has anyone ever cosidered building a b17 destroyer?
Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:06 am
i know they were rare planes but my father flew 17's and saw one bristling with guns and he was fascinated by it. He often talked about wishing he could have been on that particular plane. I would assume that there were few made but it could be an interesting one off at air shows.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:29 am
n/t
Last edited by Dan K on Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:29 am
Do you mean the YB-40? That would be a cool project. Some extra 50's and a B-26 turret with some sheet metal work for starters.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:35 pm
The YB-40 wouldn't be that hard of a conversion, assuming that you started with a relatively intact B-17G. F models were used to fabricate all of the original YB-40s, but chin turrets were added and the waist gun positions were staggered, and both modifications were incorporated into late model Fs and into the Gs as well. Might as well start with a G to save time and effort. The bomb bay would be modified to take a huge amount of ammo boxes, and a second top turret would need to be added at the end of the turtledeck. more guns were added to the cheeks, twins substituted in the waist positions. A modified ball turret was even considered that had four guns instead of two, but that was not put into the production YB-40s. The NASM has the modified ball turret. A few feet of the turtledeck would just be essentially chopped off, flattened, and fared down. No big deal. So who's offering a B-17?
kevin
kevin
Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:50 pm
That would be cool.
But what would be cooler is a X/YB-38. A B-17 with 4 V-12 Allisons!
Now that would be beautiful music!!!!!!! 
But what would be cooler is a X/YB-38. A B-17 with 4 V-12 Allisons!
Now that would be beautiful music!!!!!!!
exactly my thought....
Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:53 pm
tulsaboy wrote:The YB-40 wouldn't be that hard of a conversion, assuming that you started with a relatively intact B-17G. F models were used to fabricate all of the original YB-40s, but chin turrets were added and the waist gun positions were staggered, and both modifications were incorporated into late model Fs and into the Gs as well. Might as well start with a G to save time and effort. The bomb bay would be modified to take a huge amount of ammo boxes, and a second top turret would need to be added at the end of the turtledeck. more guns were added to the cheeks, twins substituted in the waist positions. A modified ball turret was even considered that had four guns instead of two, but that was not put into the production YB-40s. The NASM has the modified ball turret. A few feet of the turtledeck would just be essentially chopped off, flattened, and fared down. No big deal. So who's offering a B-17?
kevin
there are a few flying 17's and this would make YOURS unique!
Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:09 pm
If B-17s were plentiful and money grew on trees, an XB-38 would be a sight to see, too. Four Allisons on a Flying Fort in the air would be impressive.
A YB-40 is probably doable if someone were inclined.
A YB-40 is probably doable if someone were inclined.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:10 pm
Here are some photos, just to give you an idea...
The first is the YB-40 production line in Tulsa. After the XB-40 was done at the Vega facility, the rest of the F models destined for the YB-40 conversion were flown from the Vega facility to the Douglas-Tulsa facility for the modifications. There was one XB-40, 21 YB-40s, and 4 TB-40s. All but the XB-40 done at Douglas-Tulsa. This photo shows the production line of the first 13 YB-40s. It should give you an idea of what would have to be done structurally to the turtledeck to make a YB-40 happen.
The second is a YB-40 being flown stateside as a trainer, in color, from the National Archives.
kevin
The first is the YB-40 production line in Tulsa. After the XB-40 was done at the Vega facility, the rest of the F models destined for the YB-40 conversion were flown from the Vega facility to the Douglas-Tulsa facility for the modifications. There was one XB-40, 21 YB-40s, and 4 TB-40s. All but the XB-40 done at Douglas-Tulsa. This photo shows the production line of the first 13 YB-40s. It should give you an idea of what would have to be done structurally to the turtledeck to make a YB-40 happen.
The second is a YB-40 being flown stateside as a trainer, in color, from the National Archives.
kevin
Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:01 pm
Would we really want to take an existing B-17 and reduce its historical integrity by adding non-original (at least in the context of that airframe) parts to make what would be in essence a replica YB-40?
As sad as it may be that the original YB-40s are gone, that is the case. They are extinct. You cannot create a new original YB-40, you can only create a new copy, and at the expense of another original B-17. That price is too high IMHO.
(the other) Kevin
As sad as it may be that the original YB-40s are gone, that is the case. They are extinct. You cannot create a new original YB-40, you can only create a new copy, and at the expense of another original B-17. That price is too high IMHO.
(the other) Kevin
meh....M....E....H.... meh
Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:18 pm
old iron wrote:Would we really want to take an existing B-17 and reduce its historical integrity by adding non-original (at least in the context of that airframe) parts to make what would be in essence a replica YB-40?
As sad as it may be that the original YB-40s are gone, that is the case. They are extinct. You cannot create a new original YB-40, you can only create a new copy, and at the expense of another original B-17. That price is too high IMHO.
(the other) Kevin
Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:32 pm
Hi (the other) Kevin!
At the risk of being contrary (which never happens here on WIX), and since I'm just playing with someone else's B-17 and not my own...
I would argue that the present Fuddy Duddy, Sentimental Journey, "Aluminum Overcast," Homesick Angel, Liberty Belle, Nine-O-Nine, I'll Be Around etc. are just reinterpretations/replicas of the original as well. Almost all of the extant B-17s have gone through worlds of changes that essentially destroyed their "originality." From fire bombers to civilian transports to target tugs etc., their airframes have been modified over and over and over again. It doesn't make me any less excited when they roll into Tulsa, though. I think with (according to Aero Vintage) 54 recovered airframes, 21 on static display, 12 flying and 10 under restoration along with scattered others, the B-17's original combat configuration is well represented. I think (and it's just my opinion, which without dollars to back it up is fairly worthless) that it would be fun to have a G model undergo the handful of modifications necessary to represent a different concept. If it was being done to the only G model left or flying, or to a sole survivor of the type, I'd be the first to object. But when the type, especially the G model, is so well represented (thank goodness) in both static museums and on the airshow circuit, why not do something a little different and make a B-17 unique? Sure it's not what that airframe originally did in service, but almost all of the B-17s flying never dropped a bomb in anger. So one could argue that they're not demonstrating what they "originally" did either.
At the end of the day, I just think it'd be fun. Especially if someone else was paying!
kevin (the other other one)
At the risk of being contrary (which never happens here on WIX), and since I'm just playing with someone else's B-17 and not my own...
I would argue that the present Fuddy Duddy, Sentimental Journey, "Aluminum Overcast," Homesick Angel, Liberty Belle, Nine-O-Nine, I'll Be Around etc. are just reinterpretations/replicas of the original as well. Almost all of the extant B-17s have gone through worlds of changes that essentially destroyed their "originality." From fire bombers to civilian transports to target tugs etc., their airframes have been modified over and over and over again. It doesn't make me any less excited when they roll into Tulsa, though. I think with (according to Aero Vintage) 54 recovered airframes, 21 on static display, 12 flying and 10 under restoration along with scattered others, the B-17's original combat configuration is well represented. I think (and it's just my opinion, which without dollars to back it up is fairly worthless) that it would be fun to have a G model undergo the handful of modifications necessary to represent a different concept. If it was being done to the only G model left or flying, or to a sole survivor of the type, I'd be the first to object. But when the type, especially the G model, is so well represented (thank goodness) in both static museums and on the airshow circuit, why not do something a little different and make a B-17 unique? Sure it's not what that airframe originally did in service, but almost all of the B-17s flying never dropped a bomb in anger. So one could argue that they're not demonstrating what they "originally" did either.
At the end of the day, I just think it'd be fun. Especially if someone else was paying!
kevin (the other other one)
Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:42 pm
old iron wrote:Would we really want to take an existing B-17 and reduce its historical integrity by adding non-original (at least in the context of that airframe) parts to make what would be in essence a replica YB-40?
As sad as it may be that the original YB-40s are gone, that is the case. They are extinct. You cannot create a new original YB-40, you can only create a new copy, and at the expense of another original B-17. That price is too high IMHO.
(the other) Kevin
By today's rebuild standards, there's little reason an airframe could not go to YB-40 configuration and back to stock again (other than the enormous expenditures involved.) The airframe isn't destroyed. Most of the current ones are not time capsules.
Modified Reno racers have gone back to stock condition before.
Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:09 pm
Good points made.
However, to continue the discussion: I am no authority on B-17s but my general guess is that making a fairly authenic YB-40 from a B-17G would take more than just window dressing. Besides the extra guns and turrets there are likely structural and other changes needed. Those extra turrets might require holes in the airframe where they did not exist previously. There must be a bunch of reasons why they gave it the new 40-model number.
I agree, an extra G-model that has seen better days and a complicated history could be adapted to the task. In some sense there would be no real damage done if the new and odd type created more interest and served a significant educational purpose. Though if we are changing Gs, why not change one to a more-significant and fairly rare F?
But I am a bit of a purist and think we should be careful; discretion should be followed when changing one old airplane to another. If someone wants to create a YB-40 - and has the money to do so - that is good, provided that it is done well. A slap-dash YB-40 that has the external appearance but none of the internal details would likely disappoint the true believers, even if it might excite the masses.
There are some examples of authenic new creations from old parts: the DC-3 floatplane assembled from a pair of Edo floats and a more typical DC-3 is an example, and the airplane is a delight to see (where is it now, by the way?). But there are also some historic airplanes that have been destroyed by well-meaning people who did not finish the job or did not do it right.
One story is the original Orville Wright 1911 glider used to establish the 9-minute airborne record for a glider that lasted for a decade; some probably well-meaning person decided to use the Wright glider to construct a Curtiss (!!!!!!!) reproduction, destroying the Wright while not producing anything that warrented preservation. This is an extreme examle, I am sure, but it makes the point.
Back to you?
Kevin
However, to continue the discussion: I am no authority on B-17s but my general guess is that making a fairly authenic YB-40 from a B-17G would take more than just window dressing. Besides the extra guns and turrets there are likely structural and other changes needed. Those extra turrets might require holes in the airframe where they did not exist previously. There must be a bunch of reasons why they gave it the new 40-model number.
I agree, an extra G-model that has seen better days and a complicated history could be adapted to the task. In some sense there would be no real damage done if the new and odd type created more interest and served a significant educational purpose. Though if we are changing Gs, why not change one to a more-significant and fairly rare F?
But I am a bit of a purist and think we should be careful; discretion should be followed when changing one old airplane to another. If someone wants to create a YB-40 - and has the money to do so - that is good, provided that it is done well. A slap-dash YB-40 that has the external appearance but none of the internal details would likely disappoint the true believers, even if it might excite the masses.
There are some examples of authenic new creations from old parts: the DC-3 floatplane assembled from a pair of Edo floats and a more typical DC-3 is an example, and the airplane is a delight to see (where is it now, by the way?). But there are also some historic airplanes that have been destroyed by well-meaning people who did not finish the job or did not do it right.
One story is the original Orville Wright 1911 glider used to establish the 9-minute airborne record for a glider that lasted for a decade; some probably well-meaning person decided to use the Wright glider to construct a Curtiss (!!!!!!!) reproduction, destroying the Wright while not producing anything that warrented preservation. This is an extreme examle, I am sure, but it makes the point.
Back to you?
Kevin
Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:17 pm
The reason the YB40s didn't "catch on" was that as soon as the rest of the formation dropped their bombs and hit the Rendezvous Point they put the throttle to the stops and got out of there ASAP.
The YB40s could not keep up with them because of the extra weight from more guns and turrets and ammo and the drag vs. the suddenly lighter by 4 to 6 tonnes F and G models. That made the Gunships essentially stragglers unless the Group Leader wanted to slow the whole shebang down and not many were so inclined.
So while it would be cool to see one I wouldn't want to pay the gas to haul even mock-up guns and ammo and another turret around.
SPANNER the tightwad
The YB40s could not keep up with them because of the extra weight from more guns and turrets and ammo and the drag vs. the suddenly lighter by 4 to 6 tonnes F and G models. That made the Gunships essentially stragglers unless the Group Leader wanted to slow the whole shebang down and not many were so inclined.
So while it would be cool to see one I wouldn't want to pay the gas to haul even mock-up guns and ammo and another turret around.
SPANNER the tightwad
Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:38 pm
Hey Spanner-
You mean that you don't want to just stop what you guys are doing, rip off the top of TR and get after it? I mean, it'd sure give you a chance to finish up all of those little details that you've been working on for I don't know how long...
And Kevin-
I know that I was simplifying the matter, and that punching a hole for a new top turret and shortening the turtle deck isn't a matter of a week's work and a little sheet metal. I guess I just meant that in the grand scheme of things, compared to trying to recreate an extinct type from scratch, or from bits and pieces, the YB-40 conversion from an intact, extant B-17G would be relatively easy. Comparatively.
And I would want it to be the real deal in terms of authenticity, not just a slapdash effort. Being able to compare the YB-40 interior to a stock B-17G interior (or an F for that matter) would probably be fun. Based on what Spanner and others have said about how a complete top turret complicates movement inside the fuselage, just imagine what a second top turret would do to movement. And the waist guns look to be pretty mean twins, not just the singles that we're all familiar with. I'm sure that they bulk things up there in the waist as well.
I do agree with Spanner, though, that the fuel bill for carting around all of the extra guns and even the dummy ammo would probably add to the already steep bill on a B-17. (That is, as he mentioned, the main reason that the concept was a total bust in combat.) But if it was different, it might be worth it. Of course at the end of the day, as we've all mentioned before, to the average Joe it'd just be "another one of those big old planes." (Wasn't it in a war or something a long time ago?)
Probably won't ever happen, but fun to dream about.
Thanks for the fun discussion!
kevin
You mean that you don't want to just stop what you guys are doing, rip off the top of TR and get after it? I mean, it'd sure give you a chance to finish up all of those little details that you've been working on for I don't know how long...
And Kevin-
I know that I was simplifying the matter, and that punching a hole for a new top turret and shortening the turtle deck isn't a matter of a week's work and a little sheet metal. I guess I just meant that in the grand scheme of things, compared to trying to recreate an extinct type from scratch, or from bits and pieces, the YB-40 conversion from an intact, extant B-17G would be relatively easy. Comparatively.
And I would want it to be the real deal in terms of authenticity, not just a slapdash effort. Being able to compare the YB-40 interior to a stock B-17G interior (or an F for that matter) would probably be fun. Based on what Spanner and others have said about how a complete top turret complicates movement inside the fuselage, just imagine what a second top turret would do to movement. And the waist guns look to be pretty mean twins, not just the singles that we're all familiar with. I'm sure that they bulk things up there in the waist as well.
I do agree with Spanner, though, that the fuel bill for carting around all of the extra guns and even the dummy ammo would probably add to the already steep bill on a B-17. (That is, as he mentioned, the main reason that the concept was a total bust in combat.) But if it was different, it might be worth it. Of course at the end of the day, as we've all mentioned before, to the average Joe it'd just be "another one of those big old planes." (Wasn't it in a war or something a long time ago?)
Probably won't ever happen, but fun to dream about.
Thanks for the fun discussion!
kevin