Pop quiz
Why is this NOT B-17 42-97114 but instead 44-8411 (and no, the data block is NOT readable on any copy)
I have a bright, new shiny quarter for those who can give me the two clues why.......
SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Chris Brame
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:08 am
- Location: Yucca Valley, CA
Re: SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
OK - I'll try a WAG and see how wrong I get.
Chin turret is NMF instead of Neutral Gray.
Chin turret is NMF instead of Neutral Gray.
Re: SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
So a hint or two is needed - or what's wrong with this B-17.......Chris Brame wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:03 am OK - I'll try a WAG and see how wrong I get.
Chin turret is NMF instead of Neutral Gray.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
aerovin2
- Site Admin
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:03 pm
- Location: Lincoln, California
- Contact:
Re: SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
Looks good to me but something must be wrong or you would not be asking. Since we were looking at the data block issues (very interesting stuff, that, and something I have not seen before), perhaps the data block being OD vs. the NMF?
Scott Thompson
Aero Vintage Books
http://www.aerovintage.com
"The Webmaster, More or Less"
Aero Vintage Books
http://www.aerovintage.com
"The Webmaster, More or Less"
Re: SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
The Cheek Gun was installed at Cheyanne till the -60-B0 Blocks. But would have been production installed on post -35-VE aircraft. I'm guessing the second was that the first would have had primed nose turret, and the former the nmf nose turret.
Re: SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
You are so close -- both these B-17's were ships sent to the RAF as Fortress B.III and did not go through Cheyenne (so they were delivered to the british with no cheek guns).
The RAF rejected a majority of these aircraft (the RAF did not consider the B-17 as combat worthy) and returned them to the USAAF; the aircraft that were sent to combat groups were brought-up to combat standards, BUT the cheek windows were reversed with the left window being in the center and the right window being in the fwd position.
So the original answer to why this ship is 44-8411 instead of 42-97114 was because the windows are correct for the Lockheed ship as well as the datablock being bare metal (and not olive drab) is the key to identifying these pictures.
Re: SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
While we are on the subject....
https://www.airplanesofthepast.com/imag ... -angel.jpg
What is up with the B-17F at Offutt?
While i don't profess to be a B-17 expert, at first glance this B-17 appears to have a "G" nose, with reversed cheek guns and an astrodome, however there is no "circular patch" where the chin turret should have been confirming it was a "G" nose. It also appears to have a correct "F" model Plexiglas. But the nose of this bird just doesn't look right to me.
https://www.airplanesofthepast.com/imag ... -angel.jpg
What is up with the B-17F at Offutt?
While i don't profess to be a B-17 expert, at first glance this B-17 appears to have a "G" nose, with reversed cheek guns and an astrodome, however there is no "circular patch" where the chin turret should have been confirming it was a "G" nose. It also appears to have a correct "F" model Plexiglas. But the nose of this bird just doesn't look right to me.
-
Chris Brame
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:08 am
- Location: Yucca Valley, CA
Re: SO, you want to be a B-17 historian
That one went through a lot of changes in its life, from getting an E framed nose glass added and the bottom of the nose cut out for camera access by MGM, and then getting patched up rather poorly for outdoor display and having the framed nose traded for the later one from the Swoose. I always thought it was a shame 42-3374 didn't go to a civilian restoration group.