B-17D

[aerovin2]

And read it quick, because I'm going to start deleting up the chain again and get back to the B-17D stuff.

[aerovin2]

And I will ensure people won't come back if there is more posting like occurred today.

[aerovin2]

And, unfortunately, after another offensive message, I have taken the action to ban a user. First time that's had to be done. That user has had some good information to share about B-17s over the years but I don't welcome his other comments here.

[Steve Birdsall]

Thanks Scott, I think - hope - most visitors to the site support your action 100%.

[Guest]

you did the right thing. i really didnt want to stir up a hornets nest, but statements like that are just over the line. this fellow has been posting his hate fueled rants elsewhere and ive yet to see or hear of anyone that appreciates his point of view within the context that he presents it. by the way i really do like your website. and i know lots of other people do also. i don timagine its an enviable position to be in, trying to keep everyone in line. i was just choked. my sincere apologies.

[pokryshkin]

Pardon my uneducated inpert 2 cents input here, but I can understand where a B-17D would mean more later parts, and therefore SLIGHTLY less work.
There would STILL be a great deal of work to do, and possibly if you offer to help the USAF with "Swoose" they might let you make jigs from the parts of Swoose with the understanding that you might make the aircraft available to the USAF Museum and/or the USAF for various functions. Something like this might provoke a better reaction.
The bottom line on this is that, first, all possible reference materials need to be collected.
As an example, this is, I think, the problem that Kermit Weeks ran into with his TU-2s out of China, which he was going to make airworthy. The only reference materials I could find were in fact the article in Air International 4, a copy of which I gave him back before Hurricane Andrew.
The most important thing to start a project like this is to have as many parts drawings to size as possible, and as much reference information such as plans, parts drawings as I already noted, and THEN start looking for a donor aircraft or parts to start off with: remember, the fuselage FORWARD of the just-aft-of-the-radio room-join were almost structurally identical, with the only differences being window and turret placements.
THIS is why a B-17D would be SLIGHTLY easier to start as you would only need to change the positions of air intakes for the engines on the wings of the aircraft and of course the modifications to the aircraft windows and turret position removals , forward of the fuselage join.
The belly "bathtub" gun position, is, if memory serves, just AFT of the fuselage join.

I hope this helps some.

[DryMartini]

I'm currently looking at BLK 6 in the shark tail B-17s.
Now, we all know that BLK 6 was the joining part of
the forward and rear fuselages in the later big tailed
B-17s. However, this appears to not be so with the
early birds. More info to come once I have drawings to
back it up.

As for this discussion:
The "D" has cowl flaps, and a 24V electric system.
Other slight improvements, but virtually identical to
the B-17C structurally. The "D" would have about as many
parts in common with the B-17Es, as the "C"s would.
I see the deletion of the cowl flaps as less work*, both
with the controls and the actual cowls and flap actuator
mechanisms, and that would make a "C" easier.

*many drawings that are for the B-17E which have similar parts
in the B-17D also reference the B-17C - I have not found one
part that is on the E & D that is not on the C, as of yet. Of course,
I've only looked through a few thousand, with thousands more
waiting.