PTO cargo 17 images.

Post here with anything to do with warbirds, those fine vintage flying machines.
Post Reply
Dan Johnson
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:14 pm
Location: Rosemount, Minnesota

PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by Dan Johnson »

Saw these two on eBay and went after them. I know there is a well known image of this bird after a crash. Haven't had a chance to do any hunting for info, but am hoping Steve can share from his knowledge of these converted 17Es about this one.

Image

Image
Steve Birdsall
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:46 pm
Contact:

Re: PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by Steve Birdsall »

Interesting photos. I think they both show the same B-17F, 41-24548 Harry the Horse, from the 57th Troop Carrier Squadron, 375th Troop Carrier Group.
www.B17BlackJack.com
Dan Johnson
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:14 pm
Location: Rosemount, Minnesota

Re: PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by Dan Johnson »

It was a 17F? Did they replace the original nose glass with the E style for a reason?

Thanks for the info too Steve :)
Steve Birdsall
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:46 pm
Contact:

Re: PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by Steve Birdsall »

I've never been 100% sure whether it was a case of replacing damaged B-17F nose glass with the earlier-style because they had spares in stock, or they were parts recovered from salvaged B-17Es. In the end there were only a handful of B-17Fs involved.
www.B17BlackJack.com
User avatar
OldBillB17F
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:13 am
Location: West of Kansas City, MO

Re: PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by OldBillB17F »

Funny...I posted a topic in this forum on 30-OCT regarding the remains of this exact aircraft!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4863
terveurn
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:39 am

Re: PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by terveurn »

Steve Birdsall wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:25 pm I've never been 100% sure whether it was a case of replacing damaged B-17F nose glass with the earlier-style because they had spares in stock, or they were parts recovered from salvaged B-17Es. In the end there were only a handful of B-17Fs involved.
Why only B-17E's ?

There were numerous B-17 C / D's salvaged in February 42 in Australia broken down for spares. The 17 D / C noses were the same as the E nose.

I can see the necessary of using the earlier framed names vs the blown plexiglass nose. The south pacific was at the end of a long supply chain and the blown nose would have been a bulk item to ship. If a B-17F nose was damaged, would have been easier for future repairs to just R/R the out of stock item
User avatar
OldBillB17F
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:13 am
Location: West of Kansas City, MO

Re: PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by OldBillB17F »

Another thought is that maybe the framed 'E' nose was the only type in theater capable of supporting the .50cal machine gun (or multiple) - this may have been a simple response to developing Japanese fighter tactics once B-17Fs started showing up in the pacific. A one-piece 'F' nose would have required extensive bracing support, such as it did in the European theater.
donfurrB
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:47 am

Re: PTO cargo 17 images.

Post by donfurrB »

I am looking for a B 17 nose glass. Any model is fine and it does not have to be airworthy. Donfurr@gmail.com.
Post Reply