Prop Duster Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 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. Most impressive work on the waist guns. small question, as you used lead for the amo boxs, is there a danger of tail sitting in future? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Phil marchese Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) As near as I can tell, only the XB-40 had the semi-retractable ball. I presume you already have all of this information, but just in case:42-5732 327BS/92BG 42-5733 327BS/92BG UX-F PEORIA PROWLER 322BS/91BG LG-T 42-5734 327BS/92BG UX-D SEYMOUR ANGEL 323BS/91BG OR-R RED BALLOON 42-5735 327BS/92BG UX-B WANGO WANGO MIA 6/22/43 Only YB-40 lost in action 42-5736 327BS/92BG UX-C TAMPA TORNADO 359BS/303BG BN-Q 524BS/379BG WA-P 42-5737 327BS/92BG UX-X DAKOTA DEMON 360BS/303BG PU-D 42-5738 327BS/92BG UX-G BOSTON TEA PARTY 42-5739 327BS\92BG UX-J LUFKIN RUFFIAN 427BS/303BG GN-D 545BS/384BG JD-P 42-5740 327BS/92BG UX-E MONTICELLO 42-5741 327BS/92BG UX-H CHICAGO 401BS/91BG LL-Y GUARDIAN ANGEL 42-5742 327BS/92BG UX-L PLAIN DEALING EXPRESS 42-5743 327BS/92BG UX-M WOOLAROC 42-5744 327BS-92BG UX-A DOLLIE MADISON These were the YB-40's that were actually sent to England. This infromation comes from Roger Freeman's "The B-17 Flying Fortress Story". Geez, this looked better in WORD! Same source: One from the second run of YB-40 also went to England, but not sure if it was used for evaluation or operations; and if it lacked the mid-ship turret (probably did). See Page 113, 42-5919, still 237 BS/ 92 BG ( UX-N) Jun 28 43 Alconbury; TRSF July 22 Bovington; RTN US to Wright Mat Div suggesting delevopment or testing of improvement for G series or TB-40. Later Patterson then (RTU )at Mc Cord and Grenier. RFC post war (Jan 24, 1946) A picture of this one would be interesting one of a kind in 92 BG markings. Page 117 Forttress in the Sky shows a Vega/UAL TB- 17 ala TB-YB-40 ( see FF STORY page 114 at 42-5964) another plane in excess of the Tulsa second batch yet a chin turreted VE. June 3, 1943 ( pre B-24H). Pyote and Walla Walla Jult 43 before 1944 BUs. Many of the second dozen or bakers'dozen are at FF Story, pages 111, 112, and mainly 113 plus the odd example at 114 discussed above. See also AAF Study 62 on the mod centers appendices under 1943 Douglas Tulsa. Edited January 22, 2011 by Phil marchese Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theplasticsurgeon Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Most impressive work on the waist guns.small question, as you used lead for the amo boxs, is there a danger of tail sitting in future? Is this a test?? This plane is a tail-dragger. Edited April 16, 2011 by theplasticsurgeon Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I was thinking the same thing... Steve... are you messing with us? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Prop Duster Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Is this a test??This plane has a tail-wheel. & I was thinking the same thing... Steve... are you messing with us? ME?!?!?! Nope, never happen, hun-uh :o I'll go over here and be quiet now Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Prop Duster Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) OK to apologize, for the above silly, I give you this link: about another kind of WWII era tail sitter -thats still working! Click here Edited January 20, 2011 by Prop Duster Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theplasticsurgeon Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Finally managed to get the fuselage together at the weekend: That resin mount for the additional turret isn't permanently fitted yet. Then got the wings on last night. A bit of tidying up now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Phil marchese Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'm lookin at pg 24 of the Flying Fortress Story; Freeman With (sic) Osborne. The lower picture of the YB-40 is at a much different angle than your build. That makes it hard to tell the turret location exactly. The XB-40 there is at a similar angle. The one posted above, with the turret partially under the cove, the turret is in amuch different position relative to the radio room window, don't you think? I want to look att some more pictures of the YB-40 at different angles, but it seems there are some differences in the XB-40 postion and that on the YB-40 model. Now the question arises, "Did the XB-40 and the YB-40 have the turret in different locations in addition to the different streamlining? " That is a question I'd like to get clarified for my own edification.* None the less, your conversion piece is nicely blended into the the B-17 kit. Nice work. * Wonder if craftsmen at Paragon know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Phil marchese Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'm lookin at pg 24 of the Flying Fortress Story; Freeman With (sic) Osborne. The lower picture of the YB-40 is at a much different angle than your build. That makes it hard to tell the turret location exactly. The XB-40 there is at a similar angle. The one posted above, with the turret partially under the cove, the turret is in amuch different position relative to the radio room window, don't you think? I want to look att some more pictures of the YB-40 at different angles, but it seems there are some differences in the XB-40 postion and that on the YB-40 model. Now the question arises, "Did the XB-40 and the YB-40 have the turret in different locations in addition to the different streamlining? " That is a question I'd like to get clarified for my own edification.* None the less, your conversion piece is nicely blended into the the B-17 kit. Nice work. * Wonder if craftsmen at Paragon know. I think I may have fihured this out. If the deck was designed for the Hasegawa kit, then the difference in location is a result of the decking error in that kit. Future users of the Paragon product with the newer kits may want to check for adjustments relative to the trailing edge of the wing and the radio room side windows. Continuing to watch this one with anticipation...should be working on mine I am reaally captured by this one. Been wanting to do one since I was 14 just never got it to the point of scrounging parts or now getting the conversion. Phil Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shawn M Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 looking good! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theplasticsurgeon Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 I think I may have fihured this out. If the deck was designed for the Hasegawa kit, then the difference in location is a result of the decking error in that kit. Future users of the Paragon product with the newer kits may want to check for adjustments relative to the trailing edge of the wing and the radio room side windows.Continuing to watch this one with anticipation...should be working on mine I am reaally captured by this one. Been wanting to do one since I was 14 just never got it to the point of scrounging parts or now getting the conversion. Phil Packaging for the Paragon conversion does specify the Academy kit. I dropped the model last night :( . Split the fuselage joint at the top, in a clean break at the seam. Cemented it back together and it looks OK again now. Heavy battle damage - but another Fortress returns to the fray. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shawn M Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 oh no! at least you got it back together and the resin wasn't on it...that could have been a disaster. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Prop Duster Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Packaging for the Paragon conversion does specify the Academy kit.I dropped the model last night :( . Split the fuselage joint at the top, in a clean break at the seam. Cemented it back together and it looks OK again now. :D Heavy battle damage - but another Fortress returns to the fray. B) They built 'em to take punishment and be repaired, as you now have so ably demonstrated. I find your progress both informative and illustrative. Thanks Edited January 28, 2011 by Prop Duster Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 They built 'em to take punishment and be repaired, as you now have so ably demonstrated. I find your progress both informative and illustrative. Thanks I thought the same thing reading this! Tim, I'm glad you managed to get it back together. Going through the pics, it's looking really good! Great work on the build so far mate! Mark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theplasticsurgeon Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 State of play today. Fitted the tail position. A lot of sanding and filling, and fitted the radio room resin casting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theplasticsurgeon Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 State of play today. Sanding and smoothing is complete - but top turret removed in the process. Repair will just require re-attachment. Outside in the winter sun for the first time ever Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Prop Duster Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 NICE work!! the smoothing of your filler looks top notch. :P Oh, sorry about the, I guess, fire in the cockpit and dorsal turret. Will it take long, ya think, to clear away that soot on the outside? :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Looking good. Is your filler metallic or something? All the parts have a sheen to them now which looks cool in a way. lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shawn M Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 looks like silver paint to check the finish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 looks like silver paint to check the finish That's probably it. Facepalm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Phil marchese Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 http://www.swannysmodels.com/YB40.html http://www.327th.org/327th-org/Greg/yb40history.htm http://www.aero-web.org/specs/boeing/yb-40.htm. Lockheed-Vega had the task of doing the conversion work on the Boeing B-17s, but only twenty YB-40s were made, as well as four training models known as the TB-40. (SIC) This was done on Vega airframes by Douglas Tulsa Modification center ( Source AAF Study 62, appendices on 1943 modification by type and by location.). http://www.usaaf.com/8thaf/bomber/92bg.HTM YB-50 (May 43 to Jul 43) (SIC) YB-40 http://wikimapia.org/1699357/Former-RAF-Al...AAF-Station-102 Also':At Alconbury, the group's 327th Bombardment Squadron became the only squadron to be equipped with the experimental YB-40 Fortress gunship from May through August, 1943. The YB-40 was developed to test the escort bomber concept. Because there were no fighters capable of escorting bomber formations on deep strike missions early in World War II, the USAAF tested heavily armed bombers to act as escorts and protect the bomb-carrying aircraft from enemy fighters. Twelve of the 22 B-17F bombers modified to the YB-40 configuration were dispatched to Alconbury f*or testing and evaluation. The YB-40 project failed because the aircraft were able to effectively defend only themselves, were too slow because of excess weight and drag to keep up with bomber formations returning from missions, and had basic flight characteristics altered by the added drag and centre of gravity changes resulting from the changes. After 14 operational missions, the 11 surviving YB-40's were taken out of combat service and returned to the United States. On 15 September 1943, the 92d BG was moved to RAF Podington (Station 109), near Wellingborough in Bedfordshire when the decision was made to take Alconbury off operational bombing missions and change the airfield's mission to pathfinder and radar-guided bombing with the 482d and 801st Bomb Groups. I believe the numbers ore actually 25 and and 14 respectively with 12 arriving of the first batch and one went from the second batch. I may be off by one by including the XB-40 in the 25. PCM Lockheed/Vega B-17G-10-VE Flying Fortress Serial 42-39958 of the 92d Bomb Group. This aircraft suffered severe damage during a mission to Hamburg Germany on 4 November 1944 attacking the Harburg oil complex. It was written off after it landed safely. YB-40 Project Its 327th became the only squadron to be equipped with the experimental YB-40 Fortress gunship from May through August, 1943. The YB-40 was developed to test the escort bomber concept. Because there were no fighters capable of escorting bomber formations on deep strike missions early in World War II, the USAAF tested heavily armed bombers to act as escorts and protect the bomb-carrying aircraft from enemy fighters. 12 of the 22 B-17F bombers modified to the YB-40 configuration were dispatched to Alconbury for testing and evaluation. ( see comment above) The YB-40 project failed because the aircraft were able to effectively defend only themselves, were too slow because of excess weight and drag to keep up with bomber formations returning from missions, and had basic flight characteristics altered by the added drag and centre of gravity changes resulting from the changes. After 14 operational missions, the 11 surviving YB-40's were taken out of combat service and returned to the United States. http://www.scottnelsonart.com/index.php?op...18&Itemid=5 http://www.327th.org/timsmodels.htm This appears to be a semi-fictious gaming site with some real 92 BG info: http://www.angelfire.com/ak3/DamselsandDue.../BombsAway.html Of special note: 40 B Bras - On Sale Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theplasticsurgeon Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Back in the game! Fitted the chin turret and engines yesterday - this is the Paragon resin part. Airbrushed the underside grey this morning: Upper surfaces are not ready for OD yet though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Right on! It's looking good for sure! Boy this is going to be one cool Fort! Cheers! Mark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shawn M Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 nice to see you bounce back after the ahem...."incident" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theplasticsurgeon Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Just to show that I've not been shot down - taken 5 mins ago: I've had the devils own job smoothing the joints on the upper fuselage - but it's done now. Hoping to mask and airbrush next weekend. I've acquired some numeral decals, which will enable me to build this aircraft: 25741 H*UX - note the side codes applied over the worn area of fuselage. Also this aircraft looks like a car that's been outside for a typical British summer! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.