B-17s at Low Level

[WalterM140]

Hi,

I am building a diorama with a 1/48th scale B-17 at low altitude. It will have
two engines turning and two shut down.

My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at this
lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home? And
if so, how much?

Thanks,

Walt

[Air Force Jayhawk]

On 12 Mar 2004 12:02:27 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I am building a diorama with a 1/48th scale B-17 at low altitude. It will have
>two engines turning and two shut down.
>
>My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at this
>lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home? And
>if so, how much?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Walt

I would doubt it. Flaps are designed to let you fly slower but
increase the drag tremendously. If an airplane is crawling home
wounded on less than full engine power, drag is the last thing you
want.

AFJ

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

WalterM140 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am building a diorama with a 1/48th scale B-17 at low altitude. It will
> have two engines turning and two shut down.
>
> My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at this
> lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home? And
> if so, how much?


No.... if I were flying a four engined aircraft with two fans out, the flaps
wouldn't drop out until short final. He's already in serious trouble; any added
drag might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: Air Force Jayhawk
>Date: 3/12/04 6:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 12 Mar 2004 12:02:27 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am building a diorama with a 1/48th scale B-17 at low altitude. It will
>have
>>two engines turning and two shut down.
>>
>>My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at this
>>lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home?
>And
>>if so, how much?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Walt
>
>I would doubt it. Flaps are designed to let you fly slower but
>increase the drag tremendously. If an airplane is crawling home
>wounded on less than full engine power, drag is the last thing you
>want.
>
>AFJ

Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that hydraulic
sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I might
be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But you
could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut down.
You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two fired
from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dale]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:


> Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
> flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
> hydraulic
> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
> might
> be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But you
> could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut
> down.
> You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two
> fired
> from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?


The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.

I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> I am building a diorama with a 1/48th scale B-17 at low altitude. It will
> have
> two engines turning and two shut down.
>
> My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at this
> lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home? And
> if so, how much?

No, you would leave the flaps up until needed/desired for landing. The
B-17 used a plain flap that was mostly drag (use of 10-20 degrees does
shorten the ground roll somewhat but hurts the climb). And if it was me
flying I wouldn't be any lower than I had to be.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: Dale
>Date: 3/12/04 7:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>
>> Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
>> flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
>> hydraulic
>> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
>> might
>> be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But you
>> could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut
>> down.
>> You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two
>> fired
>> from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?
>
>
>The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
>brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
>The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
>B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.
>
>I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.
>
>--
>Dale L. Falk
>
>There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
>as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
>http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Thank you for the correction. I have zero hours in a B-17. My memory fails on
that subject. What group did you fly with? ETO or PT?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dale]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:


> Thank you for the correction. I have zero hours in a B-17. My memory fails on
> that subject. What group did you fly with? ETO or PT?

Didn't fly 'em in the military...just did the airshow thing to impress
the chicks.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[M. H. Greaves]

When you've finished it, why not take a pic of it and send it over the web!!
I dont know wether the guys on here allow pics on this N.G. but take my
e-mail addy and let me see it, i'd love a look at it!!
"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I am building a diorama with a 1/48th scale B-17 at low altitude. It will
have
> two engines turning and two shut down.
>
> My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at
this
> lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home?
And
> if so, how much?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Walt

[Stephen Harding]

Dale wrote:

> In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>Thank you for the correction. I have zero hours in a B-17. My memory fails on
>>that subject. What group did you fly with? ETO or PT?
>
> Didn't fly 'em in the military...just did the airshow thing to impress
> the chicks.

Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?

Did it in 1943???

Art, were you surrounded by British babes in 1944
because you were a "bomber guy"?

Always thought that sort of stuff was reserved for
the fighter jocks.


SMH

[Dale]

In article >,
Stephen Harding > wrote:


> Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?

Usually just the transport catergoy chicks. <G>

But it's still a fun airplane to fly.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[WalterM140]

>. As I vaguely remember it that
>>> hydraulic
>>> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.

That was the Lancaster, Art.

One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that it
relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?
>
>Did it in 1943???

From what gather, the B-17 was -the- WWII chick magnet, especially early in
the war with pilots like Colin Kelly and movies like "Air Force" (1943).

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at this
>> lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home?
>And
>> if so, how much?

>No.... if I were flying a four engined aircraft with two fans out, the flaps
>wouldn't drop out until short final. He's already in serious trouble; any
>added
>drag might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Okay, that's one less thing to think about.

The way I see it now, the base of the diorama will be the coast line of
Belgium, with the Fort just "leaving" Festung Europa with all deliberate speed.

Walt

[WalterM140]

> And if it was me
>flying I wouldn't be any lower than I had to be.

Right.


I have read about a B-17 that had to raise a wing tip to miss a church steeple
as it beat feet across Belgium egressing the continent. But since I have to
mount the model on a base, it can't be more than about 20 scale feet above the
ground.

Walt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 3/12/04 4:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>. As I vaguely remember it that
>>>> hydraulic
>>>> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.
>
>That was the Lancaster, Art.
>
>One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that it
>relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.
>
>Walt


Yeah I knew it was one of the heavies. I ferget which one.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Kearton]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
| > And if it was me
| >flying I wouldn't be any lower than I had to be.
|
| Right.
|
|
| I have read about a B-17 that had to raise a wing tip to miss a church
steeple
| as it beat feet across Belgium egressing the continent. But since I have
to
| mount the model on a base, it can't be more than about 20 scale feet
above the
| ground.
|
| Walt




Sounds interesting - would love to see it when it's done.




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[[email protected]]

Dale > wrote:

>In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>
>> Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
>> flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
>> hydraulic
>> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
>> might
>> be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But you
>> could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut
>> down.
>> You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two
>> fired
>> from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?
>
>
>The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
>brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
>The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
>B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.
>
>I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.

Dale, with some time on them I'm sure that you'd agree that when
limping home on two engines having your flaps or gear down would
very likely ruin your chances of ever getting home, right?.
--

-Gord.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: "Dave Kearton"
>Date: 3/12/04 6:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>| > And if it was me
>| >flying I wouldn't be any lower than I had to be.
>|
>| Right.
>|
>|
>| I have read about a B-17 that had to raise a wing tip to miss a church
>steeple
>| as it beat feet across Belgium egressing the continent. But since I have
>to
>| mount the model on a base, it can't be more than about 20 scale feet
>above the
>| ground.
>|
>| Walt
>
>
>
>
>Sounds interesting - would love to see it when it's done.
>
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>
>
>
For a true life description of a similiar situation go to my website and click
on, the story " Little Friend Brings Big Brother home".



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dale]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:


> Dale, with some time on them I'm sure that you'd agree that when
> limping home on two engines having your flaps or gear down would
> very likely ruin your chances of ever getting home, right?.

At the weights I flew the airplane it performed fairly well on two
engines, even so why stack the deck against yourself by adding drag. <G>
On a hot day, or high field elevation having the gear/flaps out could
certainly make a difference in the outcome.

There was a bunch of discarded ammo and .50s from the continent to
England for a reason. <G>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: Dale
>Date: 3/12/04 10:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>
> > Dale, with some time on them I'm sure that you'd agree that when
>> limping home on two engines having your flaps or gear down would
>> very likely ruin your chances of ever getting home, right?.
>
>At the weights I flew the airplane it performed fairly well on two
>engines, even so why stack the deck against yourself by adding drag. <G>
>On a hot day, or high field elevation having the gear/flaps out could
>certainly make a difference in the outcome.
>
>There was a bunch of discarded ammo and .50s from the continent to
>England for a reason. <G>
>
>--
>Dale L. Falk

Radios too.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

ArtKramr wrote:
>> At the weights I flew the airplane it performed fairly well on two
>> engines, even so why stack the deck against yourself by adding drag. <G>
>> On a hot day, or high field elevation having the gear/flaps out could
>> certainly make a difference in the outcome.
>>
>> There was a bunch of discarded ammo and .50s from the continent to
>> England for a reason. <G>
>
> Radios too.


Don't forget about a ton's worth of beef.... don't want to dump them out if you
can help it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[David Lesher]

Stephen Harding > writes:

>Does a B-17 impress the chicks now days?

Old joke:

Pilot: See that {pointing to Herc on the ramp}?

Spacy Babe: Yes...

Pilot: That's a C130.... *I* fly a -150....



--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Mark T. Evert]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >. As I vaguely remember it that
> >>> hydraulic
> >>> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.
>
> That was the Lancaster, Art.
>
> One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that
it
> relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.
>
> Walt

Bomb Bay doors, landing gear and brakes were about all that was hydralically
operated on most US WWII bombers.

[The Enlightenment]

Dale > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>
> > Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
> > flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
> > hydraulic
> > sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
> > might
> > be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But you
> > could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut
> > down.
> > You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two
> > fired
> > from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?
>
>
> The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
> brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
> The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
> B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.

Engine Oil pressure was used to set pitch on the propeller. Engine
oil loss could lead to a runaway propellor.



>
> I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: (The Enlightenment)
>Date: 3/13/04 10:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Dale > wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case
>both
>> > flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
>> > hydraulic
>> > sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
>
>> > might
>> > be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But
>you
>> > could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is shut
>> > down.
>> > You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or two
>> > fired
>> > from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?
>>
>>
>> The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
>> brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
>> The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
>> B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.
>
>Engine Oil pressure was used to set pitch on the propeller. Engine
>oil loss could lead to a runaway propellor.
>
>
>
>>
>> I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.

What group were you in?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[M. H. Greaves]

Even though they did take a battering, They had machine guns and nice chunky
..50 cal's at that, all over the aircraft, even under neath, something the
lancasters didnt have, they only had, front, mud upper and tail guns with
303 peashooters (i dont mean to demean the RAF guys, all i'm doing is
comparing defences that's all so please do not take this to heart!!)
The U.S. bombers went out in day light and had close mutual support one a/c
from the other, where as the RAF went out singly at night and although part
of the main stream, each bomber was virtually on its own really.
It made sense to have less relying on hydraulics, because they could get
shot out, and to get home, the odds would be against them, add to this the
u/c down, and the flaps and stuff causing a hell of a lot of extra drag they
didnt need guzzling up the fuel they DID need to get home.
"Mark T. Evert" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >. As I vaguely remember it that
> > >>> hydraulic
> > >>> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.
> >
> > That was the Lancaster, Art.
> >
> > One of the virtues of the Fortress so far as battle damage went was that
> it
> > relied so little on hydraulics for the flight controls.
> >
> > Walt
>
> Bomb Bay doors, landing gear and brakes were about all that was
hydralically
> operated on most US WWII bombers.
>
>

[M. H. Greaves]

pretty much but it would depend on what altitude you were at and how far
away you were form home, i've read a few instances where they were just on
the other side of the channel and made it; maybe not to their own base, but
to somewhere like manston, or woodbridge or bellied in on a field.
"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Dale > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case
both
> >> flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
> >> hydraulic
> >> sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But
I
> >> might
> >> be wrong about that, Check with a guy who flew B--17's to be sure. But
you
> >> could justify showing it with wheels and flaps down if an engine is
shut
> >> down.
> >> You might add a trail of smoke for reality. How about a red flare or
two
> >> fired
> >> from the B-17 to show wounded aboard?
> >
> >
> >The hydraulic system on the B-17 operated the cowl flaps and the
> >brakes...nothing else. The gear and flaps were electrically operated.
> >The hydraulic pump was electric, there is no engine driven pump on the
> >B-17 so having an engine out wouldn't affect the hydraulics.
> >
> >I've got a little over 300 hours in a B-17.
>
> Dale, with some time on them I'm sure that you'd agree that when
> limping home on two engines having your flaps or gear down would
> very likely ruin your chances of ever getting home, right?.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[M. H. Greaves]

"and i hope you didnt bring any bombs back"!!
"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
> >From: Dale
> >Date: 3/12/04 10:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Dale, with some time on them I'm sure that you'd agree that when
> >> limping home on two engines having your flaps or gear down would
> >> very likely ruin your chances of ever getting home, right?.
> >
> >At the weights I flew the airplane it performed fairly well on two
> >engines, even so why stack the deck against yourself by adding drag. <G>
> >On a hot day, or high field elevation having the gear/flaps out could
> >certainly make a difference in the outcome.
> >
> >There was a bunch of discarded ammo and .50s from the continent to
> >England for a reason. <G>
> >
> >--
> >Dale L. Falk
>
> Radios too.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[M. H. Greaves]

I thought meat was rationed during wartime!??, lol!
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
> ArtKramr wrote:
> >> At the weights I flew the airplane it performed fairly well on two
> >> engines, even so why stack the deck against yourself by adding drag.
<G>
> >> On a hot day, or high field elevation having the gear/flaps out could
> >> certainly make a difference in the outcome.
> >>
> >> There was a bunch of discarded ammo and .50s from the continent to
> >> England for a reason. <G>
> >
> > Radios too.
>
>
> Don't forget about a ton's worth of beef.... don't want to dump them out
if you
> can help it.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
> http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: "M. H. Greaves"
>Date: 3/14/04 3:40 AM Pacific

>"and i hope you didnt bring any bombs back"!!

Nope never did.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

Not that it applies to the B-17, but I would think that unless hydraulic
flaps were preloaded (spring or other or were heavy) to extend without
hydraulic pressure, the airflow would keep them retracted until airspeed
decreased or even until the a/c got on the ground. As for the gear,
unless it was kept in the retracted position by hydraulic pressure
alone, as on many modern light aircraft, the mechanical uplocks would
keep the gear up. Also, depending on gear door operation, the airflow
could very well keep the doors closed, or at least partially closed,
until airspeed decreased. Lack of pressure could also just allow the
doors to stay closed & the gear stay up regardless, depending upon how
they're actuated.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Dale > writes:
> In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>
> > Dale, with some time on them I'm sure that you'd agree that when
>> limping home on two engines having your flaps or gear down would
>> very likely ruin your chances of ever getting home, right?.
>
> At the weights I flew the airplane it performed fairly well on two
> engines, even so why stack the deck against yourself by adding drag. <G>
> On a hot day, or high field elevation having the gear/flaps out could
> certainly make a difference in the outcome.
>
> There was a bunch of discarded ammo and .50s from the continent to
> England for a reason. <G>

And Ball Turrets, as well. If you're hedgehopping across Belgium,
it's a fiar bet that if you could, you'd jettison the Ball Turret.
That would leave off something arounf 1500#. IIRC, the procedure was
to pull the traversing motor (that drives the pinion that engafges the
traversing ring gear that's on the edge of the fuselage hole for the
turret, and undo the retainer that holds the spindle for the turret
yoke to the fuselage bracket. Takes about 5 minutes with a wrench,
hammer, and chisel. The end result would be no turret, the fuselage
mounting bracket in place, and teh ring gear at the turret opening.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[N329DF]

>My question is, would a B-17 have its landing flaps deployed at all at this
>lower speed and altitude if it was not landing, just hedge-hopping home? And
>if so, how much?

no, the flaps on the -17 were mostly drag devices, and did not help generate
lift.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[N329DF]

> Unless of course the hydraulic system has been shot out in which case both
>flaps and landing gear would be down. As I vaguely remember it that
>hydraulic
>sytem in a B-17 worked off one engine.I don't remember which one. But I
>might
>be wrong about that,

You are, the only hydraulics on a -17 are cowl flaps and brakes, everything
else is electric. Boeing was even thinking ahead, all the gear and bombay
motors were the same.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Dale]

In article >,
(N329DF) wrote:

> no, the flaps on the -17 were mostly drag devices, and did not help generate
> lift.

Well, they help a little. Book shortfield procedure calls for 10-20
degrees of flap. Flaps do allow you to liftoff a little sooner/slower.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[[email protected]]

(The Enlightenment) wrote:
>
>Engine Oil pressure was used to set pitch on the propeller. Engine
>oil loss could lead to a runaway propellor.
>
>
Well, it wouldn't overspeed for very long at any rate!...:)
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

>Not that it applies to the B-17, but I would think that unless hydraulic
>flaps were preloaded (spring or other or were heavy) to extend without
>hydraulic pressure, the airflow would keep them retracted until airspeed
>decreased or even until the a/c got on the ground. As for the gear,
>unless it was kept in the retracted position by hydraulic pressure
>alone, as on many modern light aircraft, the mechanical uplocks would
>keep the gear up. Also, depending on gear door operation, the airflow
>could very well keep the doors closed, or at least partially closed,
>until airspeed decreased. Lack of pressure could also just allow the
>doors to stay closed & the gear stay up regardless, depending upon how
>they're actuated.

Quite right, I forgot to mention that...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Dale > wrote:

>In article >,
> (N329DF) wrote:
>
>> no, the flaps on the -17 were mostly drag devices, and did not help generate
>> lift.
>
>Well, they help a little. Book shortfield procedure calls for 10-20
>degrees of flap. Flaps do allow you to liftoff a little sooner/slower.

Of course, most a/c use some flaps for takeoff but it would have
only a detrimental effect (I'm pretty sure) at cruise...I know
two pilots who will swear on their mothers' grave to this....

Cruising along on a 'boring holes' exercise (quite boring indeed)
a couple pilots and I were discussing the possibilities of
this...my position was that even a couple degrees of flap would
be detrimental, one of the pilots was 'certain' that it would
help, the other was undecided. We had quite a discussion going
and ended up with a substantial bet between I and the sure guy,
to be paid in beer at the next squadron bash. (all that one can
drink - woohoo)

We were at 'range power', an airspeed that produces maximum range
at the particular weight. we had been there for long enough that
our airspeed was stable, co-jo inched down a couple degrees of
flap (very slowly and carefully) I waited a few seconds then
carefully inched the cowl flaps open quite a few degrees.

Airspeed slowly decreased...co-jo inched the flaps back up and I
followed by inching the cowl flaps closed. We did this several
times till he was convinced. (the pilots cannot see the cowl flap
position gauges nor the switches which are behind them on the
F/E's panel on the Argus. I never did tell them different. Fun.
--

-Gord.

[Dale]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:


>
> Airspeed slowly decreased...co-jo inched the flaps back up and I
> followed by inching the cowl flaps closed. We did this several
> times till he was convinced. (the pilots cannot see the cowl flap
> position gauges nor the switches which are behind them on the
> F/E's panel on the Argus. I never did tell them different. Fun.


You're a baaaad boy!! <G>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>From: Dale
>Date: 3/14/04 12:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Airspeed slowly decreased...co-jo inched the flaps back up and I
>> followed by inching the cowl flaps closed. We did this several
>> times till he was convinced. (the pilots cannot see the cowl flap
>> position gauges nor the switches which are behind them on the
>> F/E's panel on the Argus. I never did tell them different. Fun.
>
>
>You're a baaaad boy!! <G>
>
>--
>Dale L. Falk
>
>There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
>as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
>http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html


I assume that this was not on a combat mission.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>

> I assume that this was not on a combat mission.
>
>




"A boring holes excercise"

You really should read the postings Art.

Dave

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: B-17s at Low Level
>>From: Dale
>>Date: 3/14/04 12:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>In article >,
>> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Airspeed slowly decreased...co-jo inched the flaps back up and I
>>> followed by inching the cowl flaps closed. We did this several
>>> times till he was convinced. (the pilots cannot see the cowl flap
>>> position gauges nor the switches which are behind them on the
>>> F/E's panel on the Argus. I never did tell them different. Fun.
>>
>>
>>You're a baaaad boy!! <G>
>>
>>--
>>Dale L. Falk
>>
>>There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
>>as simply messing around with airplanes.
>>
>>http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html
>
>
>I assume that this was not on a combat mission.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I feel just so useless...I'll likely go write myself off
tonight...<snif>
--

-Gord.

[M. H. Greaves]

I remember seeing on T.V. that the B17 had like big long screw gears/rods
that raised and lowered the u/c in that case the u/c would have been
electrically operated wouldnt it!?? i.e. not hydraulically operated.
> wrote in message
...
> Not that it applies to the B-17, but I would think that unless hydraulic
> flaps were preloaded (spring or other or were heavy) to extend without
> hydraulic pressure, the airflow would keep them retracted until airspeed
> decreased or even until the a/c got on the ground. As for the gear,
> unless it was kept in the retracted position by hydraulic pressure
> alone, as on many modern light aircraft, the mechanical uplocks would
> keep the gear up. Also, depending on gear door operation, the airflow
> could very well keep the doors closed, or at least partially closed,
> until airspeed decreased. Lack of pressure could also just allow the
> doors to stay closed & the gear stay up regardless, depending upon how
> they're actuated.
>

[Dale]

In article >,
"M. H. Greaves" > wrote:

> I remember seeing on T.V. that the B17 had like big long screw gears/rods
> that raised and lowered the u/c in that case the u/c would have been
> electrically operated wouldnt it!?? i.e. not hydraulically operated.


Correct, it's a jack screw that operates the gear and it is powered with
an electric motor....the same motor used to power the flaps...and the
tailwheel. Each gear has it's own motor.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[M. H. Greaves]

thanks, i thought so!
"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote:
>
> > I remember seeing on T.V. that the B17 had like big long screw
gears/rods
> > that raised and lowered the u/c in that case the u/c would have been
> > electrically operated wouldnt it!?? i.e. not hydraulically operated.
>
>
> Correct, it's a jack screw that operates the gear and it is powered with
> an electric motor....the same motor used to power the flaps...and the
> tailwheel. Each gear has it's own motor.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html