Im with CC on this. It could take more punishment and had a less of chance of the wings falling off in flight than a B-24. B-24 great bomber but the B-17 was the workhorse.
The B24 was a little weaker, but it flew higher, further and faster reducing its time over the danger area. It also had a better defensive layout which would have helped.
I admit its close and the deciding factor would be in my view the loss rate of the B17 compared to the B24. There must be a site with this info, does anyone have any ideas?
The Davis Wing worked well with the -24 when the aircraft was producing maximum lift, level flight, cruise or better power settings, etc. Once you lost an engine and had to trim out through it's vertical axis, the aircraft flew heavy and was a handful. I understand that if either outboard engine went out, both pilot and co-pilot had to really "muscle" the aircraft as the ailerons got really heavy.
The latter end of the -24 design period was hurried by Consolidated staff, primarily by their President, Ruben Fleet, it took 9 months to develop the B-24. This resulted in a less aesthetically pleasing aircraft then first conceived. I think the aircraft Consolidated was really looking for came with the B-32 Dominator, the B-29s smaller counterpart.
well are we atleast decided that the top 5 heavy bombers in terms of ability and combat record were the B-29, B-17, B-24, lancaster and halifax?? and can we also decide that the B-29's first, the lancaster second?? once we've agreed on that we can argue about the order of the others.........