B-17, B-24, or Lancaster (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

RCAFson, none of the modifications done for the Silverplate B29's would be considered a line change. Even the engines were in production and planned for the next "block change".
 
RCAFson, none of the modifications done for the Silverplate B29's would be considered a line change. Even the engines were in production and planned for the next "block change".

I don't know Sys - that might too complicated for our friend to understand. You might provide a source for reference so he could cut and paste it.
 
Agree Waynos 100% - and right now it seems unlike a few brainless twits trolling around here, you can debate this without having to burn up the cut and paste program on your computer.

I see the Lincoln as the next step up from the Lanc - behind the B-29 but the next step forward.

Cut and paste can be ok, if it is to illustrate, or in support of a point you are making. its the pastes without any additional explanation that baffle me, what is the poster trying to say???
 
I don't know Sys - that might too complicated for our friend to understand. You might provide a source for reference so he could cut and paste it.

Off topic, but an explanation of how aircraft production in those years was divided in to models, blocks and field changes might be worthy of a "Q&A thread".

Maybe even compare how different countries with different production philosophies handled changes in production.
 
Off topic, but an explanation of how aircraft production in those years was divided in to models, blocks and field changes might be worthy of a "Q&A thread".

Maybe even compare how different countries with different production philosophies handled changes in production.

Good idea!
 
I flew the B-24 in Combat in the Pacific. My aircraft was "Ruff Knights". number 550. My ground crewman did the Nose Art.
The B-24 was faster, could carry more bombs and fly further
than the B-17. Later I flew the B-17 in the States and the B-29. I much preferred the B-24 over The B-17.
The B-17 was sloppy and reminded me of the C-47. Some have said the B-24 was difficult to fly. I didn't
think so and I had to pull out of some very dangerous situations at times.. We flew 34 missions out of Saipan and the last 6
out of Guam.. My ground crew chief, later told me he and Ruff Knights (550) were shipped to Okinawa. When the war
was over Ruff Knights along with the rest of the fleet was bull dozed into a huge canyon or ditch and covered over. It would cost
too much to fly them back. Leonard Porter, Lt. Colonel USAF, Retired.
 
Welcome Colonel porter! What unit were you in?

Never mind see - B-24 ID Sought
RUFFKNIGHTS1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I flew the B-24 in Combat in the Pacific. My aircraft was "Ruff Knights". number 550. My ground crewman did the Nose Art.
The B-24 was faster, could carry more bombs and fly further
than the B-17. Later I flew the B-17 in the States and the B-29. I much preferred the B-24 over The B-17.
The B-17 was sloppy and reminded me of the C-47. Some have said the B-24 was difficult to fly. I didn't
think so and I had to pull out of some very dangerous situations at times.. We flew 34 missions out of Saipan and the last 6
out of Guam.. My ground crew chief, later told me he and Ruff Knights (550) were shipped to Okinawa. When the war
was over Ruff Knights along with the rest of the fleet was bull dozed into a huge canyon or ditch and covered over. It would cost
too much to fly them back. Leonard Porter, Lt. Colonel USAF, Retired.

I bet you have some stories you can tell.
 
I see the Lincoln as the next step up from the Lanc - behind the B-29 but the next step forward

Totally agree as did the RAF who after all bought the B29 when they had plenty of Lincolns
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back