B-18 Big Ugly

[inkworm]

Damn that turret is ugly, almost as bad as the XB15, looking at the photos I think I'll have to side with Wildr being more accurate

[BLOWHARD]

Heya Logan, I was just there recently too

[JMSmith]

oh you silly boys,

fancy doubting me, you should all know better
paul note the angle of the rear window edge, it is not vertical, check the panel line around it, also every single peice of window is a different shape and ALL the angles are different.

i present item No2, the defence council now rests his case

[inkworm]

The prosecution would like to approach the bench and claim that the defence withheld evidence to make the prosecution look like an arse (not that I normally need much help)

[Vigilante]

Overruled; the prosecution has the burden of proof, defense counsel's photo will be maked and admitted as Exhibit A. Let's move along, it's almost time for lunch....

That's actually how it works. During one long-winded bench conference down here a defense attorney actually reduced the trial judge to a stupor and, boom, he was asleep. Defense attorney looked nervously at plaintiff's counsel and suggested that he give the judge a little shake, to which suggestion plaintiff's attorney uttered the immortal line: "Aw hell, Jimbo -- *you* put him to sleep, *you* gotta wake him up!"

Asides aside, I love this airplane! It somehow escaped my attention altogether; I'd never heard of it before this post. And, even after reading quite a bit about its genesis, I still cannot believe that it wasn't designed by a Frenchman.

[BLOWHARD]

I still cannot believe that it wasn't designed by a Frenchman

I second that! Or at leasst the nose section!
You can see some similarities to the DC2/3 if you look at it from the right angles.

Some even got OD camo durning the beginning of the war.

[Jarink]

I took these photos in Oct 2010. Admittedly, they aren't the best photos (the lighting in NMUSAF is really poor for photography and all I had was a digital point and shoot), but the one of the nose appears to refute the earlier "angle" claim of the prosecution. Follow the back edge of the glass and note how in this photo it exactly follows the line of rivets up the side. At least, it does on *this* plane in *this* photo...



(Bad) Picture of the rear fuselage and turret.

[JMSmith]

sorry chris,

only got this photo this week, wish i had it when i spent months trying to get all the angle right on the drawing posted

lines 1 and 2 are the main reference points, these two are horizontal and verticle, correct by douglas confirmation, now look at 3 and 4, they are correct, check all the images you find and you will come to the same result, other red lines are to show how all angles are different

over to paul, come on mate put up a bit of a fight

[wildr]

I never intended for this to become such an issue. As I stated before, I think the answer is somewhere between what you and I have drawn John.

The prosecution would like “thank” the defense for resting his case so soon, and to further examine the evidence provided by the defense.
Number 1: You the jury will note that the images provided by the defense are of a similar angle and nature. I would still like to point out that you are still looking at an angle, not square on to the nose, as the window support frame from the view through the nose indicates (items A & B). The view you are looking at is shot from the engine and not square or perpendicular to that section of the fuselage nose, hence at a slight angle. The compound curved shape of the nose, both verticle and horizontal throws off your view of that verticle line. I just said the true view is somewhere between the two drawings. I believe that he is looking at an optical illusion.

Number 2: The angle in the lower front of Johns drawing entered in evidence ( item C ), has no abrupt angle what so ever to the aircraft in question as the prosecution has shown with the plethora of visual evidence. The frame for the plexi-glass ball at the gunners nose position is also compound curves and unless someone has mangled the aircraft, does not show the angle indicated on the defenses drawing. The prosecution’s drawing is also incorrect on this point.

Number 3: If you accept the premise that the angle has distorted the view then also consider the idea that the fourth and center two windows would also be exposed to view slightly (item D).

Presented to the jury are three photos that show how the nose distorts ever so slowly but distinctly as you move along the fuselage, take note of the differences between each aircrafts nose.

In analyzing the interior photos from inside the gunners station and exterior images along panel lines I cannot believe that an aircraft engineer in making a modification in the nose from an earlier version would not naturally use existing aircraft ribs to construct the new nose. Those ribs being in line and straight verticals in this case.
I yield the floor and hope this sheds some light on a very difficult drawing interpretation.

Inkworm, the French & Poles had more ugly a/c I think, Potez 540, Amoit 143, Farmen 221 French, LWS 4 for the Poles.

[wildr]

You will also note that in the second new photo presented by the prosecution, the airman in front of a/c # 64 is pointing to the lack of an angle (item C) on his a/c.