The B-17G had a Bendix nose turret that countered head on attacks.This was something earlier models were vulnerable too, as they had no such defence.
Contents 6 Rolling Thunder
8 Shaping the bombers
42 Thorpe Abbotts – Memorial to the many
10 The Boeing XB-15
46 The thoroughbred emerges – The B-17G
12 In the beginning
52 Inside the B-17
16 The early years
64 Maintaining an aluminium mountain
20 The Boeing B-17 ‘Fortress’ in RAF service – Part one 26 The B-17E – A Flying Fortress at last 32 The B-17F – A matter of defence
4 aviationclassics.co.uk
69 Little Friends 74 The longest mission
80 Felix Fortresses
Editor:
84 100 Air Refuelling Wing
Publisher: Contributors:
Tim Callaway editor@aviationclassics.co.uk Dan Savage Luigino Caliaro, Martyn Chorlton, François Prins, Clive Rowley, Frank B. Mormillo, Bruce Hales-Dutton, Constance Redgrave, Julian Humphries, Keith Draycott, Dave Roberts, David Oliver.
90 The Boeing B-17 ‘Fortress’ in RAF service – Part two 94 KG200 98 Sally B – The flying memorial
Designers: Reprographics: Production manager:
Charlotte Pearson Michael Baumber Craig Lamb clamb@mortons.co.uk
Divisional advertising manager: Tracey Glover-Brown tglover-brown@mortons.co.uk
102 Tough!
Advertising sales executive:
Jamie Moulson jmoulson@mortons.co.uk 01507 529465
105 Project Aphrodite
Magazine sales manager: Brand manager:
Paul Deacon pdeacon@mortons.co.uk Sarah Downing sdowning@mortons.co.uk 01507 529549
Operations Director: Commercial Director: Business Development Director: Managing Director:
Dan Savage Nigel Hole Terry Clark Brian Hill
Editorial address:
Aviation Classics Mortons Media Group Ltd PO Box 99 Horncastle Lincs LN9 6JR www.aviationclassics.co.uk
109 PB-1s – The Navy and Coast Guard 113 Oddball B-17s 118 Israeli B-17s 120 Postwar workhorses 126 Survivors
Website:
Customer services, back issues and subscriptions: 01507 529529 (24 hour answerphone) help@classicmagazines.co.uk Archive enquiries:
Jane Skayman jskayman@mortons.co.uk 01507 529423
Distribution:
COMAG Tavistock Road, West Drayton, Middlesex UB7 7QE 01895 433800
Printed:
William Gibbons and Son, Wolverhampton
© 2011 Mortons Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage retrieval system without prior permission in writing from the publisher. ISBN No 978-1-906167-38-7
Having trouble finding a copy of this magazine? Why not just ask your local newsagent to reserve you a copy
Independent publisher since 1885
Member of the Periodical Publishers Association
Boeing B-17 5
Col. C. Ross Greening’s excellent image of a B-17.This work is part of a collection of artwork that was published after the war in his book titled “Not As Briefed.” US Air Force
Rolling Thunder
W
elcome to my first issue of Aviation Classics as editor. Firstly, I would like to record my thanks to Jarrod Cotter for his work in creating and editing this superb magazine, he is a remarkable man and a great aviation historian. He is also a good friend. Jarrod has moved on to take over the reins at Aeroplane and everyone on Aviation Classics wishes him the very best of luck with his new endeavour. Cheers, buddy.
That’ll be me, then.While running the RAF and other websites for 12 years, the option to fly regularly was a delight of the job. 6 aviationclassics.co.uk
For my first topic, the story of the B-17 Flying Fortress is revealed here in detail. It is an amazing tale of genius, tragedy, determination and courage. The story proves that this is no longer merely an aeroplane, it has transcended to become an icon. During World War Two in the occupied countries of Europe, the massed formations of B-17s passing overhead on their way to strike targets became a symbol that they were not alone, that one day the oppression they were suffering would end. To the crews of those bombers, the B-17 was the aircraft that would get them home when all seemed lost, its ability to absorb damage became legendary. Wally Hoffman, an 8th Air Force B-17 pilot is recorded as saying, “The plane can be cut and slashed almost to pieces by enemy fire and bring its crew home.” To many, the cartoon on this page, created by Lt. Col. C. Ross Greening while a prisoner-of-war in Stalag Luft I at Barth in Germany between 1944 and 1945, captures the essence of the Flying Fortress; heavily armed with defensive weapons, built to absorb enemy fire, and able to deliver its deadly load with impunity. The truth behind the cartoon is recorded on these pages. It took a great deal of operational experience and many lives to establish the B-17’s wartime reputation. At one time, the aircraft and the daylight bombing policy it was designed to implement were both considered doomed to failure. Why the B-17 and the policy did not fail is
largely due to the inventiveness and determination of the people who designed, built, planned for and operated this aircraft. It is to those people that this issue is respectfully dedicated. The flying characteristics are another factor that endeared it to the crews, flying for many hours in close formation would have been incredibly fatiguing in a less wellmannered machine. The best quote I have heard on the subject was from Colonel Robert K Morgan, the pilot of the ‘Memphis Belle’ who simply said, “She was a Stradivarius of an airplane...” I can do naught but agree. In putting together this issue, I have tried to follow Jarrod’s excellent lead of mixing history with incident, the well known with the unusual. I hope that you will feel that I have succeeded in this, and that there are a few surprises held in these pages even if you know the aircraft well. I certainly learned a great deal that is new to me, and thank all the historians and contributors for their sterling efforts. To sum up this aircraft, and this issue, I will leave the last word to General Carl Spaatz, the Commander of the US Strategic Air Forces in Europe in 1944: “Without the B-17, we might Tim Callaway have lost the war.” Editor
TO AND OL NE ING W !
BR
ess 7G Flying Fortr 04283 1:72 B-1
ustration Model Ill
Model Illustration
g n i Fly s s e r t r Fo
1:72 B-17G “Flying Fortress”
Model Il
n
lustratio
The B-17 Flying Fortress is possibly the bestknown American bomber of World War II. However, heavy losses in 1943, when a total of 120 aircraft were shot down, lead to the conclusion that previous B-17 versions carried insufficient defensive armament. As a consequence, the front lower nose of the B-17G was fitted with a turret carrying two 12.7mm machine guns, which provided an effective defense against the feared frontal attacks of enemy fighters. In addition, extra gun positions were added to the fuselage sides enabling the crew to defend themselves from all directions and leading to the nickname ‘Flying Fortress’. Although mainly used over Europe and the Near East, the B-17 was also operational in the Pacific theatre and was used to fly sea patrols and reconnaissance sorties as well as bombing missions. A total of 12,731 ‘Flying Fortresses’ were built of which 8,680 were the B-17G
Available from branches of and and all good Toy & Hobby Stores. Revell GmbH & Co. KG, Orchard Mews, 18c High Street, Tring, Herts HP23 5AH. Tel: 01442 890285. Fax: 01442 827919. Email: ukbranch@revell.de Trade enquiries welcome. ©Revell is the registered trademark of Revell GmbH & Co. KG, Germany. All rights reserved.
04283
version. The last B-17G ‘Little Miss Mischief’ was delivered on 23rd March 1944 and served until 4th April 1945 with the 91st Bomb Group, stationed in Bassingbourn. It flew 75 operational missions. Model-details: • New moulding • Detailed surface structure with engraved panel lines • Detailed cockpit and interior • Rotating chin and ball turrets • Complete bomb bay with bomb racks • Authentic radial engines with exhaust gas rings • Detailed undercarriage • Decals for 2 USAF versions: ‘Little Miss Mischief’ and ‘Nine-O-Nine’ For more details on this brand new 1:72 scale model kit as well as the complete range of Revell products check out our International website at www.revell.eu
Shaping the
bombers Britain and the United States had different approaches to the same problem, which resulted in ver y different aircraft. Francois Prins explains…
D
uring World War One Germany used Zeppelin airships and later Gotha aircraft to drop bombs on targets in Britain. These attacks included the serious bombing of coastal towns and London itself. War had been brought to civilians who were far removed from the battlefields. It was the Gotha raids on London that spurred the government of the day to improve aerial defences of the capital and to retaliate in some manner. Work was quickly completed on suitable long-range bombers but before the newly-formed Royal Air Force could take the war to the heart of Germany the Armistice was signed and peace returned. In the years of peace during the 1920s there was no urgent requirement for new long-range bombers, but light bombers were introduced to quell any skirmishes that arose in the British Empire, these were mainly in the Middle East and on the Indian frontier. Only when peace appeared to be threatened in Europe by Germany did Britain take heed and rush to have new aircraft – fighters and bombers – of a modern type designed and built. What was sanctioned for the RAF were light and medium bombers nothing that could be classed as a heavy strategic bomber was considered even though designers provided plans for such types. Across the Atlantic the United States had been left on its own to pursue its own agenda in aircraft design. Even though the Wright brothers gave the world powered flight in 1903 the US had not capitalised on the invention and had to make do with French and British aircraft during World War One. After the war they developed their own types but concentrated on
The Handley Page 0/400 bomber was introduced into service in April 1917 and continued in RAF use until 1920. It replaced the Handley Page 0/100 as the standard heavy bomber in RFC/RAF use during World War One. via Francois Prins 8 aviationclassics.co.uk
Boeing B-17G 42-97976 ‘A Bit O’ Lace’ from the 709 Bomber Squadron of the 447th Bomber Group USAAF Eight Air Force in Britain. via Francois Prins
civil transports and neglected their armed forces. Bomber aircraft were simply not considered important despite the urging of some senior officers, the most vociferous being General William Mitchell who was eventually court-martialled for his outspokenness. After the Armistice, Germany had been banned from developing anything but light sporting and small commercial aircraft. However, they were looking to establish an armed air force and German designers were at work outside Germany producing potential war machines. By the end of the 1920s the Allies had lost interest in Germany and chose to ignore or were largely unaware of what was going on in that country. Consequently, when the new Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, took office he immediately began to build up the armed forces as he had promised. All three services were the subject of improvement with the Luftwaffe gaining new aircraft. It was a time of rapid expansion with fighters and medium bombers being given priority. Hitler did not require a longrange strategic bomber at the time, there were plans for heavy bombers but that was for the future. For the present it made sense to concentrate on aircraft that could reach most of Europe with a reasonable bomb load. England was never in Hitler’s scheme of things in the 1930s and North America was well out of range of any Luftwaffe’s aircraft. Spurred on by the events in Europe Britain began to re-arm and indeed started to do so before Germany got fully into its stride of building up an arms base. Work was already in hand by Handley Page, Vickers and Armstrong Whitworth who all produced
medium or heavy bombers by the middle to late1930s. Fairey designed and fielded the Battle light bomber which was a capable aircraft but woefully underpowered, as was discovered when it went into combat. Waiting to emerge in the really heavy bomber stakes was the Short Stirling, the RAF’s first fourengined heavy bomber, which would go into service before the Handley Page Halifax and Avro Lancaster but would suffer due to its limited operational service ceiling. The United States realised that their air force was outdated and their fighters, or ‘pursuit ships’ owed more to aircraft from World War One than anything in Europe. It was not the aircraft designers and manufacturers who were at fault but those in command who were behind the times. Not helping was the severe depression of the 1930s, purse strings were pulled tight and existing aircraft designs had to suffice in the US Army Air Corps (USAAC). With a new president in the White House and a plan for investment in the country, matters took a turn for the better. To get the country moving again American industry had to be encouraged and modern equipment for the armed forces became a priority. By 1934, it was quite obvious that the Martin B-10 twin-engined bomber was quite outmoded and in desperate need of replacement. An open competition to US aircraft manufacturers was announced for a multi-engined replacement to the Martin B10. Proposals were submitted and in May 1934, Boeing and Martin were chosen to build what were to be the first four-engined bombers to be ordered by the USAAC.
German Gotha III airborne, together with Gotha IV aircraft these aircraft carried out bombing raids on London in 1917.These raids eventually led to the question of home defence and the integration of the two air services as the RAF in 1918. via Francois Prins In the event the Boeing XB-15 was shown to be the superior proposal and the Martin was cancelled. However, the XB-15 was massive and took time to come to fruition. In the meantime, Boeing fielded their Model 299 which was also entered for the bomber competition and made rapid progress in construction. It first flew on 28 July 1935, two years before the XB-15. The aircraft was heavily armed and intended to defend the fortress US against any enemy invasion. The idea was that the aircraft would attack the enemy fleet long before it could get within striking distance of the US mainland. Given the job description and the fact that it carried so many guns it was not long before the name ‘Flying Fortress’ was coined by the press of the day and adopted as the official name for the Boeing B-17. However, Congress did not want to spend any money on buying the aircraft and only a handful were ordered at first; then Hitler invaded Poland and the USA realised that war could be a reality. Rearmament went into top gear with the B-17 being ordered in larger quantities. Britain had gone to war and initially attacked German targets by day but the losses incurred were unacceptable. RAF Bomber Command switched to night operations which saw a drop in the number of aircraft lost on missions. This decision was to shape both the future of the aircraft and the service. Early in the war, Britain carried out some 15 months of negotiations with the USA for the B-17. Finally in 1941 20 B-17Ds – known as the Fortress I in the RAF – were ferried across to be modified for Bomber Command. They were issued to No 90 Squadron at West Raynham in May 1941 and commenced operations on 8 July, when three Fortresses bombed Wilhelmshaven from high altitude. Further missions followed against various targets in Germany and the occupied countries, all were flown in daylight and were not that successful. Bomber Command withdrew the surviving Fortress Is from Europe and deployed four to the Middle East. Meanwhile, the first of the B-17s belonging to the US Army Air Force (USAAF) arrived in Britain on 1 July 1942. The Americans had their own ideas on how to mount raids against the enemy and refused to take on board the experience from Bomber Command of nearly three years of operations. It was agreed that the USAAF Eighth Air Force and the RAF would wage a
Studio picture of a bomb aimer with a Norden bomb sight as fitted to the B-17 and other USAAF bombers.This highly accurate instrument may have partly shaped US daylight bombing doctrine. via Francois Prins
The Avro Manchester, forerunner of the Lancaster, was one of three heavy bomber projects for the wartime RAF, the others being the Short Stirling and the Handley Page Halifax. via Francois Prins day and night offensive against German targets; the US by day and the British by night. On 17 August the USAAF carried out its first raid when 18 B-17Es attacked railway yards and coastal targets in France. Most of 1942 was spent in training and other raids into German-held territory but it was not until January 1943 that American bombers flew against targets in Germany itself. At first the USAAF operated their bomber streams in loose Vee formations at varying heights, but this proved to be vulnerable to enemy fighter attacks as not all the guns of the bombers could be brought to bear for fear of hitting other aircraft in the formation. The formations were tightened and this improved firepower but made it difficult for the aircraft to manoeuvre quickly to avoid enemy fighters. Aircraft formations continued to be changed and improved to enable all guns a clear field of fire. Losses were still high despite the changes to tactics and it was not until the long-range P-47 and P-51 escort fighters came into service towards the end of 1943 that matters improved dramatically. There is little doubt that the bombing of enemy targets by the RAF and the USAAF had a deciding effect on the outcome of the war. While it was not strategic bombing as we know it now, the continuous attacks did have a devastating effect on the enemy. For example, by the last year of the war Germany had little or no fuel for vehicles and aircraft and raw materials in general were in short supply. The lessons learned from the Allied bombing campaign in Europe, and to an extent in the Far East would shape the postwar role of the bomber that has continued to evolve right up to the present day. ■ Words: Francois Prins
The city of Brunswick photographed during the raid by RAF Bomber Command on 15 October 1944..... via Francois Prins
....compared to this image of a B-17 over its daylight target. via Francois Prins Boeing B-17 9
The Boeing XB-15 Experimentation on the grand scale In 1933, in response to an approach by the Boeing company, the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) issued a specification for a long-range bomber able to “reinforce Hawaii, Panama and Alaska without the use of intermediate ser vicing facilities”. The intention was carr y a 2000lb (900 kg) bomb load at 200mph (322kph) with a range of 5000 miles (8047km).
E
ngineering work began on the Boeing 294 or XBLR-1 (experimental bomber, long range) in 1934, and the type was soon redesignated XB-15. Developed contemporaneously with the B-17, it closely resembled that aircraft’s early prototypes, but on a much larger scale. However, it did not make its first flight until 15th October 1937, and, although capable of the 5000 mile (8047km) range requested, proved to lack the speed by then necessary for the survival of a bomber. The four 1000hp (753kW) liquid-cooled engines for which it was designed were not yet available, and it received 850hp (640kW) Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasp radials instead, leaving it chronically underpowered. The very efficient 149 foot (45.4152 metre) deep wing, however, enabled the aircraft to set, among others, a load-to-height record of 31,205lb (68650kg) to 8200 feet (2500 metres) on 30th July, 1939.
The Boeing XB-15 in flight. US Air Force photo
The Boeing XB-15 in flight with a Boeing YP-29. US Air Force
Corporal Junior gives scale to the Boeing XB-15.The photo was taken during manoeuvres at Providence, R.I. From the collection of Master Sgt. Laird N. Rosborough,who served as radio operator on the XB-15 in 1943,via US Air Force. 10 aviationclassics.co.uk
The XB-15, the largest aeroplane yet built in the USA, incorporated many innovations; the engines were accessible in flight via tunnels in the wing, and amenities included a galley, bunks and a toilet for the crew on the very long operational flights envisaged. It also introduced an autopilot, a twinmainwheel undercarriage, de-icers and auxiliary power generators independent of the engines. The type represented a quantum leap in crew comfort. Maximum bomb load was 12,000lb (5400kg), but at extreme range this was reduced to 2000lb (900kg), which was no better than the B-17, the smallest fourengined bomber built at the time of its introduction. A crew of 10 was carried, working in shifts, and the aircraft was armed with three .30in (7.62mm) and three .50in (12.7mm) machine guns, installed in three transparent blisters and three turrets. With its 33-hour duration the XB-15 proved useful in the anti-submarine reconnaissance role, but remained a one-off. Its overwhelming disadvantage, especially with the advent of radar, was its low top speed of 200mph
(322kph), with a cruise speed of just 145mph (394kph) with bombs aboard, which made it easy prey for modern fighters. The service ceiling of 18,900 feet (5760 metres), far exceeded by the B-17, was also disappointing. The XB-15 served with the 2nd Bombardment Group at Langley Field, Virginia, from where it flew an earthquake medical relief mission to Chile in February 1939, for which its crew received the MacKay Trophy. Based in the Panama Canal Zone in May, 1940, it carried out a survey of the Galapagos Islands. The navigator for this flight was Captain Curtis Le May. As the unarmed XC-105 with a large cargo door in the rear fuselage and still based in Panama, the machine spent the Second World War flying cargo around the Caribbean. In honour of its lifting capability, it wore nose art depicting an elephant carrying a load, both in its original natural metal finish and in camouflage. After a useful life of eight years during which it carried 5200 passengers and vast amounts of cargo and mail, as well as performing maritime patrol missions, the XC105 was scrapped in 1945.
XB-15 GUN POSITIONS The .30 and .50 cal machine gun positions were all manually operated, mounted in blisters and turrets that allowed movement in traverse and azimuth.
Photograph of the crew of the Boeing XB-15 taken at Albrook Field, Panama in 1943. The massive bomber was used by the Army Air Corps for a number of humanitarian missions in Latin America in the late 1930s and early 1940s. From the collection of Master Sgt. Laird N. Rosborough, via US Air Force
Boeing XB-15 front turret .30-cal. machine gun installation. US Air Force
Boeing XB-15 top turret .50-cal. machine gun installation. US Air Force
The Boeing XB-15 at an air show.The crowd are using the massive wingspan to shelter from the sun. US Air Force Though its initial conception had been a blind alley and the first B-17s were ordered before it even flew, the XB-15 provided valuable data for the refinement of its smaller sister and the development of the ultimate long-range bomber of World War Two, the B29. In 1938 Boeing proposed an updated version of the B-15, the Y1B-20 with more powerful engines. An order for two aircraft was placed in that year, but cancelled shortly afterwards. One derivative of the XB-15 was,
however, an unqualified success; its excellent wing was used, with slight modification, on the highly successful and luxurious Boeing 314 Clipper commercial flying boats, which had 1600hp (1194kW) Pratt & Whitney Twin Cyclone engines, providing enough thrust to fulfil its potential. A rival aircraft to the same 1933 specification, the Martin XB-16, was cancelled before a prototype could be completed. ■ Words: Dave Roberts
Boeing XB-15 right rear .30-cal. machine gun installation. US Air Force
The single XB-15 experimental heavy bomber built by Boeing company. First flew on 15 October 1937 and at the time was the largest aircraft to fly. Chris Sandham-Bailey/Inkworm
In the
beginning... The Model 299,Y1B-17 and Y1B-17A The early genesis of the B-17 was a complex tale of engineering development and innovation that was occasionally marked with both serendipity and tragedy. The aircraft that began life as the elegant Boeing Model 299 had a long way to go to become the tough and effective B-17G.
M
odern aircraft specifications issued by governments as official requirements are amazing documents. Definitive and precise, the exact need for the new aircraft is described in painstaking detail, including the kind of equipment it is to be able to carry to fulfil the mission needs. They run to many thousands of pages and form an encyclopaedic reference for any manufacturer interested in bidding for the contract. Consequently, looking back at the early official requirements issued to industry, they can appear delightfully vague, and at times downright hopeful in both their intent and language that the resulting aircraft will be able to fulfil a variety of alluded to, but strictly unspecified, tasks. So it was with the official design competition, announced in Circular 35-26 released on 8 August 1934, to provide a new multi-engined bomber for the US Army Air
Corps (USAAC). Although the official release was in August, details of intent had been released to industry in May. Written at Wright Field, which at the time was the centre of USAAC research, development and flight testing, the specifications were simple by modern comparison. In this case, the simplicity was misleading. What the USAAC was trying to do was to look beyond the capabilities of current engineering and technology in industry, and foresee the kind of aircraft they would need in the future to fulfil all the roles they could envisage. These new specifications were intended as spurs to galvanise the manufacturers. This bold and farsighted approach had already resulted in ‘Project A’, the aircraft described on the previous pages, the XB-15, which Boeing were already in the process of designing. The XB-15 was intended as a technology demonstrator rather than the next USAAC bomber, but it was to have an effect on the new bomber in
subtle ways, as its production taught Boeing engineers many lessons in modern aircraft design and construction. The USAAC’s standard bomber at the time was the Martin B-10, which, when it was designed, was an innovative aircraft in its own right. However, events, technology and performance soon overtook the twin-engined B-10, and it was considered vital that the aircraft be replaced. The new bomber had to be able to carry a 2000lb (907kg) bomb load for at least a range of 1020 miles (1642km), and if possible, for 2200 miles (3540km). It was to have a maximum speed of at least 200mph (322kmh) or again, if possible, at 250mph (402kmh) and cruise at between 170 to 220mph. (273 to 353kmh.) Lastly, it was to have a service ceiling of between 20 to 25,000 feet (6100 to 7625 metres) and an endurance of between six and 10 hours. The prototypes were to be flown to Wright Field for evaluation in August 1935, leaving just a year for the project.
The Model 299 at Wright Field. Note the three rear gun blisters and the twin oleo undercarrige, both features that did not last long. US Air Force
12 aviationclassics.co.uk
An interior and exterior view of the nose compartment on the Model 299. Note the separate bombardier’s window and the small turret mounted .30 cal machine gun.The nose glazing did not rotate on the Model 299, but was to on the later Y1B-17. US Air Force
THE MODEL 299 The prototypes were to be funded by the competing companies; no government funding would be available until the contract was won. Since the contract called for 220 aircraft, it was seen as a risk worth taking by Martin, Douglas and Boeing. Both Douglas and Martin produced twin-engined designs; at the time that’s what multi-engined was considered to mean. Boeing however, decided from the outset on a four engined machine, and on 18 June 1934 began work on an aircraft called the Model 299. This layout was chosen because Boeing realised the twin-engined bomber design had got about all the performance it was going to get out of the powerplants of the day. In order to win the competition, they would have to show an unquestionable increase in performance over their rivals, which required the novel approach of a midsized aircraft with four engines. This desire to win was prompted by a simple fact. Design and production of the Model 299 prototype, in the year allowed, was going to take all the company’s resources, in terms of both manpower and capital. This was indeed a risk; failure could mean the loss of the company. Once Circular 35-26 made the competition official, construction of the first Model 299 began on 26 September 1934. On the strength of the very encouraging wind tunnel and other test data coming out of the work that had been going on since May, the Boeing board voted the project $275,000 on 26 September 1934. An additional $150,000 would be required before the project was complete, meaning the company was gambling its entire future on this one machine. A team of 73 engineers was employed on the project, and they had a great deal of company experience to draw on. The general construction techniques of twin engined Model 247 airliner, a great success in 1932, was combined with the military requirements of the XB-15s design and its circular crosssection fuselage. The Model 299 was about
An interior and exterior view of one of the waist gun blisters. Although innovative, the blisters proved too restrictive to rapid gun movement and were deleted from later models of the B-17. US Air Force
The Model 299 at Wright Field.The inset for the bombardiers window did give the nose a singular look. US Air Force halfway between the two designs in terms of size, with a wingspan of 103ft 9in (31.6m). The prototype Model 299 was assembled at Boeing Field, Seattle, and was rolled out on 17 July 1935. It was fitted with four 750hp Pratt and Whitney R-1690 Hornet nine cylinder radial engines and was capable of lifting a 4800lb (2177kg) bomb load. On 28 July, Leslie R Tower, Boeing’s test pilot, made the uneventful first flight, which was followed by a number of company trials. On 20 August 1935, Les Tower flew the 299 to Wright Field, covering the 2100 miles (3380km) at an average speed of 233mph (375kmh). The rollout, the appearance and the performance of the 299 were exploited by Boeing for maximum publicity; it is fair to say that the aircraft inspired a remarkable reaction in the press, so the 299 arrived at the competitive trials with a very positive image. One of the elements that caused such a reaction in the press was the emotive name,
Flying Fortress. The five .30 cal machine gun positions that protected the bomber gave an impression of invulnerability. Its bomb load, twice the specification from the outset, gave an impression of great striking power. There are several theories about how the name came about. Many attribute it to a Seattle Times journalist, Richard Williams, who coined the term on attending the rollout. Others say that in the political climate of the day, an isolationist ‘Fortress America’ belief was prevalent; the country would protect itself but never become embroiled in foreign wars again. Discussions among USAAC senior officers and Boeing officials resulted in the name from an extension of this ideology. Whatever the truth, the name was a powerful symbol of the new technological might of the nation, and the press, and as a result the public, responded accordingly. It seemed that Boeing’s gamble had paid off, and in more ways than one. ➤ Boeing B-17 13
TRAGEDY STRIKES This euphoria surrounding the Model 299 was to be short lived. On the morning of 30 October 1935, Major Ployer Peter Hill was preparing for an evaluation flight along with Boeing test pilot Leslie Tower and two observer crew members. The Model 299 was fitted with a novel feature. Because the control surfaces were so large, there was worry that strong winds might damage the surfaces if they were left unlocked while the aircraft was parked on the ground. To prevent this, cockpit controlled locking levers were fitted in the prototype that applied surface locks to the rudder and elevators. Whether the locks were left fully on, or not properly and fully disengaged is unclear, but it is known that on take-off the Model 299 climbed steeply, stalled and crashed not far from Wright Field. The two observers escaped from the rear access door, and rescuers were able to reach the pilots before the fire that had started burned the wreckage out. Major Hill and Leslie Tower both died of their injuries in hospital later that day. This was tragedy enough, but for Boeing, it spelt disaster. The final stage of the competitive testing had not begun at the time of the crash. This was where aircrew drawn from USAAC units were to fly the new bombers and give their opinions as to their operational suitability from the user’s point of view. The crash meant that the Model 299 was unable to complete this phase and was disqualified. The USAAC ordered the Douglas B-18 Bolo into production as a result of the competition. This had to be one of the strangest looking aircraft ever built, based on the DC-2 airliner with extensive and ungainly glazing decorating a slab sided fuselage. However, 350 were built and served reliably in a number of roles. A B18 became the first US aircraft to sink a U-boat, the U-645 on 22 August 1942. Boeing were in serious trouble financially as a result of the crash. The depressed
Boeing Y1B-17 in flight. US Air Force economy meant there was little prospect of getting an order of similar value anytime soon and the fact they had emptied the company’s coffers into this project now seemed to be about to break them. However, the Model 299 had excited more than just the press and the public, the USAAC had been very impressed with the test results they had been able to gather. On 30 October 1935, the actual day of crash, Brigadier General Augustine Charles Robins, chief of Air Materiel Command, appealed to the War Department that the aircraft should be bought under Section K of the National Defence Act. Unbeknown to him, General Frank M Andrews, the commander of the General Headquarters Air Force, had already sent the War Department a cable to the same effect. Consequently, on 17 January 1936, they ordered 13 Model 299s as service test aircraft, along with a static test example for structural trials. The project, and the company, had a stay of execution.
The cockpit of the Model 299. Compare this to the cockpit views of later B-17s in the Inside the B-17 article and you will see the basic layout of the controls and instruments did not change that much. Boeing engineers made an excellent job of the cockpit layout. US Air Force 14 aviationclassics.co.uk
INTO PRODUCTION The prototype Model 299, often erroneously referred to as the XB-17, had displayed a number of design difficulties, so Boeing took the opportunity to rectify these in the production of the service test examples, initially designated YB-17 but shortly thereafter changed to Y1B-17. The first change was the engines. Four of the new Pratt and Whitney R-1820-39 Cyclone radial engine were fitted, increasing the power available to 930 hp per engine. The crew was increased from eight to nine, and the main undercarriage was changed from a dual oleo leg to a single oleo leg configuration. This would simplify tyre changes in the field enormously. The flaps became fabric instead of metal covered, and changes to the fuel, oxygen and de-icing system improved their performance. One last oddity on the Y1B-17 was the nose gun mount. As is clearly seen in the close up photograph, the small blister turret enabled the .30 cal machine gun mounted there to be traversed and elevated through a reasonable arc. In order for this gun to protect against an attack from any direction forward of the aircraft, the entire glazed nose rotated, allowing the gunner to position the turret aligned with the axis of the attack! Needless to say, this was a complex way of manoeuvring a single gun position, and was little used as the main cupola used to jam frequently. The first Y1B-17 flew on 2 December 1936, and between then and 5 August 1937, 12 Y1B-17s were delivered to 2nd Bombardment Group at Langley Field. The final aircraft was delivered to the Materiel Division at Wright Field, Ohio for extensive flight testing. As the only four engined bomber unit in the USAAC, 2nd BG immediately set about showing just what its new aircraft could do. A formation flight to South America secured the unit the MacKay Trophy in 1938 and many other distance and speed records were set. On 12 May 1938, three aircraft from the 49th Bomb Squadron, part of the 2nd BG, displayed how accurately they could navigate to a moving target by finding and photographing the Italian luxury liner SS Rex while she was still some 800 miles out of New York.
THE Y1B-17A
The Model 299 on fire after its crash at Wright Field on 30 October 1935.The two crewmen escaped from the rear door and rescuers were able to retrieve the pilots from the cockpit. Sadly they later died in hospital. US Air Force The flight was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Robert Olds, and the navigator was one First Lieutenant Curtis LeMay. LeMay became one of the champions of air power throughout his career, orchestrating the strategic bombing campaign in the Pacific theatre and the Berlin Airlift among his many claims to fame, before becoming the second commander of Strategic Air Command.
CONTROVERSY RAGES This high profile activity and its attendant publicity was a double edged sword. Several foreign Governments and the US Navy reacted strongly to this show of force by the USAAC. Complaints from the nations owning the ships thus intercepted reached the State Department, who requested the practice cease. The US Navy went several steps further. Firstly, it banned any further long range maritime sorties, then petitioned Congress to reduce the future purchase of aircraft of this type, as the money could be better spent on the Navy, who of course were the true defenders of America’s shores. Although this inter-service rivalry may sound odd to those unused to it, it has always been a factor of service life, and in fact continues to this very day. As if the interference from other national bodies were not enough, senior staff within the USAAC were also uncertain about the new aircraft. An incident during the third flight of the first Y1B-17 was being used to support the argument that the new aircraft were too complex for pilots to safely operate. Flight testing of the Y1B-17 showed that both the engines and brakes on the aircraft were prone to overheat. The third test flight was cut short because two engines overheated badly, but on landing, the aircraft nosed over as it touched down. It turned out that the undercarriage had been retracted while the brakes had been overheated, consequently the airflow had not had time to cool them. The brakes therefore seized on, so when the aircraft touched down, over on its nose it went. Since the pilot was a very senior USAAC test pilot, this was seen in some circles to suggest that the new aircraft would be far too much for the average squadron pilot to handle. Another argument was one of cost. For the B-
18, Douglas had quoted a unit price of $58,200 based on them winning a full production order of 220 aircraft. Boeing, however, quoted a price of $99,620 per aircraft under the same conditions. It became obvious that twice the number of the Douglas aircraft could be acquired, despite the fact the B-18 was almost obsolete as it left the production lines. Controversy over the future of the B-17 program raged around it, but the 2nd BG serenely flew 9293 hours without a single major incident, confounding the B-17s ‘too complex’ critics. Their long range and record breaking flights were widely reported and made the unit and its aircraft America’s darling, feted and celebrated wherever they went. The press of the day gave the impression of a far larger and more powerful force, rather than a single unit, which was to have an effect on the other forces gathering around the world that were to change the B-17 story forever. This change was to result in 12,731 B-17s rolling off the production lines in the following seven years. ■ Words: Tim Callaway
The 14th and last Y1B-17 was originally intended as a static test airframe, until another Y1B-17 flew into severe icing conditions near a thunderstorm. On 6 July 1937, Lieutenant William Bentley was in command of the ninth Y1B-17 built and flying on autopilot when the aircraft suddenly began a series of violent and unusual manoeuvres. It was later established that airframe icing had caused the autopilot to put the aircraft into a spin, from which Lt Bentley recovered and landed safely.The aircraft was fully test instrumented, so the forces upon it were recorded. During the manoeuvres it hit +3.67G, or two thirds of the type’s stress limit.The upper inter-spar web had failed as a result of the stress, but otherwise the aircraft was undamaged. Since the Y1B-17 could now be said to be thoroughly static load tested, the last Y1B-17 became a testbed for turbo superchargers in various configurations, mounted both above and below the wing. The above the wing version caused airflow problems, so the final position was under the engine nacelle.The turbo-superchargers on the Y1B-17A as it was now known, were to improve the performance so much it set load/altitude and load/speed records, so they were to be fitted on all future B-17s.The service ceiling went up from 31,000ft (9455m) to 38,000ft (11,590m) and the maximum speed was raised from 239mph (385kmh) to 271mph (436kmh).
Boeing Y1B-17 BB52 of the 2nd Bomb Group, Langley Field,Va. US Air Force
Boeing Y1B-17A (S/N 37-269). Note the changes to the engine nacelles from the previous photograph caused by the addition of the turbosuperchargers. US Air Force Boeing B-17 15