A couple more B-17 questions...

[FLYBOYJ]

And I'll say it again - there are many authors and so-called aviation experts who commit to write books and come off as an authoritative source when they have never touched an aircraft in any capacity. I'm not saying you have to be a mechanic or pilot to be an aviation author, what I am saying is that some of these folks take information (mainly technical information) at face value. I've even found WW2 vets who were given erroneous information about the aircraft they maintained and/ or flew during the war years and were most of the time pleasantly surprised to discover that some bit of information they were told while deployed overseas turned out to be a myth.

Then you have the folks who like to tell a good story. Martin Cadin.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Anecdotes are undocumented stories. If an author interviews some guy who had worked in the purchasing office at Vega who tells the author the that everybody knew Vega bought rivets from old horseshoes, he's repeating an anecdote. If there is a receipt from Jo's Horseshoe Recycling for 5,000 pounds of horseshoe iron rivets, the interviewee provided corroboration.

Anecdotes usually don't involve bad faith, nor do faulty memories.

I worked for Lockheed Burbank in the 1980s and there were still many vets around from WW2 and there were tons of these stories floating around. One I particularly remember was when test pilot Ralph Virden was killed in 1941, he pulled the tail off of a P-38. Many reports say he was flying between 400-500 mph, others say that he went through the sound barrier and it ripped the plane apart!

 

[Robert Porter]

Martin Cadin is an example of the worst of the genre. His works, if classified as fiction, would be an enjoyable read. But I cannot even count the number of times I have run across one or more of his stories repeated as truth even after it had been totally debunked. Some variants of those stories have even shown up largely unchanged in recent books!

 

[Zippythehog]

If someone could obtain a POH from both a Boeing and a Vega F, one should be able to compare useful load between the birds (given a comparable mission equipment).
I realize this may be a 21st century mind trying to apply my cultural logic on a 20th century system more familiar with steam engines and side valve engines. But, if you're serious, it might be a good starting point.
Zip

 

[swampyankee]

Martin Cadin is an example of the worst of the genre. His works, if classified as fiction, would be an enjoyable read. But I cannot even count the number of times I have run across one or more of his stories repeated as truth even after it had been totally debunked. Some variants of those stories have even shown up largely unchanged in recent books!

Caidin was a good writer, kind of inventing the category of military thriller later better exploited by Tom Clancy.

 

[swampyankee]

If someone could obtain a POH from both a Boeing and a Vega F, one should be able to compare useful load between the birds (given a comparable mission equipment).
I realize this may be a 21st century mind trying to apply my cultural logic on a 20th century system more familiar with steam engines and side valve engines. But, if you're serious, it might be a good starting point.
Zip

Even better would be the build books for the aircraft or their bills of material

 

[Zippythehog]

Agreed. That's some serious aviation archeology.

 

[Dana Bell]

Roger Freeman may have been wrong on this - as noted, he's no longer with us, so we can ask for his sources. Unfortunately, most popular aviation publishers laugh when we suggest footnotes and endnotes.

He may also have been partially right. Does anyone on this site know that the difference between the B-17E and the B-17F was the heavier redesigned wing structure in the F? I can only suspect that Roger was comparing the weights for Douglas' B-17Fs with those for Boeing's B-17Es. Before certain self-appointed experts explain why there couldn't have been any difference, it might help to do some research to find out exactly what differences there were.

In the end, Roger might be wrong about this. I can tell you that he did use anecdotal research in his books. But at a time when most writers relied on nothing but anecdotal research in their writings, Roger crossed the pond repeatedly to dig through the primary sources on Fern Street, at the National Archives, at the Air Force Museum (as it was known back then), and at Maxwell. The reason he is still so highly respected is that he helped set a new standard in what we should all expect in our aviation histories.

Finally, a note to the Great Gazoo, Flyboy J - a staff member and moderator of this otherwise decent site: Roger Freeman was a friend. He was a scholar and a gentleman back when those words still meant something. Right or wrong, he was never full of shit.

My name is Dana Bell, and some of you know my work. Most weeks I'm at the National Archives between three and six days - digging up aviation history for books without footnotes. I too may be full of shit, but if any of you are ever on the second or fifth floors for research, ask the staff where I'm sitting - we can have lunch and talk about what's really involved in digging through the technical record. Until then,

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Robert Porter]

He may also have been partially right. Does anyone on this site know that the difference between the B-17E and the B-17F was the heavier redesigned wing structure in the F? I can only suspect that Roger was comparing the weights for Douglas' B-17Fs with those for Boeing's B-17Es. Before certain self-appointed experts explain why there couldn't have been any difference, it might help to do some research to find out exactly what differences there were.

Hi Dana,

Welcome to the forum. I want to clarify the issue I was addressing, it was not the difference between the E and F models. Vega did not build any E models nor did Douglas, or at least not many. As Freemen himself mentioned, by the time the BVD group was ready the F model was current. The part I took issue with was his claim that Vega and Douglas had built F versions with different wing structures to the Boeing F version. And for the record I like Freeman as an author. He seems to have done a very good job in his research but this statement is unlikely in the extreme. Perhaps he meant to say the wing structures varied between the E and F versions but that is not what he said.

There were numerous cases of wings being wholesale swapped between damaged aircraft in order to restore at least one to flying status. But I have never once heard that a wing could not be swapped because it was between a Boeing and a Vega and or Douglas aircraft. I truly would like to know his source. Perhaps in your digging in the archives this would be something you could look into?

Anyway, welcome aboard nice to have you with us!

 

[Hoggardhigh]

Hi Dana,

Welcome to the forum. I want to clarify the issue I was addressing, it was not the difference between the E and F models. Vega did not build any E models nor did Douglas, or at least not many. As Freemen himself mentioned, by the time the BVD group was ready the F model was current. The part I took issue with was his claim that Vega and Douglas had built F versions with different wing structures to the Boeing F version. And for the record I like Freeman as an author. He seems to have done a very good job in his research but this statement is unlikely in the extreme. Perhaps he meant to say the wing structures varied between the E and F versions but that is not what he said.

There were numerous cases of wings being wholesale swapped between damaged aircraft in order to restore at least one to flying status. But I have never once heard that a wing could not be swapped because it was between a Boeing and a Vega and or Douglas aircraft. I truly would like to know his source. Perhaps in your digging in the archives this would be something you could look into?

Anyway, welcome aboard nice to have you with us!

What do you mean, "it was not the difference between the E and F models"?

 

[Shortround6]

There were around 400 changes between the E and F models. and further changes between the production blocks of the F models. So far nobody on this Forum has identified the difference in weight between the wings as one of them.

I have just done a quick read through of the erection and maintenance manual for the B-17G up to about page 70 and so far there is no mention of any difference in the wings or reference to different manufacturers. This covers lifting/hoisting, jacking, assembly and access panels. Maybe there is a difference in later sections?

 

[swampyankee]

Dana, the quoted numbers, adding 450 lb of structure for wing weight and 750 lb for total weight are huge percentages in structure for an aircraft the size of a B-17. Indeed, it's large enough so that any person with even peripheral experience in aircraft structures take notice. That much increase in structural weight would only be likely if unmodified aircraft were quite literally breaking up in normal, non-combat service.

Freeman was, no doubt, relying on sources he thought reliable; serious historians don't make stuff up, but sometimes it's a good idea to wave this sort of information past other experts which, in this case, could include an expert in aero-structures.

A vaguely related example is the oft-repeated story of WWII fighter aircraft breaking the sound barrier in dives. This, with near-absolute certainty, never happened yet the stories of this were told, in absolute good faith, by many people, as fact.

 

[Dana Bell]

A good Sunday morning to you all, gents.

I suspect I should refrain from mixing two arguments in one posting. In particular, I was objecting that anyone, let alone a moderator, would cast aspersions on a lost and missed friend.

As to the actual discussion on wing differences, Roger was probably wrong that the different wing weights were attributed to different manufacturers. Clearly, we would expect a major change in wing structure to be noticed, and yet I've never seen a publication mention the major change in wing structure between the B-17E and the B-17F. I mentioned this change as a possible explanation for Roger's error.

My own B-17 research was put on hold while the publisher worked on a few other issues. I got far enough to know that there is a great deal about the technical side of that aircraft that has never been published. With luck, next year I'll be back to work on the B-17, and we'll all have answers to what Roger thought he found. (The contract files are very explicit when specifying the weights of each component - especially the major structures.)

Cheers,



Dana

 

[swampyankee]

As I said, I think Freeman wrote in good faith, but placed too much credence in eyewitness testimony. A lot of neuroscience studies have shown that memory is malleable and eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but those data were not accepted outside the science community until recently and are still unknown or actively ignored by many.

 

[Hoggardhigh]

A good Sunday morning to you all, gents.

I suspect I should refrain from mixing two arguments in one posting. In particular, I was objecting that anyone, let alone a moderator, would cast aspersions on a lost and missed friend.

As to the actual discussion on wing differences, Roger was probably wrong that the different wing weights were attributed to different manufacturers. Clearly, we would expect a major change in wing structure to be noticed, and yet I've never seen a publication mention the major change in wing structure between the B-17E and the B-17F. I mentioned this change as a possible explanation for Roger's error.

My own B-17 research was put on hold while the publisher worked on a few other issues. I got far enough to know that there is a great deal about the technical side of that aircraft that has never been published. With luck, next year I'll be back to work on the B-17, and we'll all have answers to what Roger thought he found. (The contract files are very explicit when specifying the weights of each component - especially the major structures.)

Cheers,



Dana

How do you know of the wing differences between the B-17E and F?

 

[Robert Porter]

What do you mean, "it was not the difference between the E and F models"?

I mean exactly that, the quote in contention in Freeman's book spoke of differences between F models not the differences between E and F models. Of course there were differences between the models. That is not in dispute.

Here is the section in full. Emphasis added by me.

"There were 27 different B-17F blocks from Seattle, seventeen for the Douglas model and eleven with Vega during the course of production. The three plants used prefabricated sub-sections from the Boeing Wichita factory and other contractors but, despite using the same drawings and engineering data, each had its own methods of assembly and inevitably some minor differences arose between what were otherwise supposedly identical airframes."

Up to this point I have no issues with what he wrote. Remember we are talking solely about "F" models of the B-17 at this point. This next paragraph or two is where I and others take issue especially as to source documents or references.

"Douglas built B-17's had strengthened main wing sections. Vega production had a similar wing section and reinforcement of the fuselage. AAF engineering officers claimed that in addition to being heavier and bringing a slight change in flight attitude, the Vega B-17Fs suffered from stress constrictions where two sections of the fuselage were joined at the radio room. The wings from a Douglas or Vega B-17s would not fit a Boeing-built aircraft due to the former two having been built in a higher-temperature environment."

He appears to be mixing two thoughts to me, one that Douglas and Vega wing structures were significantly different, in Vega's case causing stress issues. But then states that the only reason the wings were not interchangeable with Boeing built Fs was the temperature at which they were built.

Now all of what he said could well be correct and true. But without references, or even other anecdotal evidence to support the claim, indeed a total lack of such evidence where other authors recount wing field replacements, you have to question exactly what was and was not true in his account.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Freeman felt what he wrote was true and that he almost certainly has references in his notes to support that. But since we cannot find any of those references it leaves reasonable doubt as to the completness of the account.

 

[Robert Porter]

By the way, the above quotes were from page 24 of his book "The B-17 Flying Fortress Story - Design-Production-History" which I consider an extremely well written book with a great deal of valid information about my favorite of all aircraft the B-17.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

I highly suspect Roger Freeman's assertions about the differences among Boeing, Vega and Douglas B-17's. While I've not done in-depth research on the B-17 and its construction (I'm leaving that to Dana), I can say from my research on the B-24 that any such changes would have needed to be approved by the AAF and, most likely, by Boeing itself. There are literally hundreds of pages of documents among Ford, Consolidated and the AAF where Ford wanted to make changes to suit its design and manufacturing processes that resulted in something of an on-going battle between Ford and Consolidated, with Consolidated wanting final say on any changes made to "their airplane". This resulted in some pretty good fights and a lot of work by the AAF to determine and publish lists of parts which were interchangeable between Ford and Consolidated-built aircraft - and many, many pages of those parts which weren't, as well. This situation was such that some units in the ETO would only fly one manufacturer's aircraft or the other, but not mix them. The logistical problems in such cases were epic. These documents are all available at NARA II in College Park, MD, and I'm sure the B-17 ones are as well.

This all points out a critical factor in WWII production: numbers of aircraft are not enough if the parts from one type to the other are not interchangeable. MAINTAINING aircraft in the field was just as important as getting them in the first place. I'm fairly confident the same was true for trucks, tanks, rifles, aircraft carriers, etc.

The discussion reminds me somewhat of the endless illustrations of Gabreski's gray/green (or OD) early razor back. I have found absolutely NO proof that that aircraft ever existed, yet it has been foisted on a trusting and generally uninformed public for decades by people who repeat what they've heard or read elsewhere but not looked at the original documents - which I doubt Roger Freeman had access to. Sadly, this is true in many, many books about military equipment.

AlanG

 

[Dana Bell]

How do you know of the wing differences between the B-17E and F?

Hi Hoggardhigh,

There is a one page document in Record Group 342, the Sarah Clark (Wright Field) Collection at the National Archives at College Park. The document justifies the new "B-17F" designation by explaining that the new suffix reflects the strengthened wing structure in the F.

My project went on hold soon after that discovery - the next step will be to examine the weights and balances portion of the files to see how extensive such a change was.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My name is Dana Bell, and some of you know my work. Most weeks I'm at the National Archives between three and six days - digging up aviation history for books without footnotes. I too may be full of shit, but if any of you are ever on the second or fifth floors for research, ask the staff where I'm sitting - we can have lunch and talk about what's really involved in digging through the technical record. Until then,

Cheers,



Dana

Dana - I know who you are, read a lot of your books and have great respect your work. I too have been on research projects in archives and at manufacturers digging up records for research projects and actual aircraft. I also work on aircraft professionally (40 years this summer) and have done restoration on many recip and jet warbirds so I think I know a little on what goes into doing in-dept research AND what it takes to maintain and fly aircraft. My words may be harsh but I will pull no punches - if you're going to attempt to put out a quality publication understand what those of us who have actually touched these things, cracked knuckles while wrenching on them and now have some form of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from banging rivets take great offense when we read or hear inaccurate and false information about the way some of these aircraft were built and maintained.

Now with that said, I would be honored and privileged to someday sit down and meet with you!

~Joe Morales