the wing carry through and the inside of the doors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_Lancaster.png  
Now look at this three view of the B-17 and note the width of the bomb bay in comparison to the wing span. Then look at the cross sections to find the height of the bay at over 7' tall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_B-17G.png  your measuring skill either stink or you are delivbrately lying, the bay on the B17 was small and this have been proven many time here Then you measure it and post the results! All you have done so far is state that I am wrong! I get 170 mm from wing tip to wing tip. Since the span is 103.75' and the bay is just over 12.8 mm wide, the minimum opening is greater than 12.8 X 7.33" = 94" wide. Pick another picture, make your own measurements! Subtracting the cat walk's 8" in the center of the two half bays.
   

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/18/2013 5:46:56 PM

you have NEVER provided evidence that the load you claim was possible  Janes aircraft of WW-II, Wagner's American Combat AC and Wiki with numerous foot notes, etc... ALL state 17,600 pounds of bombs. All that is required is the reconfiguration of the racks/shackles in the B-17's Bomb bay!
 
yes 17600lbs in theory, THANK YOU!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress

But wait, based on the larger difference between the EEW and the MTO, the B-17 could be configured to carry a larger load than the Lancaster. See those Wiki links and subtract the EEWs from 72,000 pounds. That is the weight that is available to load crew, ammo, fuel and bombs!
based on the fact that the Lancaster carried more wieght further throughout the war I will say that you are wrong in your assertions I have never disputed that the Lancaster carried more weight farther in actual operation practice! What I do emphatically DO dispute is that the conditions under which that was done are such as to make that possible! IF the Lancaster was REQUIRED to fly higher in broad daylight to avoid flack, it would not have been able to do that! Altitude is the killer of wing loading! That is why the Lancaster has a "Service Ceiling" under 25,000', while the B-17 has a "Service ceiling" over 35,000'! To make up that difference in altitude, the Lancaster could not carry nearly as much bomb load. On the other hand, if the B-17 flew at night at less than 20,000' as was common with many Lancaster missions, it's USEFULL load would have decreased dramatically!!!!
You need to get past your need for the B17 to be a better bomb carrier that it was and embrace the fact that its bomb bay was tiny You need to get past your need for the Lancaster to be a better plane than it was and get over the fact that the B-17 had more cubic feet of volume than that of the Lancaster!
You need to do the math and find the difference between the EEWs and MTOs of the two planes! They had identicle MTOs at 72,000 pounds that they rarely used, but could if they chose to. So which ever of the two has the smallest EEW will have the largest margin to carry a load!
which aircraft actually carried those weights? Is irrelevant! As to hanging more bombs off the Lancaster's wings, that can only be done IF there is weight margin between the MTO and EEW!
As to the total volume of the two bomb bays, the Lancaster is less than 264 Ft^3, 2'X4'X33' because of the rounded doors, and the B-17s bomb bay is 8'X10'X7', or 560Ft^3 or over twice the total volume of the Lancaster's bay! Learn to live with it.
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/18/2013 11:53:07 PM
We''ve demonstrated the actual load configuration and carriage of the B-17./ When Stewie claims this had no0t been done, he lies When he claims his own figures, he lies. When he falsely claims  1500 kilometers combat radius with more than a 2000 bombload for the type, he lies.     
 
The key words to remember are 'he lies.'
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/19/2013 2:58:15 AM
 No, I have been shown the tactical loading diagram which specifies how the brass wants it done, not a blueprint that shows the size and load restrictions. Given that the B-17 has separate racks and movable interchangeable shackles, it is a very minor thing to alter that loading diagram.
 
not when the bombs wouldnt fit - only two 2000lbs would fit in a B17 this is a documented fact and you have never provided any evdence to say otherwise, - so no further discussion as it is not possible
 
 
(although this may be optical due to the B17 losing so much for the central walkway)The very bottom of the walkway is about 8" wide!
 
no its not - I posted actual sizes previously but you as normal ignored them, if you cannot accept proof then thier is no dicussion
 
but it is a lot wider further up where the bombs were actually carriedThis is true, but at their narrowest point that will stow a 34" in OD bomb, Ie a 4000 pound MC bomb, there is sufficient vertical room to carry TWO of them, one above the other on each side!
 
wrong on every count, the B17 could bearly carry a 2000lbs internallt and could never accept as 4000lbs let alone two

4, the Lancaster had no problem carrying 6x2000lbs (two rows of 3) Only with the bulged doors! so this makes your argument on bomb placement disproved
This is as I stipulated! Six with bulged doors, three down the center WO the bulged doors. no 6 x 2000lbs WITHOUT buldged doors Is not possible. the door were for the 8000lbs and 12000lbs cookiesBut the original intent was to carry two torpedo's, both on racks very close to the CL. When they changed to the 14/15 shackle configuration early, or the 17/18 shackle configuration for later bombers, they made the two shackles close to the CL into one in the CL and two nearer to the edge. It is those shackles near the edge that can not carry a 2000 pound bomb WO the bulged doors.
 
if they cannot carry 3x2000lbs across the bay why is it clearly shown as a bomb option in the documentation? oh yes you never let a little thing like facts get in the way of you ideas do you!

5, why would buldged bay door restrict the amount of 2000lbs carried?
Because the bomb was so large in diameter that it does not fit if hung from the part of the bay near the edge where the elliptical shape of the door reduces the clearance between the door and floor. have you actaully looked at a Lamc bay it is rectangular in section No! It is rectangular in planform, but the doors are rounded! only at the edge and what do you know so are the bombs - who knew!

The 1000 pound bomb barely fits on the outside station. yet they could carry 2000lbs three across the bay Only with the bulged doors is this even remotely possible.
 
but facts prove you wrong not only possible but actually done
 
that shows actual NOTHING relavent

Now look at this three view of the B-17 and note the width of the bomb bay in comparison to the wing span. Then look at the cross sections to find the height of the bay at over 7' tall.

You are aware are you not that the bomb bay doors on the B17 are actually wider than the bomb bay, whils the Lancs are the same width? do please do some research as I am not feeding you anymore

 
Then you measure it and post the results! 
 
 the facts are simple the B17 did not and could noty carry more than 1 2000lbs per side and could not carry  a 4000lbs internally, these are facts and I provided sourcves to confirm, |I also provide actual measure ments that show that you number asare in serious error, do you find a source to contardict me, no you wheel out your incorrect measurements again and plain ignore everything posted, well fine if you dont want to learn that is your right but it is pointless trying to provide a counterpoint if you are being so dishonest

   
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/19/2013 3:14:20 AM
you have NEVER provided evidence that the load you claim was possible  Janes aircraft of WW-II, Wagner's American Combat AC and Wiki with numerous foot notes, etc... ALL state 17,600 pounds of bombs. All that is No required is the reconfiguration of the racks/shackles in the B-17's Bomb bay!
NO NO NO NO you cannot configure to fit something that wont fit, the documentation clearly show what was possible and what wasnt, the ONLY person who thinks otherwise is you
yes 17600lbs in theory, THANK YOU!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress
 
but you conveintly ignore the fact that the performance was so badly effected that it was NEVER used in combat

But wait, based on the larger difference between the EEW and the MTO, the B-17 could be configured to carry a larger load than the Lancaster. See those Wiki links and subtract the EEWs from 72,000 pounds. That is the weight that is available to load crew, ammo, fuel and bombs!
 
been thier and not returning I gave you source and even chapter and you still ignore it
 
 To make up that difference in altitude, the Lancaster could not carry nearly as much bomb load. On the other hand, if the B-17 flew at night at less than 20,000' as was common with many Lancaster missions, it's USEFULL load would have decreased dramatically!!!!
 
Its usefull loaqd was limited by the bomb bay and we return to this loop - pointless as you are inacapable of learning
 

You need to get past your need for the B17 to be a better bomb carrier that it was and embrace the fact that its bomb bay was tiny You need to get past your need for the Lancaster to be a better plane than it was and get over the fact that the B-17 had more cubic feet of volume than that of the Lancaster!
 
complete and utter rubbish and surely you must know that you are posting rubbish so I am writting this off as trolling

You need to do the math and find the difference between the EEWs and MTOs of the two planes! They had identicle MTOs at 72,000 pounds that they rarely used, but could if they chose to. So which ever of the two has the smallest EEW will have the largest margin to carry a load!
which aircraft actually carried those weights? Is irrelevant! As to hanging more bombs off the Lancaster's wings, that can only be done IF there is weight margin between the MTO and EEW!
As to the total volume of the two bomb bays, the Lancaster is less than 264 Ft^3, 2'X4'X33' because of the rounded doors, and the B-17s bomb bay is 8'X10'X7', or 560Ft^3 or over twice the total volume of the Lancaster's bay! Learn to live with it.
 
dont need to, I will take comfort in the fact that all the books on the subject agree with me and not with you, as do all articles, interviews an every other source!
 
no one agrees with you absolutely no one ever, not once on any site have I found a single person willing to support your posts.
 
so you live with it, your wonder bomber was just bait pure and simple it failed every test, it was designed as a anti ship weapon and failed, it was re tasked as a self defending bomber and failed, it was useed a straegic bomber and failed the only thing it did was draw the Fuftwaffe into air combat and allowed the Escorts (which wouldnt be there if it had been self defending like it was touted) to shoot them down so in all aspects it was just BAIT
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/19/2013 7:46:41 AM
for any interested parties except shooter (as he will ignore facts as usual)
Lancaster Mk I
 
Empty weight: 36,457 lb 
Loaded weight: 68,000 lb 
Max. takeoff weight: 72,000 lb 
Powerplant: 4 × Rolls-Royce Merlin XX liquid-cooled V12 engines, 1,280 hp  each
Maximum speed: 282 mph 
Cruise speed: 200 mph
Range: 2,530 mi 
 
B17 G
 
Empty weight: 36,135 lb
Loaded weight: 54,000 lb
Max. takeoff weight: 65,500 lb
Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone" turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp  each
Maximum speed: 287 mph
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Range: 2,000 mi
 
so if we take his G model as THE b17 then the Lanc has more wieght allowance to play with
 
Also to reitterate from an earlier post
 
B17 Bomb bay was 7 foot wide at its widest - from that you need to deduct the 9" walkway and the bomb hangers and supports on either side,
The bay was only 8foot long
 
but his volume measurements forget that not all that volume  is useable (he does tend to miss these little things I have noticed)
 
so we have (giving the B17 the benifit of the doubt that the whole bay could be used
7' x 8' x 7' (assuming his 7 foot height is correct) which gives a volume of 392 
 
now lancaster
the bay was actually 5 foot wide not 4 foot
it was 3 foot deep not 2 foot (difficult to fit a cookie in a 2 foot bay when they were nearly 3 foot in diameter)
 
so that gives 3 x 5 x 33 = 495
 
so earther than the B17 being twice the volume the Lanc is over 100 cubic foot bigger and it is much more usuable space two
 
it is not supprising that he over estimates the B17 as is his want on aircraft he likes or the fact he underestimates the Lanc again as is want on British aircraft but that it is easy checkable facts that he uses, it is as if he thinks we cant check his numbers! or maybe that he does have the attention of a mayfly and cannot read a whole page without forgetting what it said at the beginning 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       7/25/2013 3:04:42 PM
Ha, been away from this thread for something like 6months, can't believe the thread has not moved on one iota, just accept the troll will not accept the facts.
Noted that it is the 10th anniversary for the site. The saddest thing is how much popular the site would be without the trolls.
 
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