And here is the zaniest thing I ever did, the XUB-1 Ultrafortress (almost called it the Überfortress!!). No comment...
How about this then...
Citing all the program delays and escalating costs, the USAAF requires Boeing to demonstrate the new systems it proposes for the B-29. Complying, Boeing pulls a B-17 off the line and "gives it the full treatment."
What rolls out of the hangar then is a B-17 with Wright R-3350 hanging on its wings and all its manned turrets replaced with General Electric's remotes. You could also muck about with fuselage changes as you wished. Perhaps grafting the B-29 nose onto the 17's fuselage.
The possibilities abound!
Twin R-3350s would be cool as it could borrow the installation design from the Model 344 ...
Dary, you can do early B17 evolving from B9 with open cockpit less guns etc. ...
Perhaps we could also have a twin W3420 Model 299? See the B-19 testbed and the XB-39A for depictions of the engine nacelles for the twin-Allison.Twin R-3350s would be cool as it could borrow the installation design from the Model 344 ...
Great stuff Jon! ... My take on a twin R-3350 Model 299
Dary, you can do early B17 evolving from B9 with open cockpit less guns etc. ...
Likin' this idea! (Image based on a B-17D profile by Erik Chipchase)
What I had in mind for the Academy B-17B kit was to completely remove the turtle deck and enclose most of it save for an open cockpit, put a more streamlined solid nose on, and remove the various blisters in essence completely cleaning up the lines of the aircraft. It would be virtually a sitting duck in the sky from a combative point of view but who says it has to be of military function? One scenario I had was that of a mail plane.
What I had in mind for the Academy B-17B kit was to completely remove the turtle deck and enclose most of it save for an open cockpit, put a more streamlined solid nose on, and remove the various blisters in essence completely cleaning up the lines of the aircraft. It would be virtually a sitting duck in the sky from a combative point of view but who says it has to be of military function? One scenario I had was that of a mail plane.
... One scenario I had was that of a mail plane...
... One scenario I had was that of a mail plane...
That'd be the Boeing QuadraMail ?
Concept of post war B-17 air racers sticks with me. Two seat tandom low bubble top seating. Flight engineer to monitor engines etc. Going around the pylons or timed from city-to-city.
... which was especially fetching with the trousered landing gear.
... which was especially fetching with the trousered landing gear.
Has anyone checked to see if Brian da Basher is okay? He hasn't responded yet to the mentioning of a spat-like undercarriage arrangement!
After looking at these great ideas, the act of looking at the price of 1/72 Shark Finned B-17's about brings tears. :icon_surprised: :icon_surprised: :icon_surprised:
Shiney...
After looking at these great ideas, the act of looking at the price of 1/72 Shark Finned B-17's about brings tears. :icon_surprised: :icon_surprised: :icon_surprised:
Have the Academy kits become that rare? I know the pricing of the Italeri re-box is absurd,
but it wasn't that long ago I was seeing he Academy kit regularly.
Yes, I have one, no you can't have it. ;D
Twin R-3350s would be cool as it could borrow the installation design from the Model 344 ...
Great stuff Jon! ... My take on a twin R-3350 Model 299
How about something totally crazy - update the B-17G with Wright R-3350s and some of the remote gun stations from the B-29?
Not knowing much about the Korean Conflict this could be way off base but put a mostly de-gunned, de-turreted B-17F into some sort of USN Anti-shipping role.How about a night attack aircraft with radar operating at low altitude with torpedoes! Mount the A/N APS-4 surface search radar pod under the wing or under the fuselage containing. Might be a good idea to consider retaining some defensive weapons for the occasional strafing opportunity. The chin turret and tail gun being the two best suited for that purpose. Mount the torpedoes [or mines] on the bomb racks that are located between the inboard engines and the fuselage. The Revell 1/48th scale B-17F includes the bomb racks so with a bit of imagineering you can rig the bomb racks for carriage of a torpedo. Mark XIII (Mk 13) 22.5" (57.15 cm) Torpedo shapes in 1/48th scale can be found in the Accurate Miniatures WW2 Weapons Set (one torpedo per box), Monogram Devastator and Avenger, Hobby Boss Avenger, and the Great Wall (if you can afford it) Devastator kits. If you want to model mines, that is an entirely gray area thanks to the shortage of good drawings, images, and other data pertaining the the mines that were carried by aircraft. If you want to go with something different, you could try something like a pair of the Belcher Bits (http://www.belcherbits.com/) RAF 1,500 lb Mine shapes that are available in the RAF 1,500 lb Mine & 250 lb Depth Charge (Product No. BB11) (http://www.belcherbits.com/lines/148conv/bb11.htm). This set contains a pair of these these weapons shapes in addition to some RAF depth bombs.
That's about the shape I had in mind to be precise. Either two or three of them.
Night attack and radar equipped is what I had in mind with, in fact, a 1/48 Revell B-17F. It makes me rue the day I sold mine for $6 at the LHS a decade ago......
Rather than torpedoes, I had a pair air-to-surface missiles in mind, but effective guidance is an issue making the torpedoes possibly a better option. And not a American torpedoes at that. German ones.
Note the Flying Fortress purchased yesterday at the show was a -G version... Heh...that's another project involving a dental floss container which happens to be, well, radar shaped.
Overall GSB or Satin Black are in the lead scheme-wise.
... defend the U.S. Eastern seaboard.
Which is exactly the role for which the Model 299 was conceived, basically it was to be 'Flying Coast Artillery'.
Unlike the British heavies, the B-17 did not originate as a city destroyer.
What brand for the dental floss ?
Seeing the radars of the Tu-95 and Tu-16 is what inspired the idea. I have yet to see if the plastic of the container responds properly to your typical model airplane cements. If not, I'll simply laminate together some thick styrene sheet and shape it from there.
something else that's radome shaped -- from Frog kit stands (I think)
Scale-o-rama a 1/72 B-17 into a 1/48 single engine radial and betrousered main gear winding up with a machine not that dissimilar to the Boeing Monomail.
PR variant: starting with a 1/72 B-17G remove all engines and convert to twin Griffons each taken from donor Airfix Spitfire PR.XIX kits. Extend wings. Remove all defensive armament. Convert the nose and ball turrets to remotely aimed camera bays.
As to color none of the usual options of PRU pink, blue, or synthetic haze quite settle with me.
Better still, an R-3350 powered reconnaissance variant with two engines. This would be possible using the 72nd scale Academy B-17 and B-29/B-50/C-97 kits where the engine nacelles are separate components
Better still, an R-3350 powered reconnaissance variant with two engines. This would be possible using the 72nd scale Academy B-17 and B-29/B-50/C-97 kits where the engine nacelles are separate components or in 1/144th scale where the surgery would not be as apparent as it would in larger scales.
Better still, an R-3350 powered reconnaissance variant with two engines. This would be possible using the 72nd scale Academy B-17 and B-29/B-50/C-97 kits where the engine nacelles are separate components or in 1/144th scale where the surgery would not be as apparent as it would in larger scales.
The Academy B-50 and C-97A/Model 377 kits have 28-cylinder R-4360s, as did the actual aircraft.
Only the XC-97 and YC-97 prototypes were R-3350 powered, and modeling one would require cross-kitting with a B-29.
QuoteBetter still, an R-3350 powered reconnaissance variant with two engines. This would be possible using the 72nd scale Academy B-17 and B-29/B-50/C-97 kits where the engine nacelles are separate components
Yep.
Spendy though.
A anti-ship/anti-sub version with a bit of a sting?
RAF Fortress IV powered by RR Merlins. No idea what the cowling would look like for such an aircraft but I suspect that it would be similar in appearance to the Allison V-1710 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710[/url]) powered Boeing XB-38 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-38_Flying_Fortress[/url])
There's always the high-winged tricycle-gear version that's in the Putnam book on Boeing.
RAF Fortress IV powered by RR Merlins. No idea what the cowling would look like for such an aircraft but I suspect that it would be similar in appearance to the Allison V-1710 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710[/url]) powered Boeing XB-38 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-38_Flying_Fortress[/url])
There's always the high-winged tricycle-gear version that's in the Putnam book on Boeing.
Do you have a pic of that Evan ?
There's always the high-winged tricycle-gear version that's in the Putnam book on Boeing.
Do you have a pic of that Evan ?
Hi Robert,
the 299J drawing is on page two of this thread.
Jon
I did read that the Russians wanted to buy B-17's pre WW2. I don't think they would have got the superchargers on the engines but a Long Range Aviation B-17D would look good in the same scheme as the Pe-8 ;)
Soviet B-17´s
[url]http://www.soviethammer.info/blog/663758-soviet-b-17s-and-b-24s/[/url] ([url]http://www.soviethammer.info/blog/663758-soviet-b-17s-and-b-24s/[/url])
RAF Fortress IV powered by RR Merlins. No idea what the cowling would look like for such an aircraft but I suspect that it would be similar in appearance to the Allison V-1710 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710[/url]) powered Boeing XB-38 ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-38_Flying_Fortress[/url])
Well the RAF did it with a Vickers S Gun mounted on the nose.
Regards,
John
Well the Italians put a 102mm in yhe P.108
^^^^^
Torpedoes can be carried as external stores
Given that the Manchester was conceived in 1937 with a bomb-load of 8000lbs or two torpedoes, I stand by my comment that the B-17's bomb-bay was small.
Nice find! Never heard of that bomb before. Durandal ancestor 8)
Mosquito could carry more than B-17? Mmmm, not.
Another myth that refuses to die.
[url]http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/pages/b17_24_2.php[/url] ([url]http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/pages/b17_24_2.php[/url])
B17 nose on B24 body .
Inspired by this cut n shut aircraft I always wonder about the feasibility of a Lanc with a B17 nose
A anti-ship/anti-sub version with a bit of a sting?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4263/35717509346_5f8fdb68db_b.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4231/35717496336_c87176d57c_c.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4092/35370523020_f6f3598d2a_c.jpg)
Are you thinking of this?
Chris
Chris
I'd put into my memory the chin was a radar mount however.
From what I see; B-17 tail wheel is retractable.
Anyone know if there are gear doors that close under tail wheel when retracted ?
One wonders what the B-40 gunships coulda done with adequate engine power added... the B-38's inlines posted some gain, but not enough data to warrant continued testing when the prototype burned. So maybe WHIF a quadruple-Merlin-powered gunship, or one repowered with whatever member of the Wasp family drove the B-29? (WWII is a little early for R-4360's...)B-29 didn't have Wasps, or any P&W engine, it had Wright R3350s. I could see a B-40 with four R2800s. Perhaps a B-38 with Griffons and a B-40's armament?
I also could see a B-40 with four R2800s.So what engine cowls? P-47, F6F, F4U, or ...? I could see this becoming a most interesting piece of kit.
A gunslinger.
Speaking of P-47s, how about using four IV-2220 engines as trialed on the XP-47H?
From what I see; B-17 tail wheel is retractable.
Anyone know if there are gear doors that close under tail wheel when retracted ?
No doors covering the B-17's tail wheel, there's just an open slot.
Chris
Taking a slight backwards step, what about a RAF B-17C/Fortress I reengined with Merlins?
Taking a slight backwards step, what about a RAF B-17C/Fortress I reengined with Merlins?Or do the same to a B-17D and then add the twin-tail and tail-gun installation boeing considered. The result would look way different.
add the twin-tail and tail-gun installation boeing considered. The result would look way different.
raafif, see page two of the thread.
:icon_fsm:
WW2 ends early, B-29 not developed. Post-war isolationism, austerity and the only wars are those in British-controlled colonial Africa & the Mid-East. This means that the B-17 remains the USA's main bomber till 1975. No A-Bomb or Cold-War so jet-bombers are not needed as prop-jobs are better for small, low-intensity conflicts .....
Threats in 1968 to the West's oil supplies by more Mid-East unrest has American bombers sent as part of a League of Nations force .....
([url]http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/AB-17.png[/url])
One question, would the Merlin re-engining keep the turbo-superchargers in addition to teh Merlin's superchargers?
S'cool, personally if I was to build sech a beast I'd go for trousers of the style trialed on the first Monomail in its 221A incarnation:
([url]http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/3cdaf4c03e3f08b45056e5d19758db29.jpg[/url])
An idea for the Beyond '46 GB:
1:72 Academy B-17B, all turrets smoothed over. Nose becomes a black symetrical radome. Two canted pylons carrying 1:48 ESCI Harpoon bodies with modified fin shapes to become some early large AGM or ASM. Convert to twin RR Dart turboprops from the Maquette Dart Hearld. Overall dark green drab with red/orange outer flying surfaces and white TEST decals on the fuselage sides. Date it 1950s or early 60s.
I saw these on eBay:
1/48 Boeing PB-1W (Navy B-17 in blue) radar conversion part ([url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-48-Boeing-PB-1W-Navy-B-17-in-blue-radar-conversion-part-/121708847585?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c5669a1e1[/url])
1/48 XB-38 Allison inline engine B-17 engine & prop hub conversion parts ([url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-48-XB-38-Allison-inline-engine-B-17-engine-prop-hub-conversion-parts-/121708017061?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c565cf5a5[/url])
Completely unrealistic but how awesome would a B-17G with four Napier Sabres look?Quite. Not sure what one with four Bristol Centaurus engines and five-bladed props would look like, but it would be eye-catching.
Completely unrealistic but how awesome would a B-17G with four Napier Sabres look?Quite. Not sure what one with four Bristol Centaurus engines and five-bladed props would look like, but it would be eye-catching.
Along the inline-engine lines of thought, how about applying a North Star conversion to a B-17?
Something ridiculous but fun:
([url]http://img14.deviantart.net/743a/i/2013/059/e/4/vtol_27b__b_17_vtol_variant_by_kirovrampager-d5wiut6.png[/url])
([url]http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j362/Helicopternut/PB-1WAEWFortresspic2.jpg[/url])
Wasn't there a version with the radome on the underside?
Thatz a wanna build B-17. :)
Thatz a wanna build B-17. :)
B-29 too!!
Still a Loony idea. ;D
Thatz a wanna build B-17. :)
I'm fairly sure there was a conversion to do that too, RVHP maybe
to counter the German tactic of head-on attack. SNIP that became their favorite tactic.It was and developed because the B-17s prior to the G were woefully under-protected from the front with only a single hand held .50 or even .30 cal MG nominally fitted, though there were a LOT of field modifications to fit more .50s around the bombardier.
Some more pics:Something like either installation being used operationally with Loons as part of Operation Downfall sounds potentially interesting for whif possibilities.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/B-17-JB-2-1944.png)
And one showing it being attached under the wing of a B-29:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Loon_b29.jpg)
and one showing the attachment frame a little more:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/JB-2-Ground_Preperation_1944.png)
However, he was blamed for the concentration of all the main crew members in the nose where they could be carried away with a single gun shell. 1
1. Which is not that different from the standard B-17.
1. Which is not that different from the standard B-17
Simple idea: What about RAAF B-17s instead of B-24s but in the same schemes:
([url]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/jarink/Skins/RAAF_WIP.jpg[/url])
A-26 would have been a good number for an RAAF A-26 Invader ;)
Why the B-17 freighter conversions? You could buy C-47s and C-46s for peanuts, which were turnkey freighters, with two less engines to deal with.More range, perhaps? Or simply cargos that a C-47 or C-46 couldn't carry?
Why the B-17 freighter conversions? You could buy C-47s and C-46s for peanuts, which were turnkey freighters, with two less engines to deal with.More range, perhaps? Or simply cargos that a C-47 or C-46 couldn't carry?
There used to be a hilarious error on Wikipedia B-17 page: namely, that two B-17's would have been operated post-war by Finnish Air Force as target tugs. (IRL they were Saab B17's.) Still, that did made me think for a while...
Interesting fact: the RAAF did allocate an "A" number to the B-17: A26. It was not used though.
Interesting fact: the RAAF did allocate an "A" number to the B-17: A26. It was not used though.
Now you're going to get me into trouble with my neighbour ! .... I'll have to do one right now instead of cleaning up the garden :D
Oh yes, Boeing did originally think of twin tails !
Looks strangely modern like that. :icon_surprised: :smiley:
Different: A Ford Jeep customized with a B-17‘s windshield and cockpit roof
(https://elpoderdelasgalaxias.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/1644441410969.jpg)
Could kitbash B-58 engine in same place to become a post war racing B-17.
Early platform for VLF communications like the current E-6B Mercury.
Wingtip pods, antenna faring replacing the dorsal turret, etc.
If talking Navy birds, what about a developed PB-1 with MAD boom and torpedoes?
If talking Navy birds, what about a developed PB-1 with MAD boom and torpedoes?
Like this ?
If talking Navy birds, what about a developed PB-1 with MAD boom and torpedoes?
Like this ?
I'd go with a Tracker style retractable MAD boom & retractable radar where the ball turret used to be with torpedoes in the bomb bay, & maybe an early FLIR turret where the chin turret used to be.
A towed MAD device might be more practical for the PB-1/B-17 instead of that long extended boom that would seriously get in the way during landing and departures. Some PBY Catalinas serving in the ASW role were equipped with a towed MAD device that was trailed when searching for submarines and when not needed was winched back aboard the aircraft. If I remember correctly, it was deployed and hauled in via the lower gunners position in the hull.
I'd go with a Tracker style retractable MAD boom & retractable radar where the ball turret used to be with torpedoes in the bomb bay, & maybe an early FLIR turret where the chin turret used to be.
I'd go with a Tracker style retractable MAD boom & retractable radar where the ball turret used to be with torpedoes in the bomb bay, & maybe an early FLIR turret where the chin turret used to be.
I was thinking of something closer to the P-3 MAD boom:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSq1o_X-XklVUtg4-uyhc4jkDxH91PaxChD61YEyjUAL-clTN_rRC_5vrfQRqVivKF_Tt8&usqp=CAU)
I'd go with a Tracker style retractable MAD boom & retractable radar where the ball turret used to be with torpedoes in the bomb bay, & maybe an early FLIR turret where the chin turret used to be.
Radar as you suggested:
(https://www.wdnorton.nl/B-17%20GSH%2042-3486/B-17Gs96thBGwithMickeyRadar-1[1].jpg)
I'd go with a Tracker style retractable MAD boom & retractable radar where the ball turret used to be with torpedoes in the bomb bay, & maybe an early FLIR turret where the chin turret used to be.
Possibly early IR searchlight/scanner instead of B-17G nose turret, possibly akin to this:
(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A5JTMB/breguet-atlantic-1150-A5JTMB.jpg)
And possibly sonobuoys in bomb bay and torpedoes on under wing mounts.
I was thinking that, as the B-17 is a tail-dragger (which closely equates to the stance of the Tracker), that a retractable boom would be less likely than any form of fixed boom to get broken.
Another idea: What if during the war the Allies decided that they needed greater range and thus a bunch of B-17s (and B-24s) were converted/produced as dedicated Aerial Refuelling tankers to accompany (partway) the bomber fleets?