"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...

Were these operational aircraft or just prototypes? Or were they converted
from operational bombers and used as stop-gaps until the aircraft
manufacturers got back to civilian production?

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in
:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>
> Were these operational aircraft or just prototypes? Or were they
> converted from operational bombers and used as stop-gaps until the
> aircraft manufacturers got back to civilian production?


Proven bomber designs with a new passenger-friendly
fusalage. In this case the B-24.

Boeing converted the B-17 and B-29 into the 307 and
the 377, respectively.

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...
> "Alan Erskine" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
>> . 130...
>>
>> Were these operational aircraft or just prototypes? Or were they
>> converted from operational bombers and used as stop-gaps until the
>> aircraft manufacturers got back to civilian production?
>
>
> Proven bomber designs with a new passenger-friendly
> fusalage. In this case the B-24.
>
> Boeing converted the B-17 and B-29 into the 307 and
> the 377, respectively.
>
>
This photo looks like the sole Model 39 which took the wings, powerplants
and landing gear of the B-24, the tail unit of the PB4Y Privateer and a new
fuselage able to carry 45 passengers or 12,000lb freight. The sole prototype
was evaluated by the USN as the R2Y.

There was a transport version of the B-24 with nose and tail gun
position/turrets deleted and a large cargo door installed. USAAF designated
them C-87. RAF and USN operated similar versions but fitted with
sidewindows for 20 passengers.

There was also a special C-100 fuel tanker used to carry fuel over the
Himalayan "hump" for use by B-29s operating in China.
>
>
>