Aero Vintage Books

Here's a thought, I told you there'd be more: What if a survey was done on all of the B-17s held by the Air Force, to determine the airframe that was in the worst condition. After that, what if an offer was made to the Air Force to trade a fibreglass B-17, configured and painted in whichever way the...

They probably figured that, since it wasn't going to be used on any flyable aircraft there was no point in spending the money to have them made.

It's to be expected, in this day and age.

And, according to Scott's listings, there's a set of wings in Alaska. Although the listing doesn't say what shape they're in.

After putting up with me all this time, you know Scott would've had to develop some sense of humor.

As far as I know, she has the nose frame that I found at the MGM Studio lot. It was traded for the "F" model nose piece that she had, and that one was put on the B-17 from the same lot.

If this does take place, it will still be about ten years before the aircraft is restored and put on display. Unless, the Air Force Museum can get Boeing to do the restoration, in that case it should only take about three years.

It is thought (assumed), but never proven.

And the B-17 that was destroyed during the Pearl Harbor attack was a "C".

But saying a history of being shot down is something to brag about, I just don't agree.

Another thing to consider is that, other then the "C" models that were sent to England as "Fortress Is" (and which failed miserably), the "C" model B-17s really don't have much history equated to them. In fact, the Y1B-17s have a greater history than the "C" models, as do the "D" models.:) Also, . ....

Scott has some good ideas . . . "I think the idea would be as you say...use "G" wings and a "G" centersecton if they can be found, and rework those components as necessary." . . . an idea I suggested last year, concerning the Dyers Lake B-17 . Also, . . . "As for using the money for "The Swoose" ins...

Here are some shots of the Harpoons, lined up for sale. http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z19/BOEING299B/PVs-1.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z19/BOEING299B/PVs-2.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z19/BOEING299B/PVs-3.jpg http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z19/BOEING299B/PVs-4.jpg http...

There's nothing "compelling" about it. It's just logically the way to go.

A "C" model means needless extra time and expense for nothing gained.

Where are these "C" parts located? If you are referring to the crashed example, I would forget it. That won't happen. Also, other than the cowl flaps, and a few other minor things, there really isn't any difference between the two models. And once again, I reiterate, unless it is planned for a compl...

Well, quoting myself from a year ago . . . "Well, Bill - The main thing is the cowl flaps. And, the fact that all models after the "C" had them. It will be a lot easier to use as many existing parts as possible in a recreation such as a "Sharktail" B-17. That would mean, if possible, using the wings...

Third question: If this project were able to get started, with all that has been said about why a "C" model is perferred rather than a "D" model (the "C" didn't have cowl flaps and all the linkage and other stuff that goes with them). The question arises as to the need for the turbo-superchargers, a...