# Fake B-26 photo?



## Thorlifter (Aug 20, 2016)

This photo seems to show a LOT of bombs exiting this B-26. Even if these were 250 pounders, I could at least 25-26 bombs in this photo, which would be over 6,000lbs of bombs. That's more than the Marauder could even carry.

What do you guys think?


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 20, 2016)

Also must be flying under radio control, where are the pilots? see attached photo, pilots seated inline with the medium stanchion



.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 20, 2016)

It's a ghost plane! That would certainly explain the infinite amount of bombs.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 20, 2016)

It's how we won the war boys! Ghost planes!


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 20, 2016)

Might explain why a certain thread was created long ago and i won't mention..............ever*!!!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 20, 2016)

Why Geo? Why? I thought we buried that one for good! I fear the worst!


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 20, 2016)

It is suspicious. The front bomb bay only had 20 stations.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 20, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> Why Geo? Why? I thought we buried that one for good! I fear the worst!



However deep we bury it, it always seems to come back...


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 20, 2016)

They also had 100lb bombs, pretty useful against vehicles and troops in the open.
It hard to size the bombs in the picture, but the 100 GP was less than 4 feet long, and kinda slim like the bombs pictured,

Also there's 100lb practice bombs in that era, but the bombs pictured look like they have nose fuses.

And as for the cockpit looking empty, at some angles the sun can hit a piece of glass, or Plexiglas, and it will reflect back like a mirror, you can't see thru it.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 21, 2016)

30 100lb bombs could be carried.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Aircraft/B-26_BombChart.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> Might explain why a certain thread was created long ago and i won't mention..............ever*!!!!!*


but you just DID!!


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 21, 2016)

Milosh said:


> 30 100lb bombs could be carried.
> http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Aircraft/B-26_BombChart.pdf



Thanks for the info Milosh. I was wondering what the bomb count was. My only thing is those certainly look larger than 100 pounders. And like WW2restorer pointed out, where is the pilot? Ooooooo, I know. He put the plane on auto pilot and he is now the bombadier.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 21, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> And as for the cockpit looking empty, at some angles the sun can hit a piece of glass, or Plexiglas, and it will reflect back like a mirror, you can't see thru it.


Looking at the photo and the background, it doesn't appear the sun is a problem.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 21, 2016)

I've seen various figures for bomb loads depending on variants and the B-26.com site says the aircraft could carry up to 4800lbs. _*if *_both bays were used and the above aircraft looks like only the forward bay is open, the below photo shows the aft bay

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 21, 2016)

These are the lengths of the 100lb. and 250lb. bombs...


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 21, 2016)

Another question for my observant friends here. Let's say the bombs are 100 pounders and it could carry this many. Given the distance of the bombs falling from the plane, wouldn't the first bomb out be farther behind the plane? It also appears the B-26 is really spitting those bombs out fast. Would the release mechanism work that fast?

I don't know why I'm so interested in this silly picture. I just think it's all kinds of wrong.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 21, 2016)

Trying to find something that mentions the lenght of the bomb bay, which, given the lengths of the above bombs, should tell which bombs are being dropped

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 21, 2016)

You da man Fubar! Thanks for your help!


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> Let's say the bombs are 100 pounders and it could carry this many. Given the distance of the bombs falling from the plane, wouldn't the first bomb out be farther behind the plane? .



No, I don't think so. Bombs obey the laws of physics just like everything else.







I think that the original photo does show 100lb bombs, I've seen it captioned that way. It has been fiddled with, but just how much I don't know.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 21, 2016)

Still can't find any freakin' bomb bay dimensions but I did find out about the aircraft in the first post. It was a B-26B-50-MA and belonged to the 387th BG, 556th BS of the Ninth Air Force. I also just read that the Ninth AF always had the rear bomb bays sealed on the B-26. Using Milosh's chart, it states that the forward bomb bay could carry only 20 100lb. bombs, less than shown in the photo


----------



## Wurger (Aug 21, 2016)

Here seen ten bombs for each.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 21, 2016)

If the photo is doctored, why would anyone bother to do it.

I'm sure it would really be worth it to frighten the Germans into thinking the B-26 could drop a lot of little bitty bombs.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 21, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> If the photo is doctored, why would anyone bother to do it.
> 
> I'm sure it would really be worth it to frighten the Germans into thinking the B-26 could drop a lot of little bitty bombs.



And doctored it is Tom. Here's another photo with the name of the aircraft uncensored...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2016)

It's a real photo, real bombs and all - it was taken during wartime so the personnel and noseart were censored.

The aircraft's noseart was "Shoot'in" and it's production block numer is B-26B-50-MA.

Here's the actual photo (censored, of course) that was released by the AAF.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 21, 2016)

Good on Dave but sure would like to know how they fit in 6 extra bombs


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2016)

It's a wartime photo...lol

They expected the Germans to see it.

So the actual load isn't going to be shown, but the 26 will keep 'em guessing! 

Also, it looks like several of the bottom bombs (perhaps about 16 of them) were "added"...


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 21, 2016)

I remember the A-26 at NKP in 1966 had adapters for the internal bomb bay to haul smaller bombs on the racks, several parafrags where one bomb normally hung. They may have been using something similar on 100 lb bombs on this B-26.
Parafrags were very high drag if carried on a external rack.


----------



## Airframes (Aug 21, 2016)

Very cunning stealth technology used with the aircrew - got the German's rather worried ..................


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2016)

Terry, you have a sharp eye for retouching...how many of those bombs seen in the release do you suppose have been added?

By the way, if the image I posted is clicked on, it expands to a much larger version...


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 21, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> If the photo is doctored, why would anyone bother to do i


its called propaganda, but I am sure 110% the allies never used such underhand tactics.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 21, 2016)

The forward bomb bay on the B-26 had 20 stations. The rear bay had 10. It could carry twenty 100 pounders, or ten 300 pounders, six 500 pounders (later eight), four 1000 pounders or two 1600 or 2000 pounders in the front bay. The rear bay could hold ten 100 pounders, six 300 pounders or two 500 pounders. Alternatively, one or more 250 gallon bomb bay tanks could be carried at the expense of half the bay's capacity each. The rear bay was rarely used and is certainly not open in this picture. The front bay doors folded up along the sides of the fuselage, but the rear bay opened downward.
This info comes straight out of the TO, so no room to speculate.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 21, 2016)

Greg, you have to read the entire thread before commenting...........



Milosh said:


> 30 100lb bombs could be carried.
> http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Aircraft/B-26_BombChart.pdf





fubar57 said:


> I've seen various figures for bomb loads depending on variants and the B-26.com site says the aircraft could carry up to 4800lbs. _*if *_both bays were used and the above aircraft looks like only the forward bay is open, the below photo shows the aft bay
> 
> View attachment 350862





fubar57 said:


> Still can't find any freakin' bomb bay dimensions but I did find out about the aircraft in the first post. It was a B-26B-50-MA and belonged to the 387th BG, 556th BS of the Ninth Air Force. I also just read that the Ninth AF always had the rear bomb bays sealed on the B-26. Using Milosh's chart, it states that the forward bomb bay could carry only 20 100lb. bombs, less than shown in the photo


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> This info comes straight out of the TO, so no room to speculate.


Perhaps read the whole thread first.

The original photo shows a B-26 with NO pilot and a stream of 26 100 lb. bombs.

It's a censored and retouched wartime propeganda photo.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 21, 2016)

I remember when I was a crew chief for a OH-6 the tech orders were in a ringed binder so that when specs were rescinded or revised you could take out the old pages and replace them with the up to date requirements. The tech manual, or Tech. orders for a OH-6 in 1968 wouldn't have much resemblance to the 1971 T.O.s

It was a full time job probably for the guy that took care of the manuals at battalion level , every now and then a LT. would come up from BN. and jump on our butts for not being up to date on the T.O.s. Some of us wanted to shoot the little sob, we were already working 20 hour days half the time.

Undoubtable the same in WW2, if you don't have the last version, or all the revisions of the TO's on a aircraft you don't have it all.

You notice in that photo you can only see the gun in the rear upper turret, not a sign of the turret Plexiglas at all. I think that's just because of the angle of the sun, not because it was retouched for propaganda purposes. I think that's the same explanation for the blanked out side windows too.

And then there could have been experiments in the field tried and rejected that never made it to the TO's. It ain't a perfect world out there .


----------



## T Bolt (Aug 21, 2016)

Measure the bomb bay of that Monogram you built and multiply by 48. should be close enough to match it to the right size bomb


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> You notice in that photo you can only see the gun in the rear upper turret, not a sign of the turret Plexiglas at all. I think that's just because of the angle of the sun, not because it was retouched for propaganda purposes. I think that's the same explanation for the blanked out side windows too.


The angle of the sun is above and slightly behind the ship, so the sunlight would be illuminating the cockpit and pilot. While the image quality does have a high amount of contrast, the pilot should be visable, even under these conditions, since the sunlight isn't reflecting directly off the cockpit sideglass.

And if you look closely at the nose of the B-26 in the photo, the nose-mounted MG is completely edited out, too...


----------



## Airframes (Aug 22, 2016)

The crew, and other details, have been 'spotted out' by the application of potasium fericyanide to the relevant areas of the print - notice the 'white' areas of the cockpit glazing. This is the white of the photo print paper, where the silver halide image of the original area has been removed by the chemical mentioned, applied with a fine brush and then washed off. The sort of thing done today on a computer with the eraser tool, but the standard method of deleting areas from monochrome prints up to the early 1990's.
At a guess, I'd say the bottom two sections of the sticks of bombs have been added, using an image of bombs just released from the bay from a separate photo - note the 'clumps' of bombs together, which haven't yet started to separate in the disrupted air flow.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 22, 2016)

Page 169 has bomb loading info.

http://1.airwar.z8.ru/transfer/manual/[aviation]%20-%20[manuals]%20-%20B-26%20Pilot%20Training%20Manual.pdf

But why in groups of 3?


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 25, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> This photo seems to show a LOT of bombs exiting this B-26. Even if these were 250 pounders, I could at least 25-26 bombs in this photo, which would be over 6,000lbs of bombs. That's more than the Marauder could even carry.
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> View attachment 350772


Hi again;
The pic of the plane is 352 mm long on my monitor and the bomb is 19.6 and when you divide those two numbers and the length of the plane, the bombs are about 3.6' long and thus are 100 pounders. The picture only shows 27 bombs and thus there are still three inside. But if you really want to raise a stink, look at the picture of a formation of B-17s dropping, IIRC 34 each 440 pound bombs in the time life pictorial history of WW-II. (The epic of flight-America in the air war, page 115!)
That's over 15,000 pounds of bombs out of a B-17 which according to some old threads, supposedly could not lift over 8,000/9,600, or whatever load of bombs when the Air Force stated it had a bomb load of "over 17,600 pounds"?
Just goes to show you things were done in the war and now some people doubt it.


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 25, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> Another question for my observant friends here. Let's say the bombs are 100 pounders and it could carry this many. Given the distance of the bombs falling from the plane, wouldn't the first bomb out be farther behind the plane? It also appears the B-26 is really spitting those bombs out fast. Would the release mechanism work that fast?
> 
> I don't know why I'm so interested in this silly picture. I just think it's all kinds of wrong.


The bombs are actually dropped in a "Salvo" by an intervalometer (sp?) I have seen a chart that states smaller bombs, like 100 pounders, 30 could be loaded. Measure the plane and bombs in the picture and you can tell they are 100 Lbs each. The spacing could be as little as 0.05 seconds between bombs if it is the same as my uncles B-17. Some of my friends claim the interval could be as short as 0.035 seconds. It was also adjustable depending on the target. Things like ships caused them to use the shortest intervals, while air fields would require a longer interval for maximum effect.
At 225 MPH, the bombs would land about 5 Meters apart at the short interval.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 25, 2016)

I count on both photos supplied 26 bombs. The forward bomb bay could only hold 20 100 lb bombs, in the 10 in the aft bay, however this aircraft the aft bay is closed. Sorry the picture is a fake for propaganda.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 25, 2016)

Frank Stewart said:


> Hi again;
> The pic of the plane is 352 mm long on my monitor and the bomb is 19.6 and when you divide those two numbers and the length of the plane, the bombs are about 3.6' long and thus are 100 pounders. The picture only shows 27 bombs and thus there are still three inside. But if you really want to raise a stink, look at the picture of a formation of B-17s dropping, IIRC 34 each 440 pound bombs in the time life pictorial history of WW-II. (The epic of flight-America in the air war, page 115!)
> That's over 15,000 pounds of bombs out of a B-17 which according to some old threads, supposedly could not lift over 8,000/9,600, or whatever load of bombs when the Air Force stated it had a bomb load of "over 17,600 pounds"?
> Just goes to show you things were done in the war and now some people doubt it.


The fantasy of reality is that many things in war are made to fool those that believe all they see, the allies as well of the axis used propaganda to the best. The bomb load of the typical b-17g was around 8000 to 9600 lbs. Yes the aircraft could be overloaded by up to 17,000+lbs, however this dramatically reduced the aircrafts range of operations. Also the photo you reference 34 x 440lb bombs, obviously a fake as the B-17 only had 42 bomb stations in the bomb bay, to carry 500lb bombs(no table for 440bombs on bomb load chart)it could only carry 16 bombs(that's in overload also)




. See attached photo, B-17 bomb load from the manual.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 25, 2016)

The maximum bomb load for a B-17 of 17,600lb was 6 x 1,600lb SAP (9,600lb) plus two 4,000lb light case bombs carried on external racks. Not something that was ever really used.

8 1,000lb bombs coould be carried internally, but only 2 2,000lb bombs.

24 100lb (2400lb total), 125lb (3000lb total) or 140lb (3360lb total) could be carried.

The largest practical load was 8 x 1000lb or 16 x 500lb for a total of 8000lb.

But the larger bomb loads were traded off against range.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 25, 2016)

As I have said above, over 8000 was overload.


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 25, 2016)

Airframes said:


> The crew, and other details, have been 'spotted out' by the application of potasium fericyanide to the relevant areas of the print - notice the 'white' areas of the cockpit glazing. This is the white of the photo print paper, where the silver halide image of the original area has been removed by the chemical mentioned, applied with a fine brush and then washed off. The sort of thing done today on a computer with the eraser tool, but the standard method of deleting areas from monochrome prints up to the early 1990's.
> At a guess, I'd say the bottom two sections of the sticks of bombs have been added, using an image of bombs just released from the bay from a separate photo - note the 'clumps' of bombs together, which haven't yet started to separate in the disrupted air flow.


New tid-bit. Some of the bombs were probably dropped in clusters of three. Those clusters of three will spread in the horizontal plane as we look at them much more than in the vertical plane. At this stage of the trajectory, the force of gravity is much more powerful than the air pressure between the bombs, thus they bunch up into the original cluster from this angle, but not from above.


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 25, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The maximum bomb load for a B-17 of 17,600lb was 6 x 1,600lb SAP (9,600lb) plus two 4,000lb light case bombs carried on external racks. Not something that was ever really used.
> 
> 8 1,000lb bombs coould be carried internally, but only 2 2,000lb bombs.
> 
> ...


Yes, larger loads were traded off for range, but all of this depends on the model and sub type. Most later B-17s had 34 stations on the internal racks, all of which could be used for smaller diameter bombs, like the 440 pound incendiary cluster. For instance, the 1,600 pound AP bomb was small enough in size that 12 could be loaded at one time, three on each of the four racks. ( Top of the outer rack, just below that on the inner rack, middle of the outer rack, then middle of the inner rack, then at the bottom of both inner and outer racks, all staggered for clearance.) But that weight would be more than the plane was safe for at it's MTO of 72,000 pounds, so only 11 of said bombs could be carried with a useful load of fuel and ammo. But if you were willing and or required, the plane could take off with 12, IF you left some fuel behind. I know that several missions were flown Vs sub pens with 11 of that type of bomb, but do not know if any left with all twelve stations so loaded.
The failure of those missions was why they invented the 4,500 pound, rocket assisted "Disney" bomb, for which the two wing stations were installed.
Those facts make the 8000 internal plus 9000 pound external argument seem just a bit off of the often published figure of 17,600 pounds of bomb load? On the other hand, 9,600 inside and 8000 outside sounds good, until you check the tail fin clearance of the 4000 pound (actually 4,343Lbs) GP Bomb when it would be installed on the under wing rack.
So that part of the argument is an obvious non stater since the bomb load would then be both too large to fit and over 18,286 pounds total. But on the other hand, the later planes could and often did carry four 2000 pounders inside, which could have been AP Bombs to go with the Disney bombs, but that yields only 17,450+- pounds, so no good to match the published figures.
It seams to me that the only way you can get to 17,600 pounds is with the above mentioned 11X1600S! Which by the way is what I was told at the Museum of the USAF in Dayton, Oh.


----------



## Frank Stewart (Aug 25, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> As I have said above, over 8000 was overload.


Yes! Absolutely true! Anything substantialy over ~8,000 pounds of bombs was an overload for the B-17! ( At that time, all bombs exceeded their "Nominal" listed weight.) But some missions did exceed that weight and by a very large margin! The most numerous in number of missions, of said "over load" missions was 30-34 440 pound incendiary clusters, for just over 13Klbs to just under 15Klbs of bombs.
All that is required is that the number of bombs fit the number of stations by size and the weight was within limits. Things the B-17 had in spades.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 25, 2016)

There seems to be no mention of a 440lb bomb/cluster.

And there only seems to be 16 racks internally that could carry such a device.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 26, 2016)

440lb = 200kg a common axis weight. maybe some confusion of the bomb here. The figures that Wuzak and I are referencing appear to be the same, B-17G, from my sources that was the latest variant. As Wuzak points out, the B-17 could only handle 16 in the bomb bay, that means that 18 were external(love to see photo of B-17 with 18 bombs under wings) or the bomber dropping 34 bombs had another modification unknown to the known universe.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 26, 2016)

If one goes thru the mission reports of the 303BG one will find the typical bomb load is 5-6000lb.
303rd BGA Combat Missions and Reports


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> 440lb = 200kg a common axis weight. maybe some confusion of the bomb here. The figures that Wuzak and I are referencing appear to be the same, B-17G, from my sources that was the latest variant. As Wuzak points out, the B-17 could only handle 16 in the bomb bay, that means that 18 were external(love to see photo of B-17 with 18 bombs under wings) or the bomber dropping 34 bombs had another modification unknown to the known universe.


The B-17 had only two hardpoints, one centered under each inboard wing. Each was designed for a 1,000 lb., 1,600 lb., 2,000 lb. or 4,000 lb. bomb.

The early B-17 variants had external racks off an on, officially discontinued for the D series but the F series onward saw the airframe fitted with hardware points and electrical connections to allow for an external rack to be fitted when necessary.

here's a shot of a B-17 with the 303rd BG in Molesworth with the external racks in place before a mission in September '43.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Aug 26, 2016)




----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 26, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The B-17 had only two hardpoints, one centered under each inboard wing. Each was designed for a 1,000 lb., 1,600 lb., 2,000 lb. or 4,000 lb. bomb.
> 
> The early B-17 variants had external racks off an on, officially discontinued for the D series but the F series onward saw the airframe fitted with hardware points and electrical connections to allow for an external rack to be fitted when necessary.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the pic. This is typical overload condition, however I was asking Mr Stewart if he had any photo of the B-17 with 18 bombs on the wing hard points, the only possible configuration to accomplish the 34 200kg bomb load in his post.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 26, 2016)

That's the best pickup I have ever seen of those external racks.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2016)

Capt. Vick said:


> That's the best pickup I have ever seen of those external racks.


I'll post a few more pics plus a few pages from the armorer's guide when I'm back on the computer this evening.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 26, 2016)

The external racks being used for the Disney bomb


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV0Ido9gS2E_


----------



## wuzak (Aug 26, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The B-17 had only two hardpoints, one centered under each inboard wing. Each was designed for a 1,000 lb., 1,600 lb., 2,000 lb. or 4,000 lb. bomb.
> 
> The early B-17 variants had external racks off an on, officially discontinued for the D series but the F series onward saw the airframe fitted with hardware points and electrical connections to allow for an external rack to be fitted when necessary.



Note that the external racks were the only ones that could take a 4000lb bomb.

And, FWIW, none of the British or American 4000lb bombs (4000lb HC, 4000lb MC and 4000lb LC) would fit between the bomb bay bulkheads on a B-17.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The external racks being used for the Disney bomb
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV0Ido9gS2E_



The Disney bomb required a special rack, but then, so did the Glide-bomb and JB Loon.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 27, 2016)

Ok, here's a few more shots of the B-17 external racks.

I should mention that the B-24 and B-29 also had external racks as well...but we'll leave that for another discussion.

Here's a close-up of the 303rd BG's B-17 external rack I posted earlier:




Here's a photo of a B-17G in flight with the external racks populated, taken enroute to a target (I believe in France) 11 June 1944. I should also mention that this is 42-97286 "Skipper an' the Kids" of the 560BS, 388BG that met a tragic end a few months later (10 December 1944) when it slammed into a cliff face in poor weather on the Isle of Arran. All crew members and three passengers perished.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 27, 2016)

Sweet! Thanks!


----------



## Old Wizard (Aug 27, 2016)




----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 28, 2016)

Finally found the images of the armorer's section for the B-17 (had it on another drive).

In these illustrations, it shows the bomb position both internally and externally based on it's size (weight).

The second illustration shows the procedures required to mount the 4 different bombs to the external racks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 28, 2016)

quite correct and as I posted from the manual on post #42


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 28, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> quite correct and as I posted from the manual on post #42


Your diagram on post #42 didn't cover the external racks/ordnance in detail.


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 28, 2016)




----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 28, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> View attachment 351372


Not sure what your problem is, but it's getting old...


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 28, 2016)

I don't have a problem, buy a mirror. You made the statement that my post didn't have the data on external loads, I posted the chart with the area a highlighted showing the external loads. Grow up.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 28, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> I don't have a problem, buy a mirror. You made the statement that my post didn't have the data on external loads, I posted the chart with the area a highlighted showing the external loads. Grow up.


Your chart does not have the external rack mounting diagram and it doesn't have the bomb hoisting outlay. As a matter of fact, my post had nothing to do with you, as it was for some other member's benefit.

My post said:


GrauGeist said:


> Your diagram on post #42 didn't cover the external racks/ordnance in detail.


And I cannot see anywhere in my post where I stated that yours didn't have data on external loads. What it does look like, however, is that you're trying really hard to find fault when there is none.

So might I suggest you take your own advice and grow up. I might also suggest that you get a mirror - perhaps a Golden one?


----------



## ww2restorer (Aug 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Your diagram on post #42 didn't cover the external racks/ordnance in detail.


Not trying to find fault in anything as you claim. Refer to your post quote, you state "your diagram *DIDN'T* ..........", I replied and showed you it did. The chart doesn't need any pretty pictures. Let it go mate.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 28, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> Not trying to find fault in anything as you claim. Refer to your post quote, you state "your diagram *DIDN'T* ..........", I replied and showed you it did. The chart doesn't need any pretty pictures. Let it go mate.


Your precious chart doesn't show the rack...but if you're so desperate to have accolades then pat yourself on the back for a special job well done - hopefully someone will give you a hug and a cookie soon.

Meanwhile, my "pretty pictures" as you jokingly call them, came from the USAAF armorer's guide. It illustrated the external rack assembly and proper usage (which again, had nothing to do with the earlier chart) and as had been stated earlier, was directed at other people in the forum.

Truth be told, there does happen to be other people invlolved in this thread and to be honest, I'd like to get back to the discussion without you crying and throwing a tantrum over a non-issue...


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 2, 2016)

I came across a mention that the 8th Air Force started bundling small bombs to increase the number carried on each station starting in the summer of 1943. This information was in relation to the B-24, but I'm sure it could be applied to the B-26. 100 pounders being relatively narrow, there is no reason they couldn't be bundled and fit into the B-26 bay, which as we all know was a virtual duplicate of the original B-17 bomb bay. (Not the later version that is causing so much contention above.)


----------



## wuzak (Sep 2, 2016)

How exactly did the B-17's bomb bay change from early to late versions?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm not a B-17 expert, but the early B-17s only had a capacity of 4800 lbs.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 3, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> I'm not a B-17 expert, but the early B-17s only had a capacity of 4800 lbs.



That may be as much about the bombs available and the power of the engines.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 3, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> I'm not a B-17 expert, but the early B-17s only had a capacity of 4800 lbs.


Not sure where you're getting your information from, but even the very first operational USAAC B-17s had a bomb capacity of 8,000 pounds.

The first operational B-17 was designated the Y1B-17. It was also the first heavy bomber in USAAC service - all 12 of them, assigned to the 2nd BG at Langley Field, Virginia in 1937.

And it's specifications were as follows:
Engines: (4) Wright R-1820-39 Cyclone - 930 hp @ T/O, 850 hp @ 5,000 ft., 775 hp @ 14,000 ft.
Max. Speed: 265 mph @ 14,000 feet
Cruise Speed: 217 mph @ 70% power
Landing Speed: 70 mph.
Service Ceiling: 30,600 feet
Time to 10,000 feet: 6.5 minutes
Normal Range: 1,377 miles
Range Clean: 3,320 miles
Range with 4,000 pound bombload: 2,400 miles
Wingspan: 103 feet, 9 3/8 inches
Length: 68 feet, 4 inches
Height: 18 feet, 4 inches
Wing Area: 1,420 sq. ft.
Weight Empty: 24,465 pounds
Weight Normal: 34,880 pounds
Weight Max.: 42,600 pounds
Defensive Armament: (5) .30 cal. MG with 1,000 rounds per weapon
Bombload Max.: *8,000 internal*

So where is the 4,800 pound figure coming from?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2016)

It may be coming from early books which seem to be a bit confused. 
Joe Baugher's website lists the books he used and in his pages he does credit the Y1B-17 with a max bomb load of 8000lbs, he then goes on to list either eight 600lb bombs or 4800lb of bombs as max for the Y1B-17A/B-17A, the The B-17B, the B-17C and the B-17D. With the B-17E getting a major increase in bomb load.
The B-17 was gaining weight at a fast pace already with with the B-17B going 27,652 pounds empty (3187lb gain) 37,997 pounds gross (3117lb gain) and 46,178 pounds maximum (3578lb gain).
A B-17D went 30,963 pounds empty, 39,319 pounds gross. (max not given)
A B-17E went 32,350 pounds empty, 40,260 pounds gross, 53,000 pounds maximum.
Bombs for the "E" are given as "26 100-pound bombs, or 16 300-pound bombs, or 12 500-pound bombs, or 8 1000-pound bombs, or 4 2000-pound bombs"
As his sources as not official publications such as flight manuals or erection manuals they may have contained mistakes. 

The B-17 went through a lot of modifications and some don't seem to correlate well. AS in there are different loading diagrams for the B-17F and the B-17G with the G actually holding fewer bombs of certain sizes/weights than the F. on many other bomb sizes/weights they are identical. SO either the manuals had mistakes or there were load restrictions that are not explained in the loading diagram/s


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 3, 2016)

Bomb loads for a B-17C from the manual...


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2016)

Thank you.

The 4800lb max would be using 600lb in place of 500lb bombs. 

I would note that the B-17C (at least) seems to use a different bomb rack setup than the later versions in the sense that the outer racks only appear to have 3 stations each instead of the 8 stations shown for the version in the earlier postings/illustrations. Likewise the inner rack went from 7 stations to 13 stations on each rack. 

We might actually be wondering were the 8,000lb rating for the Y1B-17 came from?

It may very well be correct for the Y1B-17 but one wonders why the reduction to the 4800lb limit on the 119 B-17s that followed the Y1B-17s. One rather cryptic note says that that on the B-17D model the external bomb racks were removed but none of the pages on Joe Baugher's site mention external racks for the previous models? Did the Y1B-17 have external racks?


----------



## johnbr (Jan 4, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 4, 2019)

Top picture is a bit fanciful. By mid-'43 only one squadron still operating Marauders in Pacific, and they were B-26 MAs in natural metal finish, and no package guns.
Center photo is either 77th or 73rd BS in Alaska.


----------

