Flying Fortress?
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
She's been in the UK since 1975 and is the last airworthy B-17 in Europe.
It would have been 1982 (ish) at Biggin Hill that I went inside her. I also got to climb around the inside of a Lancaster – much less space than the B17, even as a kid I had to turn sideways to get into the cockpit.TTwiggy said:
Eric Mc said:
She's been in the UK since 1975 and is the last airworthy B-17 in Europe.
It would have been 1982 (ish) at Biggin Hill that I went inside her. I also got to climb around the inside of a Lancaster – much less space than the B17, even as a kid I had to turn sideways to get into the cockpit.The Lanc reduced in priority every aspect of its design that was not directly involved in maximising the bomb load.
1982 was the last year Sally B performed in her original natural metal scheme. From 1983 onwards she was painted in a green/gray camouflage scheme.
I think the maximum load of a B-17 was about 11,000 lbs. The Lancaster could carry a maximum load of 22,000 lbs - although the normal bomb load was around 14,000 lbs.
The B-17 was designed to a different philosophy to either the Lancaster or the Mosquito. It was also an older design to both.
The B-17 could fly quite a bit higher than the Lancaster and was faster. It was also more heavilly armed and armoured. So, the performance gains in speed, altitude and defence were at the cost of bomb carrying capability.
At the time the B-17 was originally designed (1932-35) it was a tremendously advanced aircraft. Consider what other bombers were being designed at the time. It was also assumed that the very sophisticated and semi-computerised Norden bombsight would give the B-17 unparallelled bombing accuracy from 30,000 feet.
The exigencies of war showed that, despite the speed, alttude, smart bombsights etc and defensive armament (which was substantially beefed up as a result), the B-17 turned out to be less effective than the US air chiefs had hoped. However, its crews were very grateful for the inherent structural strength of the airframe.
If you look at early B-17s you can see how slim and speedy they look. The later ones are much bulkier and ponderous in comparison.
The B-17 was designed to a different philosophy to either the Lancaster or the Mosquito. It was also an older design to both.
The B-17 could fly quite a bit higher than the Lancaster and was faster. It was also more heavilly armed and armoured. So, the performance gains in speed, altitude and defence were at the cost of bomb carrying capability.
At the time the B-17 was originally designed (1932-35) it was a tremendously advanced aircraft. Consider what other bombers were being designed at the time. It was also assumed that the very sophisticated and semi-computerised Norden bombsight would give the B-17 unparallelled bombing accuracy from 30,000 feet.
The exigencies of war showed that, despite the speed, alttude, smart bombsights etc and defensive armament (which was substantially beefed up as a result), the B-17 turned out to be less effective than the US air chiefs had hoped. However, its crews were very grateful for the inherent structural strength of the airframe.
If you look at early B-17s you can see how slim and speedy they look. The later ones are much bulkier and ponderous in comparison.
TTwiggy said:
When I was a nipper, my dad was friends with a guy who was friends with the owner of Sally B. I've been all over the inside of her - there's a picture somewhere of a 10-year-old me in the tail gunner's seat.
my ex father in law was a 747 pilot and knew one of the guys involved with the Sally B. I got to travel in her a few years back, even in the height of summer you need a damn thick coat on in one of those at altitude.its a tad disconcerting seeing the ground through the fuselage in places
jesta1865 said:
TTwiggy said:
When I was a nipper, my dad was friends with a guy who was friends with the owner of Sally B. I've been all over the inside of her - there's a picture somewhere of a 10-year-old me in the tail gunner's seat.
my ex father in law was a 747 pilot and knew one of the guys involved with the Sally B. I got to travel in her a few years back, even in the height of summer you need a damn thick coat on in one of those at altitude.its a tad disconcerting seeing the ground through the fuselage in places
jesta1865 said:
TTwiggy said:
When I was a nipper, my dad was friends with a guy who was friends with the owner of Sally B. I've been all over the inside of her - there's a picture somewhere of a 10-year-old me in the tail gunner's seat.
my ex father in law was a 747 pilot and knew one of the guys involved with the Sally B. I got to travel in her a few years back, even in the height of summer you need a damn thick coat on in one of those at altitude.its a tad disconcerting seeing the ground through the fuselage in places
and contend with fighters and flak
and find the target
and drop their bombs accurately
This can't have been much fun -
I was once in a pub called the Flying Fortress when a Flying Fortress flew past. Are their any pubs caled the Spitfire or Hurricane to try and repeat this at ?
http://www.theflyingfortress.co.uk/
Was also outside the Startled Saint pub ( I was about 10 at the time , so to young to be drinking ) when a flight of Spitfires flew overhead. Quite nice given the pubs sign.
Not totally related to the thread topic, but thought I'd say it anyway.
http://www.theflyingfortress.co.uk/
Was also outside the Startled Saint pub ( I was about 10 at the time , so to young to be drinking ) when a flight of Spitfires flew overhead. Quite nice given the pubs sign.
Not totally related to the thread topic, but thought I'd say it anyway.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff