B-17D: Bomb Bay & Sleeping Cots

[pebinford]

Full disclosure: I have never served in the military (let alone the Air Force). If the inquiry below sounds naive, you now understand why!

I'm researching a story about a war weary B-17D (the last of the shark fin tail variants), which was being used by the Air Transport Command to deliver personnel in the Pacific Theater (circa 1942). According to a couple of sources, sleeping cots were placed in the bomb bay on one particular mission--for use by two VIPs during the roughly 10-hour island hopping flights. From drawings and pictures of the interior of the B-17D, there appears to be insufficient room and no flat surface area for these sleeping cots--not to mention the catwalk obstruction. Here are my questions:

1. Does the term bomb bay refer to a larger area (such as the rear fuselage) in the B-17D than the term suggests?
2. Were sleeping cots literally placed in the bomb bay of these planes?
3. Even though both these sources specifically mention cots, could hammocks be strung-up in the bomb bay of these planes? Was this common practice?

Any plausible explanation, thoughts, ideas, illustrations, or images of these planes (with sleep cots or hammocks) would be welcome.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Are we talking about the Swoose? If so, she still exists and is at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.

 

[pebinford]

Are we talking about the Swoose? If so, she still exists and is at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.

No, this is not a question specifically about the Swoose--but another B-17D. However, in my research, I did get a chance to visit the National Museum of the United States Air Force. One of the staff members was kind enough to let me view the Swoose restoration project.

As you probably know, NMUSAF has since released some Youtube videos of the restoration project. Attached is a picture of the Swoose from a year ago (Summer 2022).

 

[SaparotRob]

I was thinking about Swoose earlier today. Glad she's a work in progress.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see a real problem with loading some brass in the bomb-bays, provided the doors still work.

 

[pbehn]

Did Air Transport Command modify their aircraft for "air transport"

 

[DDonSS3]

The term "bomb bay" refers specifically to the area inside the aircraft that carries the bombs (or other droppable weapons), not the aft fuselage as you mention in your question.
If an aircraft was permanently to be used by ATC for cargo or passenger carrying they were generally modified in some way.

 

[pebinford]

The term "bomb bay" refers specifically to the area inside the aircraft that carries the bombs (or other droppable weapons), not the aft fuselage as you mention in your question.
If an aircraft was permanently to be used by ATC for cargo or passenger carrying they were generally modified in some way.

Yes, your "bomb bay" definition seems sensible and separate from the aft fuselage. The aft fuselage on a B-17D would include the radio operator's location/equipment? The modification portion of your answer also seems reasonable--thank you!

The specific B-17D I'm researching was supposed to return to the states for training purposes. At the last moment, the orders changed and a VIP was placed on the bomber instead, heading in the opposite direction. There would have been no time/opportunity for modification.

If the B-17 in question was supposed to be used for training purposes, I'm assuming they would want the Bomb Bay in-tact? If so, from my layman's perspective, the only location for those cots would be the aft fuselage?

 

[SaparotRob]

There wouldn't have been much room in the bomb bay if the bomb racks were left in place. I remember it as being a tight squeeze. I got to go inside the "Memphis Belle", the G used in the latest movie about the Memphis Belle.

 

[pbehn]

There wouldn't have been much room in the bomb bay if the bomb racks were left in place. I remember it as being a tight squeeze. I got to go inside the "Memphis Belle", the G used in the latest movie about the Memphis Belle.

There is no science to this, but I think the area above the bomb bay doors would always be called the "bomb bay" even if everything to do with bombs was taken out.

 

[Big Jake]

In all B-17s, the bomb bay is the section of the fuselage stretching from aft of the cockpit rear bulkhead (Sta. 4) to the radio room's forward bulkhead (Sta. 5)

There is enough room there for cots or hammocks (some seats in a pinch) even with the bomb carrying mechanisms in place. However, the bomb bay is not sealed and the air drafts and noise would have been quite bad. Also, putting "passengers" in the bomb bay would take away significant internal volume that would otherwise be used for auxiliary fuel tanks (that might have been needed for long range missions in the Pacific).

I never heard of a B-17 carrying passengers in the bomb bay - when carried, they were seated in the radio room and in the waist (area where the waist guns are). Maybe someone took a B-17D and modified it by bolting down and sealing the bomb bay doors, installing some kind of a floor and hanging cots. It would have been tight because they needed to leave the central cat-walk connecting Sta. 4 and Sta 5. as is because it is part of the fuselage main structure.

If it was indeed done, it would be interesting to see a picture showing how.

 

[Snautzer01]

https://www.ktbs.com/news/b-17-ww-ii-bomber-cruises-over-natchitoches/article_3242a6e4-2311-11e8-9390-0f818121cd06.html

 

[bse7entn]

I'm not familiar with the bomb bay section being used for sleeping, but I'm not sure this would happen unless the doors were additionally secured shut somehow. The bomb bay doors are designed if enough weight is on them they swing open. There is no latch mechanism. I forget the limit but I want to say it's 150 lbs. Basically if someone were to fall out of a hammock or cot and onto they door, they'd be out of the airframe.

 

[PStickney]

Did Air Transport Command modify their aircraft for "air transport"

In the early part of the war, particularly in the Pacific, they were using enything they could get. C-47 production was just ramping up, Lockheed's attention was on P-38s and PV-1/B-34 Venturas, Cpnsolidated was starting to ramp up production of C-87s. C-46s and C-54s weren't there yet. So you saw a lot of civilian airliners DC-2s, DC-3s, Lodestars, even DC-5s, and converted bombers - particularly LB-30s and B-24As into jackleg transports. (The RAF used their initial LB-30 Liberator deliveries as crew ferries for their transatlantic ferrying operations, flying high priority light cargo from Canada to the U.K., and bringing ferry vrews back to Canada on the return trip to fly more airplanes over.
As things evened out later in the war, the ARC was able to standardize on 3 basic types - the C-47/C-53, C-46, and C-64, with the C-69 (Constellation), C-74 (Single-decked C-124), and C-97 appearing as the next generation.