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       2/19/2013 2:59:05 AM
The RAF had 3 .5 armed turrets the FN 82 by Nash & Thomson, the Rose by the Rose brothers and the Boulton Paul  type D, of which all were fitted to Lanc (the type D only to the mkVI but Halifax's got them during the war)
 
all were hydraulically-operated rather than electrical like the US turrets  (electrical would have required a rework of the RAF's 24volt system in the bombers
all suffered serious stopage problems with the .5 initially which delayed introduction
 
it is worth mentioning that tha Rose (whic was the first to enter service) was actually insitgated by Bomber Harris and was unofficial and unaproved (Harris got fed up with the lack of a .5 turret and lack of progress in developing one) 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/19/2013 3:10:32 AM
 
  So you take the 60 years post war plackard in leu of the published at the time facts, like no Alison not in a fighter plane made more than 1,425 HP during the war? No, it is 1,310 HP acording to published claims by Boeing durring the war.
No I take the information on the actual aircraft and not your word (which noone in the right mind would take)
 
  I guess that you define "pretty much the same" as 327 MPH is "pretty much the same" as 317 MPH?
nope and I never mention any speed these are your figures and as such useless
 
NO the B17 bomb bay was incablable of carrying any 4000lbs bomb you have been shown this many times yet persist in claiming otherwise, either you are stupid, unable to understand simple facts or a liar
 No, no one has ever shown that the bomb bay was too narrow to take the 4,000 pound medium case bomb, or not tall enough to prevent TWO of them in the more than 7' of hight in the short, but wide and tall bomb bay!
and no one has ever show it was possible either, but the fact that the US official documents say it didnt happen, thier is no evidence it did and all pictures that show 1 2000lbs i a B17 bay show that there was naff all space left would tend to override your duobious measurements and certainly not a 4000lbs thats just a joke
 
 
 
So a seven foot tall bomb bay 3.75' wide at the bottom and 2.9' wide two feet from the top will not fit eight bombs less than 23" in diamiter, four on each side, two on the center rack/walk way and two on each side of the bay? RIGHT! http://www.eugeneleeslover.com...
this lick is a joke riiight? as it proves nothing either way, for god sake if your going to post a link make it relavent


 
 
the new faster B-17N/S should offer more of everything that makes the Mossy so neat?
except size, compaid to a mossie it will still be a huge beast of a plane  Yes, very true! More room for Avionics, Navaids and room to walk around!
what navaids? why walk around? and the mossie had all the avionics it needed, it didnt have a dance floor with room for a 50 piece band either should it have?
See the link posted to find the bomb size and then imagine it in the bomb bay, or better yet, cut and paste the correct sizes bomb's silhouette in to the cross section of the bomb bay!
I dont need to imagine what a 2000lbs in a B17 looks like there are pictures of it on the web if you look strangely no pictures of a 4000lbs or more tha 1 2000lbs per side or 34 500lbs or pretty much anything you claim all you provide is vauge claims that something was possible when history says you are wrong
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    mistake   2/19/2013 8:16:49 AM
on checking it looks like I was wrong, the b17 with allisons had 4x 1425hp units and not 1700hp -
and it was 8 mph faster (so 8mph for a increase of 900hp )
 
teach me to believe without checking
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       2/19/2013 2:25:37 PM

Reduction in frontal area, weight and increases in streamlinning make flight both much faster and much more efficient!

 

Interesting link about some changes to B17G's in the later stages of the war:
 "in the last month of the war, when there was little enemy fighter activity, some Combat Wings flew without waist guns, ball turrets or chin turrets. Operational reports revealed an estimated 25mph increase in airspeed with the improved streamlining."
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 3:03:59 PM


 
No, it is 1,310 HP acording to published claims by Boeing durring the war.

No I take the information on the actual aircraft and not your word (which noone in the right mind would take)
Like posting that they were 1700 HP first and then stating they were 1425 now, which was the fighter rating? 
  I guess that you define "pretty much the same" as 327 MPH is "pretty much the same" as 317 MPH?
nope and I never mention any speed these are your figures and as such useless
First this which shows the speed to be 317 MPH; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...and then this which shows the speed to be 327 MPH;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X... and thus the differance is 10 MPH, which you called "pretty much the same"!
NO the B17 bomb bay was incablable of carrying any 4000lbs bomb you have been shown this many times yet persist in claiming otherwise, either you are stupid, unable to understand simple facts or a liar I am more than a little peeved about your claim that I "have been shown this many times" but this is an out and out lie! No-one has ever posted a single document that states the B-17 bomb bay can not cary the 4000 pound MC bomb! Never! So put up or shut up ans post that link that "Prooves" it could not be done!
 No, no one has ever shown that the bomb bay was too narrow to take the 4,000 pound medium case bomb, or not tall enough to prevent TWO of them in the more than 7' of hight in the short, but wide and tall bomb bay!
and no one has ever show it was possible either, But I have shown that it was possible! but the fact that the US official documents say it didnt happen, thier is no evidence it did and all pictures that show 1 2000lbs i a B17 bay show that there was naff all space left would tend to override your duobious measurements and certainly not a 4000lbs thats just a joke
Not all pictures! I posted several with at least four 2000 pound bombs in flight under the plane! Then there is the link to the USAAF Ordinance Manual page with the bomb's dimentions! Any parusal of the cross sections/plans of the B-17 would show that there was more than enough room to cary four, two on each side of those 4,000 pound bombs, inside that bomb bay! 
 
 
So a seven foot tall bomb bay 3.75' wide at the bottom and 2.9' wide two feet from the top will not fit eight bombs less than 23" in diamiter, four on each side, two on the center rack/walk way and two on each side of the bay? RIGHT! http://www.eugeneleeslover.com...
this lick is a joke riiight? as it proves nothing either way, for god sake if your going to post a link make it relavent

Given the fact that the image at that site is from the WW-II USAAF Ordinance Manual is some how a joke to you? There is both deatailed discriptions and a scalled and dimentione line drawing of said bombs and you still think it is a joke? The only thing on this board that is not rlavent is you. 
 
 
the new faster B-17N/S should offer more of everything that makes the Mossy so neat?
except size, compaid to a mossie it will still be a huge beast of a plane  Yes, very true! More room for Avionics, Navaids and room to walk around!
See the link posted to find the bomb size and then imagine it in the bomb bay, or better yet, cut and paste the correct sizes bomb's silhouette in to the cross section of the bomb bay!
I dont need to imagine what a 2000lbs in a B17 looks like there are pictures of it on the web if you look strangely no pictures of a 4000lbs  Just because there are no pictures does not mean it could not be done and the fact that you have not been able to find documentation of it's use, there is more than enough cause to believe that they did use them because we made about five times as many of those 4,000 MC Bombs as both the RAF and the USAAF actually used during the war. How did they use all of those bombs they expended and why did they actually make so many? Right!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/21/2013 4:03:16 PM
No, it is 1,310 HP acording to published claims by Boeing durring the war.
No I take the information on the actual aircraft and not your word (which noone in the right mind would take)
Like posting that they were 1700 HP first and then stating they were 1425 now, which was the fighter rating?
I admitted my mistake something you never do and dont you think i doubled checked my source?
 
I guess that you define "pretty much the same" as 327 MPH is "pretty much the same" as 317 MPH?
as the model E was rated at 325 I think 2 mph can be classed as pretty much the same dont you?
nope and I never mention any speed these are your figures and as such useless
First this which shows the speed to be 317 MPH; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
no it doesnt it does not mention 317 at all!
and then this which shows the speed to be 327 MPH; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X... and thus the differance is 10 MPH, which you called "pretty much the same"!
no 325 for the basic E model used as a base so thats 2mph 
 
NO the B17 bomb bay was incablable of carrying any 4000lbs bomb you have been shown this many times yet persist in claiming otherwise, either you are stupid, unable to understand simple facts or a liar I am more than a little peeved about your claim that I "have been shown this many times" but this is an out and out lie!
You have been shown offical USAAF manuals that show only 2000lbs specified for the bomb bay, you have also been shown other sources that say exactly the same thing so as near as possible this has been shown  to claim otherwise show your lack of honesty
 
 No-one has ever posted a single document that states the B-17 bomb bay can not cary the 4000 pound MC bomb! Never! So put up or shut up ans post that link that "Prooves" it could not be done!
 
I cannot provide a link that shows the B17 could carry a 44000lbs bomb either but are you seriously claiming it could?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/21/2013 4:07:24 PM

No, no one has ever shown that the bomb bay was too narrow to take the 4,000 pound medium case bomb, or not tall enough to prevent TWO of them in the more than 7' of hight in the short, but wide and tall bomb bay!
and you have not provided any evidence it could and as its your claim its up to you to provide evidence prove it could be done because all evidence says not (have a look online at B17 with 500lbs on board and just look how little room thier is
and no one has ever show it was possible either,
But I have shown that it was possible!##
No oyu havent thats a blatent lie you have spouted some un checkable numbers that do not seem to argree with the real world not is not proof
Not all pictures! I posted several with at least four 2000 pound bombs in flight under the plane!
no you didnt you posted a could of pitcure of 1000lbs in flight and claimed they were 2000lbs when pulled on it you said you had other pics but conviently you couldnt find them
Then there is the link to the USAAF Ordinance Manual page with the bomb's dimentions! Any parusal of the cross sections/plans of the B-17 would show that there was more than enough room to cary four, two on each side of those 4,000 pound bombs, inside that bomb bay!
no it doesnt it clearly shows that a 2000lbs could only fit in one location

So a seven foot tall bomb bay 3.75' wide at the bottom and 2.9' wide two feet from the top will not fit eight bombs less than 23" (joke right?)in diamiter, four on each side, two on the center rack/walk way and two on each side of the bay? RIGHT! http://www.eugeneleeslover.com...
rrrrrrrr

Given the fact that the image at that site is from the WW-II USAAF Ordinance Manual is some how a joke to you? There is both deatailed discriptions and a scalled and dimentione line drawing of said bombs and you still think it is a joke? The only thing on this board that is not rlavent is you.
er those are NOT scale bombs shown in the manual its a DIAGRAM
as I said a JOKE
See the link posted to find the bomb size and then imagine it in the bomb bay, or better yet, cut and paste the correct sizes bomb's silhouette in to the cross section of the bomb bay!
find a accurate cross section of the bombbay and I would
I dont need to imagine what a 2000lbs in a B17 looks like there are pictures of it on the web if you look strangely no pictures of a 4000lbs Just because there are no pictures does not mean it could not be done
no but it makes it MORE likely than not, however as you have not provided a source to say it was done I would say the evidence is in my favour
and the fact that you have not been able to find documentation of it's use, there is more than enough cause to believe that they did use them because we made about five times as many of those 4,000 MC Bombs as both the RAF and the USAAF actually used during the war.
this is where you make a fool of your self as the USAAF records report that NO 4000lbs were used in the ETO MTO or PTO
How did they use all of those bombs they expended and why did they actually make so many? Right!
dont know why as they never got used however I understand that it is why they equipe some B17 with external rack for this exact reason however the performance degeragration was too server to be acceptable
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 5:49:51 PM

I admitted my mistake something you never do and dont you think i doubled checked my source?
 
I guess that you define "pretty much the same" as 327 MPH is "pretty much the same" as 317 MPH?
as the model E was rated at 325 I think 2 mph can be classed as pretty much the same dont you? But there were several blocks of E Mod and you sited the only one that was not realivant!
nope and I never mention any speed these are your figures and as such useless
First this which shows the speed to be 317 MPH; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
no it doesnt it does not mention 317 at all!  But yes it does!
and then this which shows the speed to be 327 MPH; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X... and thus the differance is 10 MPH, which you called "pretty much the same"!
no 325 for the basic E model used as a base so thats 2mph   No, it does not equal 2 MPH because the B-38 project was comped to the latest model E with all the weight, guns and armor changes and it IS 317 MPH Vs 327 MPH!
 
NO the B17 bomb bay was incablable of carrying any 4000lbs bomb you have been shown this many times yet persist in claiming otherwise, either you are stupid, unable to understand simple facts or a liar I am more than a little peeved about your claim that I "have been shown this many times" but this is an out and out lie!
You have been shown offical USAAF manuals that show only 2000lbs specified for the bomb bay, you have also been shown other sources that say exactly the same thing so as near as possible this has been shown  to claim otherwise show your lack of honesty
Do those manuals apply to every single B-17 model they made? How do you square the fact that they did put 4X2000 and 6X1600 pound bombs in there IN SPITE OF THAT MANUAL? 
 No-one has ever posted a single document that states the B-17 bomb bay can not cary the 4000 pound MC bomb! Never! So put up or shut up ans post that link that "Prooves" it could not be done!
 
I cannot provide a link that shows the B17 could carry a 44000lbs bomb Lord thank you for little kindnesses!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 7:12:54 PM
No, no one has ever shown that the bomb bay was too narrow to take the 4,000 pound medium case bomb, or not tall enough to prevent TWO of them in the more than 7' of hight in the short, but wide and tall bomb bay!
and you have not provided any evidence it could and as its your claim its up to you to provide evidence prove it could be done
But I also wrote that it would be easy to measure those bombs and the plane that had just dropped them less than two seconds ago. If you had done that, IE measure the images of both the plane and the bombs, which by the way is very easy to do, you would then have absolute proof that the B-17 could and did carry and drop 4X2000 pound bombs! That is 8,000 of the 9,600 pounds most sources state the bomb bay could hold!
Then there is the link to the USAAF Ordinance Manual page with the bomb's dimentions! B-17 would show that there was more than enough room to cary four, two on each side of those 4,000 pound bombs, inside that bomb bay!http://www.eugeneleeslover.com...

Given the fact that the image at that site is from the WW-II USAAF Ordinance Manual is some how a joke to you?
er those are NOT scale bombs yes, they are to scale and the print on that page clearly states that they ARE to scale! You are very wrong, almost as if you were lieing on purpose to wind me up????
How did they use all of those bombs they expended and why did they actually make so many? Right!
I understand that it is why they equipe some B17 with external rack for this exact reason however the performance degeragration was too server to be acceptable
See part two below!
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 7:14:26 PM

 No, no one has ever shown that the bomb bay was too narrow to take the 4,000 pound medium case bomb, or not tall enough to prevent TWO of them in the more than 7' of hight in the short, but wide and tall bomb bay!
and no one has ever show it was possible either,
So a seven foot tall bomb bay 3.75' wide at the bottom and 2.9' wide two feet from the top will not fit eight bombs less than 23" in diamiter, four on each side, two on the center rack/walk way and two on each side of the bay? RIGHT! http://www.eugeneleeslover.com...
this lick is a joke riiight? as it proves nothing either way, for god sake if your going to post a link make it relavent


 
 
 
 
As a seperate aside, the bay was rated for and used to drop up to 9,600 pounds of bombs. The plackard bomb load is 17,600 pounds, which is comprised of 9,600 in the bay and two times 4,000 pound Disney bombs on the wing racks!
As a more interesting factiod, note that the B-17 has more wing area, a higher Aspect Ratio and with water injection more availible Take Off Power.
Why on earth would you think that a B-17 mission where it took off with the same MTO that it could not match the Lanc's MAXIMUM bomb load?


Specifications (B-17G)

Data from The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft[37]...

General characteristics

Performance

Armament

  • Guns: 13 × .50 in 8 in turrets in dorsal, ventral, nose and tail, 2 in waist positions, 2 in "cheek" positions, and 1 in the post-dorsal position
  • Bombs:
    • Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
    • Long range missions (˜800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
    • Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)
Specifications (Lancaster I)
Data from Avro Aircraft since 1908[41]...

General characteristics

Performance

Armament

  • Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) in nose, dorsal and tail turrets[42]...
  • Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300 kg)[42]...
 
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