Jet Powred Boeing B-17 Bomber ?

Whoever drew that had a very poor sense of proportion. If the engines are in any way scaled to the size of the nacelles they would be HUGE; I don't know if 1940s tech could even build a jet engine that size. Feels like someone looked at a Gloster Meteor and drew the nacelles in proportion to the size of a B-17 wing, with interest. It's more likely they would have used the original engine mounting points, but even then a B-17 would need at least six contemporary jet engines and possibly even eight.

The rest of the aircraft is itself a very curious mishmash of B-17 C/D and F/G-era fuselages, and the tailplane is... odd. I can accept that they might have wanted to put extra vertical stabilizer area on, but that's usually done by leaving the horizontal stabilizers where they are and modifying them accordingly. Someone's tried too hard to kitbash a Lockheed airliner tri-tail onto a B-17.

I call not-real for all those reasons. It was quite probably drawn in good faith - someone somewhere got a whiff of "Proposed B-17 jet conversion" and let their inner twelve-year-old out to play, with the results we see here - but I don't think this is how Boeing would have done it.
 
We learn in this great site,to check at first,then we can judge.
 
I've translated the text about the jet engine development in the US via Google translator and, as already
mentioned by Grzesio, indeed I couldn't find any mention of the B-17 with jet engines.
And, as written above, too, the drawing doesn't look plausible, not to mention, that the B-17 probably
wouldn't have been the aircraft of choice for such a conversion, when jet engine became available. There
were other, more modern and more suitable types.
And I fully agree, that a site, that comes up with German flying discs somehow loses their credibility... :rolleyes:
 
hesham said:
I found this drawing in a Russian site,and I don't know if it was real or not ?.
Click to expand...

As others mentioned, this seems at best dubious. There's a lot there to dislike... the fact that it's a B-17C model, obsolete well before jet engines came around; the *tiny* Whittle jets with ridiculously fat nacelles, the *huge* plexiglas nose.

It's *possible* that someone at Boeing or GE thoughtof using a surplussed B-17C as an engine testbed. But it seems unlikely in the extreme that such a design would come to light in a dubious Russian source.
 
And I agree with you my dears,

and I am convinced with your opinion of course,only or just I will make last check by my self from some books and
magazines.
 
Orionblamblam said:
It's *possible* that someone at Boeing or GE thought of using a surplussed B-17C as an engine testbed. But it seems unlikely in the extreme that such a design would come to light in a dubious Russian source.
Click to expand...

American junior aeronautical engineer with time to kill: "Hey, I wonder if... why don't I draw up a spec and see where I can take it in my spare time?"

Three days later: "Naah, that's not gonna work. I'll try again tomorrow with more engines."

Russian spy disguised as janitor: "What is this? Proposal for jet heavy bomber? Must warn Mother Russia!"

:p
 
OTL the only vaguely related project ewas a single B-17 modified with a turboprop mounted on the nose. This configuation iwas to test new turboprop engines.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom