That’s something I would have never thought. I didn’t know that the stencil markings were water slide decals. It’s amazing what you can find out if look hard enough
Always been a fan of the Memphis Belle. I had met Capt. Morgan, and his wife, at the Madison Airport in 2003...shook his hand (and with a photo), he autographed his book and a t-shirt for me. I had brought an old Memphis Belle Movie poster I had collected and he signed it for me as well. What a nice man he was. To this day, his autographed baseball cap is my most-worn cap. The Memphis Belle was on a tour and stopped at the Madison Airport. A note...I was always so disappointed when only a couple dozen fans showed up for the landing and meet and greet. What everyone missed! I also took a ride on the B-17, Aluminum Overcast, at EAA one year. A once-in-a-lifetime experience, eh?
What an honor you got to experience all that. Fun fact, Robert Morgan also flew the Movie Memphis Belle plane in his time, making her another very significant aircraft. She's now at Palm Springs Air Museum CA and she will fly again soon. Thankyou for watching and supporting the channel, keeping the story of Belle alive.
@stuntmanmike37 the US Bombers channel is OK. He provides accurate information yes however the production quality in this channel is superior. These guys go the extra mile to bring footage no one has ever filmed before. I mean they got inside the Real Memphis Belle and took you nose to tail. No one has ever shown this. They are not a B17 channel they are all around military, yet they have provided the best B17 footage on the whole internet
One reference I recall about the 'Belle' was that the decorated wheel covers were added after her return to the US, for the War Bond tour.(Patriotic decoration for the Masses.) But, in Europe and the Pacific and Mediterranean, the Wheel covers were simply extra weight (35-40 lbs each with internal structire and stiffening) and only a few flew missions with them in place.
The wheel covers were on the Belle during its combat tour (in fact, there was a different design earlier in the tour). Also, there was at least one other B-17 in the 91st BG (probably 324th BS) that had similarly painted wheel covers. You can see these if you search "Memphis Belle Outtakes" in TH-cam (NARA put all 34 reels from William Wyler's cameramen on TH-cam, and they preserve the original film at NARA College Park, MD).
@@jeffduford5847 It was 42-3053 'Desperate Journey' that had the same wheel covers in the footage. I've also seen a photo of 41-24527 'The Great Speckled Bird' with the same wheel covers.
@@jeffduford5847 Regarding the Virginia marking under the right waist gun. It was in reference to the state of Virginia where right waist gunner Scott Miller was from.
The curator’s information about painted vs unpainted B-17s is not correct, according to AF documentation. While paint was removed due to weight, it was later learned that unpainted aircraft actually had more drag as painted filled in panel seems resulting in lower drag. As a result painted aircraft used less power and thus, less fuel, so any cost/weight savings of an unpainted aircraft was nullified.
That may be true, but if it simply evened things out performance-wise, then bombers could come off the line quicker if unpainted, and there was also far less paint maintenance in the field.
In practice and generally speaking, uncamouflaged USAAF aircraft did fly faster, with results differing between aircraft type and depending upon treatment. The policy removing the camouflage requirement for USAAF combat aircraft was instituted in a series of USAAF instructions in late 1943 and early 1944 (but retained the camouflage requirement for some aircraft depending), with the thinking that such action would simplify production, remove weight, and lessen drag (thereby increasing speed). It was realized, however, that removing the paint very slightly slowed down a few types of aircraft, and also that the cured paint really didn't add that much weight (about 75 lbs. in the case of the B-17). It is true that, in the case of one B-17G tested at Wright Field in the spring of 1944, removing the camouflaged paint slowed it down by about 2-3 mph from additional drag not only from the panel seams but also the numerous round-head rivets employed in the B-17. Again, however, generally speaking and in practice, natural metal USAAF aircraft, particularly those with extensive flush head riveting and more clean panel lines such as the P-51 flew faster (and even more so if they were treated with wax or a light clearcoat, as many were).
"How many aircraft are we running in a squadron" (American group commander laughs nervously) "Uhh it depends on how many died yesterday and when their replacements arrive" "Maybe between 3 and 10?" American bomber crews in 1943-1944 are right up there with german u boat crews in "You are screwed" territory. Maybe not today, but certainly by next tuesday.
Manfred von Richthofen knew air camouflage was useless in the first war. We finally realized that, and stopped bothering with it late in the second one.
Camouflage is mostly to protect/hide the aircraft from attacks when parked on the ground. Not when flying in the air. This is why the americans largely didnt bother with it late in the war, when enemy air attacks on their bases were almost impossible. In 1943 this was still a possibility.
All of the detail and they still got it wrong under the belle's foot. The wheel covers were painted the opposite colors of the swimsuit on the belles, so most likely they were unique to that aircraft.
There was at least one other B-17 in the 91st BG (probably 324th BS) that had similarly painted wheel covers. You can see these if you search "Memphis Belle Outtakes" in TH-cam (NARA put all 34 reels from William Wyler's cameramen on TH-cam, and they preserve the original film at NARA College Park, MD). Moreover, the Belle's nose art was painted on in CONUS, while the red, white, and blue wheel cover design was painted on in early 1943, months later, at Bassingbourn (that was actually the second design, the Belle's original wheel cover design was a starburst with no red, white or blue, and you can see this clearly in the outtake footage).
Medium Green No. 42 was an official USAAF color per T.O. No. 7-7-1...it was not a color "from British stock." This technical order specified that "The work directed herein will be accomplished whenever necessary by service activities with the aid of sub-depots if necessary." Suggest you consult original USAAF documents. Alternately, if you don't have access to those, you could purchase Archer's excellent works.
Timrathbome7093..... I'll never understand people on the internet. Why can't people practice being humble. You can absolutely make a correction provided you have proof. There is absolutely no reason to insult the guy. It does not make you look smart or more intelligent, you in fact now seem to look like the ignorant one.
@@HH-COactual It is disappointing. That said, I certainly hope that I do not communicate omnipotence--I am human so therefore I err. Moreover, I constantly learn and really enjoy doing so. We're all in this together and we can all learn from each other!
10:18 FALSE!!!! The youtube channel WWII US BOMBERS has a breakdown with detailed documents that indicate painted airplanes actually had less drag and better performance than planes left in natural metal. The weight of the paint was negligible compared to the gains from drag reduction. The paint was left off on later planes mostly for time considerations.
I'm afraid the US Army Air Forces disagrees with you (and, if you watch that video closely, he is only talking about the B-17 [not USAAF aircraft in general]; he is referencing only one test [of a B-17G, not an F, and which indicated a very small 2.5 mph decrease in speed], hardly a full test program; and keep in mind that the B-17 is a mid-1930s design with lapping panels and widespread use of roundhead rivets that likely affected it more vs later butt joint paneled, flush head riveted aircraft like the P-51). Far more complete and authoritative information is available in Air Materiel Command's 464-page study "Case History of Camouflage Paint" completed in January 1947. This secret study was finally cleared for release to the public in 1990. In it you will find that the USAAF solicited recommendations from the combat theater commanders whether or not they wanted to have aircraft camouflaged or not--it noted that "London favored deletion of all camouflage from heavy bombardment types but only from the underside of medium types" and "Alaska was of the opinion that the increase in speed overcame the need for camouflage." It is because of the feedback from the combat theater commanders that the order went out to stop camouflaging aircraft, primarily because of increased speed (the Bombardment Branch, OC&R in DC concluded "In view of the data compiled from actual experiences, Bombardment Br. concluded that camouflage lost most of its importance when considered in the light of the cost in speed and weight, and the rapid advancement of radar."). Now mind you, the increases in speed were really pretty small, but for most USAAF aircraft it was there--in October 1943, the Engineering Division at Wright Field reported a "small increase in speed, of 1 to 2 percent at top speed and decrease in weight of 15 to 20 pounds on heavy bombers." Another side issue is in regard to the flat (i.e.-rough) camouflage paint such as Dark Olive Drab No. 41 used in 1942/1943--it was proved in tests to cause more drag than polished/gloss paint (which is a separate issue also described in this study, and I would suspect that some aircraft would indeed be faster with gloss paint than with no paint at all). If you are not able to find a copy of this study, let me know and I can at least post up a handful of pages (and perhaps a few other salient documents) from it.
Good presentation, but there’s really no need for the annoying slide guitar score going on in the background! Over used and ver cliche! Otherwise fascinating
That’s something I would have never thought. I didn’t know that the stencil markings were water slide decals. It’s amazing what you can find out if look hard enough
Absolutely! Even Scott's reaction in the video, he didn't even think it was the same thing. Thanks for watching.
Always been a fan of the Memphis Belle. I had met Capt. Morgan, and his wife, at the Madison Airport in 2003...shook his hand (and with a photo), he autographed his book and a t-shirt for me. I had brought an old Memphis Belle Movie poster I had collected and he signed it for me as well. What a nice man he was. To this day, his autographed baseball cap is my most-worn cap. The Memphis Belle was on a tour and stopped at the Madison Airport. A note...I was always so disappointed when only a couple dozen fans showed up for the landing and meet and greet. What everyone missed! I also took a ride on the B-17, Aluminum Overcast, at EAA one year. A once-in-a-lifetime experience, eh?
What an honor you got to experience all that. Fun fact, Robert Morgan also flew the Movie Memphis Belle plane in his time, making her another very significant aircraft. She's now at Palm Springs Air Museum CA and she will fly again soon. Thankyou for watching and supporting the channel, keeping the story of Belle alive.
This is the most in depth B-17 series probably ever 👍
It sure is! Thankyou for the kind words!
Excellent story. Great information for us modelers!
Glad you enjoyed it. Best video out there to get your model correct. Thanks for watching. More on Belle still to come.
Awesome!
Thanks for watching mate!
Always a few tidbits of info I never knew!
As always buddy, thanks for watching and commenting.
If you really want a deep dive, watch WWII US BOMBERS on youtube. The information that guy has is crazy.
@stuntmanmike37 the US Bombers channel is OK. He provides accurate information yes however the production quality in this channel is superior. These guys go the extra mile to bring footage no one has ever filmed before. I mean they got inside the Real Memphis Belle and took you nose to tail. No one has ever shown this. They are not a B17 channel they are all around military, yet they have provided the best B17 footage on the whole internet
Great video! Thanks
Glad you liked it!
One reference I recall about the 'Belle' was that the decorated wheel covers were added after her return to the US, for the War Bond tour.(Patriotic decoration for the Masses.) But, in Europe and the Pacific and Mediterranean, the Wheel covers were simply extra weight (35-40 lbs each with internal structire and stiffening) and only a few flew missions with them in place.
Interesting feedback! Thanks for watching.
The wheel covers were on the Belle during its combat tour (in fact, there was a different design earlier in the tour). Also, there was at least one other B-17 in the 91st BG (probably 324th BS) that had similarly painted wheel covers. You can see these if you search "Memphis Belle Outtakes" in TH-cam (NARA put all 34 reels from William Wyler's cameramen on TH-cam, and they preserve the original film at NARA College Park, MD).
@@jeffduford5847 It was 42-3053 'Desperate Journey' that had the same wheel covers in the footage. I've also seen a photo of 41-24527 'The Great Speckled Bird' with the same wheel covers.
@@pvtsmith299 Excellent! Both 324th BS aircraft, so indeed looks like it was something done in that squadron.
@@jeffduford5847 Regarding the Virginia marking under the right waist gun. It was in reference to the state of Virginia where right waist gunner Scott Miller was from.
The curator’s information about painted vs unpainted B-17s is not correct, according to AF documentation. While paint was removed due to weight, it was later learned that unpainted aircraft actually had more drag as painted filled in panel seems resulting in lower drag. As a result painted aircraft used less power and thus, less fuel, so any cost/weight savings of an unpainted aircraft was nullified.
That may be true, but if it simply evened things out performance-wise, then bombers could come off the line quicker if unpainted, and there was also far less paint maintenance in the field.
In practice and generally speaking, uncamouflaged USAAF aircraft did fly faster, with results differing between aircraft type and depending upon treatment. The policy removing the camouflage requirement for USAAF combat aircraft was instituted in a series of USAAF instructions in late 1943 and early 1944 (but retained the camouflage requirement for some aircraft depending), with the thinking that such action would simplify production, remove weight, and lessen drag (thereby increasing speed). It was realized, however, that removing the paint very slightly slowed down a few types of aircraft, and also that the cured paint really didn't add that much weight (about 75 lbs. in the case of the B-17). It is true that, in the case of one B-17G tested at Wright Field in the spring of 1944, removing the camouflaged paint slowed it down by about 2-3 mph from additional drag not only from the panel seams but also the numerous round-head rivets employed in the B-17. Again, however, generally speaking and in practice, natural metal USAAF aircraft, particularly those with extensive flush head riveting and more clean panel lines such as the P-51 flew faster (and even more so if they were treated with wax or a light clearcoat, as many were).
Great info. And the sneeze ment cut to the camera man. lol
Thanks for watching! Left in sneeze for comedy relief and budget cuts.
@@MilitaryArmamentsCompany 👌😂
"How many aircraft are we running in a squadron"
(American group commander laughs nervously)
"Uhh it depends on how many died yesterday and when their replacements arrive"
"Maybe between 3 and 10?"
American bomber crews in 1943-1944 are right up there with german u boat crews in "You are screwed" territory. Maybe not today, but certainly by next tuesday.
Absolutely. A tough place to be! How they kept getting back on that plane is beyond me.
Manfred von Richthofen knew air camouflage was useless in the first war. We finally realized that, and stopped bothering with it late in the second one.
Camouflage is mostly to protect/hide the aircraft from attacks when parked on the ground. Not when flying in the air. This is why the americans largely didnt bother with it late in the war, when enemy air attacks on their bases were almost impossible.
In 1943 this was still a possibility.
All of the detail and they still got it wrong under the belle's foot. The wheel covers were painted the opposite colors of the swimsuit on the belles, so most likely they were unique to that aircraft.
There was at least one other B-17 in the 91st BG (probably 324th BS) that had similarly painted wheel covers. You can see these if you search "Memphis Belle Outtakes" in TH-cam (NARA put all 34 reels from William Wyler's cameramen on TH-cam, and they preserve the original film at NARA College Park, MD). Moreover, the Belle's nose art was painted on in CONUS, while the red, white, and blue wheel cover design was painted on in early 1943, months later, at Bassingbourn (that was actually the second design, the Belle's original wheel cover design was a starburst with no red, white or blue, and you can see this clearly in the outtake footage).
For a researcher that guy woefully ignorant. The splotches were added in theater from British stock.
Medium Green No. 42 was an official USAAF color per T.O. No. 7-7-1...it was not a color "from British stock." This technical order specified that "The work directed herein will be accomplished whenever necessary by service activities with the aid of sub-depots if necessary." Suggest you consult original USAAF documents. Alternately, if you don't have access to those, you could purchase Archer's excellent works.
@jeffduford5847 Game, Set and Match! Win.
Timrathbome7093..... I'll never understand people on the internet. Why can't people practice being humble. You can absolutely make a correction provided you have proof. There is absolutely no reason to insult the guy. It does not make you look smart or more intelligent, you in fact now seem to look like the ignorant one.
@@HH-COactual It is disappointing. That said, I certainly hope that I do not communicate omnipotence--I am human so therefore I err. Moreover, I constantly learn and really enjoy doing so. We're all in this together and we can all learn from each other!
It was applied in great Britain..ok. from u s stocks in britain
10:18 FALSE!!!! The youtube channel WWII US BOMBERS has a breakdown with detailed documents that indicate painted airplanes actually had less drag and better performance than planes left in natural metal. The weight of the paint was negligible compared to the gains from drag reduction. The paint was left off on later planes mostly for time considerations.
I'm afraid the US Army Air Forces disagrees with you (and, if you watch that video closely, he is only talking about the B-17 [not USAAF aircraft in general]; he is referencing only one test [of a B-17G, not an F, and which indicated a very small 2.5 mph decrease in speed], hardly a full test program; and keep in mind that the B-17 is a mid-1930s design with lapping panels and widespread use of roundhead rivets that likely affected it more vs later butt joint paneled, flush head riveted aircraft like the P-51). Far more complete and authoritative information is available in Air Materiel Command's 464-page study "Case History of Camouflage Paint" completed in January 1947. This secret study was finally cleared for release to the public in 1990. In it you will find that the USAAF solicited recommendations from the combat theater commanders whether or not they wanted to have aircraft camouflaged or not--it noted that "London favored deletion of all camouflage from heavy bombardment types but only from the underside of medium types" and "Alaska was of the opinion that the increase in speed overcame the need for camouflage." It is because of the feedback from the combat theater commanders that the order went out to stop camouflaging aircraft, primarily because of increased speed (the Bombardment Branch, OC&R in DC concluded "In view of the data compiled from actual experiences, Bombardment Br. concluded that camouflage lost most of its importance when considered in the light of the cost in speed and weight, and the rapid advancement of radar."). Now mind you, the increases in speed were really pretty small, but for most USAAF aircraft it was there--in October 1943, the Engineering Division at Wright Field reported a "small increase in speed, of 1 to 2 percent at top speed and decrease in weight of 15 to 20 pounds on heavy bombers." Another side issue is in regard to the flat (i.e.-rough) camouflage paint such as Dark Olive Drab No. 41 used in 1942/1943--it was proved in tests to cause more drag than polished/gloss paint (which is a separate issue also described in this study, and I would suspect that some aircraft would indeed be faster with gloss paint than with no paint at all). If you are not able to find a copy of this study, let me know and I can at least post up a handful of pages (and perhaps a few other salient documents) from it.
Fantastic feedback as always Jeff.
Good presentation, but there’s really no need for the annoying slide guitar score going on in the background! Over used and ver cliche! Otherwise fascinating
Thanks for the feedback. Thankyou for watching.
too much buzz w/ m'bell !! other untold b-17s achieved 35 war runs ! + what about Capt Zeamer heavily & customed armed PTO b-17 ?
This series is about the Memphis Belle and it's story. We had the opportunity to cover it so we did.