Jump to content

Tim's Academy B-17F - as a YB-40 gunship


Recommended Posts

I am looking forward to seeing your progress. I have the Paragon conversion (in both 72nd and 48th - how warped is that!). Do you have the photo of the waist when they changed the ammuntion boxes and how they fed? Apparently the photo that has been published the most was a preliminary version and it changed somewhat when it went into service. I have that somewhere...

EDIT number 2: Found it! Man, that had to be tail heavy... Those ammo boxes look like the ones from the tail position.

YB40waistmod.jpg

Photo from the Warbird Tech book on the B-17.

EDIT PS Which airplane are you going to do (If you have decided)?

Wow, never seen that pic before - thanks 100th BG!

That port ammo box and track will be visible thru the stbd waist opening, and the armour.

I'd better start scratching that.

The actual aircraft is undetermined as yet but 25834 is the final fallback.

If IPMS doesn't come up with some digits - I'll put an appeal on ARC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The actual aircraft is undetermined as yet but 25834 is the final fallback.

If IPMS doesn't come up with some digits - I'll put an appeal on ARC.

As mentioned, if you need them let me know. I'll ask Bill when I put my order in to include the right format of yellow digits in there for you.

Cheers,

Mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...Could you imagine some of the scores those crews might have been able to wrack up?

Cheers,

Mark.

Since the normal 8AF bomber gunners claimed about half of the Jagdwaffe, no telling what these guys would have done.

Although in truth, since this really only had the extra dorsal turret (that I expect had a limited field of fire) and twin instead of single .50s at the waist compared to the B-17G I suspect it would not have been all that effective as an 'escort' aircraft. By the time the YB-17 deployed, the Luftwaffe fighter tactics already encouraged a head-on approach where the twin waist .50s and extra dorsal turret would not be particularly effective in breaking up a fighter pass before it (the fighter) had a chance to fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, the one idea I am surprised that was not tried across the board was the Gatling gun concept. Could you imagine twin Gatling guns at the waist positions? Or dual guns on a mustang?

It boggles the mind

it would take another B 17 just to carry the ammo :thumbsup: - humm a new meaning for mid air refuiling :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
nah, convert the bomb bay into a giant ammo storage

not to sure if you meant that as a joke..but that is what they actually did. I am still trying to find pictures so I can modify my kit, but all my references say that the bomb bay was used for ammo storage!!

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
not to sure if you meant that as a joke..but that is what they actually did. I am still trying to find pictures so I can modify my kit, but all my references say that the bomb bay was used for ammo storage!!Sean

which is why the darn thing was so slow-too much weight-- but SUCH a cool idea, it SHOULD have worked!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was joking since I didn't know that, I knew they were bomb less however.

Hope you dont mind me propagating the kinda OT tangent we're on here.

I think had they have re-engined or re-propped the plane they could have made this a more viable option. The airframe had no issues lifting the load and keeping aloft, but the powerplants couldn't deliver the goods with the added load.

Edited by Shawn M
Link to post
Share on other sites
which is why the darn thing was so slow-too much weight-- but SUCH a cool idea, it SHOULD have worked!

the aircraft worked up till the target. once the other aircraft dropped their bombs, the B-40 was suddenly to heavy to keep up with the flight. It could have been possible to re-engine the aircraft or modify them so they could reduce the weight and keep up..but the higher ups also saw it as a waste of a crew since the aircraft were not carrying bombs. with the P-51's coming online..it made more sense to put bombs in it rather than more ammo.

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the little details sometimes that catch me by surprise - only because so many modern flying -17's don't have their tail guns matching with the little "aiming gun" the tail gunner had - fancy little "doo-hickey" it was - I noticed this one doesn't appear to have one. It would also be interesting to know why even have that second turret in the radio compartment if it's set so deep in. Really limits it's movement and field of fire, as someone had mentioned. I'm wondering if it was pushed back to make room for all the add ons of the retracting ball turret (not saying that the bulkhead was moved at all at that location, but thinking that maybe when the ball was retracted, there was VERY little room to get from the radio compartment aft with the turret there... just curious thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First an apology - this build is a bit slower that I would like, but I'm still with you.

I'm preparing for a significant archery tournament which is consuming a lot of my time and attention, and can be quite tiring.

I actually did a little modelling last night on the waist gun emplacement, but insufficient progress to warrant photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First an apology - this build is a bit slower that I would like, but I'm still with you.

I'm preparing for a significant archery tournament which is consuming a lot of my time and attention, and can be quite tiring.

I actually did a little modelling last night on the waist gun emplacement, but insufficient progress to warrant photos.

Nothing is ever insignificant here! Snap away!

I know what you mean by time consumption from the hobby - unfortunately real life comes into play. Playing the role of a single dad, especially this last little bit - between long nights, being sick, the little man being sick, and a road trip I just got back from, ya, I feel for you buddy.

Can't wait to see more though. But, before I post this - good luck at the archery tournament. Perhaps some pictures of that as well?

Cheers!

Mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a possible explanation as to why there is no external gunsight on the tail gunners position. I have read that the tail gun on the B-40's was a hydraulically boosted unit, similar to the waist guns. This photo, which is in the first B-17 Detail and Scale book shows a tail gun which may be the boosted positon. There are hydraulic lines in the bottom of the photo and an electric gunsight (looks like an N6). It also appears to have the armored glass that shows in the profile shot of the XB. I have never seen any other mention of a boosted tail gun. I do not know with certainty that this is from a B-40, but have long strongly suspected it. FWIW:

PossibleB-40.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the help so far with this.

Here's what I've been upto.

These are my scratched twin waist emplacements, which might never be seen again - so I'll show you all now.

That interior photo shows huge grey armour slabs above and below the guns (painted plastic sheet).

Ammo boxes rearward of the guns (small block of lead painted silver, and scored thru the center for two boxes).

Feeds from folded metal foil. The twin guns are spares from this and my Academy SB-17G model.

YB40Waist.jpg

I now plan to remove the guns, as they will be vulnerable during construction, and refit the at the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch out with the XB-40. It's second turret sits in a cove like the earlest turreted A-20 G/H. The YB-40 and the conversion kit end the decking in the fashion of the later A-20J/K. Also the piot tube locations change on some YB-40. The conversions were done by Douglas at Tulsa, not Vega ( AAF Study 62). The Fyling Fortress Story page 109 gives serial numbers , assignmnets and codes for the Tulsa YB-40 in the Vega section. Since these were Vega B-17F, some carry mid-fus. art similar to the PVs. After assignment to the 92 BG, the YB-40 were spread to several Groups, many in the 1st BD. The National insignia were revised too, some with undersized "bars" and red trim. It's a tricky airplane to model for all the reasons above...and the fluctuating stage on the maturity of the VIII BC and the industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe This link could be a bit of good info for you?

I stumbled on this tonight and had some good pictures and info.

Cheers,

Mark.

Looks to me like at least three different planes and variations in thr national insignia. The Cartoon is in the "Vega style" and would be close to the Disney stutios. suggesting that it bedates the movement to Tulsa but after the selection of the airframe for the program. ( by the nature of the cartoon cations).

The YB-40 with the blunt end of the decking has the star aft the waist window while the XB-40 has it forward.

There are also pictures in the Mighty Eighth of undersize bars added to the aft position stars after the 92 Bg parceled out to the other BGs.

Another question you may have the answer to is the RCN or c/n number stenciled on the radio room bulk head Without going back three bages is it 743?... and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Phil, I had spotted the differences for the XB-40, and have excluded that type by opening the forward stbd waist enclosure.

Thanks Mark I have found that website and spent a lot of time looking at B-40s there.

Before I move on here are some more photos of the waist guns.

YB40Guns004.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...