Fortress I 90 Sqd RAF

[Chuck1945]

I started this project for a previous group build and got as far as getting the fuselage halves together. Perhaps this time I can actually make some significant progress

Currently I am also on a Spitfire kick with two finished this year, one ready for paint and another underway. Considering I have been lucky to complete 2 models a year the last 4-5 years, hopefully I can improve my track record and also get the Fortess done in time.

My first choice would have been '909' from the new Revell kit, but it has not yet appeared in the US and apparently the box size makes it oversized if shipped from England with postage being more than the kit.

[Kostucha]

Chuck, I'm certainly hoping to see this B-17C! And as a rarely seen Fortress I as well!

Cheers!

Mark.

[Chuck1945]

Here is the fuselage and a profile of the first B-17C (Fortress I) to fly a combat mission.

[Kostucha]

That is certainly a unique paint scheme, and it'll be a fun build to watch as well.

How much are you planning on building within the interior?

Cheers,

Mark.

[Chuck1945]

I added a bulkead to separate the radio compartment from the rear fuselage and put in the stringers along and around the sides, none of which is visible once the fuselage halves were joined. The original plan was to also do the necessary surgery to the kit so that the lower gunner gondola would actually be accessible, but in the end I opted to not bother since it too would be invisible once assembled. My goal is to actually finish it this time around and not stall out trying to add too much detail.

[stevehnz]

Chuck, what decals are you using? I have that book, a kit of the Academy B-17C/D on the way & some decals from Rising for this model which I picked up from Modelimex. Eventually, I want to do this same plane. I was interested that Rising give the top colours as Dark Slate Grey/Extra Dark Sea Grey whereas the Allied Wings scheme is Dark Green/Dark Earth. I'd welcome some clarification. The picture of WP-F on apge 24 does not suggest the DG/DE scheme but I'm well leery of trying to interpret black & white photos.

Steve.

[Chuck1945]

I am not sure what markings I will be using. I have that Rising sheet, also one by Usk (a now defunct distributor who used to be located not all that far from me in the tiny town of Usk Washington, perhaps 50-75 miles south of the Canadian border) that also has markings for AN526/G and also AN530/F and was the first Fortress to collect a Luftaffe bullet. Between all the various generic code letter and serial decal sheets I have accumulated, I could actually do any of the Fortress I aircraft. The ironic thing about AN526/G is that while it was the first to take off on what was the first B-17 offensive mission of WWII, its bombs missed the target and it never flew another operational sortie (according to that book at least).

Paul Lucas did an article for Military Aircraft Modeller perhaps three years ago in which he postulated that the 90 Sqd Fortress's went through several paint schemes, including the DE/DG and since 2 Group was doing anti-shipping stuff with its Blenheims also the Temperate Sea Scheme for upper surfaces. I think he suggested a couple of others as well, but ... I thought I had scanned the article but when I started gathering my references again to restart this project, I did not have it scanned. Hopefully it wont require too much archaeology to find the magazine again.

Barring some convincing evidence to the contrary, my Fortress will be DE/DG with PRU Blue sides and undersurfaces. At least the PRU Blue seems to pretty well be established as the underside color with Geoff Thomas verifying it with the wreckage of the one shot down over Norway. Even though this has also been identified as Deep Sky (Rupert Jones), Thomas' ID from actual remains leads me to think whatever the color may have been called in 1941, PRU Blue will work for the model.

[Shawn M]

love seeing another RAF bird!

[stevehnz]

Paul Lucas did an article for Military Aircraft Modeller perhaps three years ago in which he postulated that the 90 Sqd Fortress's went through several paint schemes, including the DE/DG and since 2 Group was doing anti-shipping stuff with its Blenheims also the Temperate Sea Scheme for upper surfaces. I think he suggested a couple of others as well, but ... I thought I had scanned the article but when I started gathering my references again to restart this project, I did not have it scanned. Hopefully it wont require too much archaeology to find the magazine again.

Barring some convincing evidence to the contrary, my Fortress will be DE/DG with PRU Blue sides and undersurfaces. At least the PRU Blue seems to pretty well be established as the underside color with Geoff Thomas verifying it with the wreckage of the one shot down over Norway. Even though this has also been identified as Deep Sky (Rupert Jones), Thomas' ID from actual remains leads me to think whatever the color may have been called in 1941, PRU Blue will work for the model.

The MAM volume is still available as a back issue from their website, I'm waiting on one just now. I expect to feel confused once I've read it but think that, like you, I'll eventually go with DG/DE/PRU as the most likely finish. Seeing as these aircraft were never anticipated to be used in a low level role, I can't see why they would have been painted in what was to all intents & purposes (TSS) a low level camo scheme. But, that is pure supposition.

Steve

[Chuck1945]

For me, researching an aircraft, unit or aircrew is often more interesting than actually building the resultant model. In the case of the Fortress I, what strikes me most is how totally unsuitable for actual combat the early Fortresses actually were.

In spite of a nominal strength of 18 aircraft (two of the 20 B-17Cs were lost in accidents before combat missions actually began), 90 Sqd was usually not able to get more than four aircraft aloft for a mission and, typically, at least one of those would be forced to return due to mechanical difficulties of some sort. At altitude (30,000 - 32,000 feet), the machine guns were usually frozen and in-operable and there was no armor for the crew. When the aircraft actually reached their target, more often than not, it was obscured by cloud and when it was not the Sperry bombsights were never set properly for high altitude bomb runs. No wonder the RAF decided high altitude "precision" bombing as advocated by the USAAC was a lost cause.

[Kostucha]

For me, researching an aircraft, unit or aircrew is often more interesting than actually building the resultant model. In the case of the Fortress I, what strikes me most is how totally unsuitable for actual combat the early Fortresses actually were.

In spite of a nominal strength of 18 aircraft (two of the 20 B-17Cs were lost in accidents before combat missions actually began), 90 Sqd was usually not able to get more than four aircraft aloft for a mission and, typically, at least one of those would be forced to return due to mechanical difficulties of some sort. At altitude (30,000 - 32,000 feet), the machine guns were usually frozen and in-operable and there was no armor for the crew. When the aircraft actually reached their target, more often than not, it was obscured by cloud and when it was not the Sperry bombsights were never set properly for high altitude bomb runs. No wonder the RAF decided high altitude "precision" bombing as advocated by the USAAC was a lost cause.

I agree with you 110% on the researching of the a/c, unit or crews. I found with LMM, there were a lot of riddles. With each answer, came 2 more questions. I've got most of the information I need, and yet, there are still many, many questions left unanswered. But the great thing is, sharing that information. Maybe when I'm a little older and some young wipper-snapper shows up looking do do the same thing, they'll stumble on the information and say "Sweet!", much like I've done on many occations in the past.

As for what you wrote about the Fortress I information you've collected... that is really interesting stuff. Makes a lot of sense as to why they might have abandoned the "precision" bombing.

Cheers!

Mark.

[stevehnz]

My copy of MAM arrived today, good service. I haven't read the whole article in its entirety yet but I can feel indecision creeping in. I don't specially want another TSS scheme as I have a Fortress IIa to do (Academy one). But really like the PRU undersides. Then again, the earliest scheme of DG/DE/Sky would be attractive too & the Rising Decals cover this. Decisions, decisions.

Steve.

[Chuck1945]

Disaster strikes!

Decided it was time to get back to work on this and finish masking the clear parts. The fuselage was assembled and when I started to mask one of the waist windows, it began to collapse into the fuselage. I stopped as soon as I felt it start to give way. Hopefully a loop of tape on the window will allow me to hold it back in position to attempt a re-glue, this time using Tamiya Extra Thin instead of the white glue used originally. Unfortunately, if I try too hard to apply the loop, all I will accomplish is making sure the window falls into the fuselage completely. ARGH ;)

[Ranger74]

Disaster strikes!

Decided it was time to get back to work on this and finish masking the clear parts. The fuselage was assembled and when I started to mask one of the waist windows, it began to collapse into the fuselage. I stopped as soon as I felt it start to give way. Hopefully a loop of tape on the window will allow me to hold it back in position to attempt a re-glue, this time using Tamiya Extra Thin instead of the white glue used originally. Unfortunately, if I try too hard to apply the loop, all I will accomplish is making sure the window falls into the fuselage completely. ARGH ;)

I have that B17C kit. Can't recall without pulling it out of the stash, but does the clear part have a thin bit of frame oround the outside? If yes, try a couple small backing plates on inside of opening to support the windoe from behind. It thay are small enough they shouldn't be visible looking through the window on the opposite side.

Jeff

[Chuck1945]

The tape wouldn't stick well enough to firmly hold the window back in place so I went ahead and pushed it out. On the downside, the window opening seems to bevelled so as to fit the window from the inside. I will use Ranger74's suggestion (not there are many other options) since there is an outer frame. If it looks as though this will work, I will also push out the other waist window and give it the same treatment to prevent possibility of subsequent problems.