• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

A B-17F wanted

H

Helldiver

Charter Member 09
All you young kids play with B-17 Gs. When it was the B-17 Fs that carried the load.
The Gs were 5,000 pounds heavier because of the useless, ugly, chin guns and addition of needless armor.
Look at all the movies, The War Lover and 12 O'Clock High. Do you ever see any Gs flying? Nope.
The Gs came out by the time the work had been done.
Lets get back to how the war was won using B-17 Fs. It's a much better looking plane.
It could fly faster, carry a bigger bomb load and went further.
 
:icon_lol: The historic paints , my absolute colour photo would be 'Idiots Delight ' from the mid section 'B-17 at War' you must remember the late model 'F's did come with the chin turret , but without the long plexiglass nose sure was a pretty one :salute:
 
B-17G > B-17F (and prior)

The chin turret finally made the Fortress easy on the eyes.
 
View attachment 58373
I had several Revell B-17F plastic kits as a kid growing up with Col. Gallagher and the 918th.
Better looking & better paint opportunites.:kilroy:

And without the chin turret, the kits were less defensible against the Crosman BB gun after the inevitable Mom knocking them off the shelf or the family Dachshund taking revenge and reducing a Fortress to scrap.
 
I think the best way to compare , is the Olive drab weather worn jobbies painted by Jan Kees and Mike'blackhawk' over at A2A to start a compare .. i sorely go after the combat torn beauts both these paint to try and put an 'F' in my mind .
 
CP1207 said:
And without the chin turret, the kits were less defensible against the Crosman BB gun after the inevitable Mom knocking them off the shelf or the family Dachshund taking revenge and reducing a Fortress to scrap.
Click to expand...


This is critical....you might also add the death by flaming model glue that followed soon after.
 
I agree I would love to see a B-17F. I still use my port over of the WWII Heavy Bombers and Jets and she still fun to fly.
 
The B-17F is on top of my wish list. I also suggest that we are requesting it over at the A2A Forums.
Maybe they will consider the «F» if a lot of people are making a huge wish list :icon_lol:
 
Skyhawk18 said:
The B-17F is on top of my wish list. I also suggest that we are requesting it over at the A2A Forums.
Maybe they will consider the «F» if a lot of people are making a huge wish list :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

They could easily take the existing model and give it a tweek here, a tweek there, a tweek down under the chin, and in no time at all it'll be all F'ed up. :icon_lol:
 
Since we're submitting B-17 wish list entries, how about a B-17D? Now there's a pretty ship right there. :)
 
I think for A2A it isn't so much that they can't build it or don't want to. It is a matter of having access to one to record and measure it...as well as time, money, manpower, other projects...etc. From Wiki it says there is 1 B-17F flying, so you would have to pay for Scott or whovers expenses to go to wherever it is located, then pay the B-17 owners. Would have to pay even more $$$ if they actually turn on the engines or even fly it to record systems and flight data...especially since there are performance differences from the G model. That one thing makes accusim so cool is that is all based on real world recorded data/sounds..etc.

Agree with Paul...the straight tail early models were beautiful, especially in their polished aluminum pre war liveries.

Cheers
TJ
 
Now this is a hard core, dedicated flightsim topic. True simmers reliving the real world, in their realm of virtual reality. I love it. I'll bring my rivet counter! :salute::icon_lol::sleep:
 
It wouldn't take all of that, just to replicate the 15-25 mph or so difference in airspeed/performance between a B-17F without chin turret, and a B-17 with chin turret - essentially the same airframe, with a different nose, different top turret (depending on model of F/G), and different tail turret (depending on model of F/G) - all of the major systems/engines are the same, the only difference in mechanics/flight characteristics is that of a bit more drag and a bit more weight.

The "B-17F" described as airworthy/flying, is likely that of the "Movie Memphis Belle", which is a B-17G that was modified to look like a B-17F. There are no true B-17F's flying today, though the operation of one would be no different than a B-17G - you would just notice a bit more airspeed in your favor, at the same cruise settings (that, and instead of a single automatic boost control dial, you have four individual turbo/blower levers in most all F-models).

I'm just saying that the matter of recreating performance/model changes to build an F-model can't be the reason why A2A hasn't made one - it certainly has more to do with the ability to have a B-17F focused product that sells well, after already having a B-17G on the market. It just so happens, that no matter what the history may or may not have been, it is the "G" that is the type that is most commonly seen/recognized today, because of those that remain flying and active all over the country (and it is "G's" that you see in "The War Lover" ; )). The same can be said about the P-51B and P-51D - everyone knows the D-model shape and design, with so many of the surviving Mustangs being the -D, with very few B's around, so there naturally seems to be a lot more 'love' for the D's, as that is the one so many more people recognize - where as it was the P-51B that went faster and possibly saw heavier action.
 
I'm with Paul - I have long wanted a detailed and accurate reproduction of a B-17C/D - I've always had a thing for the "shark-tail" variants. In the position of being able to make one if I wanted to, it comes down to factoring in available time and what the eventual return for the effort would be. To most, I'd assume, one B-17 is enough, no matter the model type - that is to say what most probably feel. For me personally, I'd much rather spend that time on the P-39 I'm currently focused on, or other things like a Yak-3/9, or bubble-top P-47D, etc., though that doesn't take away from how nice it would be to see one of these in FSX.

060515-F-1234S-016.jpg
 
With the chin turret on the G model moving the C.G. forward a bit, the G was easier to trim, and less tiring to fly.
As for other versions, how about the postwar SAR, testbeds, bug spraying, and the occasional foreign airforce?
 
Tim, this product covers that rather well: http://www.skyunlimited.net/id3_b17g.htm
(I was rather surprised that that product didn't include an F-model)

One of the testbed examples would be very cool! Though there would a good deal of modifying from the original design, as the entire cockpit section was moved back a number of feet.
 
True, I am sure projected interest plays a part of it. Potential interest vs the workload, time/$$ spent...etc Tho the sheer depth they measure aircraft, each variant is a major peice of work.

You look at the Spitfire I & II package, they modelled each subtle difference, systems, engine outputs, propellers, fluid viscosities and pressures...etc of the Ia, IIa, and IIb. They also have a Mk V in the works. Who knows what sub-variants of the Mk V will be done. I would bet they will or already have researched all the subtle and major differences of the Mk V. The first accusim spitfire package has been out for a little over a year or so, and the mk v is still little ways out. So for all the time it will take to model the differences between the Mk I&II, and the Mk V, would it ultimately be worth it, especially if its released after the very much anticipated P-51? Who knows, time will tell, but it certianly is a lot of work and research to do the Mk V with that extreme level of detail that A2A always does.

A while ago I had asked the folks at A2A about the possibility of a Spitfire Mk IX as had a few other folks. We were all told essentially it would requie a lot of work and it was unlikely in the forseeable future with all the other projects on the plate.

That being said, visually, a B-17F might require some simple modelling and performance from the G but just with all the system depth that accusim entails, practically every single minute difference would be researched and modelled. Thats just what accusim does. If they make one, I would be the in line to buy it too :)
 
Most people don't realize this, but an early model B-17 of the 1930's had a hand...or crash, as it were...in the development of the checklist. It seems a Boeing test pilot was in a big hurry to do a flight demo for some government mucky-mucks and forgot to release the gust locks. He crashed and burned right there in front of everyone. This was the Big Mistake that broke the camels back, and checklists were developed. Up until then, aviation was big on remembering everything by rote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top