Aluminum Overcast tail wheel

[gmilty]

Just wondering when if ever will Aluminum Overcast's tail wheel be made retractable?
Such a beautiful aircraft just does not quite look right with the tail wheel hanging down as it flies overhead.
After all these years I would have expected this to be corrected!

Just wondering.......................

[krw920]

I've been told it is not retractable because of the seating arrangements on it. So it isn't retractable on purpose, not due to a hardware problem.

[rwanttaja]

I've been told it is not retractable because of the seating arrangements on it. So it isn't retractable on purpose, not due to a hardware problem.

That's possible, I guess. The aftmost seats are just aft of the entry door, and just (barely) forward of the tailwheel. They're atop a big box that might house the retract mechanism. Could be that the box/seat obstructs access to the mechanism that would allow manual lowering of the tailwheel if it were to jam.

Here's a picture I shot about six years ago, showing a pair of passengers sitting on what is probably the cover over the tailwheel.

Ron Wanttaja

[gmilty]

That's possible, I guess. The aftmost seats are just aft of the entry door, and just (barely) forward of the tailwheel. They're atop a big box that might house the retract mechanism. Could be that the box/seat obstructs access to the mechanism that would allow manual lowering of the tailwheel if it were to jam.

Here's a picture I shot about six years ago, showing a pair of passengers sitting on what is probably the cover over the tailwheel.

Ron Wanttaja

If there is a will, a way can be found.

[Rod Schneider]

The box has nothing to do with the retract mechanism. All of that is behind the bulkhead where the rear seats are mounted, including the hand crank mechanism. To crank the tail wheel down, you'd have to crawl around the tail wheel since the hand crank plugs in from the back.
The rear set arrangement probably does affect it since the top of the strut and the upper retract arm would move forward during retraction, and would protrude several inches forward between the back seat passengers shoulders. It would come through about where you can see the piece of plexiglass that is bolted to the bulkhead uprights. On Liberty Belle and The Movie Memphis Belle, we did not have a seat across the rear, but we did have a double seat along the left aft sidewall. Both ships had/have retractable tail wheels.

[67jwbruce]

I hope those seats are really cheap. Looks like the view wouldn't be much to brag about

[rwanttaja]

I hope those seats are really cheap. Looks like the view wouldn't be much to brag about

For the pax, there isn't that much of a view anywhere...IIRC, they don't let any of the paying customers to sit in the nose for takeoff and landing. However, once the plane is up, you are encouraged to get up and tour the entire plane. I sat by a waist gun window for takeoff and in the radio operator's seat for landing. The latter had a window about the size of an airliner (plus the panel above).

Ron Wanttaja

[gmilty]

I'm surprised that with all the fabulous restorations taking place in the warbird community that the premier flying advocacy organization (EAA) cannot get their own aircraft up to the top standards one would expect. Is there a really good structural reason that the tail wheel cannot be retracted and the EAA chooses to keep a secret? Probably someone made the decision to fix the tail wheel in the down position to save restoration time and get the aircraft in the air to start making some revenue. If you are not going to do it right, then give or sell it to someone who will do it right. Very sad.

How about an article in Sport Aviation telling about the reasons for the present configuration and the future plans for Aluminum Overcast.

[Mayhemxpc]

To clarify Ron's post, you can get in the nose during the flight -- just not on the ground. As stated, once in the air, you can get up and move around to the different positions, unlike some other bomber rides in the circuit.
At least AO is IFR capable, also unlike some other B-17s on the circuit.

The B-17 is really pretty slow to begin with. I don't think the tail-wheel being down detracts from its image or speed that much. It would be neat if the top turret mechanism was there, but then no one would be able to freely move for and aft. Everything is a trade-off. (Same condition for some other B-17s providing aerial tours.

[Frank Giger]

If you are not going to do it right, then give or sell it to someone who will do it right. Very sad.

I can see both sides of this statement playing out in less polite forums, and I sort of agree with the purist's point of view - to a point. If a group is going to restore a historical plane, why not "do it right" and restore it to full functionality.

The flip side is that it's often a case of pragmatic compromise. There's only so much money and time (time being the same as money), and one can be faced with the 90% solution that is in the air or a static display that otherwise looks perfect.

There's a lot of ground between "faking it" with a non-retractable tail wheel which almost nobody will notice and ripping out the panel and putting in dual Garmin G1000 EFIS screens.

I'd say that the non-retractable tail wheel is a pretty minor sin, and infinitely better than the other way around.