B-17D

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Labor costs are subjective, anyone (volunteer helpers) can be taught to buck rivets, for a free lunch and maybe some gas money.

I started my career (as a volunteer) by learning how to buck rivets on an O-47 that was used in the original movie "Flight of the Phoenix".

It's the individual that signs off on a job that's important.

Someone who is qualified and believes in a project can do a lot of things for free, and it doesn't always have to be for a non-profit operation.

But, look at any museum that flys their aircraft. A lot of the work is signed off by qualified people who volunteer their services.

The important thing is to have people that pay attention to the details, and work towards getting the job done right. And, the first thing for a project like this would be to have the jigs fabricated.

[DryMartini]

If I want the plane done in my lifetime,
better to have a crew working on it all week,
as opposed to a few hours on a Saturday.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Is that what's being done with "Desert Rat"?

[DryMartini]

There are a couple guys working on her 4-6 days
a week for 4-6 hours a day. The replacement waist
skins are being riveted to the airframe, and the gun
beams and mounts are being fabricated. But it is
still a slow process.

[jhor9]

I flew the B 17C and D when I took transition training in 1942. It was a great plane and my recollection was that it was faster then the E and F models, I also flew both. Of course it might have to do with the weight I flew F and G in combat

[DryMartini]

Can you comment on the handling of the early
shark-tailed B-17, compared to the ones you
flew in combat? Performance specs do show
that the C and D model were faster than the
Fs and Gs. I would second your comment about
the lesser airframe weight contributing to them
being faster.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Not only would a shark tailed B-17 be faster because of the lighter weight, but they were a lot more streamlined too.

[DryMartini]

due to less surface area.

Yeah, the 'C' looks pretty slick.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

I seem to recall that, many years ago, FLYPAST Magazine ran a picture of the crashsite of one of the "C" models (Fortress I) sent over to England. It would be interesting to see just what, if anything, could be recoverable from the site.

[Dave]

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/B17Ctoday.htm

This link might help

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Thanks for the link, Dave. However, it's the wrong "C" model.

Everyone knows about this one. The one I was referring to was one of the ones sold to England as a Fortress I. One of them crashed (I don't recall just when or where) and the wreckage is still supposedly at the crashsite, at least it was back in the 80s when FLYPAST published the pictures. I guess I'll just have to go dig out the particular copy of the magazine and get the info.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

Since I started this, I guess I should continue with it.

I never found the info on the crashed "Fortress I", but I've heard rumors that other people are trying to recover it from Norway.

There's still the rumor of someone in the States that is/was going to build a "C" model, although a "D" would be better. And yet, no one is forthcoming with any additional information.

I just can't understand why anyone wants it to be a secret. Give everybody a break, let us know what's happening.

[DryMartini]

Dik,

I'm curious.
Why would a "D" model be better?
The only difference from the "C"
was more guns, a little more armor,
better self-sealing fuel tanks, a 24V
electrical system, and of course
cowl flaps for the engines.

As for the secrecy around projects,
I have to believe the root is financial in
nature, not to mention the typical uneasyness
of a program in its formative stages.

[DIK SHEPHERD]

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?

And why aren't these "Emoticons" working? Where are the happy faces? Who's running this operation, anyway? Where's Scott?

[DryMartini]

Point taken about the wings, but
you'd need new cowls anyway, as
you'd have toothpick props. I mean,
if you wanted to be accurate, that is.

Less parts associated with the cowls,
and less levers and wires. The 'C' model
would be easier to build.

You know of a set of wings lying around?