B-17G with Wing-Tip Gun Turrets

The Artist

The Artist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
1 November 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
384
I've done some searching here and not found anything on this, so... If this here somewhere, than this posting can be deleted.

While cataloging the items in a donation that came into the Museum a few years ago, I came across these two pictures. No additional information on this program. Note: This aircraft has the national insignia with the red stripe, so it does belong in this forum. The photos show the starboard and port sides of a USAF B-17G, 44- 85784, that has been modified with wing-tip gun turrets. The brief note on the back indicates that the starboard turret was to be manually operated and the brief note on the port view indicated the port turret was to be remote controlled.


B-17G Manned Wing Tip Gun Turret.jpg B-17G with Wing Tip Gun Turret.jpg
 
That is seriously weird. Nice find!
 
The photo on the left shows a raised cockpit while the one on the right shows a flush, conformal cockpit. This aircraft was originally the 'Sally B.' Regarding its history, I found this fragment:


"The Flying Fortress that was to become 'Sally B' rolled-off the Lockheed-Vega line at Burbank in 1944 as a B-17G-105-VE. Initial delivery was to Nashville, with her first operational posting coming after the end of hostilities in May 1948 at Wright Field; Ohio. She is also known to have been at Schenactady, New York; Hill, Utal; and Olmstead, New Jersey, in the order. During this time all the turrets came off and were faired over and carrying the Buzz number 'BA-784' she was involved in weather research work with man-carrying tip-mounted pods."

This appears to have been a secret Wright Field project.
 
I rather tend to the first description of a manned and a remotely controlled weapons station.
Aiming the remote controlled turret would have been easy, just the opposite angle, in which
the weapons of the manned turret were aimed. Frontal attacks were regarded as a very serious
danger, leading to the chin turret of the B-17G series, AFAIK.
 
bob225 said:
If that is indeed Sally B then you could read out to the team who still fly her out of the Imperial War Museum Duxford UK, http://www.sallyb.org.uk/index.htm

I'm sure they would be very interested to know the history, or may even have flightier logs etc?
Click to expand...


It is the Sally B. The problem is it was apparently handed over to Wright Field as its first post-war assignment. If there is anything about this experiment, it would only be in Wright Field files. All of those who flew it afterward likely either did not know about the gun turrets or the turrets had any weapon related hardware removed, along with controls.
 
edwest said:
The photo on the left shows a raised cockpit while the one on the right shows a flush, conformal cockpit. This aircraft was originally the 'Sally B.' Regarding its history, I found this fragment:


"The Flying Fortress that was to become 'Sally B' rolled-off the Lockheed-Vega line at Burbank in 1944 as a B-17G-105-VE. Initial delivery was to Nashville, with her first operational posting coming after the end of hostilities in May 1948 at Wright Field; Ohio. She is also known to have been at Schenactady, New York; Hill, Utal; and Olmstead, New Jersey, in the order. During this time all the turrets came off and were faired over and carrying the Buzz number 'BA-784' she was involved in weather research work with man-carrying tip-mounted pods."

This appears to have been a secret Wright Field project.
Click to expand...

My first thought on this comment was that weather research pods could make sense, but then I got to wondering what (apart from air-sickness) one could get at a wing-tip easier than one could get from within the fuselage. One of the few things I could think of was viewing how lightning strikes travel along the fuselage, but then I realized that camera pods could do that with less effort. I reported what was noted on the back of the photos in my posting without speculation.
 
Last edited:
Yes, writing what you have would be best. But further research into what program Wright Field needed this aircraft for would mean locating Wright Field documents for the year in question. Once the mission or test objective material is located, a more complete history could be written. I mean, by other researchers for possible publication.
 
It’s a bit of a puzzle, just regarding the pictures. Starboard pod does not seem to have any visible guns with traversing mechanisms, though a traversable gun could possibly be accommodated in the rear “stinger”, though I can’t see the joints/coverings which would be needed to make that happen. Anyway, the pod cockpit does not have a rear-view.

The port pod does seem to have something like the ERCO turrets jstar mentioned firing abeam, but also the rear stinger. Also of note is the large observation blister facing the pod from the fuselage.

The plane is probably doing both “weather research” (i.e. how do the pods fare in weather, esp. with regards to lightning as The Artist mentioned, hence the stingers), and gunnery research. The port blister is excellently placed to observe the port pod, writhing the limits of wing shadowing. The starboard pod seems to have a good view forward, and perhaps this is why guns are not evident, as we can’t see them because of their placement.
 
Composite aircrafts test bed? On the port side you would simulate the way a mother aircraft will behave with a load fixed at the wing tip (hence the observation blister that would hold a high speed camera for example), on starboard side you will observe how a "pilot" will react in-flight in this awkward position.

Notice also:
- on port there is a ram-air generator
- we can see a Catalina parked nearby so it's a Navy base and then perhaps a USN program.

Or it could be simply something to study the effects and best design practices for placing wingtip Pods on large aircraft like the Savage. The inhabited pod on the starboard side will simply host someone to alert the crew about severe flutter.
 
Last edited:
I will try to get higher resolution scans of parts of these photos. The photos themselves are 3.5 by 5.5 inches and I've been using a magnifying glass to study some of the details. I have seen that the Catalina in the background of the port side view has the yellow stripe of an Air Force OA-10. There seems to be a mix of aircraft types - single and twin engine types - in the distance in the starboard side photo. That bright spot ahead of the cockpit in the starboard view seems to be looking through the side window and the nose - not some artwork.

If I'm not able to squeeze out higher resolution here, Mark Nankivil will do it with his equipment.
 
Perhaps they were testing gun turret configurations for proposed heavy bombers.
OTL during the 1930s and 1940s several heavy bombers were proposed with manned gun turrets in the tail ends of outboard engine nacelles. Outboard guns enjoy larger arcs of fire (greater than 180 degrees).
When the airplane banks, wing tip gunners would feel rapid changes in negative or positive Gs.
 
There was extensive research done on wingtip "turrets", beginning in WWII and extending into the late '40's (possibly into the 1950's). I have quite a number of files on this research but, unfortunately, other time demands right now preclude me from doing a lot of digging. With some luck I'll be able to some time in the next several weeks.

I can't speak to this specific aircraft, however. Sorry.

AlanG
 
My guess would be the port side turret is simply controlled remotely from the blister, as done in the B-29 and B-36. Perhaps they concurrently tested a manned turret on the starboard wing. If it was simply to test different methods of wingtip turrets, then there's no reason to think that both methods were planned to be used at the same time. Might have been looking at the difference in fields of fire/view in both methods, and how that affected utility operationally. ie, systematically have fighters make runs from all directions, and see which arrangement lends itself to being most useful.


But this is a new one to me, and I thought I knew most of what there is to know about that beast!
 
During WW2 several proposed 4-engined bombers had powered turrets in the rear end of outboard engine nacelles. Only a few were test-flown.
The goal was to improve arcs of fire.
Can you imagine the mid-upper gunner terrified of tracers arcing over his head from an outboard gun turret? Yicks!

The only photo I could find is of a Messerschmitt 323 E1 Gigant with gun turrets behind the outboard engine nacelles: #1 and #6 engine’.
 
Last edited:
Given that the aircraft was being used for IR-sensor trials around the same time, I do lean towards it being some kind of test observer position given that the pod had a prominent dielectric nose and of course if you wanted to avoid any heat interference from the engines, or even propeller interference with radar systems, the wingtips and nose are the logical locations. Of course that doesn't explain why the observer would be in the wingtip too, much easier to run the cabling to a monitor position in the fuselage. Maybe it was a sensor pod that was re-purposed for the alleged wingtip cockpit concept for nuclear-aircraft? Many authors have failed to adequately explain it and theories are all we have.

Some theories and information here, based on a Flypast magazine article from some years ago: http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=64304
 
Dear Hood,
You are making sense about assymetric cockpits.
Apparently, during the lead-up to the P-82 Twin Mustang, they modified a P38 Lighting by installing a temporary cockpit in a tail boom. They flew the modified P-38 to determine how pilots reacted to the negative and positive Gs created by rolling the airplane.
P-82s performed well in combat over Korea.
 
Found this:
Development of the B-52: The Wright Field Story
books.google.com

Development of the B-52

books.google.com
January 1947:...The Armament Lab at Wright Field studied several armament configurations ranging from tail or nose fixed guns to wing tip or fuselage turrets.

...

March 1947: The Armament Laboratory concluded its study on the best defensive armament configuration for the XB-52. Their recommendations called for ".. .wing tip turret gunners in the wing tip turrets. Tail protection is obtained by the installation of a separate 4-gun tail turret with the gunner located in a tail cab." They also stated, however, that

".. .a project is now underway to determine whether or not physiological and psychological conditions at the wing tip will permit the placement of gunners at that location. In the event that an inhabited wing tip installation is not feasible, it will be necessary to resort to other remote sighting means now under development or to the use of periscopic sights in the fuselage."
Click to expand...


from the Congressional Record, FEB 1947
"As an example, last year during a meeting of one of the Aeronautical Board subcommittees, at which the proposals and contracts of the two services were reviewed, it was discovered that both services were considering almost identical proposals involving the development of a nose turret and the development of a wing tip turret. The proposals were modified: the Navy agreed to relinquish interest in the Wing tip turret program while the Army Air Force dropped their program for the new nose turret. It was estimated that probable savings from this coordination and elimination of duplication would amount to approximately $1,500,000"
 
Struck gold at DTIC:

Title: Inhabited Wing Tip Turret
Author: Hertzberg
Report Number and Date: MCREXD-695-80, NOV 1948

Abstract: Purpose of this report was to describe some subjective impressions and objective measurements observed during flight in the inhabited turret installed on the right wing of a B-17 aircraft (a project sponsored by Armament Laboratory). Eight representatives of the Aero Medical Laboratory flew in this turret. Their opinions were unanimous regarding the following subject sensations:
a. The location was liveable and comfortable from the physiological standpoint with no sense of nausea or uneasiness from the most violent maneuvers
b. Visibility was greatly superior to that of any other sightings

Measurements showed that the highest vertical accelerations the pilot could produce in the most violent maneuvers were on the order of only plus 4g, while ordinary maneuvers produced only plus 2g. In landing, an instantaneous value of plus 8g was recorded. These forces, however, are not unique to the wing tip position and are easily tolerable.
Certain minor sources of discomfort were found including high noise level which interfered with intercommunication, and high temperatures during taxiing in the hot summer sun. Ventilation and temperature were satisfactory during flight.



Direct link to PDF download from DTIC: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0743029.pdf

It is just a bibliography of a slew of Aero Medical Research Laboratory (Wright -Patt) studies and their abstracts. No further information beyond this. Perhaps someone enterprising can find the entire report.
 
Last edited:
50 Years of Human Engineering History and Cumulative Bibliography of the Fitts Human Engineering Division
At DTIC, here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA295601

"One of the more unusual projects was flying in a wing-tip turret experiment. There was a pod out at the end of the wing on a B-17 where you sat throughout the flight. It was pretty frightening out there, with nothing but space on one side of you, and the realization that escape would be difficult, if not impossible. And, of course, you always thought about the possibility that they would drag the wingtip on the landing. The data we collected was mostly introspective -- whether you could manipulate controls, whether the buffeting would be too severe, whether you would get sick. When I flew it was not particularly rough, but the wing still wobbled up and down a lot. I was in constant intercom contact, and if I had become sick, they probably would have aborted. Fortunately, that never happened. I don't think they ever pursued the concept of the wing-tip turret much beyond these early experiments." -- Melvin Warrick, Associate Director, Human Engineering Division

Unrelated: Text elsewhere also described a B-17 modified and flown with prone controls for pilot in nose. New to me as well.
 
riggerrob said:
The only photo I could find is of a Messerschmitt 323 E1 Gigant with gun turrets behind the outboard engine nacelles: #1 and #6 engine’.
Click to expand...

Hi!

Another examples were Mitsubishi Ki-20 giant bomber, Tupolev TB-7 (Pe-8).
Soviet pre-war TB-3 bomber has been equipped with wing-mounted semi-retractable panniers with gunner, sitting inside.
 
The Artist said:
I've done some searching here and not found anything on this, so... If this here somewhere, than this posting can be deleted.

While cataloging the items in a donation that came into the Museum a few years ago, I came across these two pictures. No additional information on this program. Note: This aircraft has the national insignia with the red stripe, so it does belong in this forum. The photos show the starboard and port sides of a USAF B-17G, 44- 85784, that has been modified with wing-tip gun turrets. The brief note on the back indicates that the starboard turret was to be manually operated and the brief note on the port view indicated the port turret was to be remote controlled.


View attachment 630702View attachment 630703
Click to expand...
That… looks like an absolutely terrifying gunner position. It also looks like an attempt to pressurize the B17.
 
A_Kid1234 said:
That… looks like an absolutely terrifying gunner position. It also looks like an attempt to pressurize the B17.
Click to expand...
I agree; words cannot describe how physically uncomfortable and psychologically nerve-wracking such a crew position would be. It would make the envious of tail and ball gunners.
 
taalismn said:
I agree; words cannot describe how physically uncomfortable and psychologically nerve-wracking such a crew position would be. It would make the envious of tail and ball gunners.
Click to expand...
One could wonder if some aircraft designers forgot gunners were people, too, not just meatsack fire control systems


Remote control would be the sane method
 
1635yankee said:
One could wonder if some aircraft designers forgot gunners were people, too, not just meatsack fire control systems


Remote control would be the sane method
Click to expand...
Well, Italians done exactly that:

1713017488337.jpeg

Piaggio P.108 have remote-controlled nacelle turrets, aimed by gunners in main hull cupolas.
 
Hi,

1635yankee said:
Remote control would be the sane method
Click to expand...

The problem with remote control in a wing-tip position is that the wing flexes, and using a sighting station in the non-flexing fuselage would lead to considerable aiming errors.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
HoHun said:
Hi,



The problem with remote control in a wing-tip position is that the wing flexes, and using a sighting station in the non-flexing fuselage would lead to considerable aiming errors.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Click to expand...
Ah yes, not only are you unable to move into the fuselage, but the added weight of the gunner pod makes the wingtip flex more, terrifying.
 
publiusr said:
A tail-gunner at least has his own plane, so to speak—-if the Fortress is cut in half.

Wing comes off—and it goes from cloud car to B-wing real fast.
Click to expand...
A B-wing that’s rapidly spiraling out of control as it rapidly plummets to the ground, unless the pod is ejectable and has a parachute.
 
Hi again,

HoHun said:
The problem with remote control in a wing-tip position is that the wing flexes, and using a sighting station in the non-flexing fuselage would lead to considerable aiming errors.
Click to expand...

Conveniently, this video with an interview snippet popped up in my suggestion list today:

View: https://youtu.be/RfttQ-U5E_E?t=490


I am not quite sure who the interviewee is, though. He certainly confirms flexing was an issue, though he has the perspective of the pod inhabitant :-D

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom