Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:28 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7815
Good stuff here courtesy of Duggy at Allied & Axis Paintworks.

Intoduction By Greg Goebal

MODEL 299 FLYING FORTRESS

* Even while the XB-15 was moving off the drawing board, both the Air Corps and Boeing were looking for a more practical bomber to replace the Martin B-10s then in service. In August 1934, the Air Corps issued a request for a multi-engined bomber aircraft that could carry a "useful bombload" with a cruising speed of 354 KPH (220 MPH) at an altitude of 3.05 kilometers (10,000 feet) for ten hours. Top speed was to be 400 KPH (250 MPH).

The potential production quantity was a hundred aircraft, and Boeing officials were eager for the business. The company quickly responded with a design with the designation "Model 299". The Model 299 had four engines instead of the two implied in the request, but the Air Corps assured Boeing that wasn't a problem. The USAAC approved the construction of a prototype of the Model 299 on 26 September 1934. Boeing allocated initial funding of $275,000 USD, but this sum would double before the prototype flew. The design team was led by E. Gifford Emery, along with Edward C. Wells. The design they came up with looked something between a scaled-down version of the XB-15, then in design, and a scaled-up, four-engine version of the Model 247.

The Model 299 was a mid-wing monoplane of aluminum construction, powered by Pratt & Whitney R-1690 Hornet single-row nine-cylinder radial engines. The engines could each produce 560 kW (750 HP) at 2,135 meters (7,000 feet) and drove three-bladed Hamilton Standard propellers with a diameter of 3.5 meters (11 feet 6 inches). The aircraft had a wingspan of 31.6 meters (103 feet 9 inches) and a length of 20.95 meters (68 feet 9 inches). The nose was glazed to give the bombardier a good view. There was a nock under the nose where the bombsight was placed, as well as a bubble on top of the nose glass where a machine gun could be mounted.

The pilot and copilot sat side-by-side, each within reach of a clever new central throttle arrangement that allowed them to control all four engines with one hand. There was a bomb bay behind the cockpit, with twin vertical bomb racks accommodating up to 2,177 kilograms (4,800 pounds) of bombs. There was a flight engineer / radioman position behind the bombbay, connected to the cockpit by a narrow catwalk through the bombbay. There was a machine-gun blister above the radioman's position, with a tub on the belly a little further to the rear for another machine gun, and then twin blisters on either side of the fuselage, to be each fitted with a single machine gun. Either 7.62 or 12.7 millimeter (0.30 or 0.50 caliber) Browning machine guns could be mounted, giving the Model 299 defensive armament of five machine guns.

The aircraft was of tailwheel configuration, with a semi-retractable tailwheel. The main gear retracted to a half-recessed position in the inner engine nacelles.

* The Model 299 was publicly rolled out at Boeing field in Seattle on 17 July 1935. The new aircraft was big and impressive, with a gleaming arc-deco THRILLING WONDER STORIES pulp-fiction look to it. Reporter Richard Williams of the SEATTLE DAILY TIMES was inspired to call it a "flying fortress". Boeing public relations men liked the name so much that they adopted it and registered it as the aircraft's official name. First flight was on 28 July, and on 20 August 1935 the aircraft flew from Seattle to Wright Field near Dayton for Air Corps evaluation. The flight was made in 9 hours 3 minutes at an average speed of 375 KPH (235 MPH). That was much faster than its rivals in the Air Corps competition, the Douglas DB-1 and the Martin 146. However, the Model 299 cost almost $200,000 USD, more than twice as much as either of its two competitors.

The evaluation program went well up until very near the end. On 30 October 1935, the Model 299 crashed on takeoff. The pilot, Air Corps Major Ployer Hill, and Boeing test pilot Leslie Tower were killed; there were two survivors. The accident was not due to any inherent fault in the design of the aircraft. The Model 299 had a set of control surface locks that could be set from the cockpit to prevent wind damage to the control surfaces while the aircraft was parked. Hill had failed to release this control during take-off and Tower had failed to notice the error. Unfortunately, the ruined Model 299 could not finish the Air Corps evaluation, and the Army selected the Douglas DB-1 instead. The DB-1 was a derivative of the Douglas DC-2 commercial transport, and was be designated the B-18 in service. 350 were built, though the design was effectively obsolete within a few years.

Despite the Model 299's high cost and the accident, the Air Corps thought the design had obvious merit, and so on 17 January 1936 the Army ordered 13 flying Model 299s and a static test airframe from Boeing for the sum of $3,823,807 USD, funds that the overstretched company badly needed to stay afloat. The 13 aircraft were to be designated "YB-17".

Image
XB-17

Image
XB-17

Image
XB-17-cockpit

Image
XB-17-waist-blister-in-July-1935

Image
XB-17-nose

Image
XB-17-waist-blister-July-1935

Image
XB-17-bomb-aimers

Image
XB-17-bomb-aimers

Image
XB-17-prototype-model299-30-Oct-1935

Image
YB-17A Flying Fortress

Image
YB-17-Langley Field-May 1942

_________________
45+47=Psalm 92:6


Last edited by Mark Allen M on Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17 ...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:00 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7815
Image
Side view of the Boeing XB-17 (Model 299) in flames. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Image
Boeing XB-17, prototype for the B-17, first flight, July 28, 1935

Image
Overlay photo of the Boeing XB-17 (Model 299) assuming a flight over Mt Rainer (U.S. Air Force photo)

_________________
45+47=Psalm 92:6


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17 ...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:49 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 5747
Location: Waukegan,Illinois
Thanks Mark. Many of those I have not seen before.

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17 ...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:25 pm
Posts: 522
Location: Travis AFB
Photos of the YB-17 Please.

In December 1936, the Air Corps changed the designation YB-17 to the odd designation "Y1B-17" to indicate that these aircraft were specially funded.
The first Y1B-17 was delivered to the Air Corps in January 1937, with the last of the 13 delivered that August. The Y1B-17 looked very much like the Model 299 prototype, but there were significant differences. The Model 299's main wheels had been mounted on a two-sided strut assembly, which made them difficult to swap out. The Y1B-17 featured a one-sided strut that allowed the tires to be changed more easily. Rubber deicer boots were installed on the leading edge of the wing of the Y1B-17. The landing flaps had been covered with aluminum on the Model 299, but were fabric-covered on the Y1B-17.
The most important change was a switch from Pratt & Whitney Hornet engines to Wright R-1820 Cyclone engines. The Cyclone was, like the Hornet, a nine-cylinder single-row radial engine, but had more growth potential. The R-1820-39 Cyclone provided 710 kW (950 HP) for take-off, about 25% more than the Hornet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17 ...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:43 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:02 am
Posts: 4701
Location: Yucca Valley, CA
Looking at the fifth and seventh photos, are all those knobs around the circumference of the nose glass thumbscrews that when loosened allowed the nose and turret to be rotated?

_________________
Image
All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17, Y1B-17 ...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7815
Y1B-17 ...

Image
Boeing YB-17 1936 (U.S. Air Force Photo)

Image
Boeing YB-17 1936 (U.S. Air Force Photo)

Image
Boeing Y1B-17 at Hamilton Field, Calif. 1937 (U.S. Air Force photo)

Image
Boeing YB-17 1936 (U.S. Air Force Photo)

Image
Boeing Y1B-17, 20th BS, 2nd BG, Langley Field, 1937

Image
Boeing Y1B-17 On public exhibit in front of the Federal Buiiding on Treasure Island during the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition

_________________
45+47=Psalm 92:6


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17 ...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:57 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:32 am
Posts: 4331
Location: Battle Creek, MI
Chris Brame wrote:
Looking at the fifth and seventh photos, are all those knobs around the circumference of the nose glass thumbscrews that when loosened allowed the nose and turret to be rotated?


I believe so. The normal "stowed" position was to have the gun "ball" at the top, but the entire nose cap could be rotated to improve the field of fire. Of course, while christened "flying fortress" by the press, the defensive armament on the 299 and Y1Bs was laughable compared to the later models.

SN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17, Y1B-17 ...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:25 pm
Posts: 522
Location: Travis AFB
Anybody know the serial number of the YB-17 that was on public exhibit in front of the Federal Building on Treasure Island during the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition?
serial numbers were Y1B-17-BO 36-149 / 36-161 c/n 1973 / 1985


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17, Y1B-17 ...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:23 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am
Posts: 1021
The way I heard it the crash of the XB-17 lead to the mandated use of the check list. The plane was more complex Is this true?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17, Y1B-17 ...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:19 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5612
Location: Eastern Washington
A reminder to those who may not know better...the Model 299 never had an official USAAC designation...it was never owned by the government.

"XB-17" was unofficial and only applied after its crash to explain its role in B-17 development...i.e. it came before the Y1B-17s.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17, Y1B-17 ...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:48 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7815
JohnB wrote:
A reminder to those who may not know better...


For me it's better to go with 'FYI' with the model 299 / XB-17 stuff as "to those who may not know better" usually applies to how I live my life ... And that's just an FYI FWIW :wink:

_________________
45+47=Psalm 92:6


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XB-17, Y1B-17 ...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:30 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5612
Location: Eastern Washington
Mark Allen M wrote:
JohnB wrote:
A reminder to those who may not know better...


For me it's better to go with 'FYI' with the model 299 / XB-17 stuff as "to those who may not know better" usually applies to how I live my life ... And that's just an FYI FWIW :wink:



I really was trying to be polite. That's why I said ..."a reminder" instead of just issuing a correction. In many circumstances, I think "FYI" comes across as condescending.
But when trying to prevent younger aviation fans from developing bad habits (it doesn't take a lot for a small error to become "common wisdom") sometimes it doesn't pay to be subtle. :)

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:42 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Posts: 7815
Not to worry John, I knew what you mean't. I was just poking fun at myself as usual. If you can't laugh at yourself who else are you going to laugh at? ... The rest of you guys? that would be too easy :wink: :wink: :wink:

_________________
45+47=Psalm 92:6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:50 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36 am
Posts: 7961
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA.
Read the links thatLeftseat put up! One of them answers (or re stirs the pot) on 'Mary Ann's real I.D.

The 'shot' of the 299 over Mt. Rainier is, if you look at it closely, a darkroom overlay of two negatives. Boeing was in such a rush to get the 299's basic parameters established that there was no time to take the usual 'family protrait' with 'the big guy' (local reference to the mountain) it wasn't until after the accident that it was discovered they hadn't taken any pictures and had none 'quickly!! to the photo lab' blare of trumpets, some careful razor blade work, and 'VIOLA!" good enough to pass normal muster.
And, no, 'photoshop' came along about 60 years after the fact.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 117
Well I learned something new....I didn't know that the entire nose could rotate.....So, what about the belly gun position, from what I can see, it looks like is just a copy of the side blisters, but mounted on the belly. Kind of interesting how similar it is to the waist guns on the Privateer.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 296 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group