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       2/26/2013 3:13:15 AM
I know its only a model but it is supposed to be to scale with 2000lbs not much room there
 
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       2/26/2013 1:02:00 PM
I am starting to laugh at this thread quite a lot, Shooter, stop being a total troll and accept that the B17 never carried 4,000lbs, and could not fit them internally.
Unless you can find a specific source that states that 4,000lb bombs, or shows  this, then please stop trolling, you are making yourself look like an idiot.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/26/2013 2:57:41 PM

You shouldn't be that stupid, Stuart. Don't you KNOW that people can tell at a glance that you never did what you claimed? 
B.
Belisukius; You shouldn't be that stupid. Don't you KNOW that people can tell at a glance that you never did what you claimed?
 
 

If you doubt me, why didn't you do the research to actually measure the blue prints your self? I posted links to those blue prints and they proove that I was right and you are wrong, was wrong and always will be wrong!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    I note with glee that you are mistakes in this too!   2/26/2013 3:18:43 PM

now the drawing of the internals of the bay, you may note that it is a artist impression and no measurements ca be thus taken either to support or discalim any side of this argument, if you look at the loading charts previously suuplied you will see that the 2000lbs is mounted too low
So now the loading chart you posted is wrong? I wonder what else is wrong too?
see the attached pic of a B17 with 1000lbs (note that aircraft has had its outside racks removed)http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/cazmodel/b17_bombbay_creative.jpg" /> Note that because of camera angle, you were mistaken on this too! See; http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html">http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html 
That link is for just one of the many pics in that link you provide and when they changed the point of view, the outside racks can clearly be seen. Dam those pescky wide angle lenses! 
 
Given the pics you previously posted pic of several bombs, also labled by you as 1,000 pounders, with the outside racks not visible from that angle with that lens and the new pics that now shows the entire bay, prooves that you were wrong again! Also IF your prior post was correct, then they have a 1,000 pound bomb on the top shackle of the inside rack? So which is it? Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/26/2013 4:01:07 PM
now the drawing of the internals of the bay, you may note that it is a artist impression and no measurements ca be thus taken either to support or discalim any side of this argument, if you look at the loading charts previously suuplied you will see that the 2000lbs is mounted too low
So now the loading chart you posted is wrong? I wonder what else is wrong too?
see the attached pic of a B17 with 1000lbs (note that aircraft has had its outside racks removed)http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/cazmodel/b17_bombbay_creative.jpg" target="_blank">http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/cazmodel/b17_bombbay_creative.jpg" target="_blank">http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/cazmodel/b17_bombbay_creative.jpg" />Note that because of camera angle, you were mistaken on this too! See; http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html">http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/Moffett09/Moffett09.html
That link is for just one of the many pics in that link you provide and when they changed the point of view, the outside racks can clearly be seen. Dam those pescky wide angle lenses! 
Given the pics you previously posted pic of several bombs, also labled by you as 1,000 pounders, with the outside racks not visible from that angle with that lens and the new pics that now shows the entire bay, prooves that you were wrong again! Also IF your prior post was correct, then they have a 1,000 pound bomb on the top shackle of the inside rack? So which is it? Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?
 
yes I was wrong, I thought given just how little space there was between those bombs and the metalwork that surely they must be 1000lbs because someone here insists that you can get a 4000lbs in there  or 3 x2000lbs or even 34 x 500lbs and if they were only 500lbs then there was even less space available
 
so I made a little mistake yet you cling to your assumption, between ID'ing those bombs as 1000lbs is such a horrendous error then what of your ID'ing 34 500lbs fitting in there? or 3x 2000lbs or a 4000lbs
I do realise that you are so rarely right that you must celibrate ever little victory even when it actually weakens your claim
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/26/2013 4:27:23 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Does the term    2/26/2013 4:29:51 PM
Frequently Opposer of Learning apply here?
 
 
B.
 

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    So we are back to a roughly drawn loading diagram?   2/26/2013 6:21:39 PM