Author Topic: Dick Rutan's B-17 Restoration (Read 1058 times)

2stony · « **on:** March 21, 2005, 07:06:29 PM »

I thought everyone would enjoy Dick Rutan's venture into a B-17 restoration.

[/IMG]

Skydancer · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2005, 07:10:27 PM »

Wonder if it would work?

Looks pretty funky.

Chairboy · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2005, 07:11:20 PM »

That's the best description for that pic I've seen (Rutan), most excellent. I've got a copy in my archive I will be renaming post haste.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:16:00 PM »

How would the waist gunners shoot?

john9001 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:21:22 PM »

secret weapons of the USAAF

notice two top turrents

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2005, 11:17:36 PM »

quoted from the article..

"At first Johnny thought he was too fat to be a tail gunner on a B-17 but his recruiter assured him he would do just fine"

OIO · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2005, 01:41:00 PM »

am I the only one thinking 'whoa, I just neeed to come in from under that wing for a safe shot!'

Furball · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2005, 02:11:59 PM »

"the AH community's answer to the 1 ping tail falling off issue"

Seagoon · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2005, 05:18:46 PM »

Thanks for the pic. I remembered reading that some B-17s were sent to Canada for final assembly.

Ba-dump-bum-ching.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2005, 05:34:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
Wonder if it would work?

Looks pretty funky.

No,

The CG for an airplane is typically about 1/3 of the way between the leading edge of the wing and the trailing edge. A few planes have horizontal stabilizers that create lift and change things a bit, but this plane is way too nose heavy.

eskimo

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2005, 07:36:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
No,

The CG for an airplane is typically about 1/3 of the way between the leading edge of the wing and the trailing edge. A few planes have horizontal stabilizers that create lift and change things a bit, but this plane is way too nose heavy.

eskimo

I think you are overlooking my fat tailgunner theory.

MarkVZ · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2005, 08:35:41 PM »

Many canards have CG's completely ahead of the main (rear) wing. If this is the case, the heaviest pieces of the airplane (the engines) are possibly still *behind* if not right on the CG. I wouldn't be so quick to say that the hypothetical B-17 canard is "noseheavy."

Technically it could be made to work given the proper CG and area ratios between the main wing and canard, as well as the proper moment arm on the canard.

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
No,

The CG for an airplane is typically about 1/3 of the way between the leading edge of the wing and the trailing edge. A few planes have horizontal stabilizers that create lift and change things a bit, but this plane is way too nose heavy.

eskimo

Vulcan · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2005, 10:04:50 PM »

stick some bombs in the bombay and ain't gonna be nose heavy, its gonna be nose-planted.

EagleEyes · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2005, 10:27:01 PM »

Is that a real b-17 or did someone mess around with photoshop?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2005, 11:29:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by EagleEyes
Is that a real b-17 or did someone mess around with photoshop?

Ok everyone, SHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Yes Virginia, it's a real B-17.