HK B-17 Accuracy issues?

[A340 Pilot]

Hmmm... Further study reveals that the extra "Tokyo Tanks" were installed just outboard of the standard furl tanks, and not in the outer wing panels. They will most likely be vented through the common tank vents.

 

Another ref: Aero Detail 19 B-17 G has a plan view drawing where the U-shaped vent is indicated as "De-icing Hot Air Outlets". The early "G"'s had De-icing boots installed. These were frequently removed when reaching the E.T.O. and M.T.O. as they could be damaged by enemy fire and cause control problems. Later "G"'s were delivered without boots, so probably they had Hot Air De-icing systems installed in the wing leading edges. The hot air would warm up the leading edges and be dumped overboard via the wing tip vents. The cover of the book has a painting of "A Bit O'Lace". Albeit a painting, it shows the early 2-slot vents and no de-ice boots. It should be relatively easy to determine by photos whether the planes had De-Ice Boots, and, consequently, no vents, or bare metal leading edges, indicating the existence of vents. But it isn't! And my list of production block modifications does not list or mention the installation of a hot air de-icing system at all. 

 

Stein

Edited September 16, 2013 by A340 Pilot

[Juggernut]

There are nine Tokyo tanks in each wing of the B-17G (and most F's as well). They extended from just outboard of the #1 and #4 engines to well into the removable wing section but not all the way to the tip. Everything I can find tells me that these tanks were vented by the regular vent system so the premise that the vents in the outer wing tips are/were Tokyo tank vents is probably false. I'm guilty of calling them Tokyo tank vents as I did not verify their purpose before jumping on the band wagon. I have a question out to a contact who is more knowledgeable than I am about this airplane and I asked as to the purpose of these vents. I will post here when I get an answer.
 

EDIT:  From reading this forum http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113305-B-17-Wing-Tip-Vents-fit-date, I have discovered (or more appropriately, read) something that I had a feeling I would find.  It seems that the vents in the wing tips are vents for the Tokyo tanks but not in the conventional sense of the term.  There are no vent tubes from the tanks to the vents in the outboard wings.  The vents are just holes in the wings whereby fumes from any spilled or leaking fuel would be vented overboard.  Subject to verification (but it looks very plausible), it seems that these vents were field modifications at first and then incorporated into production which in at least one photo there are bare metal vents on a camouflaged aircraft (red wingtips).  Here's a tidbit of information about the fuel the B-17's carried from what I remember from A&P school.  At the altitude at which these aircraft flew, the fuel would boil away if exposed to ambient air (due to lack of air pressure).  Consequently, if fuel did leak into the wings, it would turn to vapor very quickly even though the ambient temp is -57 degrees F (or thereabouts).  If the tank were ruptured and liquid fuel got into the wing, it would not have much time to slosh around before turning to vapor.  Fuel vapor is what burns, not the fuel itself...strange but true.  The vapor pressure has to be low enough to permit fuel to vaporize, then it will burn very easily.  If the vapor pressure is too high, the fuel won't burn as easily.  That is why it was so imperative to exhaust those fumes from the wings.

As far as I'm aware, all B-17G's were delivered from the factory with deicer boots in two places on each wing, both horizontal stabs and the vertical stab. There is no indication of a hot air anti-icing system in the wings of any kind in any source I own. There is no ductwork in the wings or tailplanes for such a system nor any means to control/regulate the use of any such system. Below is a very late B-17G (B-17G-105-BO, s/n 43-39119) and you can see it still has the deice boots fitted.



REF for the above photo: Drendal, Lou. 1998. Walk Around. B-17 Flying Fortress. Walk Around No. 16. Squadron/Signal Publications. TX. p.51

Edited September 16, 2013 by TimC

[superfly]

Are those frickin' V1 rockets slung underneath that B-17?......I'm looking to see if there are any V1's in 1/32 scale.

[Juggernut]

The photo is definitely post war in Europe but the exact date of the photo is not listed.  The caption says that it was used to drop the Loons (V-1's allied name) over Utah in 1945.

Edited September 16, 2013 by TimC

[superfly]

LSP member ericg is developing a master for his 1/32 Flying Bomb...I'm not sure if he is ready for production...But I think these would be great as JB-1's!

I might consider a post was B-17g...OR.....a "What If" plane?

[Gauge1]

LSP member ericg is developing a master for his 1/32 Flying Bomb...I'm not sure if he is ready for production...But I think these would be great as JB-1's!

I might consider a post was B-17g...OR.....a "What If" plane?

 

Something else I have been debating for my B-17 is to modify it for post war fire fighting with department of forestry, a drop tanker

[Guest Nigelr32]

With reference to post #282, thanks Tim!!  Very informative.

 

I have discovered a couple of kit inaccuracies around the Bomb Bay area. The door from the cockpit is portrayed as opening into the cockpit, whereas it should open into the bay. The diagonal braces are wrong on the central spine, along with the long diagonals which reach up to the doors, they should be one straight piece each. The front end of the central spine "Steps out" over some moulded on plumbing, this is incorrect. There is no framework exposed on the lower half of the rear bulkhead, whereas there should be.

 

I will post later hoipefully with some pictures to show you all what i've been doing. it all looks a bit like a complete scratchbuild if i'm honest!!

 

Edit.. The doors are also too wide.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Nigelr32

[Juggernut]

OMG, is this what the HK radio room gun really looks like when it's installed (minus the Ka Models detail up parts)?  If so, this is so far off from being anywhere near accurate its' almost mind-boggling...the K6 gun mount is missing entirely!  I'm left shaking my head in wonderment at how something so obvious could be overlooked or ignored.  It would've been easier to just make a clear cover and leave the gun completely out of the kit.  It would've meant that we had fewer options to build from but we could've claimed the gun was removed in a field modification (which they actually were and which I may do anyway with a small blanking plate across the hole).   I gotta start making a list of aftermarket things and/or corrections that this kit NEEDS to be a complete B-17G of any kind.  Sorry to be such a negative Nellie but holy crap, this is getting more involved by the day and the corrections are starting to pile up.  This thing is gonna take me a year to get sorted out, corrected, built and finished. Oh and look at the shape of the HK radio room cover as opposed to the real item.... there's an unnecessary curve in the HK part that doesn't exist on the real thing.  Oh how I wished they'd have used the Monogram kit and improved upon it while upsizing it.  I think that unless they release an early B-17G, this will be my one and only 1/32 B-17.  I'm just not up for the disappointment that I'm experiencing in the current kit (and I still like it but not as much as I did when I first ordered it).

 

 

This is what it should look like:

 

Edited September 17, 2013 by TimC

[GaryW]

OMG, is this what the HK radio room gun really looks like when it's installed (minus the Ka Models detail up parts)?  If so, this is so far off from being anywhere near accurate its' almost mind-boggling...the K6 gun mount is missing entirely!  I'm left shaking my head in wonderment at how something so obvious could be overlooked or ignored.  It would've been easier to just make a clear cover and leave the gun completely out of the kit.  It would've meant that we had fewer options to build from but we could've claimed the gun was removed in a field modification (which they actually were and which I may do anyway with a small blanking plate across the hole).   I gotta start making a list of aftermarket things and/or corrections that this kit NEEDS to be a complete B-17G of any kind.  Sorry to be such a negative Nellie but holy crap, this is getting more involved by the day and the corrections are starting to pile up.  This thing is gonna take me a year to get sorted out, corrected, built and finished. Oh and look at the shape of the HK radio room cover as opposed to the real item.... there's an unnecessary curve in the HK part that doesn't exist on the real thing.  Oh how I wished they'd have used the Monogram kit and improved upon it while upsizing it.  I think that unless they release an early B-17G, this will be my one and only 1/32 B-17.  I'm just not up for the disappointment that I'm experiencing in the current kit (and I still like it but not as much as I did when I first ordered it).

 

 

Hi Tim

 

Not sure where you got that pic of the HKM gun (KA Models ?) but this is what it looks like when I built it out of the box (well the barrel is after market but the mount and receiver is OOB)

 

One question I did have is where is the ammo stored/fed for this gun ? In the picture of the actual thing I can't see any obvious ammo feed belts etc.

 

[Guest Nigelr32]

I notice that LMM has pictures taken with the gun not exposed, so I'm guessing she either had her gun deleted or on the fold away mount?

 

Do you have any pics from a similar angle of a field mod deletion Tim?

 

I found another very small error tonight, the doors in the various bulkheads are too wide and are all depicted as opening the wrong way. Another very small error in the kit that people may or may not want to correct.

[Guest Nigelr32]

Nice build going on there Gary!!  If you look at the Eduard Radio room section instructions on my review you will see the ammo box and belt supplied with that set.

 

Here is the actual sheet

 

 

I'm sure a man with your skill can build it from scratch??

[superfly]

Ughh!....Remember the final scene of Raider's of the Lost Ark....where the Ark is crated up and wheeled away in the vast warehouse full of other classified items...to be stored away and locked up forever????.....Well thats what my stash closet looks like....and thats where this is going!!!

 

Haha just kidding....I'll still work on it. Its still looks nice completed..

Edited September 17, 2013 by superfly

[Juggernut]

Hi Tim

 

Not sure where you got that pic of the HKM gun (KA Models ?) but this is what it looks like when I built it out of the box (well the barrel is after market but the mount and receiver is OOB)

 

One question I did have is where is the ammo stored/fed for this gun ? In the picture of the actual thing I can't see any obvious ammo feed belts etc.

 

rWhew, that was a scary thought for a minute. I'm glad the kit is better than what I saw on the Ka Models website.

[GaryW]

Nice build going on there Gary!!  If you look at the Eduard Radio room section instructions on my review you will see the ammo box and belt supplied with that set.

 

Here is the actual sheet

 

 

I'm sure a man with your skill can build it from scratch??

 

Cool, thanks Nigel, so the ammo box is attached to the starboard wall. I might just re-purpose one of the now spare ammo belts from the spurious ball turret ammo boxes supplied by HKM and see what I can come up with. The Eduard sets are nice but as I'm assembling this model I'm realizing just how little of this all will be seen once the model is sealed up.

 

Its great (and enjoyable/rewarding) to be as accurate as possible but I'm trying to be a bit more practical these days with where I put extra effort in each model.

 

cheers

Gary

[Juggernut]

What's the history of this gun placement?

 

The gun was an original design and incorporated on the earlier B-17's and followed through until almost the end of the war. 

 

1) Was it readily used like the other gun placements?

 

Yes, the radio operator used this gun and when manned I'm certain it was used.  I don't know how effective it really was but owing to the fact that it was removed from B-17's in the later war period, I'm thinking that it really wasn't as effective as the other gun positions.  The radio room gun had a limited field of fire and the attacking aircraft would almost have to dive straight down on the fortress for the gunner to train the gun.

 

2) During the war did they ever do away/remove it completely?

 

Yes, the gun was left on the ground (or not used) in some instances but I don't know if it was mandatory that the gun be removed.  I have just read a post from a former crewmember of a B-17 in the 15th AF, the gun was in his B-17 until the end of hostilities.  In essence, what was done in the 8th USAAF may or may not have been done in the other 14 USAAF's.  There may be an order someplace in the SHAEF/USAAC files that mandated removal of the gun as being redundant but I haven't seen it as of yet.  The gun and the ammunition weigh more than 100 lbs. and that means if the gun/ammo are removed, it translates to more useful load for something else (like more ammo for the other guns).  Boeing eventually removed the gun from production during the B-17G-105-BO production block (which was one of the final production blocks).  I have seen photos of cheek guns removed and the gunports faired over and going on that, I imagine that the radio room gun may have gotten the same treatment (for those guns enclosed in the hatch and using the K6 gunmount.  Exactly when the removal of the radio room gun was effected I do not know but I'm thinking that it was after air superiority had been declared and the Luftwaffe was a shadow of what it was.  I think that would be late 1944 or early 1945. 

 

3) Was the gun placement part of the original design/development?

 

Yes but I believe the earliest versions were 30 caliber instead of 50 caliber.

Edited September 19, 2013 by TimC