B-17 Flying Fortress, Boeing Model 298 and 299

[GTX]

Well, I still plan to do a single engined turboprop B-17 - got the kit in the stash too:



Regards,

Greg

[tinlail]

How many guns do you think you can fit in that wing?

[sequoiaranger]

How many guns do you think you can fit in that wing?

Well, if twelve .303's could fit in the 40ft wingspan of a Hawker Hurricane, think what you could put in a 103ft wingspan!!!! Plus, near the roots where the wing is very thick, some machine-guns could be mounted "over-and-under"---I'd say you could get forty of them altogether easily!

Call it the "Colander" for what an enemy aircraft would look like after one firing pass!!

[GTX]

Folks,

I'm actually planning on the single engined B-17 to be a bomber still with no wing guns.

Regards,

Greg

[tinlail]

What a shame, I was going to suggest 75mm cannons inboard.

[GTX]

Sorry...

Here's somewhat what it will look like:



My plan is to do it up in full operational markings, possibly as a diorama.

regards,

Greg

[MAD]

Sorry...

Here's somewhat what it will look like:



My plan is to do it up in full operational markings, possibly as a diorama.

regards,

Greg

I do not know if I would have been comfortable as a crew member, flying the distance of Germany, through the world heaviest defended skies and return – with only one engine!

How many B-17/B-24 were able to make it back the Britain on 2/4 out of their 4-engines?

Or should I say how many Fariey Battle returned to their bases, after battle damage?

But then again that's why I like 'What If's'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M.A.D

[GTX]

Oh, don't worry - the back story will be something along the lines of the USAAF leaders hoped the new lighter, sleeker, faster turbo-prop (one engine being more powerful than than 4 piston engines) B-17H would be able to survive.  Unfortunately they were wrong...

Regards,

Greg

[r16]

or You could do it as a test bed for steam powered B-29 that was rushed into operational service , though it would be necessary to put some remote control turrets like the Italian '108 had for frontal defence.

(after seeing Sisko's B-36 , its guns would be allright too.)

[jcf]

or You could do it as a test bed for steam powered B-29 that was rushed into operational service , though it would be necessary to put some remote control turrets like the Italian '108 had for frontal defence.

(after seeing Sisko's B-36 , its guns would be allright too.)

Err, the B-17G had a remote control turret for frontal defense.

Speaking of the B-29 and frontal defense, how about cheek turrets like those tested on a B-29?

Jon

[jcf]

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! 

Second photo shows Wright owned aircraft with R-3350 mounted in the nose.

jon

[sequoiaranger]

>I do not know if I would have been comfortable as a crew member, flying the distance of Germany, through the world heaviest defended skies and return – with only one engine!<

That's what the P-51's and others did over Germany! Plus all those carrier aircraft in the Pacific! I can't make up my mind which would be worse--coming down on "dry land" where there is some food and shelter but hunted by Nazis as I tried to walk to Spain/Switzerland, or floating in the ocean amongst sharks and hoping to be found/rescued before the brutal sun and thirst/starvation got to me!

One of the reasons four-engine aircraft HAD four engines is because that many engines were necessary to keep the plane aloft under load! But under light loads and low speeds (and usually losing altitude at various rates) fewer engines could keep the plane aloft. I suppose having only one engine makes the anxiety shorter and simpler--when one engine goes out there is no wondering IF--you KNOW you're out of buisiness!

[r16]

ı had always thought the bombardier being on top of it , the frontal turret was "directly controlled" , while a remote would have extra calculators , aiming mechanisms etc to compensate the difference between the  gunner's sight and the turret's place . No problem .

returning to the subject the fictional turrets could be in place of the engines , probably the inboards where they would help resist  the wing bending and probably they could share the local strengthening for the landing gear.

and after hearing the BP CEO talking last night on the news , it seems obvious to me that coal burning steam technology has to come back . He says 22 trillion dollars is needed for energy needs until 2030 . I guess he expects me or you to pay .I wonder what is the brand of his car ?

[Archibald]

Some comments on the recents posts

- the Turboprop-nosed B-17 really looks like a Dewoitine 332/338 !
- GTX single-engine projects looks like these long-range tupolev ANT- of the 30's

- What about a B-17 with a single Northrop Turbodyne turboprop in the nose, around 1942 ? It could be an ultra-long range recon/ bomber...

- The B-29 with "cheek turrets" looks like a Hamster   

[jcf]

The nose turret control on the B-17G sent electrical signals to the turret to control the motors and gun firing, there was no direct mechanical connection.

Steam technology never went away, the majority of fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas) powered electrical plants burn the fuel to heat water to produce steam to turn turbines that drive generators. Nuclear power plants are little more than fancy kettles.

Jon