Boeing B-13 Flying Fortress?

What the...those are fixed, right? I've heard of quad 50s in the nose of SWPA 17s, but not 6.
You're one up on me there. I've never heard of a quad Bendix or any other turret on the nose of a B-17 anywhere. The standard was 2, served by the bombardier, with left and right cheek guns served by the navigator. The six-gun rig was to be fired by the pilot.
 
You're one up on me there. I've never heard of a quad Bendix or any other turret on the nose of a B-17 anywhere. The standard was 2, served by the bombardier, with left and right cheek guns served by the navigator. The six-gun rig was to be fired by the pilot.
Oh, I'm not up on you, not at all. The 4-gun nose I've heard of merely replaced the Bombardier position, fired by the pilot. That's why I'm so interested in that photo; at 1st glance it looks like some kind of Bendix mod. My understanding is that the original runs of B-17E's had the Bendix in the ventral position, but it was such a failure that (in the SWPA) it was field-modified out of existence in favor off a simple tunnel gun. Never heard even a whisper of any method of reusing the mounts, only the guns. My guess here is that the mount was used merely to provide streamlining for the additional firepower, completed gutted to make room for "Ma Dozen"...
 
My understanding is that the original runs of B-17E's had the Bendix in the ventral position, but it was such a failure that (in the SWPA) it was field-modified out of existence in favor off a simple tunnel gun.

Not quite the same turret. The Bendix ventral turret had a periscope sighting system from hell, much as British bombers didn't bother to employ. The solution, if not fitted with H2S, was the same. A hole, a gun, and two eyeballs.
 

Archibald

Banned
I wonder about a B-17 with a single 20 mm gun in the nose, and two more guns in a rear turret, and zippo - no more defensive armement, reduced crew. Would it be faster and a little less vulnerable ?
 
I wonder about a B-17 with a single 20 mm gun in the nose, and two more guns in a rear turret, and zippo - no more defensive armement, reduced crew. Would it be faster and a little less vulnerable ?

Can you explain how that would work, please?
 
Just Leo wrote:
They could have learned more from Busemann.

Context? He'd predicted the issues?

I like both the B-17Ca and YB- 38/B designs but it raises the question of performance. The XB-38 while it was marginally faster, (327 max, 226 cruise versus around 280) and had better range, (3,300 miles compared to about 2,000 miles) the service ceiling was 6,000ft lower than the 'standard' and the cost was very much higher. And then there was the B-24 which itself was a bit faster and carried more payload albeit with an almost 1600 foot lower ceiling. Not really sure why the performance hits though as I'd have thought with superchargers it would have reached a higher altitude.

Archibald wrote:
I wonder about a B-17 with a single 20 mm gun in the nose, and two more guns in a rear turret, and zippo - no more defensive armement, reduced crew. Would it be faster and a little less vulnerable?

The "box" (combat box formation) was very much your friend :) And you were only 'faster' when you weren't damaged, "speed-is-life" only works when there isn't a significant speed difference between you and an attacker. As long as there is and an attacker can generate a 'run' from any angle you need to have guns to cover that angle. Once fighters/interceptors started mounting cannon then bombers had to as well to keep engagement ranges equivalent.

Stripped bombers, much like the gunship bombers, were tested but both were found to have enough operational flaws that the concepts simply didn't work for the operations at the time. To gain significant speed would require a reduced bomb load and before nukes the more bombs the better rather than the other way around

Randy
 
Context? He'd predicted the issues?

Busemann, of Volta Conference forgetfulness promulgated theories dealing with the curious differences incurred when flying through air at trans-sonic speed. Specifically, that air reacts to the thickness/chord ratio more than the actual thickness, and that a broader chord raises the critical mach threshold, whether by wing sweep and/or physically broader chord. The B-52 featured such a broader chord.

I like both the B-17Ca and YB- 38/B designs but it raises the question of performance. The XB-38 while it was marginally faster, (327 max, 226 cruise versus around 280) and had better range, (3,300 miles compared to about 2,000 miles) the service ceiling was 6,000ft lower than the 'standard' and the cost was very much higher. And then there was the B-24 which itself was a bit faster and carried more payload albeit with an almost 1600 foot lower ceiling. Not really sure why the performance hits though as I'd have thought with superchargers it would have reached a higher altitude

The XB-38 flew precious few hours, and was an experimental type with variance in equipment, and faulty exhaust pipes. Testing faulty equipment can result in an untrue performance evaluation. The XB-38 started life as a B-17E. Wright Field tested the 'E to 317 mph. The 'F tested slower, and the 'G slower still, at 296 mph, though various sources give 287-295 as a figure.

One thing we can confidently assert is that no Fortress is going to out-run German fighters, equipped with guns, or stripped, so let there be guns, in all the right places.
 
Boeing makes beautiful planes? Have you ever looked at their submission for the Joint Strike Fighter? Has to be one of the ugliest airplanes ever. ..

---------------------------------------------------------------------

All of Boeing's airliners are pretty - even the 247.
OTOH Boeing military airplanes are a mix of pretty and ugly .... like French airplanes.
Early B-17s had a certain Art Deco grace, but later versions grew too many warts .... er ..... gun turrets.
Fortunately, B-29 started with simple external loft lines and stuffed extra stuff inside those loft lines. Result, an airplane that looked good and flew good.

Consolidated took the second approach when designing the B-24 Liberator. They built the fuselage too deep, then only slightly changed the lines when adding turrets.

Early RAF Halifaxes and Lancasters had belly turrets aimed via periscopes. Since few RAF heavy bombers were intercepted from below, belly turrets were deleted to save weight.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

All of Boeing's airliners are pretty - even the 247.
OTOH Boeing military airplanes are a mix of pretty and ugly .... like French airplanes.
Early B-17s had a certain Art Deco grace, but later versions grew too many warts .... er ..... gun turrets.
Fortunately, B-29 started with simple external loft lines and stuffed extra stuff inside those loft lines. Result, an airplane that looked good and flew good.

Consolidated took the second approach when designing the B-24 Liberator. They built the fuselage too deep, then only slightly changed the lines when adding turrets.

Early RAF Halifaxes and Lancasters had belly turrets aimed via periscopes. Since few RAF heavy bombers were intercepted from below, belly turrets were deleted to save weight.

They should have re-installed those belly turrets to use against the Schrage Musik equipped night fighters.

I agree with what you said. It has been stated about aircraft design that if it looks good it will fly good. Sometimes. And of course all aircraft design is a compromise with any designer especially in those days and nowadays too happily willing to trade their eye-teeth for a brief glimpse through a crystal ball.
 
They should have re-installed those belly turrets to use against the Schrage Musik equipped night fighters.

Periscope-equipped ventral turrets made it almost impossible to spot enemy fighters, and very difficult to aim at them, making them quite ineffective.
It was quite a while before the existence of Schrage musik became known, because nobody who suffered it came back. The Canadians who used the open hatch valued eyes more than guns.
 
Periscope-equipped ventral turrets made it almost impossible to spot enemy fighters, and very difficult to aim at them, making them quite ineffective.
It was quite a while before the existence of Schrage musik became known, because nobody who suffered it came back. The Canadians who used the open hatch valued eyes more than guns.

I've read the few that did get back were initially regarded as trouble causers.

Given the angled firing of the cannon in the Gloster F9/37 is is a bit strange that no-one thought the Germans might mount their cannon at an angle.
 

Driftless

Donor
I've read the few that did get back were initially regarded as trouble causers.

Given the angled firing of the cannon in the Gloster F9/37 is is a bit strange that no-one thought the Germans might mount their cannon at an angle.

Weren't there even some WW1 aircraft that fired their weapons at that angle? Also, the intended method of attack for the turreted B-P Defiant should have given some bright bulb an idea that the other guys might try alternatives as well.
 
Just Leo, what method and software do you use to make those marvellous aircraft graphics?
It looks like a lot of fun. And work too I would guess.
 
Just Leo, what method and software do you use to make those marvellous aircraft graphics?
It looks like a lot of fun. And work too I would guess.

The software is just MS Paint, and the method is do it wrong 'till you get it right. If it was work, I wouldn't do it. I'm retired and I'm not giving my cheques back. Glad you like 'em.
 
Top