B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

[FLYBOYJ]

do you really believe that? you think that if the americans weren't doing us this huge favour by bombing whilst we were off plying around with stupid little ideas we wouldn't have done it? no, firstly you weren't doing us a favour, you were fighting for freedom in the same way as everyone else, secondly like i said if you weren't bombing we would still've come up with even more extreme ideas



actually, with the possible exception of the mossie, she was ........



almost, but not quite.....

the B-17 normally carried a really rather useless load of 6,000lbs, but it wasn't unheard of for them to carry a mere 4,000lbs, both of which are loads the mossie could and did carry, she couldn't carry them quite as far as the B-17 but she could carry them faster, and like you say, with 1/5th of the crew...........

While I mainly agree lanc, 6,000 lbs in WW2 wasn't useless, especially if a flight of 50 or more B-17s (or any other WW2 heavy) were carrying it 1000 miles

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

if you ask someone in berlin if they'd rather be bombed by B-17s or lancs, they're gonna say B-17s, lancs could carry more than double the load to berlin (almost 4 times if she takes a grand slam, which she was capable of).........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

if you ask someone in berlin if they'd rather be bombed by B-17s or lancs, they're gonna say B-17s, lancs could carry more than double the load to berlin (almost 4 times if she takes a grand slam, which she was capable of).........

Agree but that's like saying would you rather be kicked in the nuts or punched in the nose......

 

[elmilitaro]

I'd be punched in the nose.

 

[syscom3]

Agree but that's like saying would you rather be kicked in the nuts or punched in the nose......

hahahahhahahahahah

 

[syscom3]

If you think that a cigar with wings is a beauty, then I am afraid that you guys are a bunch of sad puppies.
B17, how can you go past the curves and radii a, real shape not a tube with ends from a water tank
The lanc I admit to a :rolleyes person dosent look much, but what a plane. They just exude power, and the sense of the struggle that was the european theatre.

A cylinder is actually the strongest aircraft fuselage shape.

 

[markvs]

yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,

All in the eye of the beholder.....

 

[markvs]

Well, this beholder sure aint a one eyed one [much]

 

[KraziKanuK]

While I mainly agree lanc, 6,000 lbs in WW2 wasn't useless, especially if a flight of 50 or more B-17s (or any other WW2 heavy) were carrying it 1000 miles

What targets 1000mi away from GB did the B-17 bomb with 6000lb of bombs. A 1000mi is to Poland's eastern border.

It would be informative to see an official range vs bombload for the B-17/B-24.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

yes, a cylinder is the strongest shape, but in a plane it is also the most ugly,

ever heard of the French bombers lanc likes so much? they are boxes... and you say cylinders are most ugly?

 

[syscom3]

Im not aware of any targets in easten Poland that were targets for the 8th AF

 

[jhor9]

I more than proved my points.

No way Jose, If you personally flew both B24 and B17, after your experience there would be only one choice.
I get a kick out of you armchair Generals

 

[jhor9]

I noticed in some diagrams that the 17 and 24 had deicing boots on the wings were they all equiped with this or was it an add on as time went on and what did the Lancs and Halifaxs use for deicing

During my tour deicing boots were deactivated, I think because the deicing fluid was combustable

 

[jhor9]

No, I understand mate no please do not get me wrong, I only meant that I have not heard of a lot of Lancaster's doing so than the B-17.

Henk

My comment regarding B17 flying on 1 engine----I don't believe that it couldn't sustain level flight.I'm sure that if it had enough altitude it could travel a long distance giving up height for distance. It definately could fly on 2 engines, but everything that was not bolted down would have to be thrown overboard. I persoally never had to fly with only 1 or 2 engines. Many times I flew on 3 engines

 

[jhor9]

The ball turret was dropped whenever possible to save weight and improve the chances of a crash landing. If kept on the ball turret and mounting would go up into the top of the B17 breaking its back and more or less destroying its structural integrity. This in turn significantly increased the chances of the crew being killed or seriously injured in the crash.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that the B17 ball was able to be dropped during flight. I really don't remember.

 

[jhor9]

Joe, I don't recall the B-17 ball turret having a mechanism to retract it. I know it did on the B-24, but have not seen it on the B-17s that I have been in.

I can positively state that it wasn't retractable

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I may be wrong, but I don't think that the B17 ball was able to be dropped during flight. I really don't remember.

We had several where I used to work (about 28 years ago). I remember seeing a handle that seemed to split the ball in two for egress purposes, but from I remember it seemed the ball had to be straight...

I could be wrong about this - I have a lot of dead brain cells in 28 years...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I get a kick out of you armchair Generals

Wow I love people that just jump in here and say stuff like that. Thats great that you may have flown them or what not, but everyone is here to learn and we dont critizise people for posting what they know and if they are wrong they then they are taught and corrected not called armchair Generals. I am sure you dont know squat about my Blackhawk that I fly and work on but I would not call you a Armchair General for that.

 

[syscom3]

I'm a classic example of an arm chair pilot!



When its an expert who has flown the planes in question tells me I'm wrong, I sure cant argue about it.