B-17

Link: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...lying-Fortress

Wish it was larger -- I'd make it wall art.

For some very useful detail there is a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Owners Workshop Manual by Haynes Manuals, (they do other things as well as car maintenance manuals).

Ray

Steve P

That is certainly a visually stunning drawing!

However, I believe there may be some issues regarding minor fuselage outlines and one fuselage x- section seems "off" to me. I believe photos will likely clarify and if wrong, easily correctable. Biggest issue maybe the with wing airfoils shown?

According to: https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/aircraft.html correct Boeing B-17airfoils are N.A.C.A. 0018 at root, with 0010 at tip which are full symetrical sections.

Any thoughts, comments, corrections??

Always important to have enough power.......take your B17 and add a P&W XT-34 Turboprop on the nose...It's ALWAYS a good idea to give your machine one engine that has more power than the other 4 combined......WHO CARES if it makes it look silly.....it'll hover now....




Some files for those interested....one zip file for all.

Aerodata International № 08 - Flying Fortress B-17G
Squadron Signal 1012 B-17
Squadron Signal 1063 B-17 Flying Fortress (Special)
Squadron Signal 5516 B-17 Flying Fortress
Squadron Signal 6561 B-17 Flying Fortress in color
Walkaround No.16 - B-17 Flying Fortress

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bba4fq3hlhu70r/b17.7z?dl=0

packardpursuit, sorry about the delay in my response -- my wife thought it would be nice to take her daughter and our grand-twins to Universal Studios in Florida for Christmas, and of course I agreed. For better or worse. Anyway, the small size of the drawing I submitted was suitable for general layout, but a larger drawing should have more accurate details. I would always try to refer to factory drawings for airfoil details but for modelling purposes I can resize the drawing to a size I need.

Steve-Happy wife =Happy life!

Drawing accuracy, I've found, not necessarily a critical factor of the image's published size. A smaller drawing has every opportunity to shine as well as any larger format, given that the data each contains is accurate. A renderer has certainly more room to add/expand on detail, in a larger context!

Bell has certainly drawn a variety of types and I've always enjoyed his drawings and plans. IIRC, he is also quite a scale modeler of FF Rubber and solid display models.

The Wylam B-17G drawings ...

Steve,

Thanks for posting Wylam's effort. GREAT to see it, again. I'll be giving it real going over/comparing dimensions, etc., soon. In a cursory review, I think his fuselage sections, particularly "C" is more correct than same section location given on Bell's effort. Wylam also appears to show more correct aifoil(s), though not quite full symetrical. I'm wondering it could be a a bit of an illusion? Since the airfoils shown is referenced to a level chord line, as opposed to neutral chamber line (at high angle of incidence)?

charlie

That drawing in post #3----one major error : The wing section was a full symmetrical, not semi as shown.

flyboyken

You might be interested in what was indicated in post#5?

The attached drawing has better details of the wing root of a B-17G.

Originally Posted by Steve_P.

The attached drawing has better details of the wing root of a B-17G.

that's still not right. As mentioned before, the airfoil on the B-17 (all variants) was symmetrical.

and the wylam drawing, though a bit better shows a full round fuselage cross section at station A, but it is not. It has a flat on the bottom for the development of the flat plexiglass nose window for the Norden Bombsight.

Back in post#1, the drawing shows a symmetrical airfoil, at root. I believe this drawing is a "factory 3-view" , showing rather typical industry style and format common during WWII years.