B-17 Flying Fortress, Boeing Model 298 and 299

[Brian da Basher]

Hi Casey, that's a very interesting project you have in mind there. Allow me to suggest you add RATO bottles to the rear fuse for short-field take offs (a'la Antarctic C-47s), underwing napalm or cluster bombs and replace the tail, top turret and waist gun positions with dual gatling guns or chain guns. I'd think swiping the guns and rocket launchers off Huey kits would be a good idea.

Brian da Basher

[jcf]

Jon

[SinUnNombre]

Hey, Jon.

That 299J looks like a cool conversion project. What all needs to be done to a regular Fort? Just the high wing, extend the inner nacelles, and the gear? You could get creative and incoporate features from some of the other drawings as well. Thanks for sharing.

Jon

[elmayerle]

That twin-fin tail is a drawing I've been looking for.  The only place I've ever seen it before was in a 1943 book on the Flying Fortress.  Thanks, muchly.

[jcf]

That twin-fin tail is a drawing I've been looking for.  The only place I've ever seen it before was in a 1943 book on the Flying Fortress.  Thanks, muchly.

The drawing is indeed from the 1943 book by Thomas Collinson.

I found a near mint copy with immaculate dust jacket at a local book shop a couple of years back.

Cheers, Jon

[elmayerle]

That twin-fin tail is a drawing I've been looking for.  The only place I've ever seen it before was in a 1943 book on the Flying Fortress.  Thanks, muchly.

The drawing is indeed from the 1943 book by Thomas Collinson.

I found a near mint copy with immaculate dust jacket at a local book shop a couple of years back.

Damn, I envy you.  OTOH, I picked up the matching volume on the B-29 some 12 years ago while browsing the stall of a used aviation book dealer at the Hawthorne Air Show (same one that had the specially marked Ukraine MiG-29UB).

PS.  Just a whiffy thought, how about a cross between the Model 299j and the XB-38?

[jcf]

PS.  Just a whiffy thought, how about a cross between the Model 299j and the XB-38?

Or a four engine Model 298?



Cheers

[Jeffry Fontaine]

VB-17 was used for a personal transport during the early stages of the Vietnam war, and the use by the CIA has never been truly documented....perhaps it never will. The CIA used black (what else?) B-17s and they had red serials on a number plate.....easy for changing you see. They were used in SE Asia at least up to the mid-60s I believe.

I've heard that too, and that they had a leather-covered, padded drop hatch in place of the bottom turret for dropping off agents.

The use of a B-17 for the clandestine insertion of agents into North Vietnam is not far from the truth.  The Vietnamese government had actually recommended the use of a B-17 for this purpose based on the fact that it did not look like an American aircraft.  Which then makes you ask where were they during WWII?  I had also been told that there was a B-24/PB4Y that was used for this purpose as well.  Either way, an all black aircraft with small easily removeable number plates on the sides would look pretty convincing regardless of the type.  The bottom turret would have been removed from either type for the mission.  There were real B-24 aircraft used for this purpose during WWII that were modified for agent drops into occupied territory in Europe by the OSS and SOE.

[dy031101]

The use of a B-17 for the clandestine insertion of agents into North Vietnam is not far from the truth.  The Vietnamese governemet had actually recommended the use of a B-17 for this purpose based on the fact that it did not look like an American aircraft.  Which then makes you ask wwhere were they during WWII?

They could always claim that B-17s were retired in droves after WII.

I had also been told that there was a B-24/PB4Y that was used for this purpose as well.

ROCAF did with PB4Y until Burma decided they didn't like that (the clandestine flights were done via Burmese airspace) and started sending fighters to shoot the bombers down.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I forgot to provide some supporting references for the agent dropping missions.  The following links provide some background on the "Carpet Bagger" missions performed during WWII and later:

• National Museum of the United States Air Force Fact Sheet on the Carpetbagger Missions
  http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1502


• Harrington Aviation Museum
  http://www.harringtonmuseum.org.uk/CarpetbaggerMuseumHomePage.htm


• Wikipedia entry for Carpetbagger Missions
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carpetbagger


• 801st BG(P)/492nd BG(H), Harrington (Mark Jackson)
  http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6483/


• Air Resupply and Communications Service (ARCS)
  http://www.arcassn.org/hq-arcs.htm


• 801st Bomb Bomb Group (Provisional) and 492nd BG (H) ''The Carpetbaggers'' (Kim Juhler)
  http://juhlerdenmark.tripod.com/kimjuhlerdanishrepresentiveforthecarpetbaggers801st492ndbombgroupusaaf/index.html

[MAD]

How about Nationalist Chinese?  Dominican?  French navy?  Argentinian (if the US weren't so against the Peronist regime - don't see why, because there were more Nazi war criminals in the US than Argentina at that time due to Project Paperclip!)?  

Or maybe Japanese - the Chinese revolution started ten years early, so the US and the UK were arming the Japanese?  Actually have a B17F to do this option!  Or how about the Japanese copied the B17 (as they did with the DC3) and were using that to bomb the west coast in 1942?  Means giving it new engines and messing about with the turrets, but it wouold look really different, especially in Japanese Army colours with all the paint chipped and weathered.

Why new engines?
The Japanese would have loved the technology and capability of the B-17's engines!
No, if they were going to copy/reverse engineer the B-17 design (as the Soviets did with their impounded USAAF B-29's), they would most likely be doing the same with the radial engines!

But if this failed – you may have seen a 6-engine variant Japanese B-17.

M.A.D

[jcf]

How about Nationalist Chinese?  Dominican?  French navy?  Argentinian (if the US weren't so against the Peronist regime - don't see why, because there were more Nazi war criminals in the US than Argentina at that time due to Project Paperclip!)? 

Or maybe Japanese - the Chinese revolution started ten years early, so the US and the UK were arming the Japanese?  Actually have a B17F to do this option!  Or how about the Japanese copied the B17 (as they did with the DC3) and were using that to bomb the west coast in 1942?  Means giving it new engines and messing about with the turrets, but it wouold look really different, especially in Japanese Army colours with all the paint chipped and weathered.

Why new engines?
The Japanese would have loved the technology and capability of the B-17's engines!
No, if they were going to copy/reverse engineer the B-17 design (as the Soviets did with their impounded USAAF B-29's), they would most likely be doing the same with the radial engines!

But if this failed – you may have seen a 6-engine variant Japanese B-17.

M.A.D

The Japanese knew all about the Wright Cyclone that powered the B-17, there was nothing special, new, secret or technologically advanced about that engine.
The Japanese license produced the SGR-1820 Cyclone powered Douglas DC-2 (the DC-3 was also license produced BTW not copied), they also purchased 1820 powered Lockheed Model 14-38, along with other 1820 powered aircraft.

Nor would there be any need for 'reverse engineering' as the Japanese had very good radial engines of their own, and they were very
aware of radial engine engine developments in the rest of the world.
They were also aware of the turbo-supercharger (its development was pretty much an open "secret" from its origins in the latter stages of WWI) and produced their own copies of the GE designs, however, they ran into the same metallurgical problems that beset the Germans.

Furthermore, why would they copy an early/mid-1930s design? Nakajima made a major mistake using the late-30s Douglas DC-4E prototype they purchased as the basis for the G5N, they realized their error and went back to the drawing board when tasked to design the G8N attack bomber, but it was too late. The G8N was truly a world-class aircraft design.

DC-4E


G5N



G8N

[Daryl J.]

B-17B swinging 4 Merlins, turtle deck removed and a bubble canopy similar to the Canberra B(I) 8, and the nose loaded up with machine guns, depth charges underwing.



Daryl J.

[sequoiaranger]

OK, so it doesn't fly.

I took parts from a 1/72 B-17, a 1/200 B-17, and a Horsa (rear observation) to make this concoction. Originally, this was a Bond Drive vehicle. (NO, James Bond is not driving!) The propeller in front is an engine cooling fan. the top turret is a toilet-with-a-view. There is a "sidecar" seat in the engine nacelle (hard to see clearly) with a windscreen. There is a boy waving a red hat in it. It's a three-wheeler, with the nose turret a steering wheel, and large landing-gear tires for main wheels. The normal radial engine powers the drive wheels through a truck-style differential. The ventral ball turret is a castoring wheel so the rear doesn't scrape on driveways or other weight-shifts. It's a roadhog, and needs "wide load" pilot cars.

I had some other pics of it somewhere, but they're unavailable right now.

[sequoiaranger]

 A REAL "whif"--a turbo-prop on the nose of a B-17 (with more power itself than all four of the normal engines combined!).

Naw---too simple!