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       2/22/2013 7:29:00 PM
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?
as the 1600lbs are smaller why do you think you can carry larger bombs?
 
hen 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!
how many post do you need? we have shown that all sources say it didnt happen and your response is "it might have" 
 there is no source that says you cant do x as its not possible the only credible source is one that says "it WAS DONE" and I cannot find one, B cannot find one and you have certainly never provided one
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!   
realy what scale? because i cannot find a scale and based on the measurement I can find those diameters are wrong whitch siupports my argument thsat its not 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; 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.
and? seems you claim that t is 23" wide makes me believe that you talk crap
 
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!              
OK if you claim this then support it as the manual says no history says no experiance says no in fact ALL evidence says no, so prove it or shut it                         
 
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.
yet you claim it says things it doesnt how do you explain this? its either not reading properly, not understanding what is written or total dishonesty - which is it?
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.
we do and conclude its wont fit
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
and yet the bomb bay didnt chance between models so why the issue and as you fail to lit sources then its only fair yet they still provide more accurate info than you do
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 7:43:30 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.
as the shackles mounts were not changed then yes it does relate to ALL models
 
But the diagram you posted earlier shows 34 possitions.
realy is that why they are number to 42?
 But as I have stated many times, the rack holds various shackles to cary the required types and numbers of bombs.
 
but as pointed out numerous time not all bombs could be carried on all positions and occupied positions blocked possible locations
 
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,
 actually the disney was technaclly in excess of the specifed wieght limit of the external rack, and as the disney was NEVER carried with internal load its a pointless argument
 
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!
and if the lanc had carried 4 tallboys........ see the point of stupid arguments without attachment to reality 
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! 
no wonder you think it can carry 2000lbs if you think that is 23"
 
and also 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?
 
oh we talking about taper lengthways not vertically as the bombbay was in the non tapering bit i would think this a anothersmoke screen


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? 
I assumed we were talking vertically as i thought even you knew that the bomb bay cestion was parrarell sorry for assuming you had a ounce of sense
 
Is it really the same diameter just in front of the verticle fin as through the bomb bay? Really????
 
and the wheels are round(makes as much sense as your comment)
 
so your commet is true thier is a lot of errors but they seem to be from you
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Already answered, WOFTAM.    2/22/2013 8:00:38 PM
With sources.
 
In other words, you  are lying again, Stuart-especially about photo interpretation. GUESS why I know that. 
 
I told you why.
 
B.
 
, 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!
 
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

Belisarius1234    OBNW   2/22/2013 8:12:05 PM
B writes:
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.
 
WOFTAM wrote:
How does this relate to the short and fat WW-II 2000 pound bomb that is ~23" in diameter!
 
OBNW writes.
23" what! your own source shows it was nearer 34"wide and 7' 10" long cant you even read your own sources!
 
================================
 
The Heinemann bomb is that 10/1 skinny tail-spinner developed for the Skyhawk. Guess what WW II bomber could carry it?  A Lancaster. That is why the bomb was mentioned.
 
As for the left eight fall paths on a B-17, two fall paths in ONE bomb-bay not two as Stuart claims. Left and right separated by a catwalk.
===========================================
Stuart, the B-17 had ONE bomb bay and TWO racks The racks could have two serials stacked. Learn to COUNT.    
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/23/2013 12:42:46 PM
B writes:
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.
WOFTAM wrote:
   How does this relate to the short and fat WW-II 2000 pound bomb that is ~23" in diameter!
OBNW writes.
23" what! your own source shows it was nearer 34"wide and 7' 10" long cant you even read your own sources!
================================
The Heinemann bomb is that 10/1 skinny tail-spinner developed for the Skyhawk. Guess what WW II bomber could carry it?  A Lancaster. That is why the bomb was mentioned.
As for the left eight fall paths on a B-17, two fall paths in ONE bomb-bay not two as Stuart claims. Left and right separated by a catwalk.
 
I think he is refering to the fact that the B17 had two vertical racks in each side of the bay so it had 1 bombbay split into two by the cat walk and each of these sides had a vertical rack to hang bombs on but of course in his world these dont take up much room, I also like the fact that he thinks the racks that tapered towards each other were somehow the distance apart equal to the diameter of the fuslarge
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       2/24/2013 12:40:36 PM
The Pilots Manual for the B17F and G, shows clearly that the B17 only had two bomb bay positions, one in each half that could accomodate 2,000lb'ers, and that 4,000lbs could only be carried on the external racks Page 53).
 
 
This link shows the maximum load on each of the aircrafts shackles, and also which position they could be carried in.
Hopefully this will be conclusive evidence for shooter that the B17 was UNABLE to carry 4,000lbs internally (though somehow am sure he will argue against the evidence). 
 
 
On a side note, some really interesting stuff in there (like the tail gunner sat in a kneeling position, and exactly what the gunners armour protection was. 
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       2/24/2013 12:42:05 PM
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/24/2013 1:30:28 PM
did you notice the comment that IF bombs are carried above the 2000lb's then the D6 shackles and adaptors must be removed before they can be dropped (page 52)
 
that, to me shows just how little room there is in the bay, it also would indicate that even if more than 1 x 2000lbs could be carried per side they could not be dropped in salvo which means in turn that his claim to have seen pictures of just such a thing can only be wrong
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/24/2013 2:02:10 PM
from these pilot manuals and those for the lancaster I have noticed that the MAX safe diving speed of the B17 is 270mph (220 for non modified models) for the Lancaster it was 360mph, the B17 also had roll and loop restrictions which the Lancaster didnt, now this would tend to indicate that the b17 wasnt stronger than the Lanc in fact the oposite is indicated
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Just two points:   2/24/2013 11:09:59 PM

    as the 1600lbs are smaller why do you think you can carry larger bombs?
  Because the entire bomb bay is over 8' wide minus the catwalk and the clear space between the inside of the outer racks and the outside of the inner racks connected to the cat walk are at least 43" appart at the bottom and 34" appart at the top, ON BOTH SIDES!
 
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; 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.
and? seems you claim that t is 23" wide makes me believe that you talk crap
jUST ON MY SCREEN, THE 1' SQUARES ARE 23 mm APART and the bomb is 44 MM wide, I conclude that the bomb is then ~23" OD!                      
 
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