Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Collings Foundation B-24 & B-17
Note: click on any picture to see a much larger version.
Mea culpa: John Nicholas was kind enough to point out that I had mistyped "B-24" as "B-25" throughout this post. I squinted at a few of the pictures, and sure enough, labels painted on the wheel chocks even attest to my error. Thank you, John!
On Monday I went out to the North Central Airport to see the B-17 & B-24 owned by the Collings Foundation (www.collingsfoundation.org). They flew in Monday 9/10/2007 and are to leave Wednesday 9/12/2007. I paid my ten bucks and spent an hour and a half climbing around and through both planes. Very impressive, and a little moving.
(It rained all day Tuesday, and the planes leave Wednesday, so I really had to go Monday. I wanted to dig up the card & pin my grandpa received upon his WWII AAF discharge -- which says "This card will server to introduce you at all Air Force installations" -- to see if anyone could tell me more about it, but I figured I can keep researching that online while I'd only have one shot at seeing the planes.)
I don't think this B-17G is unique, but the B-24J it claimed by the Foundation to be be the last of its kind flying (though I can't find confirmation of this on the web site). There's some really nice images and other background information on the web page for media. (No reason to get details wrong in the paper now!) This is of course also online: www.collingsfoundation.org/media/.
Here's the Foundation's web page for their B-24: www.collingsfoundation.org/tour_b-24j.htm
And here's their page describing their B-17G: www.collingsfoundation.org/tour_b-17g.htm
The Wikipedia page for the B-17 is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress, and the page listing the various image in the Wikipedia (including a nice schematic) is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress. The Wikipedia page for the B-24: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator, which the various images in Wikipedia for the B-24: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator.
Exterior views of the planes
The B-17:
The B-24:
The B-24, very likeable if not so pretty:
The B-17 seen from behind -- very slim, very elegant from this perspective:
The B-24 seen under the B-17's wing:
The B-17 seen under the B-24's wing:
Exploring the planes
At the gate I eyed the line for the B-17 and asked whether they thought I'd get through it in an hour (my self-imposed limit). The guy snorted and said, "You will if you go to the other one first. Buncha lemmings...." The B-24 was parked behind the B-17, and sure enough there were perhaps a dozen people lined up at its tail to take a look:
We all climbed up through the hatch in the underside, just forward of the tail. First comes the tail gunner's position (aft of the hatch), then a waist gunner on either side with their open window, then the bomb bay, and finally a step up to the cockpit.
Here's looking forward through the B-24 from about mid-way:
And here is a view toward the B-24's cockpit, blocked off from us gawkers:
At the forward end of the bomb bay -- the doors of which were open -- a stool was placed on the ground for us to step down onto.
Visiting the B-17 was just the reverse: a ladder had been placed against the plane's hatch, and we all climbed up, entering near the nose turret (or was that the bombardier's seat? Here, this ought to settle that question: http://www.381st.org/aircraft-closeup.html. Hmph, looks like the bombardier & navigator sat up in the nose, with the former operating the chin turret.)
Inside, we squeezed up & back past the cockpit, and immediately stepped aft into the radio operator's space. Continuing toward the tail we passed over/around the ball turret and through the bomb bay, then a few steps farther along; we stopped short of the tail gunner's seat, exiting through a floor hatch.
Looking out the nose of the B-17:
The Gunners
Looking at the size of the people peeking into the tail gunner's position of the B-17 makes me think that the tail is a pretty delicate structure given that it's only about as high as an adult (on a plane 75 feet long):
The B-24's tail gunner has a much easier commute to work (more on that yellow stencil, below.):
The ball turret of the B-17; wow, is that thing small:
The B-17's ball turret as seen from under the tail:
Look how close to the ground that thing sits!
A few of us discussed how there were no spectators on one of these planes: everyone has a stressful, hard job. But those ball turret gunners...well, I can't imagine how you might come up with a more frightening seat. Two different people asked how the ball turret gunner entered the turret, and both of them told me I was wrong when I pointed to the small hatch on its top. *shrug* Don't believe me, then, but there it is. (I just found this web page, which begins, "It hard to imagine a worse place to go to war in then the ball turret position of the B-17 Flying Fortress": http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~josephkennedy/sperry_ball_turret.htm.) And don't forget the bulky leather coat & pants they wore -- this picture shows how really tight the fit was: http://www.vintageair.com/images/Gallery-2006_2_files/lg2/image013.jpg.
One guy kept mumbling about the movie "Catch-22," but the slick of water on the ground from someone pressure-washing a hangar near the B-17 reminded me a little more of Randall Jarrell (see http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/jarrell.turret.html).
Looking back over the B-17 through the top turret (note the gun barrel in the lower right and left corners):
Comparing The Planes
The B-24 struck me as a boxy, clunky plane that appeared ready to get the job done; all the design compromises seemed visible. The B-17, on the other hand, looked like a more complex product, even though I could see that the tail gunner must have gotten to his seat by wriggling like a worm. I was surprised to see the wood flooring in a few places (like the nose turret on the B-17), which seemed at odds with both planes' otherwise rugged steel construction. Might these have been put in during restoration?
Here's a good compare-and-contrast exercise: the two planes' wheel wells.
The B-24's rather simple wheel well (the top of which is the upper surface of the wing!):
The B-17's wheel well, all full of tubes and hoses and wires and such:
One of the B-24's engines in its squat housing:
One of the B-17's engines (is that ten or twelve cylinders?):
Various
The Arsenal of Democracy is so mighty we could put a pink-backpacked grannie on the waist guns:
A sight few Axis soldiers or fliers would have lived to tell about:
I just love these giant, sail-like shapes -- don't ask me why:
This stencil, just forward of the B-24's tail, reads, "Cut Here For Rescue" -- the stark reality of which brought several visitors up short.
More good advice: "Do NOT Smoke in Bomb Bay." Reminds me of that line from Dr. Strangelove, "You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
And here's the B-24's ribbon-thin bomb bay catwalk, just a few inches wider than my size-eleven Doc Martens:
Even just a couple of feet off the ground, I hung on to those guide ropes. With the bumping and juking of a plane in flight, making that trip back to care for an injured tail gunner must have been about the last thing anyone wanted to do short of bailing out.
a Final Note
I wish I'd brought the kids out to see these planes, but I don't think (at ages 8, 5, and 3) they'd've been willing to stand in line for so long just to walk through the planes. And the little one would've probably broken something -- several somethings, in fact.
When I first walked behind the B-17 and approached the B-24, I felt a little silly to note how thrilled I was, but then I figured that I've read so much about these planes and the men who flew them -- without ever coming closer than a book or TV screen -- that not being excited to see them in person would be a bigger surprise. Later, I lay my hand on the cowling of one of the B-17's engines and noticed it was still warm since they'd only arrived an hour before. It felt like touching a big animal, like a cow or horse: lots of power, at rest for the moment.
In the following picture I'm the red blob reflected in the propeller hub of the B-17's port, inboard engine:
Your intrepid reporter, bearing a labrador retriever's big, stupid grin, standing in a position where spinning propellers would have sliced me to bits:
Mea culpa: John Nicholas was kind enough to point out that I had mistyped "B-24" as "B-25" throughout this post. I squinted at a few of the pictures, and sure enough, labels painted on the wheel chocks even attest to my error. Thank you, John!
On Monday I went out to the North Central Airport to see the B-17 & B-24 owned by the Collings Foundation (www.collingsfoundation.org). They flew in Monday 9/10/2007 and are to leave Wednesday 9/12/2007. I paid my ten bucks and spent an hour and a half climbing around and through both planes. Very impressive, and a little moving.
(It rained all day Tuesday, and the planes leave Wednesday, so I really had to go Monday. I wanted to dig up the card & pin my grandpa received upon his WWII AAF discharge -- which says "This card will server to introduce you at all Air Force installations" -- to see if anyone could tell me more about it, but I figured I can keep researching that online while I'd only have one shot at seeing the planes.)
I don't think this B-17G is unique, but the B-24J it claimed by the Foundation to be be the last of its kind flying (though I can't find confirmation of this on the web site). There's some really nice images and other background information on the web page for media. (No reason to get details wrong in the paper now!) This is of course also online: www.collingsfoundation.org/media/.
Here's the Foundation's web page for their B-24: www.collingsfoundation.org/tour_b-24j.htm
And here's their page describing their B-17G: www.collingsfoundation.org/tour_b-17g.htm
The Wikipedia page for the B-17 is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress, and the page listing the various image in the Wikipedia (including a nice schematic) is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress. The Wikipedia page for the B-24: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator, which the various images in Wikipedia for the B-24: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/B-24_Liberator.
The B-17:
The B-24:
The B-24, very likeable if not so pretty:
The B-17 seen from behind -- very slim, very elegant from this perspective:
The B-24 seen under the B-17's wing:
The B-17 seen under the B-24's wing:
At the gate I eyed the line for the B-17 and asked whether they thought I'd get through it in an hour (my self-imposed limit). The guy snorted and said, "You will if you go to the other one first. Buncha lemmings...." The B-24 was parked behind the B-17, and sure enough there were perhaps a dozen people lined up at its tail to take a look:
We all climbed up through the hatch in the underside, just forward of the tail. First comes the tail gunner's position (aft of the hatch), then a waist gunner on either side with their open window, then the bomb bay, and finally a step up to the cockpit.
Here's looking forward through the B-24 from about mid-way:
And here is a view toward the B-24's cockpit, blocked off from us gawkers:
At the forward end of the bomb bay -- the doors of which were open -- a stool was placed on the ground for us to step down onto.
Visiting the B-17 was just the reverse: a ladder had been placed against the plane's hatch, and we all climbed up, entering near the nose turret (or was that the bombardier's seat? Here, this ought to settle that question: http://www.381st.org/aircraft-closeup.html. Hmph, looks like the bombardier & navigator sat up in the nose, with the former operating the chin turret.)
Inside, we squeezed up & back past the cockpit, and immediately stepped aft into the radio operator's space. Continuing toward the tail we passed over/around the ball turret and through the bomb bay, then a few steps farther along; we stopped short of the tail gunner's seat, exiting through a floor hatch.
Looking out the nose of the B-17:
Looking at the size of the people peeking into the tail gunner's position of the B-17 makes me think that the tail is a pretty delicate structure given that it's only about as high as an adult (on a plane 75 feet long):
The B-24's tail gunner has a much easier commute to work (more on that yellow stencil, below.):
The ball turret of the B-17; wow, is that thing small:
The B-17's ball turret as seen from under the tail:
Look how close to the ground that thing sits!
A few of us discussed how there were no spectators on one of these planes: everyone has a stressful, hard job. But those ball turret gunners...well, I can't imagine how you might come up with a more frightening seat. Two different people asked how the ball turret gunner entered the turret, and both of them told me I was wrong when I pointed to the small hatch on its top. *shrug* Don't believe me, then, but there it is. (I just found this web page, which begins, "It hard to imagine a worse place to go to war in then the ball turret position of the B-17 Flying Fortress": http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~josephkennedy/sperry_ball_turret.htm.) And don't forget the bulky leather coat & pants they wore -- this picture shows how really tight the fit was: http://www.vintageair.com/images/Gallery-2006_2_files/lg2/image013.jpg.
One guy kept mumbling about the movie "Catch-22," but the slick of water on the ground from someone pressure-washing a hangar near the B-17 reminded me a little more of Randall Jarrell (see http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/jarrell.turret.html).
Looking back over the B-17 through the top turret (note the gun barrel in the lower right and left corners):
Comparing The Planes
The B-24 struck me as a boxy, clunky plane that appeared ready to get the job done; all the design compromises seemed visible. The B-17, on the other hand, looked like a more complex product, even though I could see that the tail gunner must have gotten to his seat by wriggling like a worm. I was surprised to see the wood flooring in a few places (like the nose turret on the B-17), which seemed at odds with both planes' otherwise rugged steel construction. Might these have been put in during restoration?
Here's a good compare-and-contrast exercise: the two planes' wheel wells.
The B-24's rather simple wheel well (the top of which is the upper surface of the wing!):
The B-17's wheel well, all full of tubes and hoses and wires and such:
One of the B-24's engines in its squat housing:
One of the B-17's engines (is that ten or twelve cylinders?):
The Arsenal of Democracy is so mighty we could put a pink-backpacked grannie on the waist guns:
A sight few Axis soldiers or fliers would have lived to tell about:
I just love these giant, sail-like shapes -- don't ask me why:
This stencil, just forward of the B-24's tail, reads, "Cut Here For Rescue" -- the stark reality of which brought several visitors up short.
More good advice: "Do NOT Smoke in Bomb Bay." Reminds me of that line from Dr. Strangelove, "You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
And here's the B-24's ribbon-thin bomb bay catwalk, just a few inches wider than my size-eleven Doc Martens:
Even just a couple of feet off the ground, I hung on to those guide ropes. With the bumping and juking of a plane in flight, making that trip back to care for an injured tail gunner must have been about the last thing anyone wanted to do short of bailing out.
I wish I'd brought the kids out to see these planes, but I don't think (at ages 8, 5, and 3) they'd've been willing to stand in line for so long just to walk through the planes. And the little one would've probably broken something -- several somethings, in fact.
When I first walked behind the B-17 and approached the B-24, I felt a little silly to note how thrilled I was, but then I figured that I've read so much about these planes and the men who flew them -- without ever coming closer than a book or TV screen -- that not being excited to see them in person would be a bigger surprise. Later, I lay my hand on the cowling of one of the B-17's engines and noticed it was still warm since they'd only arrived an hour before. It felt like touching a big animal, like a cow or horse: lots of power, at rest for the moment.
In the following picture I'm the red blob reflected in the propeller hub of the B-17's port, inboard engine:
Your intrepid reporter, bearing a labrador retriever's big, stupid grin, standing in a position where spinning propellers would have sliced me to bits:
Labels: WWII planes
Monday, September 10, 2007
Touch A Truck 2007
Held on Sunday, 9/9/2007 at Diamond Hill Park, spponsored by the local Fraternal Order of Police Lodge. They get local construction companies, landscapers, fire houses, Army units, wreckers, etc., etc., to bring their gear to the park and yank some fuses before turning the town's kids loose on them. the ice cream shop across the street brought their van, too, and handed out free ice cream to everyone.
Last year it rained slowly all day, and they askled $1 from everyone; by the time we got up there right before it ended, the trucks were gone and they given up on collecting money. This year, though, was warm and dry and bright -- yay! there were more vehicles than we could see in an hour: we only passed by the line of dump trucks and rescue gear oin our way out. The giant forklift was neat; the land-clearing beast (with a winch, a small blade, and a pir of giant tongs on an arm) was my favorite; and the little purple Bombardier pleased the kids by being just their size. They loved the monster excavator (pictures below), and also the flatbed hauler down at one end with an ear-splitting horn that every child honked incessantly.
Can you believe he crawled up there by himself? (that's what my wife told me, anyway):
Equal opportinity: she gleefully beeped this thing's horn as much as her little brother had.
The guy helping kids climb in and out of the cab on this monster told me all about its fabulous new features: single point for lubrication (which is done automatically), the scale built into the scoop, and radio telemetry that alerts the vendor when service is required.
Oh, and that radio can also be used to remote-kill the loader if you fall behind on your payments. "Pretty much like OnStar," the guy said cheerfully, and then went on to point out the rear-view camera. (That's him in the background, arms crossed.)
How cute is this? And how huge is that tire
Here's the whole crew in their crunchy plastic construction worker helmets (which, I was amazed to notice, do not bear a disclaimer warning you not to wear them while doing real consrution work):
Last year it rained slowly all day, and they askled $1 from everyone; by the time we got up there right before it ended, the trucks were gone and they given up on collecting money. This year, though, was warm and dry and bright -- yay! there were more vehicles than we could see in an hour: we only passed by the line of dump trucks and rescue gear oin our way out. The giant forklift was neat; the land-clearing beast (with a winch, a small blade, and a pir of giant tongs on an arm) was my favorite; and the little purple Bombardier pleased the kids by being just their size. They loved the monster excavator (pictures below), and also the flatbed hauler down at one end with an ear-splitting horn that every child honked incessantly.
Can you believe he crawled up there by himself? (that's what my wife told me, anyway):
Equal opportinity: she gleefully beeped this thing's horn as much as her little brother had.
The guy helping kids climb in and out of the cab on this monster told me all about its fabulous new features: single point for lubrication (which is done automatically), the scale built into the scoop, and radio telemetry that alerts the vendor when service is required.
Oh, and that radio can also be used to remote-kill the loader if you fall behind on your payments. "Pretty much like OnStar," the guy said cheerfully, and then went on to point out the rear-view camera. (That's him in the background, arms crossed.)
How cute is this? And how huge is that tire
Here's the whole crew in their crunchy plastic construction worker helmets (which, I was amazed to notice, do not bear a disclaimer warning you not to wear them while doing real consrution work):
