Model 299 / XB-17, Y1B-17 ...

shrike · **Posted:** Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:58 pm

eze240 wrote:

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.

The waist guns on a Privateer are power turrets more akin to the ball turret than just blisters.

daviemax · **Posted:** Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:51 pm

]

oscardeuce wrote:

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?

[b]The Model 299 prototype crashed because the elevator gust locks had not been disengaged prior to take-off. Also, from a pilot's point of view, clearly the controls were not moved through their normal range of motion to insure they were "free and clear" prior to take-off as is now a normal checklist requirement. As a result, the aircraft stalled during the initial climb-out. Critics then questioned if the Model 299 were not "too much for the crew to handle." Implementation of the regular use of checklists ultimately followed and some sources claim this was a direct result of the crash (this may have been true for the Model 299 but perhaps crews of other complex aircraft had already implemented checklists). Whether true or apocryphal it should be obvious to any pilot that checklists are now mandatory tools - whether the aircraft is small and simple or large and highly complex. (I can't imagine flying my Piper Archer without one.) Back to the Model 299, it is interesting now (in hindsight) to go through the standard B-17G checklist. Do that, and then imagine yourself handling the pre-flight, run-up, and take-off procedures perfectly from memory every time. [/b

gemmer · **Joined:** Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:54 am **Posts:** 314

Found this one.

Duane

hang the expense · **Posted:** Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:18 pm

JohnB wrote:

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.

Everybody is worried about somebodys "feeeeeelings".Stuff that and if they are wrong let 'em know real quick that they are.If they are correct let'em know that as well.Learning the old fashioned way.

hang the expense · **Posted:** Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:20 pm

gemmer wrote:

Found this one.

Duane

WOW, I have never seen that pic before.Thanks for posting that. :supz:

Kyleb · **Posted:** Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:03 pm

So, how deficient were the early B-17's in yaw stability? I can't imagine switching from the original vertical surfaces to the E and later surfaces if there wasn't a problem.

daviemax · **Posted:** Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:16 am

Kyleb wrote:

So, how deficient were the early B-17's in yaw stability? I can't imagine switching from the original vertical surfaces to the E and later surfaces if there wasn't a problem.

William White's Queens Die Proudly has vivid descriptions of B-17C and D operations during the early Pacific war. The aircraft would "fish-tail" somewhat at high altitude, as I remember.[

hang the expense · **Posted:** Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:56 am

daviemax wrote:

Kyleb wrote:

So, how deficient were the early B-17's in yaw stability? I can't imagine switching from the original vertical surfaces to the E and later surfaces if there wasn't a problem.

William White's Queens Die Proudly has vivid descriptions of B-17C and D operations during the early Pacific war. The aircraft would "fish-tail" somewhat at high altitude, as I remember.[

The movie Airforce showed the benefit of fishtailing in getting the zeros off your six.Still a great movie.The early models looked like a hotrod and were faster.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:34 am

I always wondered how the gunners maneuvered their 50's on those small blisters. that maneuver gear is quite ingenious. unlike the pby, where the much more bulbous blisters are evident. you just cracked the windshield & fired away w/ out all those guidance tracks.

Marauderman26 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:05 am **Posts:** 167

Kyleb wrote:

So, how deficient were the early B-17's in yaw stability? I can't imagine switching from the original vertical surfaces to the E and later surfaces if there wasn't a problem.

Considerable less "wetted" area on the early 17's aft.
With the inclusion of the manned tail gunners position the larger tail became necessary.

eze240 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:32 pm **Posts:** 117

Shrike, I knew the Privateer used power turrets, what I'm trying to say is that it is interesting to me, how those designers chose to return to a more streamlined gun position similar in shape to the early B-17's. From the earlier pictures, those blisters looked to be very complex and heavy.

daviemax · **Posted:** Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:03 pm

eze240 wrote:

Shrike, I knew the Privateer used power turrets, what I'm trying to say is that it is interesting to me, how those designers chose to return to a more streamlined gun position similar in shape to the early B-17's. From the earlier pictures, those blisters looked to be very complex and heavy.

The Privateer side blisters were designed such that the guns could fire directly downward to compensate for the lack of a ventral turret. Theoretically the two blisters could adequately cover attacks from below - especially given that the PB4Y-2 was essentially a low-altitude patrol aircraft. Therefore the blister had to be large enough to accommodate the geometry of the gun mounting necessary to afford this coverage.

eze240 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:32 pm **Posts:** 117

Intersting about those turrets.....So, back on topic....Did any of these early B-17's see combat?
How about pics of B-17A's and B's?

gemmer · **Joined:** Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:54 am **Posts:** 314

eze240 wrote:

Intersting about those turrets.....So, back on topic....Did any of these early B-17's see combat?
How about pics of B-17A's and B's?

One B-17B saw combat in the Aleutians. It was shot down in June of '42.

Duane

daviemax · **Posted:** Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:32 pm

eze240 wrote:

Intersting about those turrets.....So, back on topic....Did any of these early B-17's see combat?
How about pics of B-17A's and B's?

According to records immediately available to me, the following B-17B aircraft participated directly in combat:

38-215 Various combat missions Alaskan theater; crashed returning from weather reconnaissance mission, Kiska, 18 July 1942.

38-216 Similar to above; aircraft shot down by Rufe over Kiska, 18 July 1942.

38-270 Attacked U-Boat while flying out of Argentia, Newfoundland 21 August 1941 (note date!).

Others served in the caribbean and Canal Zone.

Warbird Information Exchange

Model 299 / XB-17, Y1B-17 ...

Who is online