B-17C/D QUESTIONS

[DIK SHEPHERD]

First question: If this project were able to get started, where would it be (or like to be) constructed?

[DryMartini]

I'll post an answer after the B-17 Co-op meeting this weekend.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

So, . . . how did the B-17 Co-Op meeting go?

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Second question: If this project were able to get started, would jigs be constructed for assemblying the aircraft?

If so, would they be like this . . .

The Lacey project,





or like this . . .

the Urbana ptoject.






One individual on the PC-WIX site made this comment . . .

"The old nose was used has a pattern to make the new one which is just a new shell on display in their 'museum' with trinkets arranged inside it. The last I saw of the original nose it was laying outside at Aurora Airport in the weather."

Obviously he either never looked at the photos, or he just doesn't know what he's talking about. But here is the REBUILT nose section.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

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, and all of the stuff that goes with them.

And since they won't be needed, and the only B-17s* that didn't have them were the Y1B-17s, why not just re-construct a Y1B-17? Thus, no turbo-superchargers and no cowl flaps.

*For those that haven't been educated, the Prototype Model 299 was never given the designation of B-17. And yes, it didn't have turbo-superchargers.

[gary1954]

You...you..you go Dik, and why are they building a B-17 in a boat house at the marina??

[DryMartini]

Yes, there will be jigs built.

Also, FYI - you know how many B-17s fly today with
working turbos?

Turbos are touchy, and have caught fire in the
past. Easier to bypass them for all the high-altitude
flying that the planes do these days.

That said, I hope we can get turbos working,
if not toactually use them.

[aerovin2]

And some Cs were refitted with cowl flaps at the factory, weren't they?


Frankly, the least of the problems are whether to put cowl flaps on it. I would imagine cowl flaps are needed for engine cooling. If a set of airworthy "G" wings can be found, and possibly the better part of a forward fuselage, the rest is doable given enough money and time.

[DryMartini]

No "C"s were refitted with cowl flaps.

What is all the fuss over cowl flaps?
It's not like we gonna haul 4 tons of iron
up to 25,000 feet.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

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 from a "G" model with all of it's components, and not having to build new cowling.

Besides, what's so special about a "C" model? And why are you always saying "C" this and "C" that?"

[aerovin2]

I think the "C" is the best way to go primarily because there are some "C" parts out there so some heritage can be tied in, ever so loosely, but tied in. The main thing for me is that a small tail B-17 be constructed. I know Bill has spent a fair amount of time on determining drawings and adapting what's available, so I defer to his expertise on the matter.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

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 completely scratch-built aircraft (which would probably never be licenced beyond experimental, if at all), the best bet is for the use of a "G" wing and forward fuselage. Cowl flaps, 24 volt system and everything else.

Thus a "D".

[aerovin2]

Okay.

Everything you say except the electrical and the cowl flaps is applicable to a "C" or a "D".

It is not going to be an accurate restoration by any standard, so a "C" with a 24 volt system is not a big deal.

You can pull some parts....they are out there and recovered, i.e. the vertical stabilizer, from B-17C s/n 40-2047, and have serial to assign to the airplane, even though it is pretend. It would have an identity and have a genuine link to the past.

What is it about a "D" (or a "B") that you find so compelling, if you don't mind me asking.

And I can guarantee you this airplane would never be licensed beyond anything other than experimental, regardless of what goes into it.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

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.

[gary1954]

** Throws Hands in the Air**