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
Belisarius1234    Without a scale bar   2/21/2013 9:05:39 PM
set at the same distance as the object in the image, withe the object set at 90 degrees to the plane of the focal length you cannot measure anything's size in a photograph, Stuart. This is why people know that you are ignorant. The simple things trip you up constantly.
 Quoting wiki does not help either.
 
102.75 inches. That is 8 feet  8 and 3/4 inches long. Every version I've seen had the left and right racks with that damned catwalk down the middle.
 
 
A Mark 84 Ed Heinemann SLICK 2000 pounder is 129 (10 feet and 9 inches) inches long and  18 inches in the barrel diameter to give you an idea of what a modern 2000 pounder  IS.
 
 
Betts, Ed. "The Boeing Stratoliners and TWA." American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Volume 38, Issue 3,1993 gives the barrel diameter of the standard B-17 as about 130 inches.
 
Guess what? A 4000 pound bonb, does NOT fit. 2x2000 pound bombs BARELY fit.
 
Stuart, you don't know what you discuss. 
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 4:00:20 AM
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!
 
as this was the model used as the BASE aircraft of the conversion to use any other would be rather stupid would it not!
 
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!
where? as i have read it and done a search and cannot find ANY reference to 317
 
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 it fair to compare like with like and dthat is the 325mph of the E and the 327 of the E converted to Allisons, (if anything the Allisons engined is likely to be lighter than the starndard model as it was not fully equiped )
 
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?
YES, the bomb bay did not change only change was the introduction of the B10 shackles that allowed the carrying of the 2000lbs - NOTE no internal shackle was rated at 4000lbs, and as the manual specified was for the G model I will take that over you every day
 
 How do you square the fact that they did put 4X2000 and 6X1600 pound bombs in there IN SPITE OF THAT MANUAL?
 
I dont as they didnt, only in your mind did this occur, all documents show that the max was 2x200lbs inernally and at NO time did the B17 carry 6x1600lbs with ANY other load, you provide sources for this work of fiction
 
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!
 
try reading that again it wasnt a typo, I cannot find a link to show it could carry a 44000 thats 4 4 0 0 0 lbs bomb, this by your argument would indicate that it could
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 4:06:01 AM
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!
 
no as it didnt then my gues is that it couldnt
 
That is 8,000 of the 9,600 pounds most sources state the bomb bay could hold!
 
as that 9600 consisted of 6x1600lbs bombs I call foul
 
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...
 
no it doesnt now you are just plain lying

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!
 
no it doesnt and as it states MULTIPLE weights for each circle that alone would indicate to any sensible peson that they were a diagrame not a sclae drawing
 
 You are very wrong, almost as if you were lieing on purpose to wind me up????
no I just wish you would READ the damn source and not just assume it suppors your rubbish
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 7:52:37 AM
following on
a Quote from
 
Bill Runnels
Bombardier(B-17)
8TH Air Force
HELL'S ANGELS
303RDBG, 360THBS
who should know
 
Dave, Most of your questions have been answered in previous posts. I can add a
bit more information. The B-17G had two external bomb racks, one under each
wing. Each carried one bomb weighing from 1,000 to 4,000lbs. As Jim previously
stated, the 4,000lb. (blockbuster) was a light case bomb (about 80% of the total
weight was explosive). It would raise an area equal to a city block or more. D-6
and D-7 shackles were used to carry the 2,000 and 4,000lb. bombs. The external
bombs were armed with arming wires just like those in the bomb bay. Bomb type
did not determine where (external/internal) they were carried, only size. The
bomb bay could only accommodate two 2,000lb. bombs. External bombs could be
released either by "select" or "series" with those in the bomb bay. The external
bombs drop sequence in "series" would be 2nd(right wing) and 4th(left wing).
Hope this info will be of help. Bill Runnels Bombardier(B-17)
 
now who am i to believe, Bill who flew B17 as a Bombardier or shooter who has flies for brains
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 5:31:11 PM

set at the same distance as the object in the image, withe the object set at 90 degrees to the plane of the focal length you cannot measure anything's size in a photograph, Stuart. This is why people know that you are ignorant. The simple things trip you up constantly.
Satalite interpreters would dispute this! The real facts are that you can measure almost anything in a photograph, if you have something of known dimentions to comp it with!
 
 Quoting wiki does not help either.
Sure it does, as long as the Wiki article has good refferances sited. Stating that just because some wiki articles are partialy defective, does not make all Wiki articles defective. This is a childish argument.
102.75 inches. That is 8 feet  8 and 3/4 inches long. Every version I've seen had the left and right racks with that damned catwalk down the middle.
Yes! That catwalk is also the support for the two inside bomb racks. There are also two outside bomb racks, for a total of four racks, each with 8, or 9 shackles, for a total of 34 possible bomb shackle possitions.
Thank you sincerely! This is a nice addition to the debate. I would note that now all you have to do to clear up your ignorance is to comp the bomb diameter with the availible space. Since we already know the maximum bomb load of 17,600 pounds!
 
A Mark 84 Ed Heinemann SLICK 2000 pounder is 129 (10 feet and 9 inches) inches long and  18 inches in the barrel diameter to give you an idea of what a modern 2000 pounder  IS.
How does this relate to the short and fat WW-II 2000 pound bomb that is ~23" in diameter!
 
http://www.303rdbg.com/bombs.html">WW II Bomb data.... 
Betts, Ed. "The Boeing Stratoliners and TWA." American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Volume 38, Issue 3,1993 gives the barrel diameter of the standard B-17 as about 130 inches.
Since the fuse of the B-17 tapers dramatically, at which fuse station is this measurement? Also the hump on the back of said barrel adds to the verticle dimention! But how much?
   
Guess what? A 4000 pound bonb, does NOT fit. 2x2000 pound bombs BARELY fit.
 Given your own figures in this very post prooves you wrong! At least eight and possibly TEN 2,000 pound bombs will fit

Stuart, you don't know what you discuss. 
No, Belisakius, it is you who does not know what you talk about.
 

Note the cross sections in other pages of those plans proove he is wrong beyond any doubt!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 6:43:29 PM
set at the same distance as the object in the image
Satalite interpreters would dispute this! The real facts are that you can measure almost anything in a photograph, if you have something of known dimentions to comp it with!
as you seem to be unable to measure with a tape measure then to judge by eye via a multi copied grainly photo (one that only you have seen)  and you expect us to believe you statalite photography is a dark art and uses multiple techniques in its interperation, including colour definition and stereoscopic, you guess work does not come close
   
Sure it does, as long as the Wiki article has good refferances sited. Stating that just because some wiki articles are partialy defective, does not make all Wiki articles defective. This is a childish argument.
no true wiki does give accurate info but none of it is worth trusting without colabrating evidence, and as you seem yo be unable to read even wiki accurately (like claiming it says somethignit doesnt) it does not bode well for the accuracy of your post

 Yes! That catwalk is also the support for the two inside bomb racks. There are also two outside bomb racks, for a total of four racks, each with 8, or 9 shackles, for a total of 34 possible bomb shackle possitions.
actually there ware 42 shackle positions but unless you were using < 100lbs bombs not all could be used at once
and exactly how far between each rack (hint think 100lbs bomb)
 
Thank you sincerely! This is a nice addition to the debate. I would note that now all you have to do to clear up your ignorance is to comp the bomb diameter with the availible space. Since we already know the maximum bomb load of 17,600 pounds!
yes that 17600lbs again, made up of 6 x 1600lbs internally and 2x4000lbs externally but wait a minute they didnt use any 4000lbs bombs biggest was 2000lbs so that takes it down to 13600lbs, oh wait no missions were undertaken with 2000lbs external (all i can find was 500lbs) so we are now at 10600lbs, but carrying external bombs reduced the range and speed so oops again

 
A Mark 84 Ed Heinemann SLICK 2000 pounder is 129 (10 feet and 9 inches) inches long and  18 inches in the barrel diameter to give you an idea of what a modern 2000 pounder  IS.
How does this relate to the short and fat WW-II 2000 pound bomb that is ~23" in diameter!
23" what! your own source shows it was nearer 34"wide and 7' 10" long cant you even read your own sources!
 
Betts, Ed. "The Boeing Stratoliners and TWA." American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Volume 38, Issue 3,1993 gives the barrel diameter of the standard B-17 as about 130 inches.
Since the fuse of the B-17 tapers dramatically, at which fuse station is this measurement? Also the hump on the back of said barrel adds to the verticle dimention! But how much?
Barrel diamenter gives a clue dont you think? the b17 fuse doest taper its a ovloid it was the racks that tappered and the max width was the bottom bay opening tappering in to the top of the bay
   
Guess what? A 4000 pound bonb, does NOT fit. 2x2000 pound bombs BARELY fit.
Given your own figures in this very post prooves you wrong! At least eight and possibly TEN 2,000 pound bombs will fit
only on the B17 fitted with the Time And Relative Dimension In Spac e modification the rest had to make do with actual physics
Stuart, you don't know what you discuss.
No, Belisakius, it is you who does not know what you talk about.
Sorry Stewart but he has made a lot more sense than you have and whats more has backed up his posts with actual sources not pointed us to sites that dont actual comment either way
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 6:54:19 PM

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!
as that 9600 consisted of 6x1600lbs bombs I call foul
Since six 1600 pounders, three on each side of the bay are larger than two 2000 pound bombs on each side of the bay, why do you think the bay could not cary four 2000 pound bombs?
 
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!
no it doesnt now you are just plain lying
Then post a copy and proove that I am wrong! But in this entire debate you have failed, or more correctly chose not to do that because you know it would proove that I am correct!
   
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!    

no it doesnt and as it states MULTIPLE weights for each circle that alone would indicate to any sensible peson that they were a diagrame not a sclae drawing
  Now I understand why you are so wrong about all of this! You are looking at the wrong link! See this link to find the diagram used to measure the realitive sizes of the bombs; http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-3-5.html">http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-3-5.html This link, just to make absolutely sertain that we are all on the same page is a scale line drawing of 17 bombs with a 1' grid scale for size, labled A-U, minus "I" and "L" with titles to identify each bomb.
The drawing you mention may or may not be to scale. It is a cross section threw the bomb bay of a B-17 with numbers for the 34 bomb rack possitions. The various circles show SOME BUT NOT ALL of the optional bomb loading possitions!                                      
 
You are very wrong, almost as if you were lieing on purpose to wind me up???? I still think this is true!
no I just wish you would READ the damn source and not just assume it suppors your rubbish
I do read the pages linked to, all of them which is one of the reasons I take so long to answer each post.
 

Once again, I challenge you to post a copy of the B-17 cross section threw the bomb bay from Blue-Print, or other certain scale line drawing so that the various bomb dimentiones could be measured to scale and thus proove or disproove your claims that I am wrong. I have posted scale drawings of the bombs so that anyone could look at any piece of line art and determine that for them selves. One last thing, your prior post of the length of the bomb bar is from a scale modeler web site and does not list sources. Plus it has other posts which call into uncertainty the exact dimentions of the bay with a 3 to 6-1/2" possible variance. But I do not make a big deal of it because I think the two major versions of the B-17, all 92 of the early types from Prototype to the "D" and all the later versions as typified by the "E"-"F" & "G" which comprise 12,639 of the 12,731 total.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 7:00:00 PM

Bill Runnels
Bombardier(B-17)
8TH Air Force
HELL'S ANGELS
303RDBG, 360THBS 

Dave, Most of your questions have been answered in previous posts. I can add a
bit more information. The B-17G had two external bomb racks, one under each
wing. Each carried one bomb weighing from 1,000 to 4,000lbs. As Jim previously
stated, the 4,000lb. (blockbuster) was a light case bomb (about 80% of the total weight was explosive). It would raise an area equal to a city block or more. D-6
and D-7 shackles were used to carry the 2,000 and 4,000lb. bombs. The external bombs were armed with arming wires just like those in the bomb bay. Bomb type
did not determine where (external/internal) they were carried, only size. The
bomb bay could only accommodate two 2,000lb. bombs. External bombs could be
released either by "select" or "series" with those in the bomb bay. The external
bombs drop sequence in "series" would be 2nd(right wing) and 4th(left wing).
Hope this info will be of help. Bill Runnels Bombardier(B-17)  
now who am i to believe, Bill who flew B17 as a Bombardier or shooter who has flies for brains

How do we know that the plane he flew on and all the planes in his squadron, wing, etc were all the same and thus the same as ALL of the other ~12,600 made?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 7:13:51 PM
you want to put your word against a vet? seriously? you think he didnt know about his job?
 
i didnt think my estimation of you could get lower but yet you managed it
 
you dis him and yet you can not provide any source for your argument, you are a worm
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 7:23:17 PM

Yes! That catwalk is also the support for the two inside bomb racks. There are also two outside bomb racks, for a total of four racks, each with 8, or 9 shackles, for a total of 34 possible bomb shackle possitions.
actually there ware 42 shackle positions and exactly how far between each rack (hint think 100lbs bomb) but unless you were using < 100lbs bombs not all could be used at once
 This is certainly true for most, if not all "G" Model B-17s. But I do not know if it is also true for all E & F Model planes. But the diagram you posted earlier shows 34 possitions. But as I have stated many times, the rack holds various shackles to cary the required types and numbers of bombs.
 
Thank you sincerely! This is a nice addition to the debate. I would note that now all you have to do to clear up your ignorance is to comp the bomb diameter with the availible space. Since we already know the maximum bomb load of 17,600 pounds!
yes that 17600lbs again, made up of 6 x 1600lbs internally and 2x4000lbs externally but wait a minute they didnt use any 4000lbs bombs biggest was 2000lbs so that takes it down to 13600lbs, oh wait no missions were undertaken with 2000lbs external (all i can find was 500lbs) so we are now at 10600lbs, but carrying external bombs reduced the range and speed so oops again
But wait, the outside under wing shackles were meant to carry the 4,500 pound Disney Bomb, which was used numerous times, By your logic, the actual total should be 18,600 pounds? While I think this would be a silly argument, it IS certainly as valid as yours above!
A Mark 84 Ed Heinemann SLICK 2000 pounder is 129 (10 feet and 9 inches) inches long and  18 inches in the barrel diameter to give you an idea of what a modern 2000 pounder  IS.

How does this relate to the short and fat WW-II 2000 pound bomb that is ~23" in diameter!
23" what! your own source shows it was nearer 34"wide and 7' 10" long cant you even read your own sources!
The 2,000 pound bomb is ~23" in diameter! See this page http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-3-5.html">http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-3-5.html and also this page: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106:2000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60">http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106:2000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60 and this page
Since the fuse of the B-17 tapers dramatically, at which fuse station is this measurement? Also the hump on the back of said barrel adds to the verticle dimention! But how much?


Barrel diamenter gives a clue dont you think? the b17 fuse doest taper its a ovloid it was the racks that tappered and the max width was the bottom bay opening tappering in to the top of the bay
Wow! I never knew that the Fuselage on the B-17 does not taper? Is it really the same diameter just in front of the verticle fin as through the bomb bay? Really????
There seems to be more than a few mistakes in his post here?
 
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