Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:11 am
ktst97 wrote:mustangdriver wrote:
Once Memphis Belle is complete it will be first hands down.
The others could be as good as any of those aircraft at the NMUSAF if the others were also being restored on taxpayer $$.
The Belle is being restored by the NMUSAF. Is there tax money involved, sure, but not directly to the Belle. Is is the same budget that the museum gets. They have taken on alot of projects at once, and are working very hard. To say that the taxpayer alone is restoring the Belle is not correct. Besides I have been paying taxes for along time, and if some of it finds it's way to the Memphis Belle restoration over some corrupt politician's pocket, then so be it.
Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:48 am
I swear those chairs in SSB look like our old drafting stools, should have kept a couple, shortened them, painted them in Boeing Blue/green and made a mint on EBay!!! Nice pics, they do bring to mind the question of interior paint.
Here is a link to a pretty good series of B-17 walkthrough shots, I believe it said of three different Forts. Unfortunately NOT specifying which one with which shot!?! One of the forts does have NMF in the Radio Room and back. Lots of nice details here and there.
http://www.vg-photo.com/bombers/b17wt1.html
Here is a link to a pretty good series of B-17 walkthrough shots, I believe it said of three different Forts. Unfortunately NOT specifying which one with which shot!?! One of the forts does have NMF in the Radio Room and back. Lots of nice details here and there.
http://www.vg-photo.com/bombers/b17wt1.html
Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:50 pm
I love the profile collection, but I have to scold you--you have a clumsy old ball turret in Chuckie. We're planning to get the H2X radome installed in the not-too-distant future, so you better fix that one! 
Just kiddin',
Scott
Just kiddin',
Scott
Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:05 pm
Yup, I thought about that radar unit as i dragged poor little Chuckie onto the page. I do need to find a good close up pic of one, when I print up at 12x36, that little radar unit will be a good 3/4". That will really make Chuckie a Unique Fort.
Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:18 pm
Yeah, we're sure looking forward to hanging a radome under the Fort. We were laughing the other day that since Chuckie is the only documented Mickey airplane we'll have to fly lead in any B-17 formation! 
I'm gonna put in another shameless request for H2X documentation while we're on that subject. We've got enough documents to know how to actually bomb with the H2X but I really REALLY need the exact dimensions of the radome and its mounting truss. Paul Bellamy has helped greatly with interior photographs of H2X airplanes. There are a couple of original radomes out there, but one of them seems to be an early B-29 unit, too short for our needs. If I can come up with all the blueprints, parts list, or even a good set of drawings I will be able to commence with the building. There are still questions I need to have answers to before I get out the tools.
When I get a good close-up photo I'll see that you get a copy. The textbooks say the early B-29 radome was 30 inches in diameter--I don't know if the H2X was the same or not. The actual hole in the belly of our ship is a little larger than that, so the jury is out until we find dimensions for the B-17/B-24 antenna.
I'm gonna put in another shameless request for H2X documentation while we're on that subject. We've got enough documents to know how to actually bomb with the H2X but I really REALLY need the exact dimensions of the radome and its mounting truss. Paul Bellamy has helped greatly with interior photographs of H2X airplanes. There are a couple of original radomes out there, but one of them seems to be an early B-29 unit, too short for our needs. If I can come up with all the blueprints, parts list, or even a good set of drawings I will be able to commence with the building. There are still questions I need to have answers to before I get out the tools.
When I get a good close-up photo I'll see that you get a copy. The textbooks say the early B-29 radome was 30 inches in diameter--I don't know if the H2X was the same or not. The actual hole in the belly of our ship is a little larger than that, so the jury is out until we find dimensions for the B-17/B-24 antenna.
Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:45 pm
OK, here is Chuckie with a Mickey...fudged it in at the diameter of the ball turret.....next will be chin turret or not! 
The interior of Chuckie will definitely be quite different at least in the radio room. I assume the ball turret bracket/mount will be a bit different for the radar as well.
The interior of Chuckie will definitely be quite different at least in the radio room. I assume the ball turret bracket/mount will be a bit different for the radar as well.
Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:44 pm
Here's the B-17 radome support. The drawing is from an AN/APS-15A training document. The Liberator used a modified version of the standard B-24 hydraulic turret stanchion.
S
S
Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:13 pm
Found a vintage color shot of that rig in place....and the entire aft compartment is NMF.
second row, first pic on the left
http://www.482nd.org/gallery
second row, first pic on the left
http://www.482nd.org/gallery
Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:29 am
I'm currently writing a modeler-oriented book on the B-17
"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Seriously...sounds like a "must have" for my library. What, stirring up controversy among the Experten was enough for you Lynn?
SN
Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:31 pm
Cool group shot Holedigger. Being a Lone Star volunteer, I'm naturally partial to Thunderbird but I praise any flying B-17 and their crews.
As far sharp/blunt/protruding objects, my nemesis is the top turret frame.
As far as ease of movement inside...... in briefing before rides at Lone Star, it is stressed that these aircraft are ex military and were made for one specific job and comfortable transport was not it!
As far sharp/blunt/protruding objects, my nemesis is the top turret frame.
As far as ease of movement inside...... in briefing before rides at Lone Star, it is stressed that these aircraft are ex military and were made for one specific job and comfortable transport was not it!
Thunder Over Michigan 2010
Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:14 pm
Well, I think that we will all have to wait till Aug of 2010 to see which flyable fits the OP question, Thunder 2010 is a gatering of B17's. We'll just take a stroll down the flightline and cast our ballets at the end of the line 
2005 had 8 forts, lets hope that there will be at LEAST that many this time!
2005 had 8 forts, lets hope that there will be at LEAST that many this time!
Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:25 pm
Seabee, that sounds like a lot of fun and a bunch of trouble at the same time, Line to the left to place your ballots, line to the right to argue as to which is best and why, line behind hangar number three for fist-fights for those who are tired of just arguing!! I would love to get up there for that. If the economy grinds it's way up enough by then I might argue myself in for a road trip! A Looooooooooong Road trip!
I would love to get up there for that. If the economy grinds it's way up enough by then I might argue myself in for a road trip! A Looooooooooong Road trip!
Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:28 pm
As for Tourists bumping heads and elbows on random sharp hard metal things, I recall seeing some vintage pics with padding taped on sharp corners, probably by ground and flight crews who hit those often enough to do something about it!
Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:57 pm
How many flyers have the top turret guts? 909, Raiders?, Sentimental?,...in the 7 year I have been on tour I can't tell you how much stuff has been broken by "tourists"...but in this business you have to expect that. We could completely outfit 909 with everything...and I mean everything, BUT it would be too cramped and too fragile for everyday operation. I'd have to say that "Mary Alice" is probably the nicest restored Fort out there, I think Paul Allens will probably set the benchmark for Every B-17 restoration...even the Belle's.
Jim
Jim
Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:58 pm
Jim,
TR doesn't have any of the fixed structure in the fuselage for the upper. They do have a great looking turret assembly but the last I knew they had decided to keep it as a static display rather than install it in the airplane.
We're still undecided on whether we'll put an upper in Chuckie as she is missing the tub as well. The extra room for touring is certainly a plus even though I'd prefer a turret in there.....
Scott
TR doesn't have any of the fixed structure in the fuselage for the upper. They do have a great looking turret assembly but the last I knew they had decided to keep it as a static display rather than install it in the airplane.
We're still undecided on whether we'll put an upper in Chuckie as she is missing the tub as well. The extra room for touring is certainly a plus even though I'd prefer a turret in there.....
Scott