# Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?



## spicmart (Apr 12, 2022)

The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.

The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.

The B-17 had the advantage of being able to drop its bombload from greater heights than the other two and it was a bit more rugged although its loss rate was about the same as the Liberator's. In the end the B-24 could do the same strategic bombing missions as the Fortress.
The Lib could also be produced more easily and faster being optimized for mass production.

So could one say that the B-17 could have been done without?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2022)

spicmart said:


> The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
> The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war scenario in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
> The B-17 had the advantage of being able to drop its bombload from greater heights than the other two and it was a bit more rugged although its loss rate was about the same as the Liberator's. In the end the B-24 could do the same strategic bombing missions as the Fortress.
> It could also produced more easily and faster afaik being optimized for mass production.
> ...


In hindsight possibly, during the war years, I'd say no.

I think one has to look at the "bomber supply chain" through-out the war, not only to support the war effort but to support training activity stateside. Having a second source manufacturer made sense if there was a disruption at one manufacturer.

The B-24 was mass produced easier but it took a while to get there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 12, 2022)

There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 12, 2022)

Dimlee said:


> There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.


I watched it too. My takeaway is that the B-17 was faster than the Lancaster at 32000 feet.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 12, 2022)

The B-24 was much harder to fly, having a much higher accident rate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> The B-24 was much harder to fly, having a much higher accident rate.


A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?

The over-all consensus was the B-17 was the better built/ better flying airplane. I met about a dozen people who either flew or maintained both -17s and B-24s (I had an uncle who was a B-24 FE and later became a "toggler). A few pilots I met loved the -24, a few more hated it. From talking to these folks it seemed like the B-24 was an easy flyer until you lost an engine, then the aircraft became a beast to fly, heavy controls, required both pilots and their muscles. I've read many accounts about the B-24 being difficult to fly in formation. My uncle told me the B-24 looked like it was made to be put together rapidly and was maintenance intensive. He said there seemed to be a lot of fuel leaks and it was SOP to crack the bomb bay doors open on take off because of fumes.

A former neighbor was a B-24 co-pilot and was shot down over Italy. He said what he liked about the B-24 was it was a lot faster than the B-17, especially after it dropped it's bombs. The B-24 had a tendency to have a nose shimmy if you landed too fast and put pressure on the nose. You can see many photos of B-24s that had repairs done to the area around the nose wheel well...

The B-24 definitely had a higher accident rate. My uncle was in a crash, the only survivor out of 10 guys

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 12, 2022)

Dimlee said:


> There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.



Greg states that the B-24 with B22 turbocharger had its best speed at 30.000 feet / 9144 meters. But the service ceiling of the B-24 was only 8500 meters..?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 12, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?
> 
> The over-all consensus was the B-17 was the better built/ better flying airplane. I met about a doze people who either flew or maintained both -17s and B-24s (I had an uncle who was a B-24 FE and later became a "toggler). A few pilots I met loved the -24, a few more hated it. From talking to these folks it seemed like the B-24 was an easy flyer until you lost an engine, then the aircraft became a beast to fly, heavy controls, required both pilots and their muscles. I've read many accounts about the B-24 being difficult to fly in formation. My uncle told me the B-24 looked like it was made to be put together rapidly and was maintenance intensive. He said there seemed to be a lot of fuel leaks and it was SOP to crack the bomb bay doors open on take off because of fumes.
> 
> ...


There were B-24s which came home with two engines down on one side. E.g. "Liberty Lad" which participated on a Ploesti mission and returned after a 16 hour voyage.
I guess the B-24 being faster contributed to about the same loss rate despite lower ceiling and less robust build.


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 12, 2022)

Dimlee said:


> There is interesting comparison of speed capabilities of Big Three in the last video on the Greg's Airplanes Youtube channel.



Except that maximum speed doesn't mean much when it is the combat formation which is the key element of daylight bombing.




FLYBOYJ said:


> A bit subjective, what was harder? Harder to maintain in the air? More complicated? More muscle needed?



The B-24 was harder to fly the tight formations used by the USAAF over Europe as compared to the B-17. According to Capt. Downey Thomas, who flew both over Europe: "The B-24 was a little harder to fly than the B-17. With the B-17 you trimmed it up and it would just about fly itself. But with the B-24 if people moved about you had to keep re-trimming the aircraft. In the B-17 you could fly a really tight formation whereas in the B-24 you had to work hard at it." (Quotation from _Target Berlin_ by Alfred Price and Jeffrey Ethell

On the plus side, its bomb bay could accommodate a larger number of heavier bombs as compared to the B-17. The B-24 could carry 4 x 2,000-lb bombs internally compared to only 2 in the B-17; the B-24 could carry 8 x 1,000-lb GP bombs internally compared to only 6 in the B-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 12, 2022)

The poor Halifax gets left out, again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 12, 2022)

I had a guy in my crashpad who at one time flew both the B-17 and B-24 for the Collins Foundation. His remarks sound very similar. Liked the B-17 much more than the B-24 (and all he did was fly them cross country at light weights and low altitudes).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 12, 2022)

Milosh said:


> The poor Halifax gets left out, again.


It did get a mention.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 12, 2022)

Always a bride's maid, never a bride.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 12, 2022)

Milosh said:


> The poor Halifax gets left out, again.



Halifax III vs. Lancaster II: FIGHT!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 13, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Always a bride's maid, never a bride.



Well, it_ was_ a bit of a dog's breakfast...

I can't add much to the B-17 versus the B-24 argument as there are far more knowledgeable people here for that, but between the Lanc, which has had surprisingly little mention here, versus the Halifax, generally speaking, I can chip in.

There is a saying that goes that you were more likely to survive being shot down in a Halifax than in a Lancaster, conversely there was a saying that you were more likely to be shot down in a Halifax than you were in a Lancaster...

And if I had to choose, it'd be the Lanc II over the Halifax III. Makes conversion onto the Lanc III easier

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-24 was mass produced easier but it took a while to get there.


Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 13, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.
> 
> View attachment 664740


Interesting shot. I first thought how the heck do they move them down the assembly line. Then I noticed the caster of the nosewheel of the bottom right plane, and the conveyer looking tracks on the factory floor. It appears they crab down the assembly line.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 13, 2022)

Those are early model B-24s. The production lines were just getting started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Those are early model B-24s. The production lines were just getting started.


I assume that is the Ford line. Any idea what's going on behind the upper turret?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.



Perhaps it would have been more demoralising if they dropped leaflets with pictures such as this during the war.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Those are early model B-24s. The production lines were just getting started.


This is my favourite factory pic. It makes me think of what the Deathstar’s hangar would have looked like.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.
> 
> View attachment 664740


I believe that was at the San Diego plant


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 13, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> I assume that is the Ford line. Any idea what's going on behind the upper turret?



I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in, but lifeboat storage?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 13, 2022)

Since photos could be faked and the Germans wouldn't have believed them, I used to wonder what would be the result if selected Luftwaffe pilots from North Africa, POWs in the US, could have been shown all the assembly lines across the country and then dropped into occupied France, if sensible heads in the military would realise early on how the war would end.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 13, 2022)

There was a wartime cartoon produced that I saw in a magazine and it was of some surrendered German soldiers watching a massed aircraft fly past that disappeared into the distance and a dude walks by and with a smirk on his face just gives a loooow, loooong whistle...


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 13, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Your post reminded me of this picture. This has to be demoralizing to any Axis that saw it postwar.
> 
> View attachment 664740



Willow Run played a large part in the war, biased towards the -17 as I am. When your enemy can run them off the line like that, you may as well bend over and smile.


----------



## EwenS (Apr 13, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> I assume that is the Ford line. Any idea what's going on behind the upper turret?


It was taken at the Consolidated Fort Worth Plant, usually credited to be sometime in 1943. The line on the left is aircraft in the USAAF sea scheme.

The same plant went on to build B-32 in 1945 then B-36 and today builds F-35.








Then vs Now: WW2 B-32 production line is now the F-35 production line in Fort Worth, TX - Aviation Humor






aviationhumor.net













United States Air Force Plant 4 - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 13, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Interesting shot. I first thought how the heck do they move them down the assembly line. Then I noticed the caster of the nosewheel of the bottom left plane, and the conveyer looking tracks on the factory floor. It appears they crab down the assembly line.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



It is easy to caster the mains as well - all you have to do is disconnect the scissors link and use a turning bar. I suspect that was done and the track was used to pull the RH main gear as it lines up with that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 13, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> I assume that is the Ford line. Any idea what's going on behind the upper turret?


Life raft stowage

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 13, 2022)

special ed said:


> Since photos could be faked and the Germans wouldn't have believed them, I used to wonder what would be the result if selected Luftwaffe pilots from North Africa, POWs in the US, could have been shown all the assembly lines across the country and then dropped into occupied France, if sensible heads in the military would realise early on how the war would end.



I think the problem was the insensible head at the top of the heap.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 13, 2022)

EwenS said:


> It was taken at the Consolidated Fort Worth Plant, usually credited to be sometime in 1943. The line on the left is aircraft in the USAAF sea scheme.
> 
> The same plant went on to build B-32 in 1945 then B-36 and today builds F-35.
> 
> ...



I was stationed directly across the runway at Carswell.

Even the boneyard at that place was great. Aside from the rotting -36, there was a B-29 hulk and several other types as well. They were putting out F-16s during my hitch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 14, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> The B-24 was much harder to fly, having a much higher accident rate.



I spoke to a number of B-24 pilots in 71/72 when I was at Chino when the two D model fuselages arrived and they said the biggest killer of B-24s was being forced to fly in formation with the much slower B-17 as they were operating too close to stall to make defensive maneuvers and if they lost an outboard engine the safety margin was too narrow.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Apr 14, 2022)

B-17 versus B-24, what the various reports say,

USAAF Statistical Digest,

While cost is not always the same as ease of production in 1944 the B-17 price was $204,370, the B-24 $215,516. Ford did a lot of tooling work to make production easier but the number of changes made it hard to recover the effort. Of course cost of an aircraft is much more than just the airframe.

Aircraft Unit costs, US Archives RG18 E 10 B 68, B-17

DateAirframeEnginesPropsGFEOrd.CommsTotal28-Feb-43​$111,443$ 34,287$ 3,400$ 45,606$ 4,595$ 9,040$208,371Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts31-Jul-44​$157,484$ 37,480$ 11,755$ 48,939$ 5,999$ 10,305$271,962Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date31-Aug-44​$129,150$ 35,521$ 11,247$ 47,425$ 5,966$ 9,040$238,349Costs based on uncompleted contracts30-Nov-44​$125,464$ 34,875$ 6,487$ 46,413$ 5,686$ 9,040$227,965Costs based on uncompleted contracts

B-24

28-Feb-43​$115,338$ 32,659$ 4,220$ 49,781$ 3,205$ 8,474$213,677Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts31-Jul-44​$169,452$ 36,539$ 12,899$ 49,034$ 4,726$ 9,752$282,402Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date31-Aug-44​$138,585$ 33,363$ 13,004$ 47,956$ 4,520$ 8,474$245,902Costs based on uncompleted contracts30-Nov-44​$114,951$ 34,497$ 8,663$ 48,288$ 4,505$ 8,474$219,378Costs based on uncompleted contracts
GFE Government Furnished Equipment

USAAF Statistical digest, 1942 to 1945, accidents in continental US, 
B-17 1,589 accidents, at 30 per 100,000 flying hours, 284 fatal accidents, 1,757 fatalities, 479 aircraft wrecked.
B-24 1,713 accidents, at 35 per 100,000 flying hours, 490 fatal accidents, 2,796 fatalities, 746 aircraft wrecked.
I read this as a higher chance of an accident in a B-24 but a much higher chance of fatalities and loss of aircraft. The B-24 crews in the 8th Air Force generally took higher casualties when shot down. Given safety generally improved during the war the yearly rates are instructive, B-17 versus B-24, were 1942 55 versus 75, 1943 39 all, 1944 25 versus 33, 1945 (January to August) 23 versus 29.

When it comes to accidents they include things like being hit while parked, the ground crew setting the aircraft on fire as well as things like take off accidents, collisions, etc. The USAAF usually classified the damage taken between 1, minor, and 5 salvaged/write off. As far as I can tell some level 3 and most level 4 damaged aircraft were scrapped. The USAAF B-17 accident list I know of has 4,021 accidents, 3,632 of which have a 1 to 5 damage level recorded, 27% level 4, 23% level 5. For the B-24 3,653 accidents, 3,288 of which have a damage level recorded, 35% level 5, 30.4% level 4. So 50% of B-17 accidents probably meant scrapping versus 65% of B-24 accidents. 

The 8th Air Force says 
B-17 losses 3,093 MIA, 1,025 category E, 126 missing, 180 war weary 386 non operational salvage, less 56 gains from previous losses is 4,754 losses.
B-24 losses 1,099 MIA, 551 category E, 36 missing, 213 war weary 221 non operational salvage, less 8 gains from previous losses is 2,112 losses.
So 24.15% of B-17 operational losses write offs, versus 32.68% of B-24, while the B-24 definitely tended to take more damage from crashes but it might have also been better at making it back to allied lines after taking damage.

B-17 in 1944, 297 operational accidents, at 0.22 per 100 take offs, 369 non operational accidents at 1.1 per 1,000 hours, total 666 accidents, 761 aircraft involved, 108 fatal accidents, 761 fatalities, 343 aircraft wrecked.
B-24 in 1944, 210 operational accidents, at 0.27 per 100 take offs, 181 non operational accidents at 0.96 per 1,000 hours, total 391 accidents, 440 aircraft involved, 103 fatal accidents, 765 fatalities, 255 aircraft wrecked.

The 15th Air force says

19.9% of airborne B-17 sorties were non effective due to weather, mechanical failure etc., versus 23.3% of B-24 sorties, of these 0.4% of B-17 and 0.7% of B-24 failures were due to lead ship problems, on average 77% of B-17 and 69% of B-24 were operational with 2% of B-17 and 4% of B-24 awaiting parts needed for repairs.

The USSBS Bombing Accuracy report says

8th Air Force B-17 147.2 tons dropped for each loss, average mission lifetime 58.9 sorties. (average bomb load 4,998 pounds)
8th Air Force B-24 149 tons dropped for each loss, average mission lifetime 49.9 sorties. (average bomb load 5,972 pounds)
15th Air Force B-17 192.6 tons dropped for each loss, average mission lifetime 77 sorties. (average bomb load 5,003 pounds)
15th Air Force B-24 106.5 tons dropped for each loss, average mission lifetime 35.5 sorties. (average bomb load 6,000 pounds)

Accuracy for the 8th Air force, 
B-17 40.77% of bombs within 1,000 feet of aiming point from an average height of 21,542 feet, 6.64 aircraft average attack size from an average size box of 14 aircraft.
B-24 37.8% of bombs within 1,000 feet of aiming point from an average height of 19,880 feet, 6.23 aircraft average attack size from an average size box of 11 aircraft.

There is the story of the Luftwaffe fighter pilot shot down and captured on 1 January 1945 being taken to the US airfield he attacked, firstly to see the P-47s lost or damaged but then to see the replacements arrive a few hours later.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 14, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> There was a wartime cartoon produced that I saw in a magazine and it was of some surrendered German soldiers watching a massed aircraft fly past that disappeared into the distance and a dude walks by and with a smirk on his face just gives a loooow, loooong whistle...



I'm reminded of the scene from _Band of Brothers_ where Webster loses his cool and berates lines of marching, surrendered Germans as Easy Company heads deeper into Germany on its motorized forces:

"Say hello to Ford and General [redacted] Motors! . . . Look at you! You have horses! What were you thinking?"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2022)

IMO - the B-17 was 'redundant' in the Pacific and CBI after 1942. The ETO/MTO favored the B-17 unless and until the 8th AF decided to uniformly bomb at lower altitudes around 18-21K where the B-24 operated. Even so, the word 'redundant' can not apply as it took the 50+ BG-H between 8th and 15th to systematically attack German/Austrian and Romanian targets. Both types were required in the most dangerous region of Axis defenses.

Another factor discussed above - namely comparative loss rates. The B-24 in SWP and CBI never faced an equivalent fighter force to LW based in Germany. Loss rates per sortie due to enemy action was significantly lower. Another factor re: comparative loss rates is the threat environment in 1943 when B-24 number of BGs and sorties were far lower than B-17 - as well into Q1 and Q2 1944. At the time slice that the LW day fighter threat had largely been blunted prior to D-Day, only then were replacement Bomb Groups in ETO skewed toward new operational B-24 BGs.

From my perspective, when you take into account that the 4 ETO 8th AF B-24 BG were taken off ops to go to N.Africa and train for Tidal wave, the 1st and 3rd BG of B-17s were increasingly pressured - all the way though the second Schweinfurt mission on October 14th. Contrast that to Tidal Wave as the only significant loss incurred by 8th AF (on TDY to 12th for Ploesti) B-24s. The 2nd BD attacked only a few targets, took heavy losses August 1, 1943 but were basically unmolested afterwards until November 1943. They were still a small Division of 4 B-24BGs, were mostly flying diversions while they replaced Tidal Wave bombes and crews and IIRC first flew more than 4 BG strikes in 2BD in January 1944 when the four new B-24 BGs went operational.

My point is that the lions share of 2nd BD operations occurred from when Mustangs and Lightnings were getting numerous and very effective as escorts through the EOW. Even though the relative force ratio was high B-24/low (er) B-17 in 12th and 15th, the same dynamics existed for MTO ops. Namely smaller LW reaction forces in MTO for lower (but significant for major targets like Ploesti and Austria where strong fighter forces could be applied).

The B-24 in ETO typically flew as a Division at 18-22K, completely separate from 1st and 3rd BD B-17s because of their high altitude formation struggles and the fact that their cruise at 22K was typically 180mph TAS to B-17 150mph TAS at 25K.

Simple summary - B-24 basically faster, with larger bomb load for same mission target ranges. B-17. The B-17 was more survivable to battle damage, easier to fly. B-17 was in combat, in strength before B-24 contributions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 14, 2022)

special ed said:


> Since photos could be faked and the Germans wouldn't have believed them, I used to wonder what would be the result if selected Luftwaffe pilots from North Africa, POWs in the US, could have been shown all the assembly lines across the country and then dropped into occupied France, if sensible heads in the military would realise early on how the war would end.


It is an idea but even if someone agreed to do it they would probably have been shot as soon as they said anything. The German military didn't take bad news well. The LW command maintained that the RAF were down to their last 50 planes until that was proved not to be the case, then they just changed the subject and moved on. There were a huge number of people who knew what was what but it made no difference. Think of all the pilots flying over the western and eastern fronts, they knew how many planes and tanks they were facing, they also knew that shooting them down (or up in the case of tanks) made no difference, there was always more the next day. Germany suffered its first 1,000 bomber raid in May1942 and that didn't change Adolf's thinking at all. In the end, with Berlin surrounded Adolf ended it by killing himself, others didnt kill him, although many tried to, a reasoned argument about the hopelessness of the situation didn't or couldn't get anywhere, because he was completely mad.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Greg states that the B-24 with B22 turbocharger had its best speed at 30.000 feet / 9144 meters. But the service ceiling of the B-24 was only 8500 meters..?



Maybe it cruised "out of service?"


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

Service Ceiling at what weight? 

I haven't looked at the B-24 but it was probably similar to the B-17 and other heavy bombers. 
"Normal" gross weight was not only thousands of pounds under max gross weight it was almost 20,000lbs (???) Under max gross weight. 
B-29's could fly a mission (short range and restricted bomb load) at under 100,000lbs.
Max gross weight was over 140,000lbs. 
What is the service ceiling?


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Apr 15, 2022)

drgondog said:


> My point is that the lions share of 2nd BD operations occurred from when Mustangs and Lightnings were getting numerous and very effective as escorts through the EOW. Even though the relative force ratio was high B-24/low (er) B-17 in 12th and 15th, the same dynamics existed for MTO ops.


That actually applies for all USAAF heavy bomber raids in Europe and North America, given how end weighted the campaign was. It is correct the B-17 in the 8th air force flew a much higher percentage of the sorties before escorts became effective, but not so for the Mediterranean forces. The 8th air force had built up to 4 operational B-17 groups in October 1942 on the same day it had its first operational B-24 group, by early November it was down to 2 B-17 and 2 B-24, back up to 4 to 2 by mid November and basically stayed that way until mid May 1943 when 6 B-17 groups went operational by end of the month, then another 3 in June, 2 in July and 1 in August making the ratio 16 B-17 to 2 B-24.


drgondog said:


> From my perspective, when you take into account that the 4 ETO 8th AF B-24 BG were taken off ops to go to N.Africa and train for Tidal wave, the 1st and 3rd BG of B-17s were increasingly pressured - all the way though the second Schweinfurt mission on October 14th. Contrast that to Tidal Wave as the only significant loss incurred by 8th AF (on TDY to 12th for Ploesti) B-24s. The 2nd BD attacked only a few targets, took heavy losses August 1, 1943 but were basically unmolested afterwards until November 1943. They were still a small Division of 4 B-24BGs, were mostly flying diversions while they replaced Tidal Wave bombes and crews and IIRC first flew more than 4 BG strikes in 2BD in January 1944 when the four new B-24 BGs went operational.


Not quite. In December 1942 the 93rd Bomb Group was taken off operations and sent to the Mediterranean with the 12th Air Force, 23 days of operations, 13 December 1942 to 20 February 1943, 273 sorties, 224 effective sorties, 530.2 tons of bombs dropped, 4 aircraft MIA. In late June to early July 1943, the 8th Air Force 44th and 93rd Bomb Groups were taken off operations and sent to the Mediterranean, along with the still non operational 389th, 20 days of operations, 2 July to 21 August 1943, 989 sorties, 892 effective sorties, 2,428.2 tons of bombs dropped, 54 aircraft MIA of which 30 were on the 1 August 1943 Ploesti raid.. So in this deployment 24 aircraft lost on non Ploesti targets. (According to Richard Davis the Ploesti raid was officially a 9th Air Force operation, with a total of 54 aircraft lost and 182.8 tons of bombs dropped, while the 9th says its B-24 operations in the Mediterranean June 1942 to September 1943, were 5,963 sorties, 11,558 tons of bombs, 112 aircraft MIA, including 61 in August 1943, these figures include the 8th's groups, which flew on 15 missions) 

Meantime on 1 August 1943 the 392nd Bomb Group arrived in Britain, first mission 9 September.

In mid September the same 3 groups returned to the Mediterranean, this time as part of the 12th Air Force, strikes included Wiener-Neustadt on 1 October, 4 days of operations, 21 September to 1 October 1943, 191 sorties, 172 effective sorties, 406.6 tons of bombs dropped, 11 aircraft MIA. So 69 B-24 MIA when in the Mediterranean, of which 30 were on the Ploesti raid. The Mediterranean operations overall cost over twice the Ploesti raid losses.

The deployments meant the 8th Air force flew no B-24 operations from England between 27 June and 7 September 1943 and while all 4 B-24 groups had flown a mission as of 9 September, it took until 4 October before all 4 had flown again as part of the 8th. By this stage there were 16 operational B-17 groups, defining operational as having flown at least 1 bombing mission and ignoring the usual temporary non operational status for things like runway maintenance, training etc.

By end November 1943 it was 17 B-17 to 4 B-24, end December 18 to 7, same end January 1944, end February 20 to 9, end March 20 to 10, end April 20 to 11, end May 21 to 17, with the final 2 B-24 groups flying their first missions on 2 and 6 June. Not sure about weighted averages of B-17 versus B-24 but the 8th Air force reports November 1943 to May 1944 it lost 588 B-24 and 1,372 B-17 on operations, or 2.33 B-17 to 1 B-24.

In terms of sorties credited with attacking, in January 1944 3,661 B-17 and 1,006 B-24, February 5,249 and 1,822, March 6,050 and 2,351, April 6,417 and 3,118, May 8,300 and 5,592, total 29,677 and 13,889, so sorties were 2.14 B-17 to 1 B-24. I do not have B-17 versus B-24 sorties for November and December 1943 which would increase the sortie ratio.

Turning to the 15th Air Force, it formed on 1 November 1943 with 4 B-17 and 2 B-24 groups, still that end December 1943, end January 1944 4 B-17 to 5 B-24, end February 4 to 8, end March 5 to 10, end April 6 to 13, end May 6 to 15. The Statistical Digest notes February 1944 was the peak loss to fighters, 106, with 105 in April, but losses June to August were 85, 94, 91, versus the 8th of 112, 80 and 61. Given the 15th was around half the size of the 8th it shows losses to enemy fighters was not driven down until September 1944, after the end of the Ploesti raids. The 15th formed with 3 P-38 and 1 P-47 groups, gained a P-51 group in April and another in May, converted its P-47 group to P-51 in May, then picked up a P-47 group in June, converting it to P-51. So in the end it was 7 fighter to 21 bomber groups, the 8th ended up with 15 fighter to 38 bomber after 1 bomber group was withdrawn in November 1944.


drgondog said:


> The B-24 in ETO typically flew as a Division at 18-22K, completely separate from 1st and 3rd BD B-17s because of their high altitude formation struggles and the fact that their cruise at 22K was typically 180mph TAS to B-17 150mph TAS at 25K.


True or indicated airspeed? At 150 mph the B-17 would take the best part of 4 hours to reach Berlin, a 7 to 8 hour round trip, plus assembly etc. Roger Freeman talks of the B-17F cruising at 150 to 160 IAS, the B-24D 170 to 175 IAS.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 15, 2022)

GregP said:


> Maybe it cruised "out of service?"


I cited a video on Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles Youtube channel. I thought it not to be you.


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 16, 2022)

A basic comparison of the B-17E vs the B-24D, dated 30 May 1942, can be found here on the WWII Aircraft Performance website:

"http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17E_B-24D_Comparison.pdf"

As mentioned above it is from May 1942, so may not be as representative of the later war aircraft or operating conditions, but at least it gives us a base to go from.

Service Ceilings were within 1500 ft at the same weight, in favor of the B-17.
Ranges with the same fuel load at the same TOGW, in favor of the B-17E by about 150- 300 miles.
Cruise Speeds for the ranges given were in favor of the B-24D by about 2-8 mph TAS.

The most significant difference in performance is in the area of TO & Landing runs, where the B-24D runs are clearly shorter by several hundred feet
(although the tests were at very light weights of ~40,000 lbs).

Late-war, with a 3500 lb bomb load, the UK Aircraft Data Sheets show approximately the same range difference of 300 miles in favor of the B-17, and approximately the same speed advantage of 10 mph TAS at most economical cruise in favor of the B-24.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2022)

Go Boeing!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Apr 16, 2022)

spicmart said:


> The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
> 
> The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
> 
> ...


The Lancaster is not comparable to the B-17 and B-24 as it did not fly the same missions and it did not face the same threats. If the Lanc were going to fly daylight bombing missions, it would have needed the two-stage Merlin engines to get it up well above 20,000ft, and it would have needed all sorts of armour and heavier defensive armament. The increased weight means a reduced bomb load. The Lancasters that carried the 22,000lb Grand Slam bombs were specially modified, with the twin .303" top turret being removed, along other things. These were flown in daylight, but they were heavily escorted, and the USAAF had killed off most of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots by that time. According to my Green and Swandborough Fact File, a Lancaster's normal bomb load was 12,000 to 14,000lb. 

Could you throw a B-17 or B-24 around like you could a Lancaster? This helped them evade German night fighters. Lancasters would have benefited from some form of ventral gun position. The Lancaster's manoeuvrability and handling would have been useless in the USAAF's daylight box formations. 

There is a nifty article on the B-24s in an old Wings magazine by Lin Hendricks. I posted a summary of this onto Wikipedia's B-24 page. Hendricks, later a test pilot with Republic, liked the B-24, although he noted problems. The B-24 carried a heavier bomb load than the B-17, and it flew lower, making it more accessible and attractive to the Luftwaffe. 

Hendricks also noted that the B-24 leaked fuel. They flew the with bomb doors slightly ajar. Hendricks, a smoker, did not permit smoking on his B-24. The book Whiz Kids by John A. Byrne, is all about the USAAF systems analysts who took over Ford Motor company in the 1950s, led by "Tex" Thornton and Robert McNamara. Thornton, a chain smoker, flew across the Atlantic in a B-24, and he was not permitted to smoke. His team quickly demonstrated that the B-24 was not suitable for strategic bombing over Germany.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Hendricks also noted that the B-24 leaked fuel. They flew the with bomb doors slightly ajar. Hendricks, a smoker, did not permit smoking on his B-24. The book Whiz Kids by John A. Byrne, is all about the USAAF systems analysts who took over Ford Motor company in the 1950s, led by "Tex" Thornton and Robert McNamara. Thornton, a chain smoker, flew across the Atlantic in a B-24, and he was not permitted to smoke. His team quickly demonstrated that the B-24 was not suitable for strategic bombing over Germany.


As mentioned, I had an uncle who was a B-24 FE and he said the same thing about the B-24 leaking fuel. From what I have read over the years, this was due to some rubber fittings used during assembly and sometimes maintenance crews would either replace these fittings or continually inspect and replace them as required. It seems the B-24 also had hydraulic leaks as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2022)

I was just looking at the RAF B-17C/D (don't gimme' none of that "MK" foolishness) in Snautzer01's Boeing B-17 thread. I know the RAF used them and the B-17 wasn't up to snuff. Things didn't work well high up. There were too few of them for mutually defensive fire, etc. At the snapshot of time the photo was taken, how did the B-17 compare to the heavy bombers of other air forces?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 16, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The Lancasters that carried the 22,000lb Grand Slam bombs were specially modified, with the twin .303" top turret being removed, along other things. These were flown in daylight, but they were heavily escorted, and the USAAF had killed off most of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots by that time. According to my Green and Swandborough Fact File, a Lancaster's normal bomb load was 12,000 to 14,000lb.



433 Squadron few the Lancaster from Feb. 1, 1945, to the end of the war, a total of 317 bombing sorties. The weighted average nominal bomb load was 9,982 lbs. The most common specific load was 1 x 4,000-lb, 12 x 500-lb, and 4 x 250-lb (11,000 lbs nominal total), which accounted for 13.25% of the bombing sorties. After that came 1 x 4,000-lb, 10 x 500-lb, and 6 x 250-lb (11.04%). Next was 1 x 4,000-lb and 1,584 x 4-lb incendiaries (10.73%), followed by 1 x 4,000-lb and 1,500 x 4-lb incendiaries (10.09%), with 1 x 4,000-lb, 5 x 500-lb, and 4 x 250-lb (6.62%) rounding out the top five. (Incendiaries were part of the bomb load in 41% of the bombing sorties, with high explosive only loads comprising 59%.)

The squadron flew the following daytime bombing missions:

Feb. 27, 1945, against Mainz (aircraft up by 12:48 pm)
Mar. 1, 1945, against Mannheim (aircraft up by 12:05 pm)
Mar. 2, 1945, against Cologne (aircraft up by 7:34 am)
Mar. 11, 1945, against Essen (aircraft up by 11:42 am)
Mar. 12, 1945, against Dortmund (aircraft up by 12:48 pm)
Mar. 22, 1945, against Hildesheim (aircraft up by 10:56 am)
Mar. 24, 1945, against Bottrop (aircraft up by 1:07 pm)
Mar. 25, 1945, against Hanover (aircraft up by 6:19 am)
Mar. 31, 1945, against Leipzig (aircraft up by 1:39 pm)
Apr. 25, 1945, against Wangerooge (aircraft up by 2:54 pm)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 17, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> The Lancaster is not comparable to the B-17 and B-24 as it did not fly the same missions and it did not face the same threats. If the Lanc were going to fly daylight bombing missions, it would have needed the two-stage Merlin engines to get it up well above 20,000ft, and it would have needed all sorts of armour and heavier defensive armament. The increased weight means a reduced bomb load. The Lancasters that carried the 22,000lb Grand Slam bombs were specially modified, with the twin .303" top turret being removed, along other things. These were flown in daylight, but they were heavily escorted, and the USAAF had killed off most of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots by that time. According to my Green and Swandborough Fact File, a Lancaster's normal bomb load was 12,000 to 14,000lb.
> 
> Could you throw a B-17 or B-24 around like you could a Lancaster? This helped them evade German night fighters. Lancasters would have benefited from some form of ventral gun position. The Lancaster's manoeuvrability and handling would have been useless in the USAAF's daylight box formations.



I posted this up on another thread a few weeks ago but in the light of the above it is worthwhile repeating. RAF Bomber Command flew 153 daylight raids between 27 Aug 1944 and 24 April 1945 (now corrected) with the RAF increasing the numbers of Mustang squadrons allocated to escort them from 4 to 15 over that period.


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1433&context=cmh



The tight USAAF defensive box formations were not adopted due to the amount of retraining that would have been required, time that could not be afforded. Instead looser formations, referred to as a “gaggle” and containing 40-70 aircraft each, was adopted.

Lancasters were not re-engined to be able to fly these daylight sorties. But from around this time new tail turrets began to appear in both Lancaster and Halifax aircraft containing 2x0.5” MG. And from around Oct 1944 Canadian produced Lancaster X began to receive Martin mid-upper turrets with 2x0.5” which were mounted about 5 feet forward of the usual mid-upper turret position, but how many reached operational squadrons by the end of the war I’m not clear about.

Details of typical Lancaster bomb loads can be found here





Bomb Loads


Lancaster Archive



www.lancaster-archive.com





But these typical loads would be subject to variation dependent on a number of factors, including how much fuel needed to be carried for particular missions.

Another feature arising from these daylight raids was bright tail markings for G-H bombing leaders in these “gaggle” formations





GH-Tail Markings


Lancaster Archive



www.lancaster-archive.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 17, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> His team quickly demonstrated that the B-24 was not suitable for strategic bombing over Germany.


How would they do that exactly and were the results viable?


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 17, 2022)

EwenS said:


> I posted this up on another thread a few weeks ago but in the light of the above it is worthwhile repeating. RAF Bomber Command flew 153 daylight raids between 27 Aug 1944 and 24 April 1944…


Ewen pretty much sums the activities by Bomber Command during the latter months of the war. You have the incorrect year in your first sentence, 24 April 1944 should be 1945. A couple of comments.

I’m uncertain how many of the modified rear turrets equipped the 6-Group squadrons. Lancaster X’s with the GM 250 MUT were operational at least since the beginning of March 1945. I believe beginning with KB860, the Lanc X’s had the GM turret. I’m moving right now and my lanc books are packed in a box so cannot check this. Dad’s KB.865 had this turret. It was brand new when he first flew it to Mainz, March 1, 1945.

Note that the bomb loads for a given raid within a squadron for Merlin 38 and 224 a/c in 6-Group were the same right through to the end of the war, although the Air Ministry had approved a higher all-up weight for the 18-Boost a/c.

I cannot comment on the relative performance of the Liberator vs the Fortress, except dad said the B-24 handled like a cow. Dad never flew the Fortress, but he liked the lanc.

One comment: if attacked by fighters, during daylight gaggle operations, 6-Group pilots were permitted to take evasive action, I.e. the corkscrew manouevre. I don’t believe USAAF pilots took evasive action in this circumstance, but I stand to be corrected if that was the case.

Jim

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Apr 17, 2022)

spicmart said:


> How would they do that exactly and were the results viable?


Good question. The author did not go into details. I have just seen a photograph of a Liberator flying missions in March 1945.. 

Note how pissed off the boss was, although he had a point. You can ban smoking in your Liberator. It's too bad you cannot ban the Luftwaffe from using 30mm cannons.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Apr 17, 2022)

Milosh said:


> The poor Halifax gets left out, again.


Not sure why it got skipped. It was produced in numbers comparable to the Lanc (just over 6,000, compared to 7,000), and carried about the same weight in bombs. So it seems like there were a Big Four.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I was just looking at the RAF B-17C/D (don't gimme' none of that "MK" foolishness) in Snautzer01's Boeing B-17 thread. I know the RAF used them and the B-17 wasn't up to snuff. Things didn't work well high up. There were too few of them for mutually defensive fire, etc. At the snapshot of time the photo was taken, how did the B-17 compare to the heavy bombers of other air forces?


Massively better because there werent any others at that time. The Stirling had just been introduced as a night bomber, same with the Halifax, the B-17 was use by the British before the Lancaster (but not the Manchester), The LW never got the He 177 to work properly. Things didnt work out because at the time it wasnt sorted, but the basic theory was flawed, it couldnt fly high enough or fast enough to be immune to enemy defences and the argument about insufficient numbers for mutual defence was just theory, there would never be enough for mutual defence, as shown later in 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Apr 17, 2022)

Milosh said:


> The poor Halifax gets left out, again.


WW2 myth is Lanc and Hx were comparible and the B17 aced it over the B24, when the reverse was true.

Hx given lesser bomb load and better position in the stream to even the chances for the crews. Lanc easier to make and repair too.

B24 more versatile but B17 better outright day bomber and tougher.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2022)

For both the B-17 and the B-24 massive building programs were started (much like the British) before they had any real idea of of how either one would actually work in service.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 17, 2022)

And as far as the Halifax vs the Lancaster goes - if the Lancaster had not been built (ie the Manchester had overcome its teething problems early on) everyone would be singing praises to the Halifax.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 18, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Good question. The author did not go into details. I have just seen a photograph of a Liberator flying missions in March 1945..
> 
> Note how pissed off the boss was, although he had a point. You can ban smoking in your Liberator. It's too bad you cannot ban the Luftwaffe from using 30mm cannons.



Sir Winston Churchill had a B-24 as his personal transport. So it couldn't be that bad one might assume.
How did they solve the fume problem in that?

I thought the fume issue wasn't found in all Liberators.


----------



## EwenS (Apr 18, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Hendricks also noted that the B-24 leaked fuel. They flew the with bomb doors slightly ajar. Hendricks, a smoker, did not permit smoking on his B-24. The book Whiz Kids by John A. Byrne, is all about the USAAF systems analysts who took over Ford Motor company in the 1950s, led by "Tex" Thornton and Robert McNamara. Thornton, a chain smoker, flew across the Atlantic in a B-24, and he was not permitted to smoke. His team quickly demonstrated that the B-24 was not suitable for strategic bombing over Germany.



The fuel system varied a bit in the early aircraft but from the B-24D there were 12 main fuel tanks spread across the wing and upper fuselage between the inner engines. The fuel transfer system with all its pipework was located above that in the top of the fuselage. So if there were any petrol fumes they had direct access to the fuselage. Those tanks held 2,343 US gals. Part way through B-24D production more fuel was crammed into the wings outboard of the undercart behind the outboard engines. 3 tanks with another 225 gals each side. Finally for ferry trips and in aircraft used by the USN and RAF maritime squadrons another 1 or 2 tanks could be placed in the forward bomb bay. Each contained another 395 gals of petrol. So anything up to 3,593 US gals of highly inflammable fuel mostly centred around the inner wing and fuselage with all the associated pipework to connect them up and pumps to move it around.

With all that fuel I'm not sure that smoking would be good for your longevity! Having said that I don't recall reading of fuel leaks being a problem for the RAF in operational service. It certainly raises questions about the standard of maintenance of the aircraft.

In the B-17 the only fuel that was placed in the fuselage was in the so called ferry tanks that were also used by RAF Coastal Command B-17s. So from a design standpoint it is less likely that fumes could seep into the fuselage in the first place.

Incidentally, Churchill's Liberator AL504 "Commando" had two lives. When he used it in 1942/43 it was a twin tailed converted LB-30, little changed from the basic aircraft. In August 1943 it was flown to the Tucson Modification centre from where it emerged in April 1944 with a stretched fuselage, single tail and "luxury" 20 passenger configuration taking in the whole bomb bay. This is what appears in most photos of the aircraft. By mid-1943 the third Avro York to be built, LV633 "Ascalon", was converted as a VVIP aircraft for use by King George VI and Churchill. Then in Nov 1944 the US donated a C-54D Skymaster I in VIP form for Churchill's use.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2022)

EwenS said:


> With all that fuel I'm not sure that smoking would be good for your longevity! Having said that I* don't recall reading of fuel leaks being a problem for the RAF in operational service. It certainly raises questions about the standard of maintenance of the aircraft.*


It doesn't mean this situation didn't exist. Several things to explore: One also has to look at what the RAF ordered within their B-24s. Did they have the same fuel and hydraulic fittings as aircraft produced for the US? Did the RAF perform better maintenance? Did the RAF Liberators fly less hours than the US B-24s? All factors...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Apr 18, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Incidentally, Churchill's Liberator AL504 "Commando" had two lives. When he used it in 1942/43 it was a twin tailed converted LB-30, little changed from the basic aircraft. In August 1943 it was flown to the Tucson Modification centre from where it emerged in April 1944 with a stretched fuselage, single tail and "luxury" 20 passenger configuration taking in the whole bomb bay. This is what appears in most photos of the aircraft. By mid-1943 the third Avro York to be built, LV633 "Ascalon", was converted as a VVIP aircraft for use by King George VI and Churchill. Then in Nov 1944 the US donated a C-54D Skymaster I in VIP form for Churchill's use.


I just did some quick reading about the _Commando_, and after Churchill began using the _Ascalan_ he never again flew in the _Commando_. Which was good, because the _Commando_ was lost for unknown reasons on March 27, 1945, while ferrying some lesser British dignitaries to an event in Canada. Radio contact was lost and it was never heard from again, leaving behind some small bits of wreckage and an oil slick not far from the Azores, close to its intended flight path.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 18, 2022)

Did the B-24 have a higher total loss of non--combat crashes than the B-17 and to what percentage?


----------



## spicmart (Apr 18, 2022)

Did the B-24 have a higher total loss of non--combat crashes than the B-17 and to what percentage?


----------



## manta22 (Apr 18, 2022)

spicmart said:


> The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
> 
> The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
> 
> ...


Are you sure you meant to use the word "Redundant"?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I watched it too. My takeaway is that the B-17 was faster than the Lancaster at 32000 feet.


I watched the video. I think your smile reflects my thought. Missions were never flown at 32,00 feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Willow Run played a large part in the war, biased towards the -17 as I am. When your enemy can run them off the line like that, you may as well bend over and smile.


Willow Run was named nicknamed Willit Run for a reason. It took a long time for production to get underway. Note that the first 800 B-24s produced by Willow Run were considered unsuitable for combat and were not send overseas. In 1943 when there was real shortage of heavy bombers Willow Run was not contributing much.





As for Willow Run's much hyped productivity it took a long time for Willow Run to exceed San Diego's productivity. July 1944 in fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> A basic comparison of the B-17E vs the B-24D, dated 30 May 1942, can be found here on the WWII Aircraft Performance website:
> 
> "http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17E_B-24D_Comparison.pdf"
> 
> ...


The attached document shows a greater range for the B-17. Note that the B-17 is carrying a greater bomb load.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

spicmart said:


> How would they do that exactly and were the results viable?


the B-24 was a pig to fly and this showed up in bombing accuracy. The B-24 was a much less accurate bomber. Interestingly the B-24 improved in the 4th quarter, but that is due to the B-24s flying in smaller formations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Apr 19, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Willow Run was named nicknamed Willit Run for a reason. It took a long time for production to get underway. Note that the first 800 B-24s produced by Willow Run were considered unsuitable for combat and were not send overseas. In 1943 when there was real shortage of heavy bombers Willow Run was not contributing much.
> 
> 
> As for Willow Run's much hyped productivity it took a long time for Willow Run to exceed San Diego's productivity. July 1944 in fact.


I recently came across a YouTube documentary about the Ford B-24 plant, and one of the issues they talked about was that there was a constant request from the AAF for changes, which gummed up the works. According to the documentary, the Ford management finally said, "Make up your mind what you want, so that we can build it" and then things got better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 19, 2022)

manta22 said:


> Are you sure you meant to use the word "Redundant"?


Sorry if I may not be right. I'm no native English speaker.


Reluctant Poster said:


> The attached document shows a greater range for the B-17. Note that the B-17 is carrying a greater bomb load.
> View attachment 665235


How come?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The attached document shows a greater range for the B-17. Note that the B-17 is carrying a greater bomb load.
> View attachment 665235


This is great info but I find a few things funny. It looks like these reports were put together in 1945. I believe the 5th AF gave up the last of their B-17s in 1943 so was this data based on what the aircraft was capable of or what was actually flown? Additionally why even put the B-17 in this chart if they are no longer participating?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2022)

NTGray said:


> I recently came across a YouTube documentary about the Ford B-24 plant, and one of the issues they talked about was that *there was a constant request from the AAF for changes, which gummed up the works. *According to the documentary, the Ford management finally said, "Make up your mind what you want, so that we can build it" and then things got better.


This has been the same story for years and one of the reasons why the F-35 program got so expensive. History repeats itself! 

With regards to WW2, I think this was one of the reasons why mod centers were created - build the basic airframe and incorporate changes while the aircraft were on their way to delivery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 19, 2022)

For anyone interested in the details of the changes to the B-24:models with nose turrets factory by factory, block no by block no, try getting hold of a book titled "Consolidated Mess". Full of drawings highlighting the changes from the earliest field mods to fit nose turrets to the B-24N that got cancelled. A true labour of love.

The author did promise to do the same for the earlier models but so far nothing
Maybe he has gone mad trying! Or the book has become so large as to unaffordable😂

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2022)

NTGray said:


> I recently came across a YouTube documentary about the Ford B-24 plant, and one of the issues they talked about was that there was a constant request from the AAF for changes, which gummed up the works. According to the documentary, the Ford management finally said, "Make up your mind what you want, so that we can build it" and then things got better.


That may not be as it seems. A car manufacturer makes a car and puts it on a forecourt "take it or leave it". The military are not in the same situation buying huge expensive planes as the public are buying a "Model T". Maybe Ford would have been better advised to ask their client what they wanted now, and what they think they are likely to want in future. It was designed as a bomber, but among the first uses the British had for it was transporting ferry pilots, transporting Churchill and Maritime recon, all as important as dropping bombs. Ford could then have built some more flexibility into their manufacturing plants.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2022)

pbehn said:


> That may not be as it seems. A car manufacturer makes a car and puts it on a forecourt "take it or leave it". The military are not in the same situation buying huge expensive planes as the public are buying a "Model T". *Maybe Ford would have been better advised to ask their client what they wanted now, and what they think they are likely to want in future. * It was designed as a bomber, but among the first uses the British had for it was transporting ferry pilots, transporting Churchill and Maritime recon, all as important as dropping bombs. Ford could then have built some more flexibility into their manufacturing plants.


Having worked on defense contracts more than half of my 43 year aviation career, this is not always the case, as it was 75 years ago, at least in the US. All branches of the US military are notorious of continually changing their minds well after the base contract is signed and again I'll use the F-35 was a prime example. Manufacturers DO make suggestions to "the client," this is well documented in the book "Skunk Works," where Kelly Johnson made many "suggestions" to the USAF, sometimes banging his head over their stupidity.

At the same time, if a manufacturer makes too many suggestions, they are viewed as trying to influence the procurement process and then given the evil but fictitious title of "Military Industrial Complex."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Having worked on defense contracts more than half of my 43 year aviation career, this is not always the case, as it was 75 years ago, at least in the US. All branches of the US military are notorious of continually changing their minds well after the base contract is signed and again I'll use the F-35 was a prime example. Manufacturers DO make suggestions to "the client," this is well documented in the book "Skunk Works," where Kelly Johnson made many "suggestions" to the USAF, sometimes banging his head over their stupidity.
> 
> At the same time, if a manufacturer makes too many suggestions, they are viewed as trying to influence the procurement process and then given the evil but fictitious title of "Military Industrial Complex."


I was referring specifically to production of the B-24, I also saw a documentary that said production was set up to mass produce a basic type, with little ability to change things either in the organisation or the actual plants, so they made them and converted them later to what the client actually wanted. With the pace of change in the late 1930s and early 1940s people only had ideas of what was needed, when the war started they found out quickly where they were right and where they were way off mark. I mentioned ferry pilots because I dont believe anyone even thought of that as a need at all. But once you fly some planes across the Atlantic HTF do you get the pilots back, the only planes with the range are the ones they are flying in. Airborne RADAR only started in around 1940, just a couple of years after ground based RADAR became a fact not science fiction. I feel your pain, working on such contracts, it is little different in the oil industry, I had 30 years of that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I was referring specifically to production of the B-24, I also saw a documentary that said production was set up to mass produce a basic type, with little ability to change things either in the organisation or the actual plants, so they made them and converted them later to what the client actually wanted. With the pace of change in the late 1930s and early 1940s people only had ideas of what was needed, when the war started they found out quickly where they were right and where they were way off mark. I mentioned ferry pilots because I dont believe anyone even thought of that as a need at all. But once you fly some planes across the Atlantic HTF do you get the pilots back, the only planes with the range are the ones they are flying in. Airborne RADAR only started in around 1940, just a couple of years after ground based RADAR became a fact not science fiction. I feel your pain, working on such contracts, it is little different in the oil industry, I had 30 years of that.


All true and thus the creation of Mod Centers that can handle these changes/ modifications without disrupting the production line.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 19, 2022)

Were all components made in house at Willow Run? I know that there were at least 4 or 5 facilities turning out B-24s, with more or less subassemblies being produced elsewhere and then shipped in.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This is great info but I find a few things funny. It looks like these reports were put together in 1945. I believe the 5th AF gave up the last of their B-17s in 1943 so was this data based on what the aircraft was capable of or what was actually flown? Additionally why even put the B-17 in this chart if they are no longer participating?


Joe - the 8th AF HQ moved to Okinawa, due to be equipped with B-17, possibly B-24. Several 8th AF BG went stateside to convert to B-29.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 19, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Joe - the 8th AF HQ moved to Okinawa, due to be equipped with B-17, possibly B-24. Several 8th AF BG went stateside to convert to B-29.h


Err no it didn't, at least not physically. In UK 8th AF ceased to exist on a date in July 1945 (Can't remember the exact date). IIRC its responsibilities were taken over by 8th Bomber Command. 8th AF HQ personnel did not move to Okinawa.

On the same day XX Bomber Command HQ (which had been responsible for B-29 ops in the CBI and had been moved to Okinawa when the B-29s it controlled moved to the Marianas under command of XXI Bomber Command) was renamed 8th AF.

The Pacific 8th AF was to control at least 2 Bomb Wings each of 4 Bomb Groups equipped with B-29. IIRC the first 2 BG had arrived on Okinawa as the war was ending with the next two in transit. No operations were flown. From memory it also took command of a fighter wing on Okinawa with P-47N which had been flying ops under 7th AF.


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 19, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Were all components made in house at Willow Run? I know that there were at least 4 or 5 facilities turning out B-24s, with more or less subassemblies being produced elsewhere and then shipped in.



I was just going through the publication _Official Munitions Production of the United States_ the other day, looking at aircraft production by factory. Here is what it lists for B-24 production:

1,861 — Consolidated Vultee, Fort Worth, TX (complete assemblies)
 .. 882 — Consolidated Vultee, Fort Worth, TX (Ford knockdowns)
6,724 — Consolidated Vultee, San Diego, CA
 .. 964 — Douglas, Tulsa, OK (Ford knockdowns)
6,791 — Ford, Willow Run, MI (complete units)
 .. 939 — Ford, Willow Run, MI (for Fort Worth)
 .. 954 — Ford, Willow Run, MI (for Tulsa)
 .. 966 — North American, Dallas, TX

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Err no it didn't, at least not physically. In UK 8th AF ceased to exist on a date in July 1945 (Can't remember the exact date). IIRC its responsibilities were taken over by 8th Bomber Command. 8th AF HQ personnel did not move to Okinawa.
> 
> On the same day XX Bomber Command HQ (which had been responsible for B-29 ops in the CBI and had been moved to Okinawa when the B-29s it controlled moved to the Marianas under command of XXI Bomber Command) was renamed 8th AF.
> 
> The Pacific 8th AF was to control at least 2 Bomb Wings each of 4 Bomb Groups equipped with B-29. IIRC the first 2 BG had arrived on Okinawa as the war was ending with the next two in transit. No operations were flown. From memory it also took command of a fighter wing on Okinawa with P-47N which had been flying ops under 7th AF.


I am relying on Freeman, Mighty Eighth, pg233. "On July 16 Eighth Air Force was re-established on Okinawa in the Pacific as another USAAF bomber organization in the war on Japan". Further, "While the commander and some personnel were drawn from its former forces, they had little to connect it to former self"

It goes on to say that 2 B-29 BGs were ready, but not operational in August when the war ended.

IIRC, the 91st and several other VIII BC (notably 20th BW B-2 groups) had rotated back to states for re-training in B-29 and destined for Okinawa in August/September 1945. The P-51H theoretically also was represented on 8th TO&E along with P-47N and P-51D.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Did the B-24 have a higher total loss of non--combat crashes than the B-17 and to what percentage?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 19, 2022)

Wow.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> I was just going through the publication _Official Munitions Production of the United States_ the other day, looking at aircraft production by factory. Here is what it lists for B-24 production:
> 
> 1,861 — Consolidated Vultee, Fort Worth, TX (complete assemblies)
> .. 882 — Consolidated Vultee, Fort Worth, TX (Ford knockdowns)
> ...


Before Ford was able to provide knockdowns to Fort Worth and Tulsa, San Diego provided 303 knockdowns to Fort Worth and 10 to Tulsa. The number I have for Fort Worth compete assemblies is 1501. Subtracting 303 from 1861 yields 1531 so there is a slight discrepancy. The 10 kits to Tulsa explains the 964 vs 954 in your Tulsa numbers. i also have San Diego production at 7034 not including knockdowns


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Having worked on defense contracts more than half of my 43 year aviation career, this is not always the case, as it was 75 years ago, at least in the US. All branches of the US military are notorious of continually changing their minds well after the base contract is signed and again I'll use the F-35 was a prime example. Manufacturers DO make suggestions to "the client," this is well documented in the book "Skunk Works," where Kelly Johnson made many "suggestions" to the USAF, sometimes banging his head over their stupidity.
> 
> At the same time, if a manufacturer makes too many suggestions, they are viewed as trying to influence the procurement process and then given the evil but fictitious title of "Military Industrial Complex."


Yes and no. Some of Fords problems were self inflicted. Willow Run was located in the middle of nowhere with no housing and no means of getting there from Detroit. Labor was hard to attract and turn over was high . Also Ford didn't understand the properties of aluminum.




That being said the AAF did demand a lot of changes certainly more than they the demanded for the B-17. Was that because the B-17 was simply a better design or perhaps Boeing was more in tune with the requirements of the AAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All true and thus the creation of Mod Centers that can handle these changes/ modifications without disrupting the production line.


One of the interesting facts is that B-24s required more time in modification centers than the B-17

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 19, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> One of the interesting facts is that B-24s required more time in modification centers than the B-17
> View attachment 665252


Why is there 40 % savings in personnel and material?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 19, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Why is there 40 % savings in personnel and material?


Modification time and materials, maintenance time and material , production time and material ( to compensate for greater losses). It all adds up


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 19, 2022)

Because B-17s were less likely to be shot down.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> That being said the AAF did demand a lot of changes certainly more than they the demanded for the B-17. *Was that because the B-17 was simply a better design or perhaps Boeing was more in tune with the requirements of the AAF.*


I think a little bit of both. I think we know that the B-17 design, development and deployment was earlier than the B-24 and I also think that early in the program, Boeing was doing everything they can to see the B-17 was going to be produced. The B-24 started out as a well planned design with it's Davis Airfoil but I think Ruben Fleet did everything he could to ensure that Consolidated was able to produce a heavy bomber (rather than build B-17s under license), therefore the design was rushed and the B-24 turned into a bit of a flying monstrosity rather than a sleek streamlined bomber.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 19, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Before Ford was able to provide knockdowns to Fort Worth and Tulsa, San Diego provided 303 knockdowns to Fort Worth and 10 to Tulsa. The number I have for Fort Worth compete assemblies is 1501. Subtracting 303 from 1861 yields 1531 so there is a slight discrepancy. The 10 kits to Tulsa explains the 964 vs 954 in your Tulsa numbers. i also have San Diego production at 7034 not including knockdowns



Allan G. Blue's _The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History_ (a great reference source in my opinion) has this for total production by location:

7,500 — Consolidated, San Diego
3,034 — Consolidated, Fort Worth
6,792 — Ford, Willow Run
 .. 964 — Douglas, Tulsa
 .. 966 — North American, Dallas

Note that the above includes 740 PB4Y-2 and 34 RY-3 at San Diego; 280 C-87, 6 C-87A, and 5 AT-22 at Fort Worth.

Total production by type:

 . . . . 1 XB-24
 . . . . 6 LB-30A
. . . 20 Liberator I
 . . . . 1 YB-24
 . . . . 9 B-24A
 . . 140 Liberator II
 . . . . 9 B-24C
2,728 B-24D
 .. 801 B-24E
 .. 430 B-24G
3,100 B-25H
6,678 B-25J
1,667 B-24L
2,593 B-24M
 . . . . 1 XB-24N
 . . . . 7 YB-24N
 . . 280 C-87
 . . . . 6 C-87A
 . . . . 5 AT-22
 . . 740 PB4Y-2
 . . . 34 RY-3

19,256 total


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 19, 2022)

From what I have read so far (in this thread) I think it is correct to say that the B-24 is the most redundant. It appears to me that if Consolidated-Ford-Douglas-NA etal had begun producing B-17s at the time they began producing the B-24 there would have been very little disadvantage(s) and quite significant advantage(s) to be had.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 19, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Allan G. Blue's _The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History_ (a great reference source in my opinion) has this for total production by location:
> 
> 7,500 — Consolidated, San Diego
> 3,034 — Consolidated, Fort Worth
> ...


So F-7s were conversions?


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 19, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> So F-7s were conversions?



Yes. Blue's book lists the serial numbers of the B-24s converted to F-7/F-7A/F-7B on pp. 203-204.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Apr 20, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> So F-7s were conversions?


In general, all recon versions of every manufacturer were Depot modifications. Few ships converted but requiring specialized processes and different skills in the primary plant tended to slow production down and increase direct costs/overheads


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Apr 20, 2022)

drgondog said:


> IIRC, the 91st and several other VIII BC (notably 20th BW B-2 groups) had rotated back to states for re-training in B-29 and destined for Okinawa in August/September 1945.


No information on the planned end 1945 operational B-29 force.

The wind down of the 8th and 15th Air Forces started with the B-24 groups, apart from the 492nd all had been sent to the US or the ATC by mid June 1945. Three 15th Air Force B-17 groups remained as occupation forces, 2 were inactivated in Italy in September 1945, the 301st went to the US in July, redesignated Very Heavy in August.

Three 15th Air Force B-24 groups went to the ATC, the remaining 12 to the US, of which 7 had been redesignated Very Heavy by end August 1945. For the 14 8th Air Force B-24 groups again 7 were redesignated Very Heavy by end August 1945. No returned B-24 groups were inactivated before 18 August 1945.

Seven 8th Air Force B-17 groups had returned to the US by end July 1945, none redesignated Very Heavy, none inactivated before 28 August 1945, 2 more B-17 groups inactivated in Morocco in July 1945.

Measuring the B-24 safety record by number of accidents and fatalities is being somewhat unfair, given the numbers of B-24 built versus other types and a multi seat aircraft by definition exposes more people to risk in a crash. Accident rates are a better comparison. Having said that the B-24 accidents in the US 1942 to 1945 accounted for 8.8% of fatal accidents, 20.5% of fatalities and 5.9% of destroyed aircraft, the B-17 figures were 5.1%, 12.7% and 3.8%. Accidents by Primary, Basic and Advanced trainers were responsible for 37.8% of fatal accidents, 25.5% of fatalities and 38.3% of destroyed aircraft. The fighters, percentage of total fatal accidents, P-38 6.1%, P-39 6.6%, P-40 5.8%, P-47 7.5%, P-51 2.5%, P-63 0.3%. An average of 7.9 people were killed in a B-29 fatal accident, 6.2 in a B-17 and 5.7 in a B-24.


33k in the air said:


> Allan G. Blue's _The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History_ (a great reference source in my opinion) has this for total production by location:
> 
> 7,500 — Consolidated, San Diego
> 3,034 — Consolidated, Fort Worth
> ...


The San Diego Air and Space Museum holds a lot of Consolidated Company Records, plenty of details on B-24 production.

All F-7 were conversions however 3 B-24L were accepted as such but delivered to USAAF as F-7B in November and December 1944 and 29 B-24M were accepted as such but delivered to USAAF as F-7B January to June 1945, all from San Diego, so in these cases the conversion happened before USAAF service. How many B-24 does Allan Blue think were converted to F-7, by B-24 version?

The US production reports agree with Allan Blue's totals with a couple of exceptions, like designations, using LB-30B versus Liberator I, LB-30 versus Liberator II (The RAF used LB-30A for its first 6 aircraft), also having 285 C-87 and 0 AT-22, considering all 5 AT-22 as conversions.

The production reports have two less aircraft from Consolidated, San Diego, 

1 LB-30, AL503 was destroyed in an accident on 2 June 1941, "contractually non-existant inasmuch as it never been delivered", unusually for the US system it was omitted from the production reports, to make up the numbers another LB-30, FP685, was built, Allan Blue has the correct total.

1 RY-3. Order NOa(s)-3236 dated 14 March 1944 was for 112 RY-3, 86 for the USN and 26 for the British, Bureau Numbers 90020 to 90131, but 79 of the USN order were cancelled on V-J day (maybe first 66 then another 13), leaving 33 on the order of which 90020, 21 and 90023 to 50 and 90057 to 59, were built, (26 as JT936, JT937, JT975 to 998), the 33 Bureau Numbers matching the acceptances of 1 for the USN in June 1944, then 19 for Britain December 1944 to March 1945, another 7 from June to August 1945, then 6 for the USN November and December 1945. However Bureau Number 90022 is marked retained by contractor, making it the 34th aircraft. What does Allan Blue say about 90022? If it flew then it is an omission from the production reports, Consolidated say they built it. Air Arsenal North America thinks the entire order was for Britain, with one aircraft retained in the US for trials, so the 86 to 26 split in the USN documents could be reflecting what the order became, not as placed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 20, 2022)

8th AF OOB Aug 1945 on Okinawa



Allied Order of Battle for Operation DOWNFALL

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> How many B-24 does Allan Blue think were converted to F-7, by B-24 version?



It doesn't list it by B-24 version. It lists by serial number in Appendix H, pp. 203-204. Appendix I lists by serial number the B-24s converted to C-109.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> 1 RY-3. Order NOa(s)-3236 dated 14 March 1944 was for 112 RY-3, 86 for the USN and 26 for the British, Bureau Numbers 90020 to 90131, but 79 of the USN order were cancelled on V-J day (maybe first 66 then another 13), leaving 33 on the order of which 90020, 21 and 90023 to 50 and 90057 to 59, were built, (26 as JT936, JT937, JT975 to 998), the 33 Bureau Numbers matching the acceptances of 1 for the USN in June 1944, then 19 for Britain December 1944 to March 1945, another 7 from June to August 1945, then 6 for the USN November and December 1945. However Bureau Number 90022 is marked retained by contractor, making it the 34th aircraft. What does Allan Blue say about 90022? If it flew then it is an omission from the production reports, Consolidated say they built it. Air Arsenal North America thinks the entire order was for Britain, with one aircraft retained in the US for trials, so the 86 to 26 split in the USN documents could be reflecting what the order became, not as placed.



From p.76:

One hundred and twelve examples of a cargo version of the Privateer, which received the designation RY-3 (C-87C or Convair Model 101), were ordered in March 1944. Also built at San Diego, four were delivered in 1944 and twenty-nine more in 1945 before the balance of the order was cancelled. RY-3 BuNos were 90020/021, 023/050 and 057/059. (Cancelled numbers were 90051/056 and 060/131. One RY-3, ex-BuNo 90022, was retained by Convair.) Of the thirty-three delivered, twenty-six went to the UK as the Liberator C.IX where they were assigned serials JT973, JT975/998, and JV936.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 21, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Allan G. Blue's _The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History_ (a great reference source in my opinion) has this for total production by location:
> 
> 7,500 — Consolidated, San Diego
> 3,034 — Consolidated, Fort Worth
> ...


The numbers I have match yours from the B-24E on. I do seem to be short a on early San Diego prosecution.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 21, 2022)

Did you check your pockets?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 21, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This is great info but I find a few things funny. It looks like these reports were put together in 1945. I believe the 5th AF gave up the last of their B-17s in 1943 so was this data based on what the aircraft was capable of or what was actually flown? Additionally why even put the B-17 in this chart if they are no longer participating?








They were planning on B-17s at one point. The paper I posted showed that the B-29s were far more effective and hence the change in deployment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 21, 2022)

Could someone give a brief summary?: 
Did the disadvantages of the B-24 outweigh its advantages? And would it have been justified for it to be to completely replaced by the B-17?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 21, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> No information on the planned end 1945 operational B-29 force.
> 
> The wind down of the 8th and 15th Air Forces started with the B-24 groups, apart from the 492nd all had been sent to the US or the ATC by mid June 1945. Three 15th Air Force B-17 groups remained as occupation forces, 2 were inactivated in Italy in September 1945, the 301st went to the US in July, redesignated Very Heavy in August.
> 
> ...


The B-24 had a much higher accident rate per flying hour than the B-17. Note that the table is per 100,000 flying hours. In particular the fatalities stand out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 21, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Willow Run was named nicknamed Willit Run for a reason. It took a long time for production to get underway. Note that the first 800 B-24s produced by Willow Run were considered unsuitable for combat and were not send overseas. In 1943 when there was real shortage of heavy bombers Willow Run was not contributing much.
> 
> View attachment 665232
> 
> ...





FLYBOYJ said:


> I think a little bit of both. I think we know that the B-17 design, development and deployment was earlier than the B-24 and I also think that early in the program, Boeing was doing everything they can to see the B-17 was going to be produced. The B-24 started out as a well planned design with it's Davis Airfoil but I think Ruben Fleet did everything he could to ensure that Consolidated was able to produce a heavy bomber (rather than build B-17s under license), therefore the design was rushed and the B-24 turned into a bit of a flying monstrosity rather than a sleek streamlined bomber.
> 
> View attachment 665259


I also think the Boeing Douglas Vega group was much better organized than the group producing the B-24. They shared far more information and met regularly to exchange ideas. I have a paper on the subject at one time that i can no longer find. I am posting 2 papers that compare Seattle methods to Willow Run. Seattle is far closer to modern flexible production methods than Ford.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 21, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The B-24 had a much higher accident rate per flying hour than the B-17. Note that the table is per 100,000 flying hours. In particular the fatalities stand out.
> View attachment 665371



Interestingly, the average number of fatalities per fatal accident is lower for the B-24 than the B-17.

B-24: 2,796 / 490 = 5.71
B-17: 1,757 / 284 = 6.19

Fatal accidents as a share of all accidents:

B-24: 490 / 1,713 = 28.60%
B-17: 284 / 1,589 = 17.87%


----------



## EwenS (Apr 21, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Could someone give a brief summary?:
> Did the disadvantages of the B-24 outweigh its advantages? And would it have been justified for it to be to completely replaced by the B-17?


The really important advantage of the B-24 over the B-17 was it's range while still carrying a useful load which only expanded as the war went on.

For example, RAF Coastal Command B-17 could fill the bomb bay with fuel but could then only carry 4 depth charges externally. The B-24 with extra fuel filling the forward bomb bay could still carry 8 depth charges or 4 plus a Mk24 homing torpedo internally and still fly further.

In 1945 the Liberator in SEAC was flying 24 hour missions out of Ceylon. Before the introduction of the B-29 it was the B-24 that were flying the longest ranged bombing missions of the war in 1942 and 1943. Check out the failed HALPRO mission to Ploesti in 1942 or the Shady Lady mission to Balikpapan in 1943.

There was a reason why the USAAF swapped B-17s for B-24s in the Pacific from early 1943. Range.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The really important advantage of the B-24 over the B-17 was it's range while still carrying a useful load which only expanded as the war went on.
> 
> For example, RAF Coastal Command B-17 could fill the bomb bay with fuel but could then only carry 4 depth charges externally. The B-24 with extra fuel filling the forward bomb bay could still carry 8 depth charges or 4 plus a Mk24 homing torpedo internally and still fly further.
> 
> ...


This is why I questioned that one chart several posts back. Depending on mission loadout and altitude flown, the B-24 had greater range than the B-17.


----------



## EwenS (Apr 21, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Interestingly, the average number of fatalities per fatal accident is lower for the B-24 than the B-17.
> 
> B-24: 2,796 / 490 = 5.71
> B-17: 1,757 / 284 = 6.19
> ...


Is there a breakdown of those loss rates by theatre?

In the Pacific and CBI a lot of the flying was over water and the B-24 was a notoriously bad aircraft in a ditching.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 21, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Is there a breakdown of those loss rates by theatre?
> 
> In the Pacific and CBI a lot of the flying was over water and the B-24 was a notoriously bad aircraft in a ditching.


Those loss rates are for the continental USA


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 21, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The really important advantage of the B-24 over the B-17 was it's range while still carrying a useful load which only expanded as the war went on.
> 
> For example, RAF Coastal Command B-17 could fill the bomb bay with fuel but could then only carry 4 depth charges externally. The B-24 with extra fuel filling the forward bomb bay could still carry 8 depth charges or 4 plus a Mk24 homing torpedo internally and still fly further.
> 
> ...


The other reason was that the 8th AF was the Prima Donna and they wanted all the B-17s.
Also note that once the B-17s were equipped with "Tokyo Tanks" the range difference wasn't all that great. The paper I posted earlier shows the B-24 without bomb load have a greater range but with a bomb load the positions are reversed. In either case the difference in range isn't huge.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 21, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The really important advantage of the B-24 over the B-17 was it's range while still carrying a useful load which only expanded as the war went on.
> 
> For example, RAF Coastal Command B-17 could fill the bomb bay with fuel but could then only carry 4 depth charges externally. The B-24 with extra fuel filling the forward bomb bay could still carry 8 depth charges or 4 plus a Mk24 homing torpedo internally and still fly further.
> 
> ...


How were the Liberators equipped to perform 24 hour missions? And what were the ranges that were flown?


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 21, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The B-24 had a much higher accident rate per flying hour than the B-17. Note that the table is per 100,000 flying hours. In particular the fatalities stand out.
> View attachment 665371


A couple of points with this table:

1) only the “Rate” (2nd line) is comparable across all types. The rest of the statistics, such as fatalities, I’m pretty sure are not normalized for flying hours, and so you cannot make conclusions about rates of fatalities based on this table.

2) I’ll bet that the B-17 and B-24 statistics reflect newly trained pilots (I presume all these pilots were trained in the US). By comparison, I’ll wager the B-29 stats are for pilots who were already well trained on other 4-engines types.

So…the “Rate” for the B-29 stands out to me because 40/100,000 flying hours for this type exceeds that of the B-17 (30/100,000 hours) and the B-24 (35/100,000). And this for whom would probably be well trained on 4-engined a/c, perhaps combat trained.

*Edit Note: *We can take lines 1 and 2 and back-calculate the flying hours, and then we can calculate the fatality rates using line 3 and the back calculated flying hours. I will do that when I get home.

Jim

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 21, 2022)

So I have back calculated the flying hours as follows:
B-29: 6.8-100,000 hrs. (680,000 hrs)
B-17: 53.0-100,000 hrs (5,300,000 hrs)
B-24: 48.9-100,000 hours. (4,890,000 hrs)

*This is a correction: Fatal Accident Rates not Fatalities

Fatal accident rates*:

B-29: 63/6.8 = 9.3 *fatal accidents*/100,000 hrs.
B-17: 284/53.0 = 5.3 *fatal accidents*/100,000 hrs.
B-24: 490/48.9 = 10.0 *fatal accidents*/100,000 hrs.

*Sorry for any confusion.*

Jim

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 21, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> So I have back calculated the flying hours as follows:
> B-29: 6.8-100,000 hrs. (680,000 hrs)
> B-17: 53.0-100,000 hrs (5,300,000 hrs)
> B-24: 48.9-100,000 hours. (4,890,000 hrs)
> ...


The B-29 fatality rate gets a bit skewed by its larger crew size. Each accident puts more people in jeopardy. No matter how you slice it the B-24 is atrocious.


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 21, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The B-29 fatality rate gets a bit skewed by its larger crew size. Each accident puts more people in jeopardy. No matter how you slice it the B-24 is atrocious.


It’s twice that of the B-17, but the B-29 is likely over represented by experienced pilots.

The statistic I’d like to see is the comparable stats with well trained pilots across types, because, I have heard that the B-29 was “adventure” to fly. The engines were real problems, particularly on take-off. And the B-29 pilots were almost entirely well trained on other types prior to flying the B-29.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 21, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Yes and no. Some of Fords problems were self inflicted. Willow Run was located in the middle of nowhere with no housing and no means of getting there from Detroit. Labor was hard to attract and turn over was high . Also Ford didn't understand the properties of aluminum.
> 
> That being said the AAF did demand a lot of changes certainly more than they the demanded for the B-17. Was that because the B-17 was simply a better design or perhaps Boeing was more in tune with the requirements of the AAF.



I've often wondered if the long gestation from the 299 through to the combat viable B-17E wasn't the greatest advantage Boeing had. Years to learn what did and didn't work along with the combat experience of the UK with the Sharktails. By the time the US was fully ramping up, the Boeing aircraft was ready. Consolidated's really wasn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 21, 2022)

I apologize for any confusion in post 113, above. 

Here are my calculations for all of the lines in the table in Post #103. I have repeated the figures in the first lines and then calculated the rates associated with them so that they can be comparable across all types. Quite frankly the B-29 jumps out at me. I'm not sure about the rest of you. The crew of the B-29: 11; B-17: 10; B-24: 11.

Jim

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Apr 22, 2022)

After reading all of the comments, in an all out conflict such as World War 2 was, redundansy does not exist.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> View attachment 665354
> 
> They were planning on B-17s at one point. The paper I posted showed that the B-29s were far more effective and hence the change in deployment.


Good catch. I knew that the deployment was planned, did not know the final reason they were stood down. Do you have the date for this?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 23, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> I apologize for any confusion in post 113, above.
> 
> Here are my calculations for all of the lines in the table in Post #103. I have repeated the figures in the first lines and then calculated the rates associated with them so that they can be comparable across all types. Quite frankly the B-29 jumps out at me. I'm not sure about the rest of you. The crew of the B-29: 11; B-17: 10; B-24: 11.
> 
> ...


I believe the B-24 had the same size crew as the B-17, but your point is well taken. I was thinking of the crew of the B-36. I blame Jimmy Stewart for his performance in the movie "Strategic Air Command", which I recently watched. It is a must watch for the exquisite photography of the B-36 in the air and for the shots of its interior. Jimmy Stewart was a real life Air Force General who at the time of the filming was fully qualified to fly the B-36 and the B-47. While John Wayne was protecting Hollywood from Japanese attacks, Jimmy was flying combat missions over Germany in a B-24. Before that he was a B-17 instructor.
Getting back to the subject, yes the B-29 was a half baked cake being force fed into service. Most of its issues seem to be related to the engines propensity to catch fire, not the aircraft itself.
Back to original point the numbers clearly show the B-24 was much more dangerous to its crew than the B-17. As an aside the numbers also show the B-26 in an extremely bad light compared to the B-25

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 23, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Good catch. I knew that the deployment was planned, did not know the final reason they were stood down. Do you have the date for this?


The paper I posted on the change in deployment is dated August 9, 1945, which is ironic as the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that day rendering the decision moot. The comparison paper is dated August 11, 1945, so I presume it was the basis for the decision.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 23, 2022)

The accident rate for the B-26 got progressively lower as the war progressed. Improvements in training and the adoption of the longer wing contributing greatly. Both A-26 and A-20 had higher accident rates.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2022)

On the B-17 vs B-24 thing the B-17 may have been overbuilt as they weren't sure how large aircraft structures behaved. One of the YB-17s had been slated for destructive testing to see how well the structure would standup but when one of the early ones survived being flipped upside down in a thunderstorm they canceled the tests and completed the airframe as a regular flying aircraft.
I believe the B-17 main spar was also steel. This was _supposed_ to give a bit more time before the spar failed in wing fuel tank fires but that would be rather hard to prove. The B-24 did have the reputation of wing failure due to fire/combat damage. Basically any advantage was going to mean a few more crewmen might have the opportunity to bail out. A very hard thing to prove as with hundreds if not thousands of planes shot down you are going to find examples of both types surviving extreme damages and examples of both types failing in a matter of seconds from unknown damage. An awful lot of variables. 

You would be surprised (or maybe not) what some people will argue over. I was on a committee to select a new ladder truck for the Fire Dept and some members insisted we should get a steel ladder instead of aluminum ladder because it would last longer if exposed to heat/fire. We were looking at a 100ft bucket truck that could hold 3-4 men in the bucket. My view was that if the ladder structure was exposed to enough heat/fire for it to fail with either material I wasn't going to worry about it because I was going to be 10-30ft above the heat/flames and even with Nomex and an air tank I was going to be dead before the ladder collapsed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> On the B-17 vs B-24 thing the B-17 may have been overbuilt as they weren't sure how large aircraft structures behaved. One of the YB-17s had been slated for destructive testing to see how well the structure would standup but when one of the early ones survived being flipped upside down in a thunderstorm they canceled the tests and completed the airframe as a regular flying aircraft.
> I believe the B-17 main spar was also steel. This was _supposed_ to give a bit more time before the spar failed in wing fuel tank fires but that would be rather hard to prove. The B-24 did have the reputation of wing failure due to fire/combat damage. Basically any advantage was going to mean a few more crewmen might have the opportunity to bail out. A very hard thing to prove as with hundreds if not thousands of planes shot down you are going to find examples of both types surviving extreme damages and examples of both types failing in a matter of seconds from unknown damage. An awful lot of variables.
> 
> You would be surprised (or maybe not) what some people will argue over. I was on a committee to select a new ladder truck for the Fire Dept and some members insisted we should get a steel ladder instead of aluminum ladder because it would last longer if exposed to heat/fire. We were looking at a 100ft bucket truck that could hold 3-4 men in the bucket. My view was that if the ladder structure was exposed to enough heat/fire for it to fail with either material I wasn't going to worry about it because I was going to be 10-30ft above the heat/flames and even with Nomex and an air tank I was going to be dead before the ladder collapsed.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The paper I posted on the change in deployment is dated August 9, 1945, which is ironic as the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that day rendering the decision moot. The comparison paper is dated August 11, 1945, so I presume it was the basis for the decision.


Maybe not moot, maybe already preparing for the post war situation?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 23, 2022)

I would not be surprised at all. I design subway stations and fire protection is obviously important. I hear statements like we have to design for extreme temperatures so the station can get back to service asap. I point out that if the fire is big enough to develop those temperatures you have more worries than getting the station up and running

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Apr 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> On the B-17 vs B-24 thing the B-17 may have been overbuilt as they weren't sure how large aircraft structures behaved. One of the YB-17s had been slated for destructive testing to see how well the structure would standup but when one of the early ones survived being flipped upside down in a thunderstorm they canceled the tests and completed the airframe as a regular flying aircraft.
> I believe the B-17 main spar was also steel. This was _supposed_ to give a bit more time before the spar failed in wing fuel tank fires but that would be rather hard to prove. The B-24 did have the reputation of wing failure due to fire/combat damage. Basically any advantage was going to mean a few more crewmen might have the opportunity to bail out. A very hard thing to prove as with hundreds if not thousands of planes shot down you are going to find examples of both types surviving extreme damages and examples of both types failing in a matter of seconds from unknown damage. An awful lot of variables.
> 
> You would be surprised (or maybe not) what some people will argue over. I was on a committee to select a new ladder truck for the Fire Dept and some members insisted we should get a steel ladder instead of aluminum ladder because it would last longer if exposed to heat/fire. We were looking at a 100ft bucket truck that could hold 3-4 men in the bucket. My view was that if the ladder structure was exposed to enough heat/fire for it to fail with either material I wasn't going to worry about it because I was going to be 10-30ft above the heat/flames and even with Nomex and an air tank I was going to be dead before the ladder collapsed.


The properties of nearly any steel are so dramatically superior to Aluminium at high temperatures, that I dont think any "proof" would be needed of the contention that a steel spar would last dramatically longer in exposure to fire than an aluminium one. There is of course a "slight" element in favour of the Aluminium in that the conductivity is very high, but I do not think that anywhere near balances out the difference.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Apr 23, 2022)

Snowygrouch said:


> The properties of nearly any steel are so dramatically superior to Aluminium at high temperatures, that I dont think any "proof" would be needed of the contention that a steel spar would last dramatically longer in exposure to fire than an aluminium one. There is of course a "slight" element in favour of the Aluminium in that the conductivity is very high, but I do not think that anywhere near balances out the difference.


As noted above, if the aluminium is in an environment hot enough to make it fail, the people on it will be in no shape to care. Steel does have better fatigue properties, but this may not count with a lightweight structure. 

The B-17 wing _looks_ a lot sturdier than the B-24's wing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2022)

There is no doubt that the steel lasts longer and will stand up "better".

However when it comes down to crew survival we have to figure out what it means.

Hypothetical numbers, steel lasts 3 times longer than aluminum before failing. 
Aluminum spar lasts 12 seconds under XXX Flame impingement. 
Steel lasts 36 seconds.
You are a turret gunner getting out of a turret, grabbing parachute from rack on fuselage, attaching parachute to harness and getting out of escape hatch.

How long? 

I have seen aluminum components reduced to puddles on the floor/ground. I have also seen iron water pipes (Sprinkler pipes 6in in diameter) and structural components that looked like cooked spaghetti draped over parts/rubble that were lower. Steel, if I remember correctly, becomes "plastic" at around 800 degrees. The steel pipe or beam will maintain it's "shape" like tube or I beam but can no longer support itself, and droops/sags down onto whatever will support it. It hasn't "melted" like aluminum but it isn't holding up a lot either. 
Steel buildings are known as "non-combustible" buildings which basically means that the building structure (beams, siding, etc) will not contribute to the fire load over and above what the contents are doing. It does NOT mean the steel building is fire proof. Steel structure can be fire proofed with the application of layer/s of insulation or coatings to give a certain rating for flame impeachment, some times given as how many minutes before failure. 
Now with a damaged aircraft how big is the fuel fire, how big is the airflow through the compartment/s where the fire is, how fast/volume is the airflow and what is the altitude (air density) of the air feeding the fire? 
That is just stuff I can think of off the top of my head. I would guess that steel stands up better there is a lot of stuff that affects the result in each case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2022)

IMO the B-17's wing was built better and stronger.

The B-24 had a wing that was built up with ribs, stringers and longerons, all riveted together and then the outer skin riveted to the structure. Between the structure sat fuel cells.













The B-17 had a similar construction except the outer skin was riveted to a corrugated skin and then riveted to the ribs






The P-38's wing was also built very similar

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Apr 23, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> As noted above, if the aluminium is in an environment hot enough to make it fail, the people on it will be in no shape to care. Steel does have better fatigue properties, but this may not count with a lightweight structure.
> 
> The B-17 wing _looks_ a lot sturdier than the B-24's wing.



A fire in the wing can make the wings fail in a few minuites, there is no fuel in the fuselage of a B-17 so the fire can easily make the wing spar fail 
with zero crew exposure to the flames.

What do fatigue properties have to do with a fire ? Or if a structure is lightweight ?

The only properties of merit in that are what is the yield strength at a certain temperature. Most aluminiums will be down to 100megagpascals stress for example,
(not even good enough for a biscuit tin) at not much over 220 deg C, to get fairly average steel down to that by heat will need over 500 Deg C.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2022)

For me there is just too much unknown.
I am not saying the aluminum is better, not even close, but even in well know photos we don't know the duration of time, even in some photo sequences. 
We don't know the actual flame (or hot gas ) temperature at the impingement area. 

We can see the size of the fire blowing over the outside of the wing but that doesn't tell us the size of the fire _inside_ the wing structure or what the airflow (hot gas/flame travel) inside the wing compartment/s was like. 

And we haven't even gotten to at what point the wing spar/structure can not handle the aerodynamic load and starts to fold up. How fast, what altitude, what angle of attack is the wing, what side load? all of which may take a few seconds or less than a second? 

And if the majority of the crew cannot successfully exit the aircraft in the time available does it matter what the wing spar was made out of?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2022)

Some things to consider - 

Calum hits the nail on the head with regards to alloy strengths and heat resistance. With regards to construction, those steel components, while taking heavy structural loads and basically holding the machine together, are along for the ride as it's the aluminum structure that is actually lifting the whole aircraft. IIRC most of the structural steel components were made from 4130 steel (stainless steel in high heat areas) and I believe the lower eutectic temperature is about 1600F. Structural aluminum 7075 (or 75T back in the day) is about 1000F, so I think it's pretty obvious what's going to fail first under excessive heat. 

The only time you have too much fuel on board if you're on fire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 23, 2022)

I was surprised by the numbers for the A-20. Perhaps because it was one of the first fairly high-speed attack profile aircraft, tricycle gear and single pilot with multiple engines to control? Did the train on low level stuff state side? If so, that would certainly increase the accident numbers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2022)

I am not familiar enough with aluminum and it's fail modes. 
I do now that steel can fail as a loading bearing component well below it's melting temperature. 
But that is low grade steel. How well alloys do could be very different.


----------



## Jugman (Apr 23, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The really important advantage of the B-24 over the B-17 was it's range while still carrying a useful load which only expanded as the war went on.
> 
> For example, RAF Coastal Command B-17 could fill the bomb bay with fuel but could then only carry 4 depth charges externally. The B-24 with extra fuel filling the forward bomb bay could still carry 8 depth charges or 4 plus a Mk24 homing torpedo internally and still fly further.
> 
> ...


The reason was the 8th greatly preferred the B-17 and the Germany first doctrine meant they got their way.

Now early B-24s did have a practical range/payload advantage because they had 35% more internal fuel. But this only lasted until B-17s with Tokyo tanks entered service around the mid 1943. After that the B-24 only had an advantage when carrying depth bombs or GP bombs over 1000lbs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> There is no doubt that the steel lasts longer and will stand up "better".
> 
> However when it comes down to crew survival we have to figure out what it means.
> 
> ...





Shortround6 said:


> I am not familiar enough with aluminum and it's fail modes.
> *I do now that steel can fail as a loading bearing component well below it's melting temperature.
> But that is low grade steel. How well alloys do could be very different.*


A lot of this is "engineering". Steel is a remarkable series of alloys, with a huge range of properties. A steel "can" with a large diameter and low wall thickness will deform under its own weight at room temperature. Above a certain ratio of diameter and wall thickness you cannot measure ovality, you are measuring gravity, and if you roll the "can" as we called them a quarter turn the ovality has moved with the rotation. Steel used for pipelines is certainly affected above 137C because I have worked on projects where the steel was tested at room temperature and at the exit temperature of the product which was 137C on 1 project and 145C on another. The difference is only noticed statistically, after performing hundreds of tests on the same material at both temperatures there is a lower average result at the higher temperature, however they are not exactly the same size of test piece, or the same type of extensometer and strain regime.

All of this is bye the bye, I once had to do a thermographic survey of pipes in a cracking furnace in Jubail Saudi Arabia. The dry air temperature was 150C, we were only allowed to work for 10 minutes then rest in an airconditioned room and drink for 50 minutes. We worked in a team of 4 although only two were needed for the job, the other two were for if someone collapsed from the heat. In practice the computer attached to the camera gave out before the humans did and the screen went blank from the heat after 7 or 8 minutes. At the end of the day, despite just "working" for about one hour I was knackered with light burns all over but the (creep resistant) steel pipes we had been surveying were happily still doing their stuff inside the cracker at around 1000C. 

With regard to aircraft Snowygrouch speculated that a wing could burn through in minutes, I would say that you are more likely to read about it if it took minutes. If the plane was heavily loaded and the fire intense it would happen in seconds, or at best fractions of a minute.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## manta22 (Apr 23, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Sorry if I may not be right. I'm no native English speaker.
> 
> How come?


No disrespect intended, it may be that you wanted to ask if the B-17 was more numerous.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 23, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> The accident rate for the B-26 got progressively lower as the war progressed. Improvements in training and the adoption of the longer wing contributing greatly. Both A-26 and A-20 had higher accident rates.



IIRC the Marauder wound up with the lowest overall loss-rate per sortie of two- or four-engine bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 23, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> There is no doubt that the steel lasts longer and will stand up "better".
> 
> However when it comes down to crew survival we have to figure out what it means.
> 
> ...



IIRC from fire school, 30 minutes at 1300 degrees F will ruin structural steel. This is obviously well below the melting point of steel, but metal need not melt to be useless.

I'd still take an aluminum ladder to a fire any day of the week. If nothing else, if SHTF we can unass from danger quicker if we realize what's going down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 24, 2022)

Regarding the question of the B-17 versus the B-24, the book I mentioned previously, _The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History_ by Allan G. Blue, has a section devoted to that question. Some excerpts:



> There were certain other contrasts between the two aircraft which were becoming apparent to men who were acquainted with both. For example the overall impression one got from the Fortress interior was that it was, like its exterior, round and smooth — with its equipment built-in rather than added-on. Each B-17 crew member had a place to sit down and strap himself in — a small point, perhaps, but psychologically important. On the other hand the Liberator fuselage, while of larger dimensions than the Fortress, offered little in the way of comfort for the crew. There seemed to be draughts everywhere, and of such magnitude that they were far more than the troublesome spot heaters could contend with. Movement throughout the ship was awkward and difficult in full flight gear, and more often than not resulted in jarring collisions with various sharp-edged and unyielding structural members and/or installed equipment. Idle gunners sat on the floor — if they sat — and likely as not pondered possible fates for the design engineer who was responsible for a fuel-transfer system that required any prudent B-24 pilot to crack open the bomb bay doors in flight to disperse the petrol fumes. Or perhaps the ball and tail gunners thought about the greater speed with which their B-17 counterparts could exit their stations in a emergency.
> 
> _p.184_





> Inevitably the Liberator continued to be compared with the Flying Fortress and, as far as the later versions of the two bombers were concerned, suffered by the comparison. This was due not so much to short-comings of the Liberator — although it certainly had them — as to the fact the B-17 was in many respects an exceptional aircraft, with many of its merits having particular — and personal — appeal to the men who flew it and flew in it. From the beginning the Fortress was an honest aircraft, easy to fly in formation, with a low landing speed and with no major vices. 'A four-engined Piper Cub' was the popular and rather apt description. Most important, the Fortress retained its original characteristics throughout its development, while the Liberator did not.
> 
> _p.186_





> Actually the Liberator _never did_ lose its performance edge over the B-17, as a series of tests run at Elgin Field demonstrated conclusively late in the war. Rather, the areas in which the B-24 excelled became less important in the European and Mediterranean theatres. The range of the Fortress was adequate for Europe, and individual aircraft speed became academic because of formation requirements. Altitude, however, became paramount and here, literally, the B-17 remained on top. In addition, with over 70% of Eighth Air Force mission failures being attributed to navigational errors, the superior accommodations of the B-17 nose were highly desirable. General Doolittle, in fact, considered poor visibility the number one fault of the B-24.
> 
> In the Pacific theatre there was no vocal contest between the two aircraft, for although B-24's were originally requested by Pacific theatre commanders because they felt there was a better chance of getting them than the more popular B-17, the Liberator's longer legs soon demonstrated that it was a natural choice for an air war conducted for the most part at extreme range. The European requirement for tight formation flying was not as severe, and the typical maximum-range mission allowed Pacific Liberators, when necessary, to approach the target at adequate altitude because of the large amount of fuel burned on the way.
> 
> _p.186-187_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 24, 2022)

I am loving this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 24, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Maybe not moot, maybe already preparing for the post war situation.


The study was specifically about the bombing of Japan. At the time the study was being prepared the atomic bombs not been dropped and the invasion of Japan was to be the way forward. Very few people knew of the existence of the A bomb before August 6 and it did not enter into US military planning.


33k in the air said:


> Regarding the question of the B-17 versus the B-24, the book I mentioned previously, _The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History_ by Allan G. Blue, has a section devoted to that question. Some excerpts:





Thumpalumpacus said:


> IIRC the Marauder wound up with the lowest overall loss-rate per sortie of two- or four-engine bombers.


Of course it did, it attacked much less dangerous targets than the heavies. Rand Paper RM-402 "Aircraft Vulnerability In World War II" discusses this topic in detail.

"_Despite the other variables of missions which affect the damage and loss, inspection of the of missions grouped according to geographic areas attacked shows a dependence on location which may be reasonably attributed to the peculiar circumstances associated with attacks on each region. These circumstances include:
1. The character of the AA defenses which must be crossed
2. Whether the target is approached largely over land or over water 
3. Whether the target is in occupied territory or Germany
4. The strategic importance of the target to the enemy
5.The depth of penetration, because the deeper the penetration 
a. More AA positions flown over
b. More time for enemy to mobilize fighters
c. Longer bomber exposure time to fighters
d. Longer time bombers are without escort
e. Further damaged bombers must fly"

"Throughout the war, however, there was an appreciable difference in the loss rates to German and non-German targets, which reflects primarily the disposition of the German defenses and the greater mission distances involved."

"Table 14 Summary of 227 Daylight Attacks on 104 targets for 17 August through 31 December 1943" gives a great deal of detail on loss rates that I am to lazy to reproduce, but I will summarize as follows: 
South Germany 16.8%
Central Germany 15.5%
Rhine-Ruhr Area 11.3%
Hamburg Kiel Area 8.8%
N.E. Germany (&Poland) 8.0%
Emden-Bremen Area 6.1%

France, Holland, Belgium Over 200 Mi.fr. Bases. 4.5%
Norway 2.0%
France, Holland, Belgium Under 200 Mi.fr. Bases 1.6%_

Note that this is for 1943 when losses were at their peak. The B-26 loss rate for 1943 would be higher than the overall loss rate you quoted. If the B-17s and B-24s flew the same missions as the B-26 their losses would be corresponding low.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 24, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Regarding the question of the B-17 versus the B-24, the book I mentioned previously, _The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History_ by Allan G. Blue, has a section devoted to that question. Some excerpts:


My favorite attempt to improve the facilities in the nose of the B-24 is the grafting of the B-17 nose on a B-24


I have walked through the bomb bay catwalk in a B-24 and I will attest that it is tight. This was on the ground in summer clothes. i cannot imagine doing it in the air wearing flight gear.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 24, 2022)

And the roll up bomb bay doors of the B-24 could not support the weight of a man.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 24, 2022)

Hey, how come "the big bad B-17G researcher" hasn't chimed in? Remember him?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 24, 2022)

You guys were mean to him.
He shook the dust from his sandals and moved on.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 24, 2022)

Did he go with a Peter Three Nine long range escort?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 24, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> You guys were mean to him.


Only a little.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 24, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> And the roll up bomb bay doors of the B-24 could not support the weight of a man.



According to Ambrose's _The Wild Blue_ (yes, sketchy source, apply salt as needed), the skin on the B-24 couldn't hold a man in the airplane if he fell while moving around, it was that thin.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Apr 25, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> The accident rate for the B-26 got progressively lower as the war progressed. Improvements in training and the adoption of the longer wing contributing greatly. Both A-26 and A-20 had higher accident rates.


The accident rate got progressively lower for ALL aircraft as the war progressed. In 1944 the B-26 was still significantly worse than the B-25. 1942 was a was by far the worst year for accidents. Training was rushed for good reason. The Japanese were running a muck in the Pacific, the Germans were still doing well in Russia (until Stalingrad) and North Africa. There was a shortage of instructors as well. One of the excuses given for the P-38 and B-26 is that there was no proper twin engine training. The reality is that there was no one to conduct it. Very few pilots had twin experience in 1942 and virtually no one had experience in high performance twins like the B-26. If an aircraft is difficult to fly it is a major flaw when you are in the midst of a crash program (no pun intended) to expand your air force.
As to the A-26 it is interesting to note that the FEAF didn't want it. They wanted to keep using the B-25.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

drgondog said:


> IMO - the B-17 was 'redundant' in the Pacific and CBI after 1942. The ETO/MTO favored the B-17 unless and until the 8th AF decided to uniformly bomb at lower altitudes around 18-21K where the B-24 operated. Even so, the word 'redundant' can not apply as it took the 50+ BG-H between 8th and 15th to systematically attack German/Austrian and Romanian targets. Both types were required in the most dangerous region of Axis defenses.



Just finished reading South Pacific Air War volume 5 and the B-17s were just starting to become effective in combat (by using low-level bombing and skip bombing) in Nov / Dec 1942. Many other types were coming in but nothing had the range of the B-17 except the PBYs and maybe the B-24s. But did they ever do skip-bombing with B-24s?

B-24 of course did seem to become the ultimate maritime patrol aircraft, but their success rate in bombing attacks on ships was low in every case I know (spotty admittedly as i don't know the full operational history)


drgondog said:


> Another factor discussed above - namely comparative loss rates. The B-24 in SWP and CBI never faced an equivalent fighter force to LW based in Germany. Loss rates per sortie due to enemy action was significantly lower. Another factor re: comparative loss rates is the threat environment in 1943 when B-24 number of BGs and sorties were far lower than B-17 - as well into Q1 and Q2 1944. At the time slice that the LW day fighter threat had largely been blunted prior to D-Day, only then were replacement Bomb Groups in ETO skewed toward new operational B-24 BGs.


I agree with that - from the same book, B-17s and B-24s routinely got into engagements with large numbers of A6M or Ki-43 without any fighter protection and survived, sometimes with serious damage, sometimes without any. It was definitely nothing like NW Europe in that sense.



drgondog said:


> From my perspective, when you take into account that the 4 ETO 8th AF B-24 BG were taken off ops to go to N.Africa and train for Tidal wave, the 1st and 3rd BG of B-17s were increasingly pressured - all the way though the second Schweinfurt mission on October 14th. Contrast that to Tidal Wave as the only significant loss incurred by 8th AF (on TDY to 12th for Ploesti) B-24s. The 2nd BD attacked only a few targets, took heavy losses August 1, 1943 but were basically unmolested afterwards until November 1943. They were still a small Division of 4 B-24BGs, were mostly flying diversions while they replaced Tidal Wave bombes and crews and IIRC first flew more than 4 BG strikes in 2BD in January 1944 when the four new B-24 BGs went operational.


From Shores Mediterranian Air War series, the B-24s were actually quite effective in destroying Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica airbases in Tunisia. They didn't take many losses because they were heavily protected by escorting fighters. But the B-24s raids in particular seemed to destroy a very large number of enemy aircraft per raid, as in 20-30 vs 3-4 on most of the earlier raids with light bombers and fighter bombers. I think their role in Tunisia is somewhat unsung, they were important there.

Tidal Wave was of course a disaster but it did put a dent in what turned out to be the most vulnerable and critical Axis industry of all- oil production.



drgondog said:


> My point is that the lions share of 2nd BD operations occurred from when Mustangs and Lightnings were getting numerous and very effective as escorts through the EOW. Even though the relative force ratio was high B-24/low (er) B-17 in 12th and 15th, the same dynamics existed for MTO ops. Namely smaller LW reaction forces in MTO for lower (but significant for major targets like Ploesti and Austria where strong fighter forces could be applied).
> 
> The B-24 in ETO typically flew as a Division at 18-22K, completely separate from 1st and 3rd BD B-17s because of their high altitude formation struggles and the fact that their cruise at 22K was typically 180mph TAS to B-17 150mph TAS at 25K.
> 
> Simple summary - B-24 basically faster, with larger bomb load for same mission target ranges. B-17. The B-17 was more survivable to battle damage, easier to fly. B-17 was in combat, in strength before B-24 contributions.



B-17 definitely seemed to be tougher in general, and flying higher means a little harder to hit with heavy flak. I have also read that B-24 was hard to bail out of safely.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> But did they ever do skip-bombing with B-24s?


AFAIK - No. 5th AF General Kenney left that for B-25s and A-20s.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 25, 2022)

The Boeing was definitely better looking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 25, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> AFAIK - No. 5th AF General Kenney left that for B-25s and A-20s.


One issue with the B-24 in the Pacific was the relative lack of Bomb Groups / Squadrons compared to the ETO and MTO. Ultimately by 1945 these were:-

5th AF - 22nd, 43rd, 90th & 380th
13th AF - 5th & 307th. In addition there was the 868th BS which specialised in low level radar directed bombing including shipping usually operating in small numbers.
7th AF - 11th, 30th & 494th.
11th AF in Alaska - 404th BS in 28th CG.
10th AF in India - 7th BG
14th AF in China - 308th BG

There had been some swapping of units between the various Air Forces in the Pacific during the course of the war.

But the bulk of the anti shipping war in the Pacific was in the hands of the USN. They had a number of PB4Y-1 squadrons (USN designation for the B-24) from early 1943 most of which later converted onto the P44Y-2 Privateer. Their history can be read about in these books.

Amazon product

Amazon product

Amazon product

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

All I know about B-24s vs ships (USAAF types too not just PB4Y) are some specific examples of specific raids and mini-campaigns against certain Japanese task forces, convoys and individual ships and so on, from 1943-through to 1945. And these didn't typically go well in the sense that they never seemed to hit anything. I don't know the whole operational history of the B-24 in the Pacific but I do know several specific incidents in some detail.

(and I don't know it all, not because I can't find books on it but because my interests / time have focused on other aircraft and other campaigns, though I'm getting into reading more about the Pacific again now that rigorous operational histories with actual results corroborated by records on both sides etc.)

The interesting thing about the B-17s in the latest Clairngbould book is that they did actually score some hits doing skip and low altitude bombing. No doubt B-25 / A-20 were better for that due to being smaller targets, and probably a bit faster down low, but they also didn't have the range of a B-17. As far as I know the B-17s never hit any ships with high altitude bombing though, or anyway not in any account I have read so far (I wouldn't rule it out I've just never seen a case).


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> One issue with the B-24 in the Pacific was the relative lack of Bomb Groups / Squadrons compared to the ETO and MTO. Ultimately by 1945 these were:-
> 
> 5th AF - 22nd, 43rd, 90th & 380th
> 13th AF - 5th & 307th. In addition there was the 868th BS which specialised in low level radar directed bombing including shipping usually operating in small numbers.
> ...



I would say in the Pacific and China there was generally somewhat of a lack of USAAF units in general or anyway not as much as you had in NW Europe or even in the Med. Longer supply chain and somewhat lower priority, and the Navy was bearing the brunt of the fighting.

Certainly when it came to sinking IJN ships it was the USN and the Marines which did the most damage, though the Army played their role too once 5th AF got established.


----------



## PStickney (Apr 25, 2022)

spicmart said:


> The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
> 
> The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
> 
> ...


T think the true measure of the utility of an airplane - particularly a warplane, is what was kept after the war. 


spicmart said:


> The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
> 
> The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
> 
> ...





spicmart said:


> The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
> 
> The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
> 
> ...


I think the measure of the utility of a warplane is how long they stayed in service when the war they were in ended - 
In the WW2 case, the B-24 was immediately shelved - they're completely out of the inventory by the end of 1946 - sent to the scrapyards as fast as they could be transported. The same for the Martin B-26, the P-38, and the B-32. (Although one Lightning did hang around at Eglin AFB long enough to get re-designated "F-38" in 1948, with the Great Renumbering). The Navy kept its PB4Y-2s, Which you have to admit is not your Standard B-24, and the RAF and RCAF flew their Lancasters into the late 1950s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> One issue with the B-24 in the Pacific was the relative lack of Bomb Groups / Squadrons compared to the ETO and MTO. Ultimately by 1945 these were:-
> 
> 5th AF - 22nd, 43rd, 90th & 380th
> 13th AF - 5th & 307th. In addition there was the 868th BS which specialised in low level radar directed bombing including shipping usually operating in small numbers.
> ...



All well known - My daughter's GGF was in the 30th BG and flew this B-24






Point was the B-24 was not used for skip bombing

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 25, 2022)

The last Air Force to fly the B-24 was the Indian Air Force. Having salvaged ex-RAF Liberators they continued to use them until 1968. Many of the B-24 in around today owe their existence to the IAF.








India's Reclaimed Bombers: The B-24 Liberator


A history of the B-24 Liberator in IAF service ...




www.bharat-rakshak.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## PStickney (Apr 25, 2022)

spicmart said:


> The Avro Lancaster could be modified to deliver the Dam Buster bouncing bomb as well as the Tall Boy, which was used to sink the battleship Tirpitz, and the Grand Slam to destroy U-boat bunkers. This was possible because of its cavernous bomb bay.
> 
> The B-24 Liberator was known for its long range enabling it to engage targets out of reach of the other heavy bombers. It closed the Atlantic Gap which contributed to turn the tide in this war theater in the Allies' favor and it could attack the Romanian oilfields of Ploesti from bases as far as North Africa. For the same reason it replaced the B-17 to cover the vast ranges of the Pacific.
> 
> ...


I'd have to say that the utility of a warplane is measured by what happens to is when the war that it has been in is over. B-17s and Lancasters served into the late 1950s, B-24s left the inventory as fast as they could be ferried to the salvage depots - by the end of 1946, there are no B-24s in USAAF service. Yes, the Navy kept its PB4Y-2s, but a Privateer isn't a Liberator.
As for the performance differences - The '24 certainly did have longer range, but economical cruise speed (which for a bomber or transport is what counts) were actually pretty close - 165 mph for the B-17G and 170 for the B-24J - which is within the variation that you'll find in different airplanes of the same make and model. (Some are good, some are slugs) 
The B-17 was better for excess power - it always has about a 5,000' advantage on the B-24 - all numbers from the Specific Flight Operation Charts of their Flight Operating Handbooks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Apr 25, 2022)

PStickney said:


> I'd have to say that the utility of a warplane is measured by what happens to is when the war that it has been in is over. B-17s and Lancasters served into the late 1950s, B-24s left the inventory as fast as they could be ferried to the salvage depots - by the end of 1946, there are no B-24s in USAAF service. Yes, the Navy kept its PB4Y-2s, but a Privateer isn't a Liberator.
> As for the performance differences - The '24 certainly did have longer range, but economical cruise speed (which for a bomber or transport is what counts) were actually pretty close - 165 mph for the B-17G and 170 for the B-24J - which is within the variation that you'll find in different airplanes of the same make and model. (Some are good, some are slugs)
> The B-17 was better for excess power - it always has about a 5,000' advantage on the B-24 - all numbers from the Specific Flight Operation Charts of their Flight Operating Handbooks.


Practical speed for 8th AF missions was at slowest speed the old boys could keep up - namely 150-155IAS at 25K, B-24 comparables were 170 TAS at 22K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PStickney (Apr 25, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> I was surprised by the numbers for the A-20. Perhaps because it was one of the first fairly high-speed attack profile aircraft, tricycle gear and single pilot with multiple engines to control? Did the train on low level stuff state side? If so, that would certainly increase the accident numbers.


A lot of it is training issues - in the early part of the war, there wasn't a lot of specific multi-engine training, and as the training ramped up, it took a while to realize that there's a big difference between a moderate performance twin, like a Beech 18 (T-7, T-11, C-45, many of which were the multi-engine trainers), C-47 or C-46, and the high performance airplanes like the A-20, B-26, and P-38. The current day equivalent would be, say, transitioning from a Piper Seneca or Apache to a Mitsubishi Mu-2 (High performance turboprop) When all is working well, the Mu-2 is easy to fly - fast, powerful, and responsive. But when things go wrong, they go wrong fast, and you need to be prepared and on top of your game to handle it. Mu-2s had a bad reputation - they're fairly economical to buy, and a lot of people got hurt not being able to deal with things like losing an engine on takeoff. (Lots of horsepower and big props far out on the wing mean that things happen fast, especially at low speeds. - toss in a small wing that gets it low speed lift through high lift devices - the whole trailing edge is flaps) The solution was specific and recurring training to get and keep an Mu-2 endorsement on your ticket, where you could practice the dangerous stuff in the simulator, and make your mistakes there.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PStickney (Apr 25, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> IIRC the Marauder wound up with the lowest overall loss-rate per sortie of two- or four-engine bombers.


When you factor together combat losses and operational losses. The characteristics that led to the high operational losses also meant that combat losses were less.
One thing to remember about comparing numbers - all airplanes have a relatively high loss rate as they're entering service. Given that the Martin B-26 was very mature, and the Douglas A-26 was just ramping up production, it's not too surprising. Pilots I've talked to that flew both were proud of the Marauder, if a bit cautious about it, but were universally ecstatic about the A-26,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

PStickney said:


> When you factor together combat losses and operational losses. The characteristics that led to the high operational losses also meant that combat losses were less.
> One thing to remember about comparing numbers - all airplanes have a relatively high loss rate as they're entering service. Given that the Martin B-26 was very mature, and the Douglas A-26 was just ramping up production, it's not too surprising. Pilots I've talked to that flew both were proud of the Marauder, if a bit cautious about it, but were universally ecstatic about the A-26,



Definitely agree about this and the previous post, based on operational histories. New units with new types of aircraft had a lot of trouble both with accidents and in combat, and then they worked out maintenance issues and flying and figured out ideal tactics for combat, and loss rates went way down. This definitely seems to be a pattern with Allied units anyway.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2022)

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress in the Pacific


The B-17 Flying Fortress first saw combat in American colours in the Pacific, on the first day of the Japanese onslaught, when nearly 30 aircraft were destroyed on the ground. Despite this inauspicious start to the war, the B-17 went on to perform important duties in the Pacific in the first two...



www.historyofwar.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

PStickney said:


> I'd have to say that the utility of a warplane is measured by what happens to is when the war that it has been in is over. B-17s and Lancasters served into the late 1950s, B-24s left the inventory as fast as they could be ferried to the salvage depots - by the end of 1946, there are no B-24s in USAAF service. Yes, the Navy kept its PB4Y-2s, but a Privateer isn't a Liberator.
> As for the performance differences - The '24 certainly did have longer range, but economical cruise speed (which for a bomber or transport is what counts) were actually pretty close - 165 mph for the B-17G and 170 for the B-24J - which is within the variation that you'll find in different airplanes of the same make and model. (Some are good, some are slugs)
> The B-17 was better for excess power - it always has about a 5,000' advantage on the B-24 - all numbers from the Specific Flight Operation Charts of their Flight Operating Handbooks.



I think there is some truth in this but it's also true that they simply didn't need so many different types of aircraft after the war and were consolidating, so some fairly capable aircraft were cancelled in favor of others. They kept the P-51 but instead of using the H they stuck with the D because it was less effort to produce. As for the B-24, B-17s weren't being made after WW2 either right? They put everything into the B-29 and then later jet types. 

Conversely some countries like England also really needed to save money so they would continue using older types for a while so long as they weren't in a hot war... I think that explains the post-war use of the Lancaster pretty well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Conversely some countries like England also really needed to save money so they would continue using older types for a while so long as they weren't in a hot war... I think that explains the post-war use of the Lancaster pretty well.


In Canada, the Lanc was used for aerial photos for mapping.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> They kept the P-51 but instead of using the H they stuck with the D *because it was less effort to produce.*


I don't know about that - Bill M could probably chime in but the P-51H was produced into 1946 with over 550 produced. It was lightened and was reported to fly better than the P-51D. Several thousand were cancelled. I don't know when P-51D production ended



Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Conversely some countries like England also really needed to save money so they would continue using older types for a while so long as they weren't in a hot war... I think that explains the post-war use of the Lancaster pretty well.


The Lancaster (as a bomber) was slowly being replaced by the Lincoln. It was recognized that both aircraft were approaching obsolescence as the 1950s approached and were supplemented by 87 B-29s. Both Lancaster and Lincoln served in other roles well into the 50s.


----------



## Frog (Apr 25, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know about that - Bill M could probably chime in but the P-51H was produced into 1946 with over 550 produced. It was lightened and was reported to fly better than the P-51D. Several thousand were cancelled. I don't know when P-51D production ended
> 
> 
> The Lancaster (as a bomber) was slowly being replaced by the Lincoln. It was recognized that both aircraft were approaching obsolescence as the 1950s approached and were supplemented by 87 B-29s. Both Lancaster and Lincoln served in other roles well into the 50s.



The Lancaster soldiered on with the French Navy up to july 1964.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2022)

Frog said:


> The Lancaster soldiered on with the French Navy up to july 1964.


Yes, but it wasn’t used as a front line bomber, that’s my point. I think Argentina had their’s around for a while as well

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 25, 2022)

PStickney said:


> When you factor together combat losses and operational losses. The characteristics that led to the high operational losses also meant that combat losses were less.
> One thing to remember about comparing numbers - all airplanes have a relatively high loss rate as they're entering service. Given that the Martin B-26 was very mature, and the Douglas A-26 was just ramping up production, it's not too surprising. Pilots I've talked to that flew both were proud of the Marauder, if a bit cautious about it, but were universally ecstatic about the A-26,



I've read that the Invader was preferred by pilots over the B-26 for its flight characteristics. I can't speak to the accuracy of those reports.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2022)

You could look at the pilot's manuals and see what they say about landing speeds and minimum control speeds and any other restrictions.

The A-26 has got double slotted Fowler flaps and may have a lower stalling speed with the flaps down.


----------



## PStickney (Apr 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> You could look at the pilot's manuals and see what they say about landing speeds and minimum control speeds and any other restrictions.
> 
> The A-26 has got double slotted Fowler flaps and may have a lower stalling speed with the flaps down.


A big problem with the Marauder is that, when you're slow, a lot of things happen all at one point - about 140 - 160 mph IAS. From the FAA Tpe Certificate AL-33 for the Martin B-26C
Maximum airspeed with wing flaps extended 160 mph
Maximum airspeed for landing gear extension 165 mph
Critical engine failure speed (V1) 135 mph
Takeoff climb speed (V2) 148 mph
Minimum Control Speed 140 mph
Stall Speed in those conditions, full flaps, is about 90-95 mph, more if heavy.
Basically, once you get to 140 mph on a single engine approach, with a light, clean airplane, the airplane is going to be on the ground - either on the runway, or in a smoking hole. But as you're getting to that point, there's a 20 mph band in the approach where you're busy getting the gear and flaps down, and you're constantly retrimming the airplane. You can add small amounts of power below the Minimum Control Speed, but a go-around is impossible - full power will roll you over and drive it in.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 26, 2022)

That's bacon because that's the first time I have run into an explanation that makes sense to a guy who loves flying but could never get his ticket from the military (color vision issues). Thank you for that explanation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PStickney (Apr 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know about that - Bill M could probably chime in but the P-51H was produced into 1946 with over 550 produced. It was lightened and was reported to fly better than the P-51D. Several thousand were cancelled. I don't know when P-51D production ended
> 
> 
> The Lancaster (as a bomber) was slowly being replaced by the Lincoln. It was recognized that both aircraft were approaching obsolescence as the 1950s approached and were supplemented by 87 B-29s. Both Lancaster and Lincoln served in other roles well into the 50s.


About the P-51H - In 1946, Merlin production had stopped, so no new V1650-9s, and the big push was for jets - Allison wasn't doing much with the V1710 - just enough to get the G series engines for the P-82 into acceptable shape, and that took years. So, by the end of 1945, more or less, those were all the H models you were going to get.
The H models were kept in the States, and assigned as Air Defense Interceptors from 1946-basically 1949, although some stuck in until 1950 in Regular Service. They were basically the only piston-engined fighters that could intercept an incoming B-29 or Tu-4 with the radar warning available at the time. Meanwhile, there were a lot of D models, and spares for them, in the boneyards, so they stayed around as well, both in the U.S. and overseas, and made up about half of the Fighter Squadrons of the newly forming Air National Guard.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PStickney (Apr 26, 2022)

Milosh said:


> In Canada, the Lanc was used for aerial photos for mapping.


And Anti-Sub.Anti-Shipping Patrol and Air-Sea Rescue.


----------



## PStickney (Apr 26, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Practical speed for 8th AF missions was at slowest speed the old boys could keep up - namely 150-155IAS at 25K, B-24 comparables were 170 TAS at 22K.


All due respect, but, since the fundamental answer to all aviation questions is "That Depends", I think that the B-24 number you're quoting is a bit optimistic - Just as with the B-17, or any other airplane, the book numbers are put together by tests of a limited number of airplanes, with some fudge factors thrown in, and the performance of individual airplanes varies Given that 170 IAS is the standard book number, I think that 160-165ish IAS is a more likely number, and for both airplanes could be high.
It makes a difference if you were trying to organize multiple formations of -17s and -24s, but as far as the FlaK and fighters are concerned, not so much.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2022)

PStickney said:


> All due respect, but, since the fundamental answer to all aviation questions is "That Depends", I think that the B-24 number you're quoting is a bit optimistic - Just as with the B-17, or any other airplane, the book numbers are put together by tests of a limited number of airplanes, with some fudge factors thrown in, and the performance of individual airplanes varies Given that 170 IAS is the standard book number, I think that 160-165ish IAS is a more likely number, and for both airplanes could be high.
> It makes a difference if you were trying to organize multiple formations of -17s and -24s, but as far as the FlaK and fighters are concerned, not so much.


I agree the general 'that depends' but I am referencing many personal interviews with former 9th AF Bomb Group commanders while researching two of my books, including Paul Tibbets, Dale R. Smith and Dewayne "Ben" Bennet (384th), Budd Peaslee (384th, 1st SF). John Brooks (389th BG, 2nd SF), Allison Brooks (401st BG, 1st SF).

I wrote an in depth article regarding the April 24th 1944 mission for 1st BD attack on Munich area targets in which the limitations of maximum cruise were highlighted in the ill fated losses of 384th BG in CBW 41B due to inability to maintain 158mph TAS to catch up on LH turns (they were in once tried echelon left formation on RH side to maximize forward firepower of CBW 41A and 41B in lead of 1st TF). Mike Williams has the first draft in spitfireperformance.com. The final is in Our Might Always.

150mph IAS was the 'rule' but not the absolute, based on the multitude of airframes with nearly worn out engines on specific missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Apr 26, 2022)

Final acceptances,
Apr-45, B-26
Jun-46, P-63C, B-24, C-54E
Jul-45, P-47D, P-61B, P-63E, B-17, A-26C
Aug-45, FM-2, P-38, P-51D, B-25, B-32, A-26B, F-2B, F-6D, C-45F, AT-6F, L-4, L-5, CG-4A
Sep-45, B-29B, PBY-6A, TBM-3, TBY-2, SC-1, C-46F, C-54D, C-64A (US financed), C-69, JRF-5, RA-6
Oct-45, F6F-5, B-29, PB4Y-2, SB2C-5, J2F-6, RA-6A
Nov-45, F6F-5N, P-51H, C-47B
Dec-45, P-47N, PV-2, PV-2D, RY-3
Jan-46, F7F-3, P-61C, C-54G
Feb-46
Mar-46, P-82B (P-82E began acceptances in September 1947)
Apr-46, RP-63G
May-46
Jun-46, F7F-3N, B-29A, PQ-14 (for USN)
Jul-46
Aug-46
Sep-46
Oct-46
Nov-46, F7F-4N

F8F-1/-1B continued into 1947, F8F-2 into 1949
F4U-4 continued into 1947, then came the -5, -7 and the AU-1 through until Q3/1952.
C-82A production began in June 1945
Small numbers of H-5/R-5 variants accepted 1945 until October 1946

V-1650 production ended in November 1945, wartime V-1710 in September 1945, except for 1 in November.

For the British the last Stirling Bomber in October 1944, Halifax Bomber November 1945, Lancaster in January 1946, plus 1 laggard in June 1946. Wellington October 1945. Lincoln production started in December 1944, continuing until August 1949. Stirling transport production ended in December 1945, Halifax transport/paratroop version November 1946, Lancastrian March 1947.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 26, 2022)

Asking again: Maybe it was overlooked:
How were the Liberators equipped to perform 24 hour missions? And what were the ranges that were flown?


----------



## spicmart (Apr 26, 2022)

The Liberator airframe can't be that bad with Jimmy Stewart flying all those combat missions.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2022)

PStickney said:


> About the P-51H - In 1946, Merlin production had stopped, so no new V1650-9s, and the big push was for jets - Allison wasn't doing much with the V1710 - just enough to get the G series engines for the P-82 into acceptable shape, and that took years. So, by the end of 1945, more or less, those were all the H models you were going to get.
> The H models were kept in the States, and assigned as Air Defense Interceptors from 1946-basically 1949, although some stuck in until 1950 in Regular Service. They were basically the only piston-engined fighters that could intercept an incoming B-29 or Tu-4 with the radar warning available at the time. Meanwhile, there were a lot of D models, and spares for them, in the boneyards, so they stayed around as well, both in the U.S. and overseas, and made up about half of the Fighter Squadrons of the newly forming Air National Guard.


Well aware of most of this - my question was the comment about the P-51D being easier to produce.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Asking again: Maybe it was overlooked:
> How were the Liberators equipped to perform 24 hour missions? And what were the ranges that were flown?


no 24 hour missions. IIRC, no mid air refueling before advent of B-50


----------



## spicmart (Apr 26, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> I was surprised by the numbers for the A-20. Perhaps because it was one of the first fairly high-speed attack profile aircraft, tricycle gear and single pilot with multiple engines to control? Did the train on low level stuff state side? If so, that would certainly increase the accident numbers.





drgondog said:


> no 24 hour missions. IIRC, no mid air refueling before advent of B-50


I have once read from a crewmember telling about 24 hour missions elsewhere. In a book about the B-24 iirc.
That's why I ask.


----------



## Frog (Apr 26, 2022)

PStickney said:


> And Anti-Sub.Anti-Shipping Patrol and Air-Sea Rescue.


Same as for the French Navy 54 examples. By the way, they were coded WU (for Western Union, the defense treaty between UK, France, the USA and Benelux countries, not the financial service Co...).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 26, 2022)

Inflight refuelling? Who needs it!

From the 1945 ORB of 160 squadron based at Minneriya, Ceylon (downloadable for free from The National Archives)

In March 1945 the squadron CO noted that sorties in the latter part of 1944 had rarely exceeded 16 hours. From March the durations begin to steadily increase. On 27th March for example they flew an 8 aircraft minelaying mission to Singapore. Only 1 aircraft was in the air for less than 21 hrs 15 mins. It suffered from high fuel consumption and turned back to land early - after 19hrs 40mins! The weather is noted as "could not have been more adverse, head winds made all aircraft 1 hour late on their flight plans when half way to the target". 17 hours were spent flying in rain and cloud with extensive lightning. Distance covered was 3,460 miles. The weapon load was restricted to 2 mines per aircraft due to the distance involved. The mines being used in this period were of British and US origin and were of the 1,000 - 1,100lb variety.

Singapore was paid return mining visits in April / May again with durations exceeding 21 hours. This time the loads were increased to 3 mines per aircraft.

From June the nature of the operations changed from mining to special duties (dropping weapons and supplies by parachute to groups behind enemy lines). Virtually every sortie undertaken by the squadron in June/July/Aug/Sept 1945 exceeded 18 hours with many over 20 or even 22 hours in the air. The exceptions are few and generally relate to aircraft turning back with technical problems or due to weather.

On 28/29 July a couple of aircraft exceeded 23 hours airborne. On 30/31 July one aircraft landed at China Bay after 21 hrs 15 mins in the air after encountering 25 knot headwinds on approach to Ceylon and it was noted "Fuel indicator showed 10 gallons on landing."

Then on 31 July / 1 Aug Liberator Vc BZ862/J with a crew of 9. Duration *24hrs 10 mins* and the ORB notes *"The first sortie over 24 hours. A record."* No distance is mentioned in the ORB but it was a special duties operation to a point not far north of Singapore. They spent 35 mins stooging around trying to find the reception committee on the ground before jettisoning the load on dead reckoning and heading for home. Elsewhere this sortie is described as "the longest unrefuelled flight ever made by any Allied landplane in World War II; distance was 3,735 mls". The other aircraft despatched that day was airborne for 23 hrs 3 mins. Again the weather is noted as "visibility poor, low cloud" and "fog". These aircraft were operating under the cloudbase, down to 1,500ft.

There is one sortie on 17-19 Sept noted with a duration of 26hrs 42mins but it included a diversion to the base in the Cocos Is due to a problem arising. So that one doesn't count!

The aircraft being flown in this period were Liberator GR.V, B-24D fitted with the extra outboard fuel tanks and built back in 1943. They carried two long range tanks in the forward bomb bay and often a 75 gal Catalina overload tank as well for the longest missions (total fuel load 2,725 gals). They were stripped of any equipment deemed unnecessary. The armament was reduced to the tail turret (usually the BP turret with 4x0.303in MG) only for these long range missions. The ORB contains notes about crews undertaking fuel consumption trials on individual aircraft to that the engines could be tweaked as necessary to eke out the maximum range. What really is noticeable is how the flight times steadily increased during the year as they began to increase in confidence about the ability of their aircraft to reach targets further away and how they were able to increase the loads that they carried.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 26, 2022)

You will have noted the comments about bad weather in my last post. The period from June to Sept each year is the south west monsoon season in the Bay of Bengal across which these Liberator sorties were flown. That is usually preceded and succeeded by a couple of months of cyclone season. Even in “good” weather large cloud formations build up during the day leading to heavy downpours in late afternoon and evening.

Operation Dracula (2nd May 1945), the landings at Rangoon, was pulled off just in time to avoid the SW monsoon in 1945. It broke about a week later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes, but it wasn’t used as a front line bomber, that’s my point. I think Argentina had their’s around for a while as well



Yup, we can thank the Aeronavale for a few of the preserved Lancasters, including examples in Australia, New Zealand and the UK, and one in store in France.

Argentina was the last to operate either the Lancaster and the Lincoln as bombers, the last Lincoln remaining in service until 1967. In Argentine service Lancasters suffered a high attrition rate and none survive, but the last one flying ended its career in 1964. The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster PA474 has a piece of Argentine Lancaster, serial B-038 aboard in the form of its top turret, which was gifted to Britain when the two countries were friends, and was fitted to the aircraft in 1976.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 26, 2022)

Just by way of comparison to the 160 sqn 24hr mission covering 3,735 miles in Aug 1945, there is the “Shady Lady” raid nearly two years earlier. 

In what was then believed to be the longest sortie to date the B-24D-53-CO “Shady Lady” from 380th BG, flew from Fenton, NT, Australia via Darwin to Balikpapan and back to crash land at Drysdale Mission in 16 hrs 35mins. That was on 13/14 Aug 1943. It covered some 2,700 miles, carrying a 3,000lb bomb load and again encountered some atrocious weather. They even released a movie about it in 2012.








Pacific Wrecks - B-24D-53-CO "Shady Lady" Serial Number 42-40369


On August 13, 1943 took off from Fenton Airfield south of Darwin piloted by 1st Lt. Doug Craig on a bombing mission against the oil refineries at Balikpapan and the next morning force landed near Drysdale Mission.




pacificwrecks.com





It illustrates quite clearly how the Liberator was stretched to greater and greater feats as the war went on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 26, 2022)

Flying a 20+hr mission in any bomber at all in 1944 is pretty badass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 26, 2022)

EwenS said:


> It illustrates quite clearly how the Liberator was stretched to greater and greater feats as the war went on.


It proofed a machine which doesn't fall apart in mid-air even if one might assume that and seemed more robust than most would give her credit for.
So the bad rep is party undeserved, at least to a certain degree.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 27, 2022)

B-17 was already an old design at the start of WWII, the B-24 was a new design.

B-17 was designed in peacetime by engineers with time on their side to 'do it right' - the B-24 was designed fast as a mass producible warplane.

By 1944 the B-17 was well past its sell by date and being replaced rapidly by the B-24

Orders for a further 5,000 B-24's were cancelled on VJ Day
B-17 production had ended in July 1945


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2022)

Macandy said:


> B-17 was already an old design at the start of WWII, the B-24 was a new design.


"Old design"? In what way? What model B-17s and B-24s are we comparing? 


Macandy said:


> B-17 was designed in peacetime by engineers with time on their side to 'do it right' - the B-24 was designed fast as a mass producible warplane.


Ok....


Macandy said:


> By 1944 the B-17 was well past its sell by date and being replaced rapidly by the B-24


WRONG! The B-24 WAS NEVER being fielded to replace the B-17 - If you're talking about the ETO, there was talk of the B-32 replacing BOTH aircraft


Macandy said:


> Orders for a further 5,000 B-24's were cancelled on VJ Day
> B-17 production had ended in July 1945


Reference? But basically irrelevant...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 27, 2022)

The B-17 may have been a design that just hit the "sweet spot". Like the DC-2/3. Every time someone tries to come up with something better, they just come up with the same thing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2022)

Macandy said:


> B-17 was already an old design at the start of WWII, the B-24 was a new design.
> 
> B-17 was designed in peacetime by engineers with time on their side to 'do it right' - the B-24 was designed fast as a mass producible warplane.
> 
> ...


The B-24 design started in 1938 Consolidated were invited to submit the design for its model 32 in Jan 1939. Work by Boeing on the B-29 started in 1938 with design submitted in May 1940 the Consolidated design which became the B32 was submitted at the same time. Very few designs made it into the war that werent started in peacetime, especially as far as the US is concerned. The Me 262 was flying before the USA entered the war, it got jet engines in July 1942 but it was already designed. If you start with a clean piece of paper in Dec 1941 you dont have time to do everything needed to get it functioning and in production by Aug 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 27, 2022)

pbehn said:


> If you start with a clean piece of paper in Dec 1941 you dont have time to do everything needed to get it functioning and in production by Aug 1945.


While generally true there is always the odd exception. I give you the Grumman F8F Bearcat. 

Depending on what you read its gestation goes back to June 1942 post Midway at the earliest, or to early 1943 after one of the Grumman test pilots had flown a captured Fw 190. Formal design began around late July 1943, the instruction being to wrap the smallest possible airframe around the R-2800 engine. The USN awarded a contract for 2 prototypes on 29 Nov 1943. Prototype first flight 21 August 1944. Production started at the Bethpage factory in Jan 1945. It passed the Carrier Suitability Trials in Feb. The first squadron, VF-19, began to receive its aircraft on 21 May 1945. It was ready for service by 1 Aug. As the war ended it had been ferried along with the rest of CVG-19 to Hawaii, and was awaiting the arrival of its planned parent carrier, USS Hornet. Due to the end of WW2 Hornet, after completing her repairs in mid-Sept, was diverted to Magic Carpet duties.

The second squadron, VF-18, began to swap its F6F for F8F during Aug 1945.

But I grant you that it an extraordinary achievement and a testimony to “The Ironworks”.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 27, 2022)

Go Grumman!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2022)

EwenS said:


> While generally true there is always the odd exception. I give you the Grumman F8F Bearcat.
> 
> Depending on what you read its gestation goes back to June 1942 post Midway at the earliest, or to early 1943 after one of the Grumman test pilots had flown a captured Fw 190. Formal design began around late July 1943, the instruction being to wrap the smallest possible airframe around the R-2800 engine. The USN awarded a contract for 2 prototypes on 29 Nov 1943. Prototype first flight 21 August 1944. Production started at the Bethpage factory in Jan 1945. It passed the Carrier Suitability Trials in Feb. The first squadron, VF-19, began to receive its aircraft on 21 May 1945. It was ready for service by 1 Aug. As the war ended it had been ferried along with the rest of CVG-19 to Hawaii, and was awaiting the arrival of its planned parent carrier, USS Hornet. Due to the end of WW2 Hornet, after completing her repairs in mid-Sept, was diverted to Magic Carpet duties.
> 
> ...


It just made it into service but not to any real effect and by the time Grumman started on the Bearcat it was their 3rd generation fighter, they really knew what they were doing. You could also include the Hawker Tempest, which went fairly well, because all the screw ups had been on the Typhoon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> The B-17 may have been a design that just hit the "sweet spot". Like the DC-2/3. Every time someone tries to come up with something better, they just come up with the same thing.


According to Wiki the B-24 was requested based on lessons learned from the B-17 "In January 1939, the USAAC, under Specification C-212, formally invited Consolidated[7]​ to submit a design study for a bomber with longer range, higher speed and greater ceiling than the B-17." So without the B-17 the B-24 would possibly be a B-17 in performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 27, 2022)

pbehn said:


> It just made it into service but not to any real effect and by the time Grumman started on the Bearcat it was their 3rd generation fighter, they really knew what they were doing. You could also include the Hawker Tempest, which went fairly well, because all the screw ups had been on the Typhoon.


So you have moved the goalposts as I knew you would! You only took It to production in your last post. Now the objection is it it only just made it into service!

I thought about the Tempest, but it shared much of its fuselage structure with the Typhoon. You specified a clean sheet design. It began life as a "Typhoon Mark II" prior to the Dec 1941 timeline you set. So, to me, it doesn't qualify.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 27, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jugman (Apr 27, 2022)

PStickney said:


> I'd have to say that the utility of a warplane is measured by what happens to is when the war that it has been in is over. B-17s and Lancasters served into the late 1950s, B-24s left the inventory as fast as they could be ferried to the salvage depots - by the end of 1946, there are no B-24s in USAAF service. Yes, the Navy kept its PB4Y-2s, but a Privateer isn't a Liberator.
> As for the performance differences - The '24 certainly did have longer range, but economical cruise speed (which for a bomber or transport is what counts) were actually pretty close - 165 mph for the B-17G and 170 for the B-24J - which is within the variation that you'll find in different airplanes of the same make and model. (Some are good, some are slugs)
> The B-17 was better for excess power - it always has about a 5,000' advantage on the B-24 - all numbers from the Specific Flight Operation Charts of their Flight Operating Handbooks.


Which charts for which models from what dates? Those charts for revised download fairly often during the early part of the war. Furthermore they're only a crude indication range. It is much better to use the long range cruise control charts. Which one has longer range really depends on the specific model and the specific operating conditions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2022)

EwenS said:


> So you have moved the goalposts as I knew you would! You only took It to production in your last post. Now the objection is it it only just made it into service!
> 
> I thought about the Tempest, but it shared much of its fuselage structure with the Typhoon. You specified a clean sheet design. It began life as a "Typhoon Mark II" prior to the Dec 1941 timeline you set. So, to me, it doesn't qualify.


I havnt moved any goalposts because we are not playing a game, and I didnt specify anything, I thought we were just having a discussion, there is no point in producing something without the intention to use it, getting it into service is all part of getting it sorted, and it takes time. I agree with your point, but it also shows my point. To start with a clean sheet of paper and get a plane into production takes a long time, especially a complex new design like a four engined bomber. I mentioned the Tempest because that if you take it as a new design did well, its genesis as a Typhoon took an age, even though any non aviation minded person would struggle to tell them apart, much more alike than and early and late Spitfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 27, 2022)

The B-24 was designed as the B-17's replacement. It was better in every respect.
The claims it was 'harder' to fly' and had a higher loss rate? Nonsense.
It wasn't 'harder to fly', it just was a more modern plane that required higher skill from the pilot.
It had no higher a loss rate than the B-17 - while carrying a bigger bomb load further.
The B-17 quickly faded away except in the ETO where its short range and small bomb load wasn't much of an issue - after all, their prime purpose once the P-51 turned up in the NWETO was fighter bait.
The last batches made in early 1945 weren't even delivered as bombers, their days were done and they were converted to SAR planes etc.
The B-24 was the USAAF's 'big hitter' until the B-29 turned up, and it wasn't even going top be replaced by the B-29. It was going to stay in production right on past 1945 as the USAAF's mainstay medium bomber. The B-29 becoming the heavy.
5,000 much improved B-24N's were cancelled with the end of the war.
( Consolidated 32 XB-24N Liberator )
The B-24's last hurrah was raiding the Japanese home islands from Okinawa and Ie Shima in 1945. Many thousands were slated to be in on the invasion of Japans home islands, but no B-17's
The B-24's PBY Privateer brother served on to the mid 50's

And damage resistance?
The only reason the B-17 was apparently 'tougher' was its old fashioned fat airfoils meant its wings - the bits most often hit, were mostly air - most shells went through - and it was needlessly over engineered for a disposable warplane. The wings on a B-24 were much more advanced, had a much slimmer profile with much less empty space were actually doing something useful like carrying fuel.
And the claim the B-24 was 'flimsy' and 'more lightly built' than the 'sturdy' B-17? The B-17 was 20% lighter than a B-24 - yet the B-24 flew 50mph faster on the same 4 1200hp engines

The B-24 was a warplane designed to be built fast - everything was good enough, no better than necessary, just good enough.
A war winning strategy


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The B-24 was designed as the B-17's replacement. It was better in every respect.
> The claims it was 'harder' to fly' and had a higher loss rate? Nonsense.
> It wasn't 'harder to fly', it just was a more modern plane that required higher skill from the pilot.
> It had no higher a loss rate than the B-17 - while carrying a bigger bomb load further.
> ...


The replacement for the B-17 was the B29 which ended the war. The B-24 was to augment the B-17. Obviously Boeing could have produced a better B-17, but that would have meant much fewer B-17s when they were needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 27, 2022)

Go Boeing!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Go Boeing!


Better than them there Grummans, a waste of blue paint if ever there was one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 27, 2022)

I know, right?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The B-24 was designed as the B-17's replacement. It was better in every respect.
> The claims it was 'harder' to fly' and had a higher loss rate? Nonsense.


Nonsense? How do you know? Have you flown one? I personally knew at least one pilot who flew both the B-24 and the Lanc operationally and he said the B-24 handled like a cow. Tough to escape a fighter attack if you’re flying a cow. And…we know pilots struggled to fly the same tight formations that the B-17 was capable of flying, such that they had to use different formations in the European air war:







USAAF 8th Airforce Tactical Development 1942 1945, page 31:
World War II Operational Documents

I would like to see references for indicated air speeds and heights by type. I’m sure this info is available somewhere.

Note that Basil Dickens (Head, ORS RAF Bomber Command) contended the definitive statistic to evaluate the relative performance of aircraft types is *“bomb tonnage dropped per aircraft lost”*. What do these comparisons between the B-17 B-24 indicate for this statistic? Best to do this calculation for 1945 uniquely.

I believe the B-24 had its role, particularly coastal command and it augmented the bombing campaign over Europe, but I’m not convinced it was a superior aircraft to the B-17, and certainly not the Lancaster.

Jim

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Apr 28, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> The USSBS Bombing Accuracy report says
> 
> 8th Air Force B-17 147.2 tons dropped for each loss, average mission lifetime 58.9 sorties. (average bomb load 4,998 pounds)
> 8th Air Force B-24 149 tons dropped for each loss, average mission lifetime 49.9 sorties. (average bomb load 5,972 pounds)
> ...


I was wondering about the (my) bold part and why the 15th AF B-24 had worst loss rate and after that, the thread explains itself. Magic!!!


Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Turning to the 15th Air Force, it formed on 1 November 1943 with 4 B-17 and 2 B-24 groups, still that end December 1943, end January 1944 4 B-17 to 5 B-24, end February 4 to 8, end March 5 to 10, end April 6 to 13, end May 6 to 15. The Statistical Digest notes February 1944 was the peak loss to fighters, 106, with 105 in April, but losses June to August were 85, 94, 91, versus the 8th of 112, 80 and 61. Given the 15th was around half the size of the 8th it shows losses to enemy fighters was not driven down until September 1944, after the end of the Ploesti raids.



I'm with 

 SaparotRob
, love this thread

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The B-24 was designed as the B-17's replacement. It was better in every respect.


I think I'm just going to pick away at your nonsense.

_*"The Liberator originated from a United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) request in 1938 for Consolidated to produce the B-17 under license. After company executives including President Reuben Fleet visited the Boeing factory in Seattle, Washington, Consolidated decided instead to submit a more modern design of its own."*_

Reference: Taylor, John W. R. "Consolidated B-24/PB4 Y Liberator." Page 462

_*In January 1939, the USAAC, under Specification C-212, formally invited Consolidated to submit a design study for a bomber with longer range, higher speed and greater ceiling than the B-17.* The specification was written such that the Model 32 would automatically be the winning design. The program was run under the umbrella group, "Project A", an Air Corps requirement for an intercontinental bomber that had been conceived in the mid-1930s. *Although the B-24 did not meet Project A goals*, it was a step in that direction. Project A led to the development of the Boeing B-29 and Consolidated's own B-32 and B-36._

*THERE WAS NEVER ANY INDICATION BY THE AAF THAT THEY WANTED TO REPLACE THE B-17 WITH THE B-24!!!!

Specification C-212

Type Specification C-212*

Medium bomber.
Multi-engine.
1 February 1939.
Boeing Model 322.
Boeing Model 333.
Boeing Model 333A.
Consolidated B-24 Liberator.

*The B-24 NEVER fully met the C-212 requirement! *Greater range, heavier bombload and faster, never had the ceiling of the B-17.

The only place where the B-24 "replaced" the B-17 was in the PTO and that decision was made *because of it's range.*

_*Beginning in the spring of 1943, the 43rd Bomb Group replaced its B-17s with B-24s, ending the combat career of the Flying Fortress in the Pacific.*

The B-24 became a key factor in the plans of Generals Douglas MacArthur and Kenney as they sought to push the Japanese farther and farther north away from Australia and back toward Japan. The MacArthur/Kenney strategy was to isolate major Japanese installations with air power, while capturing terrain on which to construct airfields from which to launch B-24s on long-range missions that eventually were reaching all the way to the Philippines.

As the war moved northward, Far East Air Forces Liberators began attacking the Japanese homeland. Kenney and his bomber commanders worked to extend the range of the four-engine bombers until 2,400-mile round-trip missions were being flown routinely by B-24s. In comparison, the average mission flown by B-17s in Europe was less than 1,600 miles.

*Missions by B-24 crews in the Pacific were considerably different from those of their peers in Europe. Much of the flying was over water, which reduced the exposure of the bomber crews to flak to a small percentage of mission time in comparison to the constant exposure faced by Eighth Air Force crews prior to the Normandy invasion. Kenney had no point to prove in regard to daylight bombing, and often his crews struck the most heavily defended targets at night, thus further reducing the exposure of the aircraft and crews. Consequently, B-24s in the Pacific flew missions at much lower altitudes than heavy bombers in Europe, and thus achieved much greater accuracy with their bombs.*









The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, or the Consolidated B-24 Liberator?


The Consolidated B-24 Liberator was more advanced and versatile than the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, but we provide a fuller breakdown.




warfarehistorynetwork.com




_
Better in Every Respect?

*"The B-24 bomber one of the most difficult planes to fly during WWII. It was unpressurized, underpowered and prone to explode on takeoff. Unlike the B-17, the B-24 could not maintain altitude if one engine was lost. If two engines were lost, the plane would drop pretty much like a rock." *B-24 NAVIGATOR HARRY FORNALCZYK









Defying the Flying Coffin: The Combat and POW Experiences of B-24 Navigator Harry Fornalczyk - Daedalians


by Gary Fullmer, Pioneer Flight Harry was born in Erie, Pennsylvania on September 9, 1923. As a typical young boy of that period, Harry managed to stay out of serious trouble but was very active in several unexplained happenings around his neighborhood. In his high school years, Harry excelled...




www.daedalians.org





I would suggest some research and reviewing some of the other references mentioned in this thread!!!!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 28, 2022)

Escuadrilla Azul said:


> I was wondering about the (my) bold part and why the 15th AF B-24 had worst loss rate and after that, the thread explains itself. Magic!!!
> 
> 
> I'm with
> ...


Thanks! I should have looked at Geoffrey’s post more carefully. Still, I’d like to see this statistic for 3 month increments, which should be pretty robust for random effects.

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The B-24 was designed as the B-17's replacement. It was better in every respect.
> The claims it was 'harder' to fly' and had a higher loss rate? Nonsense.
> It wasn't 'harder to fly', it just was a more modern plane that required higher skill from the pilot.
> It had no higher a loss rate than the B-17 - while carrying a bigger bomb load further.
> ...


Built fast, not meant to last.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 28, 2022)

at6 said:


> Built fast, not meant to last.




Indeed - very smart engineering.

'The perfect is the enemy of good enough'

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think I'm just going to pick away at your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh teh noes!
Warplane not designed to be failsafe handling like an airliner shock horror!
If only those stupid engineers at Consolidated hadn't used an efficient modern low drag airfoil and stuck with 20's high lift, high drag wing designs eh?
Next you'll be suggesting the B-29 should have been replaced by the B-17 because a B-29 that lost an engine on take off almost invariably crashed due to its modern wing design.


Underpowered?

Both, 4 x 1,200hp engines

B-17G : Max takeoff weight: 65,500 lb

*B-24J: Max takeoff weight: 65,000 lb*

Same power, same weight!



And loss rates?

I'll take a B-24!

Eight Air Force

B-17 - 60.38% of sorties - 69.75 percent of losses

*B-24 - 29.77% of sorties - 26.1 percent of losses.*


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> And loss rates?
> 
> I'll take a B-24!
> 
> ...


If those percentages are for the whole war, you should take in account that during much of the time (specially when the fight was hardest and bombers lack fighter escort) the 8th AF was a B-17 only force.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think I'm just going to pick away at your nonsense.
> 
> _*"The Liberator originated from a United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) request in 1938 for Consolidated to produce the B-17 under license. After company executives including President Reuben Fleet visited the Boeing factory in Seattle, Washington, Consolidated decided instead to submit a more modern design of its own."*_
> 
> ...


Great post. The links were very informative. I sort of knew a bit of it from scattered reading over the years. Nice reading a relatively impartial article on the two planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Oh teh noes!
> Warplane not designed to be failsafe handling like an airliner shock horror!
> If only those stupid engineers at Consolidated hadn't used an efficient modern low drag airfoil and stuck with 20's high lift, high drag wing designs eh?
> Next you'll be suggesting the B-29 should have been replaced by the B-17 because a B-29 that lost an engine on take off almost invariably crashed due to its modern wing design.


And once again you ignore technical and historical FACTS, let alone pilot and crew reports FROM THOSE WHO ACTUALLY FLEW THE AIRCRAFT!!!! You last statement is ridiculous!


Macandy said:


> Underpowered?
> 
> Both, 4 x 1,200hp engines
> 
> ...


And the B-24 flew like a barn door - comment from a guy who* FLEW ON THE AIRCRAFT!!!!*


Macandy said:


> And loss rates?
> 
> I'll take a B-24!
> 
> ...


And what about the 15th AF??? What about the fact there were more B-17s in theater and it was there longer??? What you posted shows absolutely NOTHING new!

Please refer to this excellent post comparing the two aircraft:






Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?


Those are early model B-24s. The production lines were just getting started. This is my favourite factory pic. It makes me think of what the Deathstar’s hangar would have looked like.



ww2aircraft.net





And please take note!

_USAAF Statistical digest, 1942 to 1945, accidents in continental US,
B-17 1,589 accidents, at 30 per 100,000 flying hours, 284 fatal accidents, 1,757 fatalities, 479 aircraft wrecked.
B-24 1,713 accidents, at 35 per 100,000 flying hours, 490 fatal accidents, 2,796 fatalities, 746 aircraft wrecked.
I read this as a higher chance of an accident in a B-24 but a much higher chance of fatalities and loss of aircraft. The B-24 crews in the 8th Air Force generally took higher casualties when shot down. Given safety generally improved during the war the yearly rates are instructive, B-17 versus B-24, were 1942 55 versus 75, 1943 39 all, 1944 25 versus 33, 1945 (January to August) 23 versus 29._

Please - spare us the rhetoric - it's obvious you're not only shooting from the hip and cherry picking facts but know little about the B-24, it's history and how it performed!!!!


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Apr 28, 2022)

More figures, note some of these contradict earlier reports, showing what is being measured and when is important.


Macandy said:


> The B-24 was designed as the B-17's replacement. It was better in every respect.
> The claims it was 'harder' to fly' and had a higher loss rate? Nonsense.
> It wasn't 'harder to fly', it just was a more modern plane that required higher skill from the pilot.
> It had no higher a loss rate than the B-17 - while carrying a bigger bomb load further.
> ...


Most of the above is contradicted by the documents I have. The B-17 had a higher ceiling, important in Europe, the loss rates vary depending on time and place but overall the B-17 had the lower rates in Europe. Many reports indicate the B-17 was the easier to fly. The purpose of the bombers in Europe was to destroy ground targets, like the oil refineries, the wings of the B-17, like the B-24, had plenty of things in them, mostly fuel tanks. The B-24 fuel system, particularly in the fuselage, was prone to leaks. Over the course of the various models the B-17 and B-24 kept similar top speeds, even as each successive model tended to became slower. The B-17 was originally sold as hemisphere defence carrying the 1,600 AP bombs against approaching ships, the B-24 was meant as a heavy bomber, not a B-17 replacement but a second design in production. The B-17H, air sea rescue, with a radar set replacing the front turret. Apparently the plan was to convert 130 B-17G to H variants, but a smaller number were done. Officially the aircraft were accepted and delivered as B-17G, then modified. It looks like Cheyenne was where all the conversions to B-17H occurred then in mid July 1945 Cheyenne was ordered to shut by the end of the month so shutting down the B-17H program.

15th Air Force report,

B-24 86,838 effective sorties, 8,703 encounters, 1,374 enemy aircraft destroyed, 505 probable, 336 damaged, 803 B-24 lost to flak, 377 to enemy aircraft, 219 to mechanical and other reasons, 257 unknown, 2% loss rate, 7,538 damaged category I 1,346 category II

B-17 41,751 effective sorties, 4,531 encounters, 824 enemy aircraft destroyed, 265 probable, 124 damaged, 244 B-24 lost to flak, 179 to enemy aircraft, 108 to mechanical and other reasons, 93 unknown, 1.5% loss rate, 3,319 damaged category I 968 category II. The B-17 had 34.2% of encounters, for 32.2% of total B-17 and B-24 losses to fighters, the B-17 was 32.5% of total effective sorties but 23.3% of losses to flak, 25.3% mechanical/other and 26.6% of unknown losses.






Using Effective sorties, Mediterranean Theater, April to June 1944, selected targets,, Total bomb tonnage dropped, tons of bombs dropped per sortie, loss rates per 1,000 tons of bombs dropped, A loss rates per 1,000 effective sorties, all causes, B loss rates per 1,000 effective sorties, to enemy aircraft, C loss rates per 1,000 effective sorties, to flak.

TargetaircraftSortiebomb tonstons/sortieloss/bombABCViennaB-17307​825​2.69​4.8​13​6.5​6.5​ViennaB-24954​2142​2.25​23.8​53.5​28.3​23.1​Wiener NeustadtB-17705​1973​2.8​12.2​34​19.9​11.3​Wiener NeustadtB-24900​1963​2.18​21.4​46.7​11.1​35.6​MunichB-17214​463​2.16​4.3​9.3​0​9.3​MunichB-24766​1847​2.41​16.8​40.5​14.4​19.6​BelgradeB-17732​2179​2.98​1.4​4.1​0​4.1​BelgradeB-24704​1652​2.35​2.4​5.7​0​4.3​BudapestB-17559​1423​2.55​10.5​26.8​14.3​7.2​BudapestB-24801​1762​2.2​9.1​20​7.5​10​PloestiB-171565​3938​2.52​7.6​19.2​8.9​7.7​PloestiB-244003​9360​2.34​14.6​34.3​17.7​14.7​ToulonB-17497​1480​2.98​0​0​0​0​ToulonB-241023​2468​2.41​4.5​10.8​0.1​8.8​

Record Group 18 Entry 7 Box 5938, USAAF Mediterranean Theater for Operations 1 August 1943 to 31 January 1944, B-17 9.52 aircraft lost per 1,000 sorties, B-24 25.77. April to June 1944, B-17 14.5, B-24 17.9.

A reason I have heard for the difference in lifetimes between the B-17 and B-24 in the 15th air force was the smaller B-17 formations flying higher were often left alone for the bigger, lower B-24 formations. Things like the warning times and altitude performance of the Romanian fighter designs probably had a part as well.

The incomplete set of 15th Air Force target and duty sheets I have often record the altitude the bombs were released at, the maximum was 32,000 feet by a B-17 group, the highest recorded B-24 altitude was 27,000 feet, it is the only B-24 entry of 26,000 feet or higher, versus the 120 B-17 entries. Lowest bombing altitude, assuming no mistaken entries, was 2,300 feet, then one at 3,500 feet, all other entries are 11,000 feet or higher.

Now to where the USSBS is contradicted, the 15th Air Force figures say the B-17 dropped 104,877 tons of bombs January 1944 onwards, the B-24 192,113 tons, B-17 effective sorties from November 1943 onwards are 41,751, B-24 86,838. Even with the missing 1943 bomb tonnage it is clear the B-17 was carrying the heavier loads on average. The average bomb loads using the data in the "Target and Duty Sheets", which give a break down by bomb group, for the December 1943 to October 1944 period, noting the December 1943 figures do not include tonnage classified as jettisoned. For effective B-17 sorties December 1943 to October 1944 the average bomb load dropped was 5,400 pounds, for B-24 it was 4,690 pounds. These figures are a slight underestimate, as some sorties classified as effective have at least some of their bomb tonnage classified as jettisoned. 

To the 8th Air Force, B-17 made up 70.2% of effective sorties, 72.2% of MIA, 65.2% Cat E, 5,139.4 pounds average bomb load, the B-24 29.8% of effective sorties, 25.3% of MIA, 34.8% Cat E, 5,321 pounds average bomb load, but the B-17 had the large 1943 losses the B-24 units largely avoided, for 1944 the B-17 had 66.1% of the effective sorties, 69.5% of MIA, 59.2% Cat E, B-24 33.9%, 40.8% and 30.5%

As of December 1944 the USAAF plan was to end B-17 production at Boeing in April 1945, and Douglas and Lockheed in January 1946, the B-24 was already down to 2 open production lines, San Diego scheduled to finish in July 1945 and Ford in June 1946, with 2,952 B-17 and 5,588 B-24 outstanding on current orders. End April 1945 the B-17 lines were to remain open until November and December 1946, delivering another 2,054 B-17, the B-24 lines were to shut in July 1945, delivering another 601 B-24. Actual B-24 end of production June 1945, B-17 end of production July 1945.

USN PB4Y-1 performance, all at 1,500 feet
2,814 gallons, 3,090 statute miles at 149 mph
3,214 gallons, 3,440 statute miles at 151 mph
3,063 gallons, 3,260 statute miles at 148 mph
2,019 gallons, 2,065 statute miles at 154 mph
1,272 gallons, 1,255 statute miles at 155 mph
3,614 gallons, 4,190 statute miles at 152 mph

USN PB4Y-2
3,020 gallons, 2,780 statute miles at 140 mph
2,764 gallons, 2,590 statute miles at 138 mph
2,868 gallons, 2,630 statute miles at 141 mph
1,881 gallons, 1,560 statute miles at 144 mph
3,050 gallons, 2,800 statute miles at 140 mph
3,716 gallons, 3,650 statute miles at 146 mph

The largest fuel loads are for ferry condition.

RAF Pilot's notes, Liberator III, IV and V, Maximum range cruise speeds, fully loaded, outward, 175 mph IAS, light loaded, homeward 155 mph IAS, if one speed it so be used throughout 165 mph recommended. If Special Coastal Command radio equipment is fitted reduce these speeds by 5 to 10 mph. For maximum endurance the optimum speed is about 125 to 130 mph IAS, but it may not be found to be easy to handle the aircraft for long periods below 145 mph IAS.

RAF Pilot's notes, Liberator III, VI and VIII, recommended cruising speeds for maximum range, 160 mph IAS with external ASV aerials, 170 mph IAS without external ASV aerials, 155 to 160 mph IAS at high altitudes on bomber version.

B-24D and J flight manual, 1,000 foot density altitude, revised per latest C.V.A.C flight tests 17 August 1943. P&W R-1830-43 engines 16:9 gearing, 11 foot 5 inch diameter wide blade prop. no. 6477A-O or narrow blade prop. No. 6353A-18. Ranges exclude allowances for wind, warm up and climb.

165 MPH TAS/163 IAS, 6,100 miles, 180 TAS,/177 IAS 5,875 miles, TAS 200 mph/IAS 197 mph 4,550 miles, TAS 220 mph/IAS 217 mph 2,750 miles, TAS 231 - 241 mph/IAS 228 - 238 mph 2,125 miles.

As above but for 20,000 foot density altitude, maximum range 6,150 miles speed not given, 220 MPH TAS/160 IAS, 5,750 miles, 240 TAS/175 IAS 4,525 miles, TAS 280 mph/IAS 190 mph 3,125 miles, TAS 269 - 292 mph/IAS 196 - 213 mph 2,475 miles.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 28, 2022)

If only the B-24s had P-39s available for long range escort.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And what about the 15th AF???!




Ah yes, I wondered how long before that was brought up.

That would be the 15th Air Force that spent its war either doing fairly low level tactical bombing or attacking some of the most heavily defended targets in the Reich, The oil fields at Ploesti and the aviation factories at Wiener-Nuestad?

And as Eight Air Force losses dropped significantly by Jan 1945 as most of the mission was now over friendly territory, 15th Air Force missions were over hostile soil to the bitter end.

Curiously, their CoS was perfectly happy with the B-24 and didn't ask for more B-17's


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Ah yes, I wondered how long before that was brought up.
> 
> That would be the 15th Air Force that spent its war either doing fairly low level tactical bombing or attacking some of the most heavily defended targets in the Reich, The oil fields at Ploesti and the aviation factories at Wiener-Nuestad?
> 
> And as Eight Air Force losses dropped significantly by Jan 1945 as most of the mission was now over friendly territory, 15th Air Force missions were over hostile soil to the bitter end.


And go read the post above yours!

It's all spelled out brilliantly!






Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?


It just made it into service but not to any real effect and by the time Grumman started on the Bearcat it was their 3rd generation fighter, they really knew what they were doing. You could also include the Hawker Tempest, which went fairly well, because all the screw ups had been on the Typhoon...



ww2aircraft.net






Macandy said:


> Curiously, their CoS was perfectly happy with the B-24 and didn't ask for more B-17's


And they weren't asking for more B-24s either!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 28, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> As of December 1944 the USAAF plan was to end B-17 production at Boeing in April 1945, and Douglas and Lockheed in January 1946, the B-24 was already down to 2 open production lines, San Diego scheduled to finish in July 1945 and Ford in June 1946, with 2,952 B-17 and 5,588 B-24 outstanding on current orders. End April 1945 the B-17 lines were to remain open until November and December 1946, delivering another 2,054 B-17, the B-24 lines were to shut in July 1945, delivering another 601 B-24. Actual B-24 end of production June 1945, B-17 end of production July 1945.



However, the war developed and the plan by early 1945 became stop building B-17's and pay them all off from front line units, and build loads of B-24N's, B-29's and B-32's

Cancelled USAAF orders for VJ Day

*Medium Bombers*

B-24N - 5,168

*Heavy Bombers*

B-29C - 5,000
B-29D - 200
B-32 - 1,885


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> However, the war developed and the plan by early 1945 became stop building B-17's* and pay them all off from front line units, and build loads of B-24N's, B-29's and B-32's*
> 
> Cancelled USAAF orders for VJ Day
> 
> ...


More nonsense! READ Sinclair's post!

_As of December 1944 the USAAF plan was to *end B-17 production at Boeing in April 1945, and Douglas and Lockheed in January 1946, the B-24 was already down to 2 open production lines, San Diego scheduled to finish in July 1945 and Ford in June 1946*, with 2,952 B-17 and 5,588 B-24 outstanding on current orders. End April 1945 the B-17 lines were to remain open until November and December 1946, delivering another 2,054 B-17, the B-24 lines were to shut in July 1945, delivering another 601 B-24. *Actual B-24 end of production June 1945, B-17 end of production July 1945.*_

The B-24N, B-29 and B-32 were all separate contracts and were signed and funded way before early 1945!!!!

The B-29D became the B-50 and again was a whole different contract!!!!

_Section source: Joe Baugher

The *B-29D* was an improved version of the original B-29 design, featuring 28-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-4360-35 Wasp Major engines of 3500 hp (2600 kW) each — nearly 60% more powerful than the usual Duplex-Cyclone. It also had a taller vertical stabilizer and a strengthened wing. The XB-44 was the testbed designation for the D model.

When World War II ended, the B-29D was given the quartet of Wasp Major engines to become the B-50, which served throughout the 1950s in the U.S. bomber fleet._

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Apr 28, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Now to where the USSBS is contradicted, the 15th Air Force figures say the B-17 dropped 104,877 tons of bombs January 1944 onwards, the B-24 192,113 tons, B-17 effective sorties from November 1943 onwards are 41,751, B-24 86,838. Even with the missing 1943 bomb tonnage it is clear the B-17 was carrying the heavier loads on average. The average bomb loads using the data in the "Target and Duty Sheets", which give a break down by bomb group, for the December 1943 to October 1944 period, noting the December 1943 figures do not include tonnage classified as jettisoned. For effective B-17 sorties December 1943 to October 1944 the average bomb load dropped was 5,400 pounds, for B-24 it was 4,690 pounds. These figures are a slight underestimate, as some sorties classified as effective have at least some of their bomb tonnage classified as jettisoned.


Great post 
G
 Geoffrey Sinclair
.

The difference in bomb tonnage drop in favour of the B-17 could be explained due to the Fortress tended to be used for shorter range attacks, so more bombs could be carried?



 FLYBOYJ
it seems that we have a B-24 expert here, not unlike certain other expert of the pursuit 39er.

Or perhaps only an:

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *"The B-24 bomber one of the most difficult planes to fly during WWII. It was unpressurized, underpowered and prone to explode on takeoff. Unlike the B-17, the B-24 could not maintain altitude if one engine was lost. If two engines were lost, the plane would drop pretty much like a rock." *B-24 NAVIGATOR HARRY FORNALCZYK
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is an important account. The problems of the B-24 with loss of an engine is really notable. On the raid to Dresden, Feb13/14, 1945, all of the engines on dad’s aircraft gave trouble and he recalled that after takeoff, he flew all the way to the target and back feathering and restarting all engines. He recorded in his log book “All engines gave trouble”.

Escuadrilla: When it comes to WWII, we are *all* Armchair Aviators!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> Escuadrilla: When it comes to WWII, we are *all* Armchair Aviators!


Some more than others!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some more than others!




 FLYBOYJ
you just take the words out of my mouth!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Apr 28, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> This is an important account. The problems of the B-24 with loss of an engine is really notable. On the raid to Dresden, Feb13/14, 1945, all of the engines on dad’s aircraft gave trouble and he recalled that after takeoff, he flew all the way to the target and back feathering and restarting all engines. He recorded in his log book “All engines gave trouble”.


It had to be a pretty interesting ride!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 28, 2022)

Escuadrilla Azul said:


> It had to be a pretty interesting ride!


It was. A deep penetration and the flight lasted 9 hours and 35 minutes. The Lancaster flew quite well on 3 engines. Crews often got back to England on 2. On the Op to Bottrop, Sep 27, 1944, after having been severely shot up by flak, “Andy” Anderson of 419 Squadron came back to England on 2 engines and landed with only one engine at the crash aerodrome at Woodbridge. He was awarded the DSO for his efforts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Let's get some facts straight for our friend - 

1. The B-24 WAS NEVER intended to replace the B-17. Specification 212 says nothing about this. If anything the B-24 supplemented the B-17
2. The B-24 was generally faster, had a greater range and carried a greater bomb load than the B-17
3. The B-24 was produced more rapidly than the B-17
4. The B-17 was able to absorb much more battle damage than the B-24, it was generally built better
5. The B-24 was basically a rushed design, pushed by Consolidated's President Ruben Fleet
6. Pilot reports PROVE that the B-24 was not as stable in the air but was easier to take off and land when compared to the B-17
7. The B-24 was preferred in the PTO and excelled there because of it's range and different type of targets and missions
8. The B-17 had an over-all better safety record and bombing accuracy record
9. Contracts for later model B-24s were signed and funded way before early 1945 and there is no evidence to show funding was "moved." If someone comes up with different information on this I'll stand to be corrected!

Please feel free to add more so we can separate facts from opinions and fantasies!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 28, 2022)

The 'single tail' B-24N was always intended as the definitive B-24.
It had been test flown in 1943 as the XB-24K, demonstrating superior handling, climb and speed - it cruised 30mph faster than a B-17 while carrying a much bigger bomb load.
It became a very substantial redevelopment of the basic B-24 into almost a new aircraft. Production was ramped up for commencement in mid 1945 at Willow Run, but the end of the war saw the order for 5,160 cancelled.

XB-24K







B-25N

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 28, 2022)

Great thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 28, 2022)

Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they’d look like B-24s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 28, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they’d look like B-24s.


That took years of hard work.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Apr 28, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they’d look like B-24s.


Well it is often described as the looking like the crate the B-17 came in! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Adding the front turret did nothing for it aesthetically but was a vast improvement defence wise.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The 'single tail' B-24N was always intended as the definitive B-24.
> It had been test flown in 1943 as the XB-24K, demonstrating superior handling, climb and speed - it cruised 30mph faster than a B-17 while carrying a much bigger bomb load.
> It became a very substantial redevelopment of the basic B-24 into almost a new aircraft. Production was ramped up for commencement in mid 1945 at Willow Run, but the end of the war saw the order for 5,160 cancelled.


And I think many contributors on this thread are well aware of the B-24N - the prototype carried serial number 44-48753, which indicates the contract was let in *1944. 

It wasn't a "substantial redevelopment." *Performance improved, larger bomb load and slightly faster - _*Following a change to a C-54 tail plane and a new rudder, the rear fuselage was attached to another, later production airframe*. This B-24D-40-CO (serial 42-40234) was also fitted with more powerful 1,200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-65 engines and the power-operated nose turret of later Liberators, while retaining the Consolidated tail turret. Designated XB-24K, the 'new' aircraft was first flown on September 9, 1943. Tests at Eglin revealed that the new tail configuration improved aircraft handling and field of fire for the tail guns. The XB-24K was 11 mph (18 kmh) faster than previous Liberators, and possessed a greatly_ improved climb rate.



Consolidated 32 XB-24N Liberator



As previously shown through official records, B-17 production was intended to go into 1946.

And despite the improvements shown on the B-24N, you had the B-32 coming on line and probably "would have" replaced both B-17 *AND* B-24

_"Originally, the Army Air Force intended the B-32 as a "fallback" design to be used only if the B-29 program fell significantly behind in its development schedule. As development of the B-32 became seriously delayed this plan became unnecessary due to the success of the B-29.* Initial plans to use the B-32 to supplement the B-29 in re-equipping B-17 and B-24 groups before redeployment of the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces to the Pacific were stymied when only five production models had been delivered by the end of 1944, by which time full B-29 operations were underway in the Twentieth Air Force."*_






U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site


This site deals with various technical aspects of the United States Air Force, primarily the aircraft.




www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Well it is often described as the looking like the crate the B-17 came in! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Adding the front turret did nothing for it aesthetically but was a vast improvement defence wise.


And I think some on here may (or may not) know that a number of B-24Ds were actually modified and a turret was installed in place of the glass nose.
















credits - USAF, USN, THE INTERNET

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _"Originally, the Army Air Force intended the B-32 as a "fallback" design to be used only if the B-29 program fell significantly behind in its development schedule. As development of the B-32 became seriously delayed this plan became unnecessary due to the success of the B-29.* Initial plans to use the B-32 to supplement the B-29 in re-equipping B-17 and B-24 groups before redeployment of the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces to the Pacific were stymied when only five production models had been delivered by the end of 1944, by which time full B-29 operations were underway in the Twentieth Air Force."*_



Not only that, but the B-32 effectively became an up-rated B-17/B-24 after it scrapped pressurization and went with manned instead of remotely controlled turrets.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Apr 28, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Well it is often described as the looking like the crate the B-17 came in! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Adding the front turret did nothing for it aesthetically but was a vast improvement defence wise.


To me, the front turret B-24s are more aesthetical than the earlier models, but the eye of the beholder.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2022)

A few notes if I may.


Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> The B-17 was originally sold as hemisphere defence carrying the 1,600 AP bombs against approaching ships,


The time line doesn't work for this. 
The 1600lb AP bomb only came into service in May of 1942.
They may have been fooling around with the design for a number of years? 
There were five different AP bombs ranging from 600lbs to 1400lbs that are older.

The US was using 600lb GP bombs as standard in the 1930s At the time the Y1B-17s intercepted the Rex (May of 1938) The official bomb load was eight 600lb bpmbs. 
Miss print or a bit of creative writing? 
They were being sold as hemisphere defence, just not with 1600lb bombs. 
BTW the Y1B-17s only had 930hp per engine at this time and the turbos would not be installed until until the last Y1B-17 was built and delivered in Jan 1939. 







Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> the B-24 was meant as a heavy bomber, not a B-17 replacement but a second design in production.


That it was but both the B-17 and the B-24 were evolving. 
The original XB-24 did not have turbo chargers or power turrets, and grossed under 40,000lbs. 
The original XB-24 also missed it's predicted speed of 311mph and only managed 273 which was rather below what the B-17C (with turbos) could manage.
Consolidated went to work figuring out how to install turbos but in the meantime the French and British got the slots on the production while the AAC waited for the "improved" planes. The modified XB-24 was flown with turbos on Feb 1941, in the mean time, the French had ordered 60 B-24s with an option for 120 more and the British had ordered 164 more. 


Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> USN PB4Y-2


 I Believe the PB4Y-2 did not have turbocharges which makes comparisons of ranges and speeds a little difficult as they were flying at different altitudes?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *"The B-24 bomber one of the most difficult planes to fly during WWII. It was unpressurized, underpowered and prone to explode on takeoff. Unlike the B-17, the B-24 could not maintain altitude if one engine was lost. If two engines were lost, the plane would drop pretty much like a rock." *B-24 NAVIGATOR HARRY FORNALCZYK



What about the "Liberty Lad" which participated on Operation Tidal Wave and came back with two engines lost on one side(!) after an 16 hours flight?
"...drop pretty much like a rock." sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The 'single tail' B-24N was always intended as the definitive B-24.
> It had been test flown in 1943 as the XB-24K, demonstrating superior handling, climb and speed - it cruised 30mph faster than a B-17 while carrying a much bigger bomb load.
> It became a very substantial redevelopment of the basic B-24 into almost a new aircraft. Production was ramped up for commencement in mid 1945 at Willow Run, but the end of the war saw the order for 5,160 cancelled.
> 
> ...


Why did the single tail work better? 
I thought a twin tail is suited to be more in the airstream of the engine blade (2 engines and more) and thus provide more control.
Maybe someone can explain it from aerodynamical view.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 28, 2022)

The B-17 wasnt what the USA wanted but it was pretty much the only game in town, so it was ordered. The B-24 was ordered to have more range payload and altitude which is a big ask with the same engines, it didnt succeed in all that but extra range and payload made it complimentary, if it wasnt better in many/most respects it wouldnt have been made at all. Consolidated would have been building B-17s. What the US wanted was a B-29 or similar but you cant design and build a plane without the engines to power it and the B-29 engines were the next generation, So the US did the logical thing, you pee on the pot that you have until a better pot is available. If they hadnt and waited and waited, they wouldnt have had an airforce in 1944 and the whole of WW2 would have passed them bye.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 28, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they’d look like B-24s.


NOT TRUE!
It's the coolest-looking heavy, ever! The long, slender Davis wing with its distinct airfoilprofile, the unmistakable oval twin tail and the contrasting cumbersome, flabsided fuselage with a dog-snout (with turret) give it a unique appearance. It is COOL!
The B-17 is a boring stereotypical prom queen. The Lancaster is a flying hunchback.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 28, 2022)

spicmart said:


> NOT TRUE!
> It's the coolest-looking heavy, ever! The long, slender Davis wing with its distinct airfoilprofile, the unmistakable oval twin tail and the contrasting cumbersome, flabsided fuselage with a dog-snout (with turret) give it a unique appearance. It is COOL!
> The B-17 is a boring sterotypical prom queen. The Lancaster is a fling hunchback.


It was a pregnant glider, it should have been made from girders, painted blue and never allowed in the air, like that stuff from Grumman.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2022)

The early (around 1940 to early 1941 ) B-17s and B-24 were around 40,000lb planes that they were running overloaded. 
the B-17E showed up in Nov 1941. weights were 
Weights: 32,350 pounds empty, 40,260 pounds gross, 53,000 pounds maximum. Much like some of our ideas for escort fighters the intent was to burn off a lot of the fuel before the planes got into combat. That and use lighter bombloads until the reality of poor accuracy sank in and the idea of having to use more planes to get the same tonnage of bombs to the target crossed over to using fewer but slower aircraft to get the same tonnage. 
The last B-17Gs went:
Weights: 32,720 pounds empty, 55,000 pounds normal loaded, 72,000 pounds maximum.

Make sure you are comparing like to like. 

As far as the single tail B-24s goes, just look at the pictures.









This was converted to be an air tanker for firefighting. Not sure if the tail was changed or not. The engines are Wright R-2600s to help get the plane off the runway and to help pull outs at the end of a canyon. 
You have an awful lot of tail and just like wings, a high aspect ratio tail (tall and skinny vs short and wide) will give a different bite on the air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

spicmart said:


> What about the "Liberty Lad" which participated on Operation Tidal Wave and came back with two engines lost on one side(!) after an 16 hours flight?
> "...drop pretty much like a rock." sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.


Well that “exaggeration” was from a gentleman who flew multiple missions in the aircraft, was shot down and taken prisoner, so I think he might be just a tad biased! There were many aircraft that flew on Tidal Wave that made it back with extensive damage, it does show a side of the aircraft for being somewhat rugged, but at the same time this ill-planned mission showed some of the deficiencies with the aircraft. Hell, the lead aircraft spiraled into the sea for no apparent reason!

From Wiki - 

_The formation reached the Adriatic Sea without further incident; however aircraft #28, Wongo Wongo, belonging to the 376th Bombardment Group (the lead group, about 40 B-24s)[​ and piloted by Lt. Brian Flavelle began to fly erratically before plunging into the sea due to unknown causes_

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2022)

Look again at the B-17 weights provided. The B-17 could have gained nearly 10 tons between the E and G but even if the G was taking off at 65,000lbs and had trouble on the way in or while forming up it was in a very deferent flight regime than when coming back. 
Some of the accounts of both B-17s and B-24s coming back with 2 engines not running involve judgment calls on when they started throwing out the ammo and other items of equipment. Once they were pretty sure they were out of the range of enemy aircraft ALL of the ammo went out the side and a fair number of .50 cal guns went to, subject to how much effort and/or tools needed. There were also judgment calls on how hard to push the remaining engines (how long since last overhaul?) as well as battle damage. Did you have two engines konk out or did they help from AA guns or a few hundred machine gun bullets? Or to put it another way, different bombers had different amounts of open space exposed to the slipstream that weren't there on take off in not actual large flaps of sheet metal acting like air brakes. 
In some cases they had controls shot up and the damaged air craft had to fly an even more crablike course than a plane that had all functioning control surfaces and could trimmed to a better degree. You loose both engines on one side you may run out of trim authority

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Some of the accounts of both B-17s and B-24s coming back with 2 engines not running involve judgment calls on when* they started throwing out the ammo and other items of equipment. Once they were pretty sure they were out of the range of enemy aircraft ALL of the ammo went out the side and a fair number of .50 cal guns went to, subject to how much effort and/or tools needed.* There were also judgment calls on how hard to push the remaining engines (how long since last overhaul?) as well as battle damage. Did you have two engines konk out or did they help from AA guns or a few hundred machine gun bullets? Or to put it another way, different bombers had different amounts of open space exposed to the slipstream that weren't there on take off in not actual large flaps of sheet metal acting like air brakes.
> In some cases they had controls shot up and the damaged air craft had to fly an even more crablike course than a plane that had all functioning control surfaces and could trimmed to a better degree. You loose both engines on one side you may run out of trim authority


Great point! Well documented, even in movies. When limping home the crew jettisoned everything they possibly can.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great point! Well documented, even in movies. When limping home the crew jettisoned everything they possibly can.


I would guess on two engines they were trying to get down to the 32,000-33,000lb empty weight plus crew weight and enough fuel to land?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 28, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I would guess on two engines they were trying to get down to the 32,000-33,000lb empty weight plus crew weight and enough fuel to land?


I would think the goal would be to keep it aloft until safe, then decide on landing or bailing out. Of concern with two out on one side is also fuel balance. Cross feeding (fuel management) would be required to keep the wings close to the same weight. Having two dead on one side causes the wing to be heavy (requires more rudder / aileron displacement which in turn causes more drag). I would think there were quite a few decisions to land due to wounded not being able or safe to bail out (opine).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I would guess on two engines they were trying to get down to the 32,000-33,000lb empty weight plus crew weight and enough fuel to land?


From that piece I posted earlier...

_After Harry's twelfth mission, the original crew Harry trained with was assembled and assigned a combat mission. Their assigned primary target for this mission was the rail yards at Vienna, Austria with the secondary target being the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg, Germany.

By this time, Harry had completed far more missions than any other members of his original crew. The date of this final mission was March 26, 1945. The crew was able to complete the bombing run over Vienna, but upon turn out and setting a course back to the base, they encountered flak and lost the number three engine. On the B-24, the number three engine provides hydraulic pressure for the landing gear and landing flaps in addition to other flight systems.

Since the B-24 cannot maintain altitude with only three operational engines, Harry's plane had to drop out of the bomber formation making it a prime target for German fighters and flack. Fortunately, as they began to fall behind and lose altitude, a Red-Tailed P-51 joined up with the stricken bomber and provided protection from the German fighter planes. 

*With only three engines operational, the B-24 bomber was losing altitude at about one hundred feet per minute. As the navigator, Harry was expected to calculate how far the plane could fly given the altitude loss and fuel remaining. Based on his calculations, Harry figured the plane would be able to reach an alternate runway under so called "friendly" control. The crew "dumped' everything out of the airplane at this time to try and maintain altitude for as long as possible.*

Since the B-24 did not fly well on three engines, the pilot was required to push up the remaining three engines to their maximum operational limits. After two hundred miles of flying on only three engines, the number one engine coughed and shut down, leaving only two engines remaining. The B-24 bomber began to rapidly lose altitude. 

The pilot announced that the plane could not make it to a safe landing site and they would have to attempt a crash landing. He also informed the crew that they could bailout as B-24 crash landings were not often very successful. The entire crew decided to stay with the airplane and hoped to survive a cash landing. 

The pilot selected a farmer's pasture for the attempted landing site. As the plane came down, the crew were directed to manually crank down the landing gear since there was no longer hydraulic pressure available with the loss of the number three engine. During the excitement, the crew forgot to crank down the nose landing gear, which meant only the two main landing gears were down and locked at landing.

They crashed near Zagreb, Yugoslavia which was located about 250 miles behind German lines at the time. Fortunately, the field they landed in was very soft and grass covered. It was filled with cows, and luckily for the crew, no cows were harmed during the crash or the farmer might have taken some deadly action toward the crew as civilians were prone to do during this time of war. The escorting Red-Tailed P-51 made several passes over the downed airplane and departed with a wag of his wings saying good-by to the crew. Harry credits that P-51 pilot for saving the B-24 and enabling the crew to land without further harm.

During the crash, the tail of the plane actually rose up and the nose of the plane dug a deep trench in the soft earth. This was a result of the nose landing gear not being down and most likely prevented the plane from breaking apart and killing most of the crew. The crew was shaken up, but no one sustained any serious injuries._









Defying the Flying Coffin: The Combat and POW Experiences of B-24 Navigator Harry Fornalczyk - Daedalians


by Gary Fullmer, Pioneer Flight Harry was born in Erie, Pennsylvania on September 9, 1923. As a typical young boy of that period, Harry managed to stay out of serious trouble but was very active in several unexplained happenings around his neighborhood. In his high school years, Harry excelled...




www.daedalians.org

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 28, 2022)

A couple notes on the B-24:
The group commander and one squadron commander of the 90th Bomb Group had to be relieved because they refused to fly the B-24 in combat.
In a crash the B-24 fuselage folded up with the top turret often collapsing into the flight deck, killing or trapping the pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 28, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Why did the single tail work better?
> I thought a twin tail is suited to be more in the airstream of the engine blade (2 engines and more) and thus provide more control.
> Maybe someone can explain it from aerodynamical view.



All I can do is cite from _The B-24 Liberator: A Pictorial History_ by Allan G. Blue:


> Consolidated recognized at an early date that a single tail configuration for the Liberator might prove highly desirable, but because of the press of early production commitments it was not until 10 October 1942 that the first wind tunnel tests got under way on a model incorporating this feature. When they gave encouraging results, B-24D 42-40058 was selected as a test article. Known as the B-24ST (for Single Tail) . . . [t]his version continued the flight test programme until June when, on the 29th of that month, the entire rear fuselage assembly of 42-40058 was removed and spliced to another similarly-dissected Liberator, B-24D-40-CO 42-40234 . . . [n]ow with its grafted on single fin empennage, 42-40234 was given the designation XB-24K . . .
> 
> After a series of flights from San Diego, the first of which took place on 9 September 1943, the XB-24K was flown to the USAAF Proving Ground Command at Elgin Field for official tests. Elgin's experienced B-24 pilots—not usually given to superlatives in their reports—found it decidedly superior to any other B-24 they had flown. Handling characteristics and manoeuverability were excellent, controls more sensitive, directional stability increased, and performance with two engines out on the same side was a great improvement over the standard B-24. Also noted were large increases in the fields of fire of the top turret, ball turret, tail turret and waist guns. Without qualification, Elgin recommended on 26 April 1944 that 'an empennage of similar design be incorporated in all future production B-24 aircraft' and preliminary contract negotiations were initiated for an unprecedented order of 4,500 B-24K machines. In time this resulted in the B-24N.
> 
> _— p.59_

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 28, 2022)

Regarding the B-24's performance and characteristics:



> During World War II, complaints from the operational theatres concerning lack of aircraft performance could often be traced to the fact that the aircraft was being operated under conditions far in excess of design specifications. Yet when changes were made to improve lagging performance, the theatres invariably used these improvements to further increase maximum loads instead of taking the improvement in terms of the increased performance that was originally requested.
> 
> Under this axiom, the B-24J was as a routine being flown on missions at gross weights in excess of 36 tons and flying characteristics suffered accordingly. Liberator controls had always been heavy, and continual addition of weight made them worse. It was extremely difficult to fly a tight formation with the B-24J, and so tiring that many pilots found it physically impossible after a few hours. The slow rate of roll, an inborn characteristic of the Liberator because of the large wing span, had been made slower by the addition of the outer wing tanks. Initial climb of a combat-loaded B-24 was slow, usually taking about six minutes to reach the 1,000 ft mark. Visibility from the flight deck was inadequate for formation flying. Because of the manner in which the side windows sloped inward, the pilot and co-pilot had be be seated low in order to have enough head room. This made it difficult to see over the instrument panel. In addition, the astrodome and the top of the nose turret were directly in front of the windshield which, to begin with, was considered too narrow and already partly blocked by the above-the-dash location of the compass. Furthermore, the side windows were so small that it was dangerous for the pilot to put his head through the window while taxiing. Lack of visibility from the nose compartment was equally serious—the only way the bombardier could adequately see was to get down on his hands and knees, and it was impossible for the navigator to help in target identification because of the lack of window area.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 28, 2022)

I recall an account of an Eighth Air Force B-17 crewman who joked that on mixed group missions, the B-24 was the best escort a B-17 could have - because they flew lower and looser and so the German fighters and flak preferred to attack them. 

German fighter pilots thought something similar too. There are multiple accounts stating the B-24s were a preferential target and had a tendency to catch fire, explode or suffer wing failure when hit. The B-17 was seen as more resilient, requiring more accurate shooting if in a rear quarter attack. Head on attacks were considered to have about the same success rate for either aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 28, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they’d look like B-24s.



It's qualities as a bomber and maritime-patrol craft aside, I always though it looked like a pregnant cow.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 29, 2022)

When landed wheels up the B-24 fuselage often broke into three sections. This happened more often landing in water. There is a video elsewhere on the forum of a test landing on the Potomac? river.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 29, 2022)

B-24 water crash test

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Apr 29, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Regarding the B-24's performance and characteristics:


That sounds like a summing up about the Liberator's vices. Is there one of the B-17?
Although the Liberator's controls were heavy, I heard that it was quite agile for such a heavy, at least compared to the Fortress.
A high-aspect-ratio wing is advantageous to roll rate.


----------



## Denniss (Apr 29, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> This was converted to be an air tanker for firefighting. Not sure if the tail was changed or not.


Searching for n2871g came up it being a former PB4Y-2 Privateer which was built with single tail


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 29, 2022)

Thank you, sorry I wasn't clearer. It is tough going by pictures but it looks a bit taller than some other pictures. 
It could be just the angle. I know a number of them got the R-2600 engines when they were converted for fire fighting. I don't know if they changed anything else.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 29, 2022)

Denniss said:


> Searching for n2871g came up it being a former PB4Y-2 Privateer which was built with single tail


Back in 2000 when there was many fires in the US west seen one start up and take off from Grey Bull Wyoming.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 29, 2022)

spicmart said:


> That sounds like a summing up about the Liberator's vices. Is there one of the B-17?
> Although the Liberator's controls were heavy, *I heard that it was quite agile for such a heavy, at least compared to the Fortress.
> A high-aspect-ratio wing is advantageous to roll rate.*


And that high aspect wing didn't help when you lost an engine as documented in the story I previously posted.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 29, 2022)

Notice how nobody uses the Davis wing any more?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 29, 2022)

Or Grumman blue paint?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 29, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Or Grumman blue paint?


They found a use

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 29, 2022)

re "A high-aspect-ratio wing is advantageous to roll rate."

In general in the WWII period, higher aspect ratio wings were at a disadvantage in roll rate when compared to lower aspect wings.

If we assume both wings are of approximately the same weight and everything else being equal (ie same basic fuselage, same effective wing area, same aileron area, manual-mechanical actuation, materials, etc), then:

1. The maximum roll rate of the higher aspect wing will be less than that of the lower aspect wing, due to roll induced drag forces acting against the direction of roll centering further out on the wing.
2. The higher aspect wing will be weaker in structure for the same weight, in the radial g and vertical g directions.
3. The higher aspect wing - in order to roll at the same maximum rate as the lower aspect wing - will require larger area ailerons to overcome the mechanical disadvantageous roll induced drag forces, which will result in higher pilot control forces, and higher roll induced drag forces while rolling.
4. If the ailerons are placed further out on the span to overcome (some of) the mechanical disadvantageous forces, such that it improves the roll acceleration to match or exceed the lower aspect wing, then the wing structure will have to survive greater bending and radial g forces, resulting in a heavier structure weight.
5. If the aircraft is required to lift the same useful load, the higher aspect wing will have to withstand higher bending forces in the vertical direction during flight, and withstand higher bending and g forces on landing. Some things can be done to reduce these forces at specific points/areas of the wing (such as moving the landing gear further out on the wing), but they all result in decreased roll acceleration or increased weight.

The only real increase in performance that a higher aspect wing offered in the WWII era was lower induced drag in the lower IAS regimes, ie cruise and for aircraft that did not approach the higher speeds where Mach compressive effects started to come into significant effect. This would be a max of about 350 mph with the technology and knowledge available at the time (I think) and if you exceed this speed, any reduction in induced drag would disappear, and above this speed induced drag would increase faster than for the lower aspect wing.

There could have been an advantage at "roll response" at lower speeds when low roll rates were used, such as precision in minor corrections during landing, but I have not read any mention in the hands-on/operational tests done in the WWII period.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 29, 2022)

pbehn said:


> They found a use
> View attachment 666246


Any idea where this bridge is?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 29, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> Any idea where this bridge is?



Nassau County FL. 






US-17 St. Marys River Bridge - HistoricBridges.org


Historic Truss Bridge in Rural Nassau County, Florida and Camden County, Georgia. This bridge is not only an impressive and locally rare example of a highway truss swing bridge, it was built for an important travel corridor.




historicbridges.org





I just googled "US-17" and "bridge" and it was the #1 pick.

My Google-Fu is strong!!! You must respect the Google-Fu!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 29, 2022)

I am not trying to roll a B-24, there's just not that much beer in the world.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muskeg13 (Apr 29, 2022)

special ed said:


> When landed wheels up the B-24 fuselage often broke into three sections. This happened more often landing in water. There is a video elsewhere on the forum of a test landing on the Potomac? river.


James River, Newport News Virginia. The B-24 was flown parallel to the (old/original) James River Bridge and came to rest within a few hundred yards of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company. The flight originated at Langley Field (Hampton, VA), 6 1/2 miles away. Here are longer version videos of ditch test, conducted under absolutely ideal conditions, and the aircraft nearly broke up.






B-24 Ditching - Bing video







www.bing.com










B-24 Ditching - Bing video







www.bing.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 29, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Nassau County FL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well Fu'ed! That place is not far from Jacksonville (where I reside). I thought it looked familiar but after looking at the map don't think I've been over it. Thanks for passing that along!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Apr 29, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Notice how nobody uses the Davis wing any more?


From what I recall, the key to the Davis wing was that by sheer luck it happened to be better at maintaining laminar flow than previous wings (It was based on a teardrop shape modified to provide lift). The NACA 6-series essentially accomplished the same thing, which made it redundant, plus thick strong wings were not a good idea in the jet age. Thick wings like the Davis also have some undesirable characteristics such as "very high drag if the surface is roughened", which is why NACA advised Martin to make the 6-series airfoils on its XB-33 thinner.

I'm not sure to what extent the Davis did impact the Lib's crashworthiness, though I think we've all seen the video of a B-24's engine catching fire and the wing folding in half.

I love the B-24 and its odd looks myself, it's probably my favorite out of the three, but I sure as hell would not want to ditch or even belly-land in one. The Lady Be Good broke in two despite crashing at low speed and at a low angle onto a flat surface.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 29, 2022)

The "lady be good" crew survived the initial landing. They thought they were over water rather than desert. The fuselage breakup was at the classic B-24 locations.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 30, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> re "A high-aspect-ratio wing is advantageous to roll rate."
> 
> In general in the WWII period, higher aspect ratio wings were at a disadvantage in roll rate when compared to lower aspect wings.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the good explanation. The Germans happen to prefer higher aspect ratio because they prefer high roll rate (this I saw in publications) for their slash'n'dash tactics. But then again they also tended to build planes with comparably smallish wings overall and were willing to accept higher wing loads.
Especially Messerschmitt insisted on his planes to have abnormally wing loading early on.
This was due to his obsession for light build and focus on performance rather than pilot friendlyness.
Focke Wulf combat aircraft rolled well over most of the speed envelope and had quite sturdy wings as well as large ailerons.


----------



## Maty12 (Apr 30, 2022)

special ed said:


> The "lady be good" crew survived the initial landing. They thought they were over water rather than desert. The fuselage breakup was at the classic B-24 locations.


They parachuted, no one went down with the airplane. And one of them did die, though parachute failure cannot in any way be attributed to the B-24's characteristics.

Unclear if the landing would be smoother had they stayed onboard, since as I said, the plane came down at a pretty shallow angle, though they might have been able to flare better or keep the running engine from hitting the ground. Not criticizing their decision though, they didn't have all the information.

The B-24 is odd. There is footage of it coming back with significant damage (including an aircraft that has another B-24's vertical stabilizer stuck to its nose), but also footage of it crumpling up at the slightest hint of damage.

I'm not sure to which extent this is true, but I always figured a big factor was the shape of the fuselage. B-17s and B-26s have mostly-circular cross-sections and fair quite well in belly landings, B-24s are tall and skinny and break up easily. Of course, the B-17 is also helped by its low wing and semi-exposed wheels.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## muskeg13 (Apr 30, 2022)

B-17 Ditching. The low wing design probably assisted in increased crew safety, opposed to B-24 ditching characteristics.





b-17 ditching - Bing video







www.bing.com


----------



## pbehn (Apr 30, 2022)

muskeg13 said:


> B-17 Ditching. The low wing design probably assisted in increased crew safety, opposed to B-24 ditching characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can understand these tests as tests for info, but this is actually what they may have had to ditch in, in the North Sea.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Apr 30, 2022)

spicmart said:


> Thanks for the good explanation. The Germans happen to prefer higher aspect ratio because they prefer high roll rate (this I saw in publications) for their slash'n'dash tactics. But then again they also tended to build planes with comparably smallish wings overall and were willing to accept higher wing loads.
> Especially Messerschmitt insisted on his planes to have abnormally wing loading early on.
> This was due to his obsession for light build and focus on performance rather than pilot friendlyness.
> Focke Wulf combat aircraft rolled well over most of the speed envelope and had quite sturdy wings as well as large ailerons.


Which German aircraft that saw lots of service in WWII had high aspect ratio wings? 

My understanding is that the Fw-190, noted for its very high rate of roll, had short wings and large ailerons. High aspect ratio means long skinny wings. This means high moment of polar inertia, and ailerons a long way from the centre of mass.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (May 1, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Which German aircraft that saw lots of service in WWII had high aspect ratio wings?
> 
> My understanding is that the Fw-190, noted for its very high rate of roll, had short wings and large ailerons. High aspect ratio means long skinny wings. This means high moment of polar inertia, and ailerons a long way from the centre of mass.


Though the wings are short, the aspect ratio is higher than in most or all Allied fighters.
Granted, the Ta 152H has a real high aspect ratio wing


----------



## ThomasP (May 1, 2022)

Various fighter aircraft wing aspect ratios

Fw 190____ 6.04
Ta 152_____8.88
Me 109E___5.97
Me 109F___6.14
D.520_____ 6.56
Hurricane__6.20
Spitfire____ 5.61
Fulmar____ 6.30
Whirlwind__8.10
P-38______ 8.24
P-39______ 5.43
P-40______ 5.90
P-47______ 5.60
P-51______ 5.88
F2A_______5.86
F4F_______5.55
F4U______ 5.35
F6F_______5.49

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> AFAIK - No. 5th AF General Kenney left that for B-25s and A-20s.


Early skip bombing was tried with B-17s





Valor: Skip-Bombing Pioneer | Air & Space Forces Magazine


In the fall of 1942, a better way of sinking Japanese ships had to be found. Ken McCullar was one of the first to master the new tactic.




www.airforcemag.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (May 1, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The time line doesn't work for this. The 1600lb AP bomb only came into service in May of 1942.


Been looking for a reference for the B-17A to D bomb bays and what changed to the E, no success, the B-17E at least plus the B-24 bomb bays were made for a maximum load of 8x1,600 pound AP, which limited the B-17 to 6,000 pounds and the B-24 to 8,000 pounds of HE bombs internally. Given when both types entered production design would have been in the 1939 to 1941 period. Also no success is a good list with dates for USAAF pre war bomb types and weights. The RAF listed its Fortress I maximum bomb load as 7,400 pounds with normal at 5,000 pounds, while giving the following alternatives, 2x2,000 pound, 4x1,100 pound and 8x600 pound.


Shortround6 said:


> I Believe the PB4Y-2 did not have turbocharges which makes comparisons of ranges and speeds a little difficult as they were flying at different altitudes?


Correct about the turbo chargers, but the PB4Y-2 data I reported was for the same altitude as the PB4Y-1.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 1, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Been looking for a reference for the B-17A to D bomb bays and what changed to the E, no success, the B-17E at least plus the B-24 bomb bays were made for a maximum load of 8x1,600 pound AP, which limited the B-17 to 6,000 pounds and the B-24 to 8,000 pounds of HE bombs internally. Given when both types entered production design would have been in the 1939 to 1941 period. Also no success is a good list with dates for USAAF pre war bomb types and weights. The RAF listed its Fortress I maximum bomb load as 7,400 pounds with normal at 5,000 pounds, while giving the following alternatives, 2x2,000 pound, 4x1,100 pound and 8x600 pound.



I just have a personal hang up with the 1600lb bomb as it seems to get into all kinds of discussions and bomb capacity lists or other things. 
More pounds of ink has probably been wasted on the 1600lb bomb than the weight of 1600lbs dropped in WW II  
Unless you were attacking a target with 5in of more of steel armor on top it was a pretty useless bomb. 
I believe under 300 (Closer to 200?) were dropped in Europe in WW II. The 1600lb AP bomb held less explosive than a US 500lb GP which makes it a really poor choice for bombing much of anything except a heavily armored target.
The 1600lb bomb gets trotted out whenever there is a discussion about the SBD but there is no evidence that the SBD ever carried a 1600lb from a flight deck and probably never carried one from a shore base either, at least in combat. 
You can find specifications for P-61 Night fighters that list four 1600lb AP bombs. P-61s were used for bombing at times but the 1600lb combination makes zero sense even if the racks were rated for that weight. If you are trying to hit a 5in steel deck (or equivalent concrete) it might help if you could see the target and not be dropping at night? 
Or to actually have a bomb sight in day time? 
You can lists that have the P-38 carrying a pair of 1600lb AP bombs ( I have no idea if they ever carried a 1600lb in combat) 
Drop parameters for the 1600lb AP bomb to actually get through 5in of Class B Armor was 7500ft in level flight or 4500ft at 300kts in a 60 degree dive. From higher altitudes it would get through 7in if dropped high enough. Now find that patch of 5-7in armor from 1 1/2 to 2 miles up in the sky if it is not a really big ship.

Part of the popularity of the 1600lb was that due to it's size and the bomb shackles it fit on, it would 'fit' anywhere a 1000lb GB bomb would. In fact due to it's smaller diameter you could sometimes fit more bombs (4 in a rack instead of 3). Of course now you had to get the heavier load off the ground, hopefully with enough fuel that you could clear the fence at the end of the runway. 

And that seems to be the story of the 1600lb AP bomb. Some were used against the Tirpitz, a few were used on other hard targets but it was actually dropped very little. 
And like I said, the Idea the bombers that intercepted the Rex were being "sold" as carrying multiple 1600lb bombs when they used 930hp engines compared to the 12000hp 
engines of the B-17E seems to employ too much of the time machine. 

Of course in 1938 the need for 1600lb AP bombs was rather limited. The Bismarck had been laid down but wouldn't even be launched until 1939 let alone completed and the Japanese were keeping the Yamato secret.
There was no doubt the AAF and Boeing were trying to sell the B-17 as a hemisphere defensive weapon, I just doubt it was using the 1600lb bomb until several years later. 

From reading about the US planes of the 30s it seems they used bombs sized in multiples of 300lbs rather than 250lbs.
Like 300, 600, 1100 rather than 250, 500, 1000. 
Once you get past the 1100lb bombs things get a little tough to pin down. Of course for most of the 1930s and using the B-10 series of bombers you weren't going to carry much of anything bigger than 1100lbs although there may have been purchases of a few experimental batches?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (May 2, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I just have a personal hang up with the 1600lb bomb as it seems to get into all kinds of discussions and bomb capacity lists or other things.
> I believe under 300 (Closer to 200?) were dropped in Europe in WW II.
> The 1600lb bomb gets trotted out whenever there is a discussion about the SBD but there is no evidence that the SBD ever carried a 1600lb from a flight deck and probably never carried one from a shore base either, at least in combat.
> You can find specifications for P-61 Night fighters that list four 1600lb AP bombs. P-61s were used for bombing at times


Understandable, but without pre war data on B-17 bomb bays and available bombs not resolvable, the confirmed story starts in 1939/40. The MacArthur-Pratt agreement in January 1931 gave the AAC a coastal defence role at least.

The USAAF Statistical Digest says 1,222 x 1,600 pound AP bombs dropped, 1943 to 1945 inclusive, all in the European or Mediterranean Theatres, all in 1944. None dropped in theatres versus Japan. The B-17 raids run by Bomber Command dropped only 1,100 pound HE.

The War Production Board report, which starts in July 1940, reports no AP bombs made until January 1942, when 53 1,600 pound mark I were made for the Navy, it took until September for some to be made for the USAAF. Production for the USN ended in October 1943, apart from some made in June and July 1944, similarly production for the USAAF shut down in December 1943, apart from some in May 1944. All up 11,119 for the USAAF and 10,444 for the USN. The 1,000 pound AP bombs began production in March 1942. However according to the War Production Board the US was producing usually under 500 tons of bombs a month July 1940 to March 1941, including none in December 1940, and the totals include USN depth bombs, 500, 300 and 100 pound bombs seem to make up production but as the individual totals are so small compared with later entries they are all reported as zero, result is a number of bombs might have had limited quantity runs during the period but not be explicitly reported (There are no Tallboys or Grand Slams), in any case there is no column for 1,100 pound bombs. By the way in 1942 the report has 1,468 M63 1,400 pound AP bombs made, other limited AP bomb production were the 900 pound M60 the 800 pound M61 and the 600 pound M62.

Looks like the pre war USN dive bombers, the BG-1, SBU, SB2U and BT are generally quoted as carrying a 500 or 1,000 pound bomb which implies there were stocks of such bombs in the 1930's and some AP bombs would exist. For the SBD, all but the SBD-6 have performance charts carrying a 1,600 pound bomb, all except the SBD-1 have a reduced fuel load when doing so. The take off run in calm conditions for the SBD-1 with a 500 pound bomb was 770 feet, with the 1,600 pound bomb 1,050 feet and even with reduced fuel loads the 1,600 pound load is usually the longest take off run.

According to the USN its carrier based aircraft dropped no AP bombs in 1942, then 10 tons in 1943, 264 tons in 1944 and 29 tons in 1945, land based aircraft 7 tons in 1945. It does not break the AP bombs category down by weight, the notes to 1945 say largely 1,000 pounds and the land targets were transportation and harbor areas, ships were warships and also merchant ships over 500 tons.

9th Air Force P-61, 6 x 1000 GP HE, 14 x 500 GP HE, 13 x 1100 FB Incendiary, 44 x 750 FB Incendiary, 16 x 500 FB Incendiary, 79 x 500 IB Incendiary, 2 x 280 FB Incendiary, 2 x 250 IB Incendiary and 273 rockets, plus 1 x 1100 FB Incendiary, 2 x 500 FB Incendiary, 2 x 500 IB Incendiary and 2 rockets jettisoned.


Shortround6 said:


> Of course in 1938 the need for 1600lb AP bombs was rather limited. The Bismarck had been laid down but wouldn't even be launched until 1939 let alone completed and the Japanese were keeping the Yamato secret.


I would say there was a need for heavy AP bombs in 1938. Hemisphere defence in the 1930's was implicitly resisting a Japanese attack, the IJN had 9 battleships and a heavy cruiser force, as the battleships were reconstructed in the 1930's they generally had the elevation of their main guns increased, which in turn required more deck armour to resist long range hits, armour that would also resist bombs.

I have no idea what the US thought during the 1920's and 1930's about aircraft sinking merchant ships, given the prize rules for submarines included ideas about safety of the civilian crews, my understanding is the public definition of hemisphere defence was sinking approaching enemy warships, especially the big ones. No one was going around talking of wiping out convoys or sinking tens of thousands of tons of merchant ships, they were talking about sinking lots of battleships. With at times pointing out the land based aircraft could carry larger numbers of the heavier bombs needed for the bigger ships and hitting them further offshore.


Shortround6 said:


> Once you get past the 1100lb bombs things get a little tough to pin down. Of course for most of the 1930s and using the B-10 series of bombers you weren't going to carry much of anything bigger than 1100lbs although there may have been purchases of a few experimental batches?


The B-10 from early 1936 seems to have topped out at about a pair of 1,100 pound bombs, the B-18 from mid 1937 had a bigger bomb load, the B-18A from mid 1938 could carry 6,500 pounds of bombs (no, probably not 4x1,600 pound AP)

The conclusion is the USAAF B-17 ended up optimised for carrying a specific AP bomb (and possibly AP bombs from the start) which carried over to the B-24.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (May 2, 2022)

Milosh said:


> B-24 water crash test



This may have been posted elsewhere, but about five years ago there was a PBS Episode of "Secrets of the Dead" (I believe) that search for a downed B-17 near Greece. During the search they did find a submerged B-24 and went into some detail about the B-24's tendency for the nose section to crumple up and kill the flight crew. 

I'm of the opinion that you needed all three bombers and they weren't redundant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (May 2, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> I'm of the opinion that you needed all three bombers and they weren't redundant.



I can certainly agree with this but I also think that if I were a bomber crewman, especially pilot, in WWII, I'd rather be on one of the Boeings than the other two!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Frog (May 2, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> I can certainly agree with this but I also think that if I were a bomber crewman, especially pilot, in WWII, I'd rather be on one of the Boeings than the other two!



I would have preferred to be be a PB4Y-1 crew member from a Navy VP squadron patrolling the Pacific than one from a 8th Air Force B-17 in 1943.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 2, 2022)

The B-17 was not designed with any particular AP bomb in mind. In fact, as far as I have been able to find there were no standard USAAC AP bombs before the early-war converted artillery projectiles. The reason the B-17 was able to carry 8x 1600 lb AP was due to the small diameter of the 1600 lb AP bomb body. The pre-war USAAC 600 lb Demolition bomb and war-time 500 lb GP bombs had body diameters larger than the 1600 lb AP which had a Ø14.0" body. Hence, in terms of space, any hanger position in the bay that could carry a 600 lb Demolition bomb could carry a 1600 lb AP bomb - they just used the heavier duty bomb stations/hangers as needed per the space required for clearance.

The original bombs around which the B-17 bomb bay was designed were the USAAC demolition series that came in 100 lb, 300 lb, 600 lb, 1100 lb, and 2000 lb sizes. The pre-war Navy series were of the 100 lb, 500 lb, and 1000 lb sizes. For commonality of production and ability to carry any bombs in service, the Army and Navy established the AN system in 1940 (I think). The USAAC/USAAF continued using its pre-war demolition series until they were out of production and all used up (though they were still using small numbers of 300 lb M31 in 1944 due to the large number produced).

USAAC/USAAF (pre-war)
2000 lb Dem M34___________ Ø23.3"
1100 lb Dem M33___________ Ø19.8"
600 lb Dem M32____________ Ø15.2"<
300 lb Dem M31____________ Ø10.9"
100 lb Dem M30______________Ø8.2"

USAAC(?)/USAAF (early-war, all converted from artillery projectiles)
1400 lb AP M63____________Ø14.0"
1000 lb AP M52____________Ø12.0"
800 lb AP M62_____________Ø12.0"
600 lb AP M61_____________Ø10.0"

Navy (pre-war)
1000 lb Mk 13 GP___________ Ø17.7"
500 lb Mk 12 GP____________ Ø14.2"<
100 lb Mk 4 GP_______________Ø8.0"
100 lb Mk 1 GP_______________Ø7.9"

Army/Navy (beginning in 1940)
2000 lb GP AN-M34 & M64___ Ø23.3"
1000 lb GP AN-M44 & M65___ Ø18.8"
500 lb GP AN-M43 & M64____ Ø14.2"<
250 lb GP AN-M57___________Ø10.9"
100 lb GP AN-M30____________Ø8.2"

1600 lb AN-AP Mk 1__________Ø14.0"<
1000 lb AN-AP M33__________ Ø12.0"
1000 lb SAP AN-M59_________ Ø15.1"
500 lb SAP AN-M58__________ Ø11.8"

NOTE: There were some much earlier Army bomb designs from the mid-1920s, but aside from the Demolition and Chemical series, none became standard or were produced in any numbers. An example of one of the earlier Army series Demolition bombs is:

Army (mid-1920s)
1100 lb Dem Mk III___________Ø20.0"

Here is the original B-17D bomb bay arrangement and designed/expected bomb loads:




Here is the war-time B-17F bomb bay arrangement and expected bomb loads:




Sorry for the fuzzy B-17F diagram but something happened in translation from the original image

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 2, 2022)

Milosh said:


> B-24 water crash test




The weak bomb-bay doors were a real problem.
From B-24 By Graham Simons:

"Top turrets were not the only concern. Little chance of crew survival in a water landing was one area where rumor was not far from reality. The poor ditching characteristics of the Liberator were subject to investigation both in the United States and Britain but there was no really satisfactory solution other than a major re-design of the whole fuselage. In operational theaters strengthening struts were devised which took the form of bearers that could be quickly installed if a water landing was imminent. Late production B-24s had four such bomb-bay stiffeners as standard equipment and it is probable the they helped with the slightly improved number that escaped from successful ditching."

I cannot imagine trying to install struts in the bomb-bay while the aircraft is going down.

As for the turret issue:

"It was even more evident in a large number of incidents were a Liberator suffered nose wheel collapse on landing, when the nose ploughed into the runaway, with the pilots and others on the flight deck than being crushed by the top turret."

It turned out the turret didn't actually break loose, but rather that the fuselage failed between the cockpit and the turret.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 2, 2022)

Here's a well-known example of the B-24 flipping onto its nose:






In a word....OUCH!!!


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 2, 2022)

I thought that was an early VTOL experiment.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> This may have been posted elsewhere, but about five years ago there was a PBS Episode of "Secrets of the Dead" (I believe) that search for a downed B-17 near Greece. During the search they did find a submerged B-24 and went into some detail about the B-24's tendency for the nose section to crumple up and kill the flight crew.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that you needed all three bombers and they weren't redundant.


The dominant B-24 structural flaw during ditching was breaking the airplane in half at the aft bulkhead of bomb bay.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 2, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Understandable, but without pre war data on B-17 bomb bays and available bombs not resolvable, the confirmed story starts in 1939/40. The MacArthur-Pratt agreement in January 1931 gave the AAC a coastal defence role at least.
> 
> The USAAF Statistical Digest says 1,222 x 1,600 pound AP bombs dropped, 1943 to 1945 inclusive, all in the European or Mediterranean Theatres, all in 1944. None dropped in theatres versus Japan. The B-17 raids run by Bomber Command dropped only 1,100 pound HE.
> 
> ...


The 1000 lb and 1600 lb AP bombs were designed by the USN after the start of WWII:









The AP bombs the USAAF entered the war with were converted seacoast artillery projectiles.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (May 2, 2022)

The structure of the B-24 seems particular weak even though the empty weight is comparable tö the B-17's and Lancaster's. How come?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 2, 2022)

spicmart said:


> The structure of the B-24 seems particular weak even though the empty weight is comparable tö the B-17's and Lancaster's. How come?


Different construction designs.

Also, the B-17 had a better ditching survivability because of the shape of the fuselage, low wing placement and a stall speed of about 80mph.
The B-24's stall speed was just about 100mph and the nose of the B-24 had the turret up high, lots of narrow framing for the Bombardier station, which would not offer much resistance when it hit the water, and that, coupled with the high wing meant the B-24 would be submerged before the main-wing offered resistance to the water as it ditched.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Here is the original B-17D bomb bay arrangement and designed/expected bomb loads:


Thank you so much for provided those drawings. 
They do clear up a number of things.


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 2, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Different construction designs.
> 
> Also, the B-17 had a better ditching survivability because of the shape of the fuselage, low wing placement and a stall speed of about 80mph.
> The B-24's stall speed was just about 100mph and the nose of the B-24 had the turret up high, lots of narrow framing for the Bombardier station, which would not offer much resistance when it hit the water, and that, coupled with the high wing meant the B-24 would be submerged before the main-wing offered resistance to the water as it ditched.


Couple that with the flimsy roll up bomb bay doors, which would cave in when the a/c pancaked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (May 2, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Couple that with the flimsy roll up bomb bay doors, which would cave in when the a/c pancaked.


Makes the common joke that the B-24 was "designed as a seaplane, but Consolidated never managed to plug all the leaks" particularly topical. I think I first heard it in Martin Bowman's _B-24 Combat Missions_. Does certainly look like a flying boat, probably part of why I like it. Incidentally I never understood how the PB2Y, that looks like a combination of a PBY and B-24, had less range than either aircraft.

So yeah my 2 cents: all three aircraft are great and have their own flaws. If you're parachuting out, you don't want a Lanc. If you're ditching, you don't want a Lib. It would seem that the B-17 is the most balanced, it does everything relatively well, whereas the Lanc and Lib have strong advantages and strong disadvantages


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 2, 2022)

Lancasters aren't afraid of the dark.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Lancasters aren't afraid of the dark.



The B-17 was the Chuck Norris of bombers. 

German fighters would shoot themselves down and crash onto the factories so the B-17s wouldn't get angry.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
7 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 2, 2022)

If SR6 says it, it's FACT!


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

If the word "Fact" appears on the internet, it is.

Fact!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2022)

spicmart said:


> The structure of the B-24 seems particular weak even though the empty weight is comparable tö the B-17's and Lancaster's. How come?


It wasn't 'particularly weak', but there were design related issues such as nose wheels that failed and impact related issues that were never designed for until the 1960s.


----------



## pbehn (May 3, 2022)

drgondog said:


> It wasn't 'particularly weak', but there were design related issues such as nose wheels that failed and impact related issues that were never designed for until the 1960s.


Is the nose wheel collapse only an issue because the B-24 was the only one with a nose wheel? The problems of heavily loaded tail draggers were well known but the norm at the time. For example there are no pictures of the Halifax that went off the runway here because the resulting fire and explosion of the bombload just left a hole in the ground and 4 Merlins scattered across North Yorkshire.


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Is the nose wheel collapse only an issue because the B-24 was the only one with a nose wheel? The problems of heavily loaded tail draggers were well known but the norm at the time. For example there are no pictures of the Halifax that went off the runway here because the resulting fire and explosion of the bombload just left a hole in the ground and 4 Merlins scattered across North Yorkshire.


Good question but P-39 and P-38 also had nosewheels. The issues for B-24 design seemed rooted in the 'shimmy' experienced during high speed roll and would sem to me to depend somewhat on the attach infrastructure or even the stiffness of the Nose assembly more than the gear itself.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (May 3, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> The B-17 was not designed with any particular AP bomb in mind. In fact, as far as I have been able to find there were no standard USAAC AP bombs before the early-war converted artillery projectiles. The reason the B-17 was able to carry 8x 1600 lb AP was due to the small diameter of the 1600 lb AP bomb body.


It makes for a major difference, the B-17 could carry internally under half the weight of HE versus AP. Thanks for the pre war list of bomb types, if the War Production Board is correct of the USAAF types only the 100 pound M31 was in production in July 1940 or later, the Navy 1,000, 500 and 100 pound mark IV continues production.

According to the War Production Board the wartime AP bombs entered production as follows,

January 1942, 1,600 pound AN Mk 1, 11,119 for the USAAF and 10,444 for the USN.

March 1942, 1,000 pound M32, 7,283 made.

October 1942 1,400 pound M63, 1,468 made, 1,000 pound AN Mk 33, 2,520 for Army 19,725 for Navy, 900 pound M60, 1,505 made and 800 pound M61, 2,691 made.

November 1942, 600 pound M62, 2,691 made.

All up 58,292 AP bombs January 1942 to February 1945 inclusive. Looking at the USN 14 and 12 inch shell weights in Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell the AP rounds are slightly heavier than the relevant AP bombs, so whether the artillery HE shell was basis for the AP bomb.

Agreed the smaller diameters/greater density of the AP bombs meant more could fit into a given volume. So pre war the Air Corps/Army Hemisphere Defence doctrine was built around level bombing of enemy warships with HE bombs. The wartime 300 pound bomb was the M91, some were made in July 1940 and April 1941 at least, then production December 1941 to September 1942. The 100 pound AN-M30A1 (AN-M30 and M30) had some production in 1940 then series production from June 1941. The 100 pound Mark IV and Mods for the Navy was in production in 1940, finishing in May 1943.






Thanks for the B-17D and F bomb bay diagrams, here is the G diagram, I understand the G dropped the ability to carry a 1,600 pound bomb from shackles 20 and 41. The design useful bomb load of 2,050 pounds on the D had risen to 2,064 pounds on the G, any idea of what the definition is of design useful bomb load? It looks like the bomb bay design and volume did not change from the start but the number of shackles was doubled from the D probably to the E. The D bomb bay diagram lists maximum weight as 47,500 pounds, Roger Freeman in The B-17 Flying Fortress Story has the B-17C and D weights as 49,500 pounds for ferry, 48,500 pounds with a 4,000 pound bomb load.

The RAF listed its Fortress I/B-17C maximum bomb load as 7,400 pounds with normal at 5,000 pounds, while giving the following alternatives, 2x2,000 pound, 4x1,100 pound and 8x600 pound, which fits the B-17D diagram. Tare weight 29,620 pounds, no normal weight given, maximum overload 53,500 pounds with 7,400 pounds of bombs and 1,415 imperial gallons of fuel, maximum fuel was 2,075 gallons. The fuel loads agree with Freeman's internal and maximum figures.


Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> The conclusion is the USAAF B-17 ended up optimised for carrying a specific AP bomb (and possibly AP bombs from the start) which carried over to the B-24.


Clearly not optimised for carrying AP from the start, but ended up so, almost like the bomb was designed for the aircraft. The B-17 maximum weight went up abut 10 short tons without increasing the bomb bay volume. The question now is why so many references choose to report the AP only bomb load, makes me wonder what the Lancaster AP only bomb load was, whether it hit weight or volume limits first.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (May 3, 2022)

Lancaster bomb load for docks, fortifications, ships etc 
6x2,000lb AP plus
3x250lb or 3x500lb

The British 2,000lb has always struck me as particularly slim. Dimensions 113in long by 13.5 in diameter. So able to fit three abreast in Lancaster bomb bay. Scroll down this page for diagram





Bomb Loads


Lancaster Archive



www.lancaster-archive.com


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2022)

I think you had 2 issues with the B-24 NLG - poor design coupled with wear and tear from possible hard landings or improper landings. I think you had many low time pilots who transitioned to the "larger" B-24 who had a habit of flaring too low and putting a lot of stress on the NLG and sometimes having the NLG touchdown first. The B-24 did have a pretty high landing speed (95 mph) when compared to the B-17 and larger aircraft with NLG were just staring to become a norm. Fast forward 65 years later, I came across this article.






B-24 Suffers Nose Gear Collapse On Landing In Charlotte | Aero-News Network


“Diamond Lil” Skids Down Runway, But No Injuries The B-24 “Diamond Lil” was among three WWII aircraft on display and of| Published: Mon, May 28, 2012 | Aero-News Network



www.aero-news.net





This is a photo of a B-24D that was flown by my kids GGF. This occurred during a training mission after V-J day and I believe they were on Saipan. As they were taxing out the MLG collapsed. I had the MCAR report somewhere, IIRC the aircraft had a little over 300 hours on it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Is the nose wheel collapse only an issue because the B-24 was the only one with a nose wheel? The problems of heavily loaded tail draggers were well known but the norm at the time. For example there are no pictures of the Halifax that went off the runway here because the resulting fire and explosion of the bombload just left a hole in the ground and 4 Merlins scattered across North Yorkshire.


The B-17 was one of the last bombers in USAAF service that had a conventional configuration.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (May 3, 2022)

Has anyone interviewed the pilots of the flying circuses that orbit air shows if they had flown both the B-17 and B-24 and what was their opinion of the two types?

I watched the Lancaster fly at the Abbotsford air show in 2010, and was pretty impressed with how the pilot threw it around. Mount Baker in the background.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (May 3, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> Has anyone interviewed the pilots of the flying circuses that orbit air shows if they had flown both the B-17 and B-24 and what was their opinion of the two types?
> 
> I watched the Lancaster fly at the Abbotsford air show in 2010, and was pretty impressed with how the pilot threw it around. Mount Baker in the background.
> 
> ...


I previously mentioned I knew a guy that was flying both the B-17 and B-24 for the Collings Foundation. His remarks mirrored those of the Vets that flew both. Those being that the Fortress was much easier to fly, and this was all low altitude cross country and air show flying without all the combat gear / weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 3, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Good question but P-39 and P-38 also had nosewheels. The issues for B-24 design seemed rooted in the 'shimmy' experienced during high speed roll and would sem to me to depend somewhat on the attach infrastructure or even the stiffness of the Nose assembly more than the gear itself.


I wasnt discussing facts as much as perception of facts. The P-39 had problems with the nose wheel at the start (things happen) but the late war tail draggers were very hairy on take of and landing, this was not perceived as a problem with having a tail wheel more an attitude of "it goes with the territory"


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

What I found interesting, was reading over the years about how many types, from all nations, had issues with weak nose-gear designs, be it fighter or bomber.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I wasnt discussing facts as much as perception of facts. The P-39 had problems with the nose wheel at the start (things happen) but the late war tail draggers were very hairy on take of and landing, this was not perceived as a problem with having a tail wheel more an attitude of *"it goes with the territory"*


And this is the reason why taildraggers went away on the majority of aircraft produced after WW2, especially on military aircraft. 

You "fly" a taildragger the minute the engine(s) start turning.

I was on a program where you had USAF IPs with minimal or no tail wheel time attempt to fly a motorized tail dragger glider. Many ground loops and damaged aircraft, thank god no one was killed. A bird Colonel saw the light and killed the program.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 3, 2022)

Hey Geoffrey Sinclair,

re "The design useful bomb load of 2,050 pounds on the D had risen to 2,064 pounds on the G, any idea of what the definition is of design useful bomb load?"

The nominal meaning of the "design useful bomb load" is pretty much the same as the requirement to carry a specific weight of wombs to a given distance. Similar in idea to the requirement that a the Air Ministry Specification resulting in the Fairey Battle required it to carry 1000 lbs to a radius of X miles.

I do not remember for sure, but I think the requirement for the B-17C was to be able to carry ~2000 lbs of bombs over a radius of 1000 miles with max fixed tankage internal fuel of 1700 USgal.

re "The question now is why so many references choose to report the AP only bomb load, . . ."

I think it is mostly to make the B-17 not look anemic compared to the British 4-engine heavies. If you do not use the 1600 lb AP bomb load, for the US normal operations it only carried a max of ~6000 lbs, not because it did not have the poser to lift more, but because the war-time series bomb bay only had room for a max of 6x1000 lb or 12x 500 lb for a total of 6000 lbs. Rather small compared to the lightest bomb load of the RAF heavies which was the Halifax B Mk I at 9x 1000 lb (fuselage bomb bay) + 6x 500 lb (wing bays) for a total of 12,000 lbs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 3, 2022)

You may have something there.
You can actually find some accounts or even manuals that will list not only the 12,800lb internal bomb load but a max bomb load of 17,600lbs.
A pair of 4000lb bombs (American not British cookie) under the wings and six 1600lb AP bombs inside. 
And again it is a total useless load except for bombing an entire city, assuming the B17 when so loaded could even make it past Dunkirk and make it back to England without running out of fuel. 
The American 4000lb bomb was short and fat and wasn't going to land anywhere near where the 1600lb AP bombs were going to land. 
And unless the target was the already motioned thick steel or a number of feet of concrete a normal 500lb bomb held more explosive.
A B-17 on normal structures would do more damage with eight 500LB bombs than with eight 1600lb bombs. 





4000lb bomb on the right. 
flying the B-17 with a pair of those metal parachutes hanging off the wings didn't do anything for the speed and range either. 

However in 1940-41 there wasn't a big need to exaggerate the B-17s load because British 4 engine bombers were just trickling into service (like the B-17) and the British twin engine heavies couldn't carry much either. A 1940 Wellington with Pegasus engines didn't carry what a 1943 Wellington with Hercules engines did.


----------



## ThomasP (May 3, 2022)

I have never done the calculations, but I have read that if the B-17F/G had deployed for operations with 17,600 lb bomb loads the normal 85 Impgal Spitfire would have been able to effectively escort  it to target and back. I think this indicates that the effective B-17F/G ROA with 17,600 lbs bomb load would be about 100 miles.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (May 3, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> I previously mentioned I knew a guy that was flying both the B-17 and B-24…


Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 3, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And this is the reason why taildraggers went away on the majority of aircraft produced after WW2, especially on military aircraft.
> 
> You "fly" a taildragger the minute the engine(s) start turning.
> 
> I was on a program where you had USAF IPs with minimal or no tail wheel time attempt to fly a motorized tail dragger glider. Many ground loops and damaged aircraft, thank god no one was killed. A bird Colonel saw the light and killed the program.


As I think you saw in my point, not about facts but perception, the reason why they were phased out is obvious but at the time it "went with the territory" no blame attached to tail wheels as there was with nose wheels.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 3, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> You may have something there.
> You can actually find some accounts or even manuals that will list not only the 12,800lb internal bomb load but a max bomb load of 17,600lbs.
> A pair of 4000lb bombs (American not British cookie) under the wings and six 1600lb AP bombs inside.
> And again it is a total useless load except for bombing an entire city, assuming the B17 when so loaded could even make it past Dunkirk and make it back to England without running out of fuel.
> ...


Merlin powered Wellington Mk IIs started dropping 4,000 lb HCs in April 1941.


http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:4000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

The B-17 with a max. load (internal and external stores) was mostly used to strike targets in France and vicinity from England.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2022)

pbehn said:


> As I think you saw in my point, not about facts but perception, the reason why they were phased out is obvious but at the time it "went with the territory" no blame attached to tail wheels as there was with nose wheels.


My father in law (18,000 hours, 20 years USAF, B-1 test pilot, United Air Lines 15 years) was the most humble man I ever met - one time told me "you're a REAL pilot because you could fly a taildragger!"

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 3, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> I have never done the calculations, but I have read that if the B-17F/G had deployed for operations with 17,600 lb bomb loads the normal 85 Impgal Spitfire would have been able to effectively escort  it to target and back. I think this indicates that the effective B-17F/G ROA with 17,600 lbs bomb load would be about 100 miles.


So just a bit further than a P-39?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 3, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> So just a bit further than a P-39?



Right, but couldn't carry as much ordnance. Or at least an Expert tells me.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 3, 2022)

From the USAAF Statistical Digest






It doesn't list 1942 but it would appear that the 4000 lb and up bombs were the exclusive province of B-29s






Correction, the B-17 carried the 4500 lb bombs. They were the rocket assisted "Disney " bombs developed by the British but used exclusively by B-17s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 3, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.


But was it dropped before 1945?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> But was it dropped before 1945?


Yes.

I've even posted photos in another thread, of the B-17 being loaded and carrying them (externally) in missions to targets in France, spring 1944.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 3, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes.
> 
> I've even posted photos in another thread, of the B-17 being loaded and carrying them (externally) in missions to targets in France, spring 1944.



There had to be donkeys involved somewhere.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> There had to be donkeys involved somewhere.


Not that I saw, but there were ground squirrels milling about, so you know they were the poor sobs doing the hefting! 

Anyway, found some of my earlier posts with pix and info, and I was wrong about the date above, as the 303rd BG out of Molesworth, was carrying external 4,000 pounders into France in 1943.






Fake B-26 photo?


I count on both photos supplied 26 bombs. The forward bomb bay could only hold 20 100 lb bombs, in the 10 in the aft bay, however this aircraft the aft bay is closed. Sorry the picture is a fake for propaganda.



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

More info/pix.
(The links look the same, but they'll land you directly on my post)






Fake B-26 photo?


I count on both photos supplied 26 bombs. The forward bomb bay could only hold 20 100 lb bombs, in the 10 in the aft bay, however this aircraft the aft bay is closed. Sorry the picture is a fake for propaganda.



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## GrauGeist (May 3, 2022)

Now, on this link, my post shows the armorer's bomb loading chart.

Note that the B-17 could carry two 2,000 pounders internally as well as two 4,000 pounders externally for a 12,000 pound load - this was not it's max., but the larger bombs were found to create considerable damage not by the blast alone, but the subsequent shockwave that the blast created.
This was something the RAF built on with their "HC" series of bombs, often called "cookies".






Fake B-26 photo?


:thumbright:



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## wlewisiii (May 3, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Good question but P-39 and P-38 also had nosewheels. The issues for B-24 design seemed rooted in the 'shimmy' experienced during high speed roll and would sem to me to depend somewhat on the attach infrastructure or even the stiffness of the Nose assembly more than the gear itself.


Yeah but the P-39 had an armored nose! That must have helped!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 4, 2022)

Hey GrauGeist,

While the external racks could carry 4000 lb bombs, as far as I know they never did on operations. Have you run across photos of the B-17F/G wiht 4000 lb bombs on ops? If so, do you know the mission or how far to the target?

The most I have run across (not counting the Disney bomb mentioned above) was 2x 2000 lb in the bomb bay, and 2x 1000 lb external (1x under each wing).


----------



## GrauGeist (May 4, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Hey GrauGeist,
> 
> While the external racks could carry 4000 lb bombs, as far as I know they never did on operations. Have you run across photos of the B-17F/G wiht 4000 lb bombs on ops? If so, do you know the mission or how far to the target?
> 
> The most I have run across was 2x 2000 lb in the bomb bay, and 2x 1000 lb external (1x under each wing).


Click the link on post #334 and #335 above.
You'll see 4,000 pounders in action.

From summer 1943 onward, they bombed French targets and further inland as the war progressed.


----------



## 33k in the air (May 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Note that the B-17 could carry two 2,000 pounders internally as well as two 4,000 pounders externally for a 12,000 pound load - this was not it's max., but the larger bombs were found to create considerable damage not by the blast alone, but the subsequent shockwave that the blast created.



The B-24 could also be equipped with under-wing bomb racks which could take a 4,000-lb bomb. There is a photo of that bomb weight on such a rack on page 29 of the book I have mentioned previously. The caption reads, "De-mountable Liberator wing rack for carrying 4000 pound bomb. Elgin Field found the idea operationally unsuitable."


----------



## GrauGeist (May 4, 2022)

Yeah, in my linked posts, I mentioned that the B-17, B-24 and B-29 were equipped to have external bomb racks.

I just felt it was easier to link to the previous posts than to copy the text and images over and over again...


----------



## ThomasP (May 4, 2022)

Hey GrauGeist,

Sorry, but those are not 4000 lb bombs on the external racks. The 4000 lb bomb was as ~long as the external rack, the ones in the phots you posted are only ~1/2-2/3 the length of the rack. Also the sway braces are in the wrong position for the 4000 lb bomb. By the position and spacing of the sway braces it looks like the bomb in the photos with the words "You To Joseph . . " on the side is the 1000 lb. The 2000 lb and 4000 lb used wider spacing for the sway braces with the forward one farther forward. The lower diagram in the link to your post#62 in the Fake B-26 photo? thread shows the required sway brace spacing and positions, as well as the relative size of the bombs to the bomb rack.

Here is another diagram of the rack and sway brace position and spacing, with the relative size of the 1000 lb and 4000 lb bomb in comparison to the length of the rack. Note the spacing of the sway braces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (May 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Click the link on post #334 and #335 above.
> You'll see 4,000 pounders in action.
> 
> From summer 1943 onward, they bombed French targets and further inland as the war progressed.



Those aren't 4,000-lb bombs in the photos, however.

Roger Freeman's _Mighty Eighth War Manual_ on page 223 has the same photo of the aircraft on the ground with the bombs on the underwing racks; note the image on your linked post is cropped tighter. The caption for the photo reads:

_"M-44 1000 lb GP slung on a 303rd BG B-17F's wing racks, 18 Sept. 1943, ready for a mission to France. Single yellow band round rear and front of bomb casing indicated TNT or Aurotal [sic] filling."_

On page 153 of the same book, in a section about the B-17F, it says this:

_"The B-17F had the capability to lift much heavier loads if external wing racks were used when it was possible but not practicable to attach 4000 lb bombs. With the prospect of increasing bomb loads to short-haul targets, in August 1943 B-17 stations received kits for installing external racks on their aircraft. A few missions were flown during the next month where, in addition to a normal internal load, two 2000 lb bombs were carried externally by each Fortress. With the adverse effect on climb and high altitude performance making formation flying even more difficult and considerably reducing endurance, VIII BC soon decided that high altitude bombing was sufficiently difficult without this added burden. Underwing racks were removed, thereafter to be used only for special tasks."_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.





GrauGeist said:


> This was something the RAF built on with their "HC" series of bombs, often called "cookies".



How can the RAF have built on the US AN-M56 with their HC series when the first HC bomb was dropped in April 1941 and, by your reckoning, the AN-M156 was developed in 1941?

btw the AN-M56 was a "light case bomb".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And this is the reason why taildraggers went away on the majority of aircraft produced after WW2, especially on military aircraft.
> 
> You "fly" a taildragger the minute the engine(s) start turning.
> 
> I was on a program where you had USAF IPs with minimal or no tail wheel time attempt to fly a motorized tail dragger glider. Many ground loops and damaged aircraft, thank god no one was killed. A bird Colonel saw the light and killed the program.


I was privy to a great story by Lt Marshall Knox (Navy Cross) who flew ADs in combat during Vietnam. Somewhere (I 'disremember' where) in Pacific or even San Diego, beverages were consumed and a cluster of clueless A-4 drivers alleged that flying a tail dragger should not be a problem for a 'real' aviator. Bets were placed re: no incidents/damage'. The next day, the 'real aviators' drove the first three ADs into the weeds on left side of runway, and wiser heads prevailed. Bets were paid, butts were chewed by higher authority. Marshall told me 'Thank God' they didn't attain actual flight condition and have to watch them land'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 5, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Hey GrauGeist,
> 
> Sorry, but those are not 4000 lb bombs on the external racks. The 4000 lb bomb was as ~long as the external rack, the ones in the phots you posted are only ~1/2-2/3 the length of the rack. Also the sway braces are in the wrong position for the 4000 lb bomb. By the position and spacing of the sway braces it looks like the bomb in the photos with the words "You To Joseph . . " on the side is the 1000 lb. The 2000 lb and 4000 lb used wider spacing for the sway braces with the forward one farther forward. The lower diagram in the link to your post#62 in the Fake B-26 photo? thread shows the required sway brace spacing and positions, as well as the relative size of the bombs to the bomb rack.
> 
> ...


Of further interest attched are the B-17 bomb hoisting arrangements. Note that the USAAF got the captions for the 1600 lb and 2000 lb bombs reversed. Figure 417 showns the external rack

Also note the restrictions on 1600 lb AP bombs which do not apply to the others


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 5, 2022)

Quite a shape! From the attached article

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 5, 2022)

Everything you ever wanted to know about US bombs (and more)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 5, 2022)

Size comparison for US bombs






This is from the attached file. I had a clearer version of this figure, but I cannot locate it.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I was privy to a great story by Lt Marshall Knox (Navy Cross) who flew ADs in combat during Vietnam. Somewhere (I 'disremember' where) in Pacific or even San Diego, beverages were consumed and a cluster of clueless A-4 drivers alleged that flying a tail dragger should not be a problem for a 'real' aviator. Bets were placed re: no incidents/damage'. The next day, the 'real aviators' drove the first three ADs into the weeds on left side of runway, and wiser heads prevailed. Bets were paid, butts were chewed by higher authority. Marshall told me 'Thank God' they didn't attain actual flight condition and have to watch them land'.


My god! no experience flying a taildragger and then ballsy enough to attempt a first flight in a Skyraider!!!! Ensign Darwin!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My god! no experience flying a taildragger and then ballsy enough to attempt a first flight in a Skyraider!!!! Ensign Darwin!


You can tell a Fighter pilot, but not tell him much, Dad and several other pilots took a dare from Doc Savage (Cpt USN and Ace) that USAF pilots at Eglin couldn't all make a carrier landing in 'soft' seas with some training at Pcola. They did with one wave off and land on second try - circa 1952 - so USAF lost the bet. I think T-28s were the beast of choice.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2022)

Great stuff Bill - "remember, it's better to die than look bad"!!!!

Hey - take a look at the thread and tell us what you think! - Identifying new WW2 wreck off Pt Loma, San Diego

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jugman (May 5, 2022)

I believe six 1600lb bombs was either the original intended load out or was set by the availability of B-10 shackles and later it was expanded to eight. I Have seen that same bomb loading chart in the E&M manuals for the B-17F and the B-17G. In _ALL_ cases the more authoritative bomb hoisting diagram show eight. It also shows that the station numbers differ between the two configurations.
7/28, 10/31, 18/39
8/29, 11/32, 16/37, 20/41
The bombs at stations 16/37 had to be rotated 10° fin down so that the bombs at 11/32 would have adequate clearance.
The maneuvering restrictions specifically apply to the use of B-7 shackles.

In terms of actual bomb weight the heaviest loads were:
B-17
12,720lbs = 8x1600lb AP
10,250lbs = 10x1000lb AP
10,144lbs = 16x600 AP
7960lbs = 8x1000lb SAP
7,552lbs-7,904lbs = 16x500lb SAP
6,120lbs-6420lbs = 12x500lb GP
5,784lb-6240lbs = 6X1000lb GP
4,692lbs-4,968lbs = 8X600lbs Dem
4,444-4564lbs = 4X1100lb Dem
4,080lbs-4,384lbs = 16X250PG or 300lb Dem
3,982lbs-4,280lbs = 2X2000lb SAP or GP
~3,600lbs = 24X150lb class bombs
B-24
12,720lbs = 8x1600lb AP
11,940lbs-12,300lbs = 12X SAP or AP
7712lbs-9128lbs = 8X1000lb GP or 1100lb Dem
3,060bs-7,608lbs = 12X250 GP to 600lb Dem or AP
~3,000lbs = 24 X 150lb class bombs

The B-17 had a small but very space efficient bomb bay.


----------



## JDCAVE (May 5, 2022)

I’m just a stupid non-pilot. WTF is a “Tail-Dragger”?

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2022)

JDCAVE said:


> I’m just a stupid non-pilot. WTF is a “Tail-Dragger”?
> 
> Jim


an aircraft with a tail wheel

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (May 6, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> The nominal meaning of the "design useful bomb load" is pretty much the same as the requirement to carry a specific weight of wombs to a given distance. Similar in idea to the requirement that a the Air Ministry Specification resulting in the Fairey Battle required it to carry 1000 lbs to a radius of X miles.
> 
> I think it is mostly to make the B-17 not look anemic compared to the British 4-engine heavies. If you do not use the 1600 lb AP bomb load, for the US normal operations it only carried a max of ~6000 lbs


Interesting term for a specified range figure with a given bomb load. Next, Australian Official histories online, Second World War Official Histories

Not sure about the bomb load figure to make the B-17 look better, it definitely started early though, the first of the RAAF Official Histories were published in 1954, the first half of the war against Germany, Appendix 1 aircraft performance has this about the B-17 and B-24. Performance, still air range with bomb loads.

AircraftCrewMilesBombs (lb)max speed mph/feetserv. Ceil. Ft.GunsRemarksB-17Mk I B-17C6​3,000​nil300 at 25,00035,000​6 x .5-in & 1 x .3-inAs used by RAFMk I B-17C6​2,000​5,000​Mk II6 to 102,050​6,000​290 at 25,00027,500​9 x .5-inAs used by RAFMk II6 to 10840​12,800​Mk IIa8​1,900​7,000​295 at 25,00032,000​9 x .5-inAs used by RAFMk IIa8​1,650​9,600​Mk III9​2,740​3,500​280 at 20,00031,500 (a)13 x .5-inAs used by RAF (a) min . WeightMk III9​1,140​12,800​n/a26,500 (b)13 x .5-in(b) max. weightB-17G11​2,350​4,000​295 at 30,00036,000​13 x .5-inB-17G11​2,250​6,000​B-24Mk I6​3,100​nil320 at 16,50036,000​4 x 20-mm & 5 x .303-in orMk I6​2,000​4,000​n/an/aor 6 x .5-in & 1 or 2 x .3-inMk I6​1,500​8,800​Mk II B-24C6 to 102,100​5,000​?34,000​7 x .5-in or 11 x .303 -inMk II B-24C6 to 10?8,000​Mk III B-24D8​2,470​3,500​275 at 20,00033,000​8 x .5-in & 4 x .303-inMk III B-24D8​1,290​12,800​Mk VI8​2,290​4,000​270 at 20,00032,000​10 x .5-inAs used by RAFMk VI8​990​12,800​B-24G, H & J10​2,500​3,000​300 at 30,00034,000​6 or 10 x .5-inAmerican . Max . bomb load 16,000 lb
By 1962 the performance table had added, in the volume on the first part of the war against Japan,

B-17E6 to 102,500​nil295 at 30,00027,500​8 x .5-in and 1 x .30 inB-17E6 to 101,415​2,500​B-17E6 to 101208​4,000​B-17G11​1,100​12,800​295 at 30,00036,000​13 x .5-inExternal racks could increase bomb load to 17,600 pounds



GrauGeist said:


> The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.


US AN-M56A1 4,000 pound bomb, first production in January, then some in March, April and October 1942, then production April 1943 to March 1944, all up 6,225 made. Superseded by the HC Mk V, production from April 1944 to August 1945 at least, 38,805 made. USAAF Statistical Digest has 1,220 x 4,000 pound dropped in theaters against Japan in 1945.



33k in the air said:


> Roger Freeman's _Mighty Eighth War Manual_ on page 223 has the same photo of the aircraft on the ground with the bombs on the underwing racks; note the image on your linked post is cropped tighter. The caption for the photo reads:
> 
> _"M-44 1000 lb GP slung on a 303rd BG B-17F's wing racks, 18 Sept. 1943, ready for a mission to France. Single yellow band round rear and front of bomb casing indicated TNT or Aurotal [sic] filling."_


And the plot thickens, using the Mighty Eighth War Diary the 303rd had flown a mission to France on 16 September, dropping 500 pound bombs, then the group's next mission was on 23 September, again France, again 500 pound bombs. Then on 26 September the 3rd Bomb Division mission to France, only the 96th (19 a/c) and the 388th (21 a/c) bombed, with 38x1000 pound, 228x500 pound HE and 840x100 pound Incendiary, the 94th and 385th groups aborted. The accompanying photograph is a shot of the 94th group with a pair of 1,000 pound bombs on external racks, the numbers suggest the 96th also carried the external load, even so at 5,900 pounds per attacking bomber they are not big loads, perhaps the external load was to compensate for the loss of bomb weight carrying the incendiaries.


33k in the air said:


> On page 153 of the same book, in a section about the B-17F, it says this:
> 
> _"The B-17F had the capability to lift much heavier loads if external wing racks were used when it was possible but not practicable to attach 4000 lb bombs. With the prospect of increasing bomb loads to short-haul targets, in August 1943 B-17 stations received kits for installing external racks on their aircraft. A few missions were flown during the next month where, in addition to a normal internal load, two 2000 lb bombs were carried externally by each Fortress. With the adverse effect on climb and high altitude performance making formation flying even more difficult and considerably reducing endurance, VIII BC soon decided that high altitude bombing was sufficiently difficult without this added burden. _


Mighty Eighth War Diary usually lists the number and types of bombs dropped by the heavies in August and September 1943, a pair of 2,000 pounders on Bonn 12 August, another pair on French airfields on the 15th, 368 dropped on Watten France on 27th from 187 B-17, 7 September 116 dropped on Watten from 58 B-17, the B-17 could carry 2x2,000 pound HE internally.

The evidence is there for 1,000 pound bombs dropped from external racks on a small number of missions, but not 2,000 pound.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (May 7, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> And the plot thickens, using the Mighty Eighth War Diary the 303rd had flown a mission to France on 16 September, dropping 500 pound bombs, then the group's next mission was on 23 September, again France, again 500 pound bombs. Then on 26 September the 3rd Bomb Division mission to France, only the 96th (19 a/c) and the 388th (21 a/c) bombed, with 38x1000 pound, 228x500 pound HE and 840x100 pound Incendiary, the 94th and 385th groups aborted. The accompanying photograph is a shot of the 94th group with a pair of 1,000 pound bombs on external racks, the numbers suggest the 96th also carried the external load, even so at 5,900 pounds per attacking bomber they are not big loads, perhaps the external load was to compensate for the loss of bomb weight carrying the incendiaries.



Yeah, I looked at that too and noticed the group didn't fly on the 18th. I presume it's either (a) the B-17s were prepped with external bombs but the mission was later scrubbed; or (b) the date printed in the book is a typo.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2022)

Found another photo of that gear collapse from my earlier post (312).


----------



## spicmart (May 8, 2022)

Which assessment did the PB4Y-2 Privateer get? Any significant improvement over the B-24? 
Did it have better accident rate, Was it safer to fly and be in, in case of a crash/ditch?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2022)

spicmart said:


> View attachment 667406
> 
> 
> Which assessment did the PB4Y-2 Privateer get? Any significant improvement over the B-24?
> Did it have better accident rate, Was it safer to fly and be in, in case of a crash/ditch?


I think in the bigger picture it would have a lower accident rate but then again it was performing a different mission


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 5, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The 1000 lb and 1600 lb AP bombs were designed by the USN after the start of WWII:
> View attachment 666645
> 
> View attachment 666649
> ...


The USN didn't have an AP bomb early in the war. The following is from Yorktown's Coral Sea action report.





Heavy case bombs are SAP

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

