A couple more B-17 questions...

[Hoggardhigh]

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

Have you accessed that document yet? And if not when do you plan to?

 

[Dana Bell]

Have you accessed that document yet? And if not when do you plan to?

Hi Hoggardhigh,

I haven't yet dug out the B-17E/F wing document, and I've no current plans to do so. When the B-17 book went on hold, I had scanned three linear feet of documents, all of which are sitting in boxes waiting for the book to be revived. The same thing happened to my F4U-4 project. Right now I'm researching histories of USN battleship, cruiser, and floatplane markings between the wars, USN aviation colors in WWII, AAF colors before and during the war, the Great Night Fighter Flyoff, Army aircraft of the 1920s and '30s, and a handful of smaller projects for my own work and for friends -- so many aircraft, so little time. I can't spare the time to properly index a project I'm not working on, nor do I have an hour or so to sort through the piles of unsorted materials stacking up. I'm afraid the best I can offer right now is a note that the document exists. (Too often, the business aspects of writing history interfere with the hobby aspects!)

With luck, the B-17 project will be picked up next year - I'll sort what I have, and resume digging through the next 30 boxes of Wright Field reports and correspondence.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Dana Bell]

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

Hi Joe,

I look forward to that meeting - the Archive 2 lunchroom is one of the better government facilities (I know that doesn't say much), and a great place to talk about ongoing projects and discoveries.

I retired just over eleven years ago to spend as much time as possible digging into the records at the archives. So far, there's been some sort of discovery - usually a minor one - every day I'm there. While some of the discoveries have changed our perception of history, most simply change some detail that would go unnoticed in a book.

I've come to different conclusions than Roger did on a number of details - not because I'm a better historian, but because I was fortunate enough to find the occasional smoking gun that set the record straight. While I suspect Roger's notes on the B-17F differences, I won't be surprised to find, one day, that he was on to something that normally wouldn't make sense,

I believe what set me off, what brought me in to comment at all, was the observation that Roger was full of shit. In reading your subsequent posts, I suspect you meant to say that the statements in his book were full of shit. I suspect strongly that you and Roger would have enjoyed each other's company and, without changing your opinion of his observations on the B-17 wing weights, you would have had a very different opinion of the man.

Anyhow, let me know when you're next in DC and what you're working on - I've been revising several of the finding aids that might prove useful in your research, and I'll be happy to share anything that might help.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Hoggardhigh]

Hi Hoggardhigh,

I haven't yet dug out the B-17E/F wing document, and I've no current plans to do so. When the B-17 book went on hold, I had scanned three linear feet of documents, all of which are sitting in boxes waiting for the book to be revived. The same thing happened to my F4U-4 project. Right now I'm researching histories of USN battleship, cruiser, and floatplane markings between the wars, USN aviation colors in WWII, AAF colors before and during the war, the Great Night Fighter Flyoff, Army aircraft of the 1920s and '30s, and a handful of smaller projects for my own work and for friends -- so many aircraft, so little time. I can't spare the time to properly index a project I'm not working on, nor do I have an hour or so to sort through the piles of unsorted materials stacking up. I'm afraid the best I can offer right now is a note that the document exists. (Too often, the business aspects of writing history interfere with the hobby aspects!)

With luck, the B-17 project will be picked up next year - I'll sort what I have, and resume digging through the next 30 boxes of Wright Field reports and correspondence.

Cheers,



Dana

Can you post what the document says on this forum once you've gotten access to it (the document)?

 

[Dana Bell]

Can you post what the document says on this forum once you've gotten access to it (the document)?

Not a problem - it's just a matter of finding the paper again.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe what set me off, what brought me in to comment at all, was the observation that Roger was full of shit. In reading your subsequent posts, I suspect you meant to say that the statements in his book were full of shit. I suspect strongly that you and Roger would have enjoyed each other's company and, without changing your opinion of his observations on the B-17 wing weights, you would have had a very different opinion of the man.

Hi Dana;

You hit the nail on the head!

I knew of Roger's work and for the most part he did produce some quality stuff. You may be right about my feelings if I ever had the opportunity to meet the guy. My harshest critics have been some of my greatest motivators!

With that said, I'll bank your invite and do hope you continue to participate here. As previously stated I enjoyed your work and hope we see more in the near future!

~Joe