Author Topic: Details on this B-17 (Pic inside)  (Read 131 times)

Frosty1

  • Guest
Details on this B-17 (Pic inside)
« on: October 28, 2000, 07:32:00 PM »
   
Whats up with the guns on the top of the middle of the fuselage that are behind the turret? (whew) I've never seen a picture of a 17 with that on there. Was it a late war modification? BTW, the pic was from Blankbirds on Dogfighter.com
Thanks

------------------
===>Frosty
====>Exposure2k.com
=====>Frosty@exposure2k.com

Offline minus

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Details on this B-17 (Pic inside)
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2000, 07:42:00 PM »
u mean the radio rom guns ? thye was removed on late models for wery small coverage whta they ofered

Frosty1

  • Guest
Details on this B-17 (Pic inside)
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2000, 08:03:00 PM »
I want them then. More guns = more power, muhahahah!  

------------------
===>Frosty
====>Exposure2k.com
=====>Frosty@exposure2k.com

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Details on this B-17 (Pic inside)
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2000, 10:20:00 PM »
I believe it was a single flex mount .50.

It could be dismounted and the plexiglas window could then slide closed, making the radio room a lot less drafty.  

Been a while since I was in a correctly restored B-17 though.

I'm sure the data is somewhere on the web though.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Details on this B-17 (Pic inside)
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2000, 02:22:00 AM »
Extra M2 that crews sometimes mounted. It mounted on either of two hatchs, a flew mount enclosure or an open mount (like how the waist gunners eventually got enclosed ports)

Offered extra protection from 90 degree attacks (where only the upper turrent could track) but required very good communication between the upper turrent and radio operator.

Far as I know, they quit carrying it because the extra weight for the gun and ammo for so little protection wasn't practical. Plus it made removing the escape hatch harder.


Eventually the hatch (where it's mounted) was refined to where there were no longer provisions for it. Crews liked it slightly better because it was quicker to escape from in a water landing, be it the channel or the Pacific.

Offline iculus

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Details on this B-17 (Pic inside)
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2000, 10:38:00 AM »
Yep...single flex mounted M2.

Standard issue for B-17F's and possibly late E's and early B-17G's

Believe it or not there was a an experimental B-17 variant, the YB-40, which was designed as an "escort fortress".  It was a B-17F with another *powered" turret with twin .50's above the radio room, twin .50's in each waist position, and the familiar chin turret which would become standard issue for the B-17G.  The YB-40 carried no bombs, but twice the ammo load.  The plan was to intersperse these in the rest of the formation.  The YB-40 was an operational failure because with all of the weight, it couldn't keep up with the  standard forts after they dropped their bombs.

<S>
IC  

[This message has been edited by iculus (edited 10-30-2000).]