Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Big Easy to the Sewr, just to get to Hickoryville? My condolences! Cruel and unusual is supposed to be unconstitutional. How does a single seater pilot stand it? I hardly ever fly anymore, as I detest cattlecars. And I don't fit in the seats.DerAdler,
I left yesterday AM to fly to EWR then on to JAX. Great museum, really enjoyed it!
Cheers,
Biff
Big Easy to the Sewr, just to get to Hickoryville? My condolences! Cruel and unusual is supposed to be unconstitutional. How does a single seater pilot stand it? I hardly ever fly anymore, as I detest cattlecars. And I don't fit in the seats.
Cheers,
Wes
This statement does reflect some truth. We B-17 Crew Members were glad to see B-24 Aircraft in the Bomber Stream.The only bomber I saw explode was a B-24 coming off his drop over Berlin. Bandits had been reported in the area prior to the explosion. Our P-51 escort dropped their wing tanks, can still see the gas spilling out as they tumbled down and headed that way. Were gone about 15 minutes and picked us up following our drop at Zossen. My heart went out for that Crew. All this at 24,500 ft.the Germans would not ignore the B-17's and go ater the B-24's. This is a typical Ww 2 US mythical statement. The Germans were vectored in and then up to the individual Staffelkapitäns as to which bomber pulk's would be selected for the attacks
This statement does reflect some truth. We B-17 Crew Members were glad to see B-24 Aircraft in the Bomber Stream.The only bomber I saw explode was a B-24 coming off his drop over Berlin. Bandits had been reported in the area prior to the explosion. Our P-51 escort dropped their wing tanks, can still see the gas spilling out as they tumbled down and headed that way. Were gone about 15 minutes. My heart went out for that Crew.
No I didn't see any encounter.Vivid account Bill, thanks for sharing it with us.
On such encounter, did you get to see the P-51s pound on the German fighters or did they got away?
Cheers
No I didn't see any followup activity. We were approaching the IP for our South drop on Zossen German Headquarters located just South of Berlin. Were briefed for Berlin but target changed en route after receiving a report from the Underground that Hitler was to be there. As it turned out he was not.Vivid account Bill, thanks for sharing it with us.
On such encounter, did you get to see the P-51s pound on the German fighters or did they got away?
Cheers
And more Altitude over the Target.From a General's point of view, yes, it would be smarter to produce more B24s than 17s. More bombload, longer range. On paper the war in Europe should be won far easier with the B24.
But as a crewman aboard either aircraft, the B17 was the mount of choice. More durable, more armament for your protection. And of course you have to throw in morale.
In my opinion I think they complemented each other quite well. Both were a necessity in the war over Europe.
In the Pacific, B24 all the way.
Digging through old threads, I came across this gem and couldn't resist throwing in my $.02.
This comment had to have come from someone who's never looked at these two aircraft up close and personal.
I'm an aircraft mechanic by training and have done my share of sheet metal work, and have also worked in a manufacturing plant (aircraft weapons, not airframes) and have some grasp of the processes involved. I'm convinced a plant capable of producing 20K Liberators could NOT turn around and crank out the same number of Fortresses in the same amount of time. Structurally, the Lib looks like it was designed for ease and speed of construction. The sheet metal parts are large and simple, with a minimum of fussy details, and the main spar is a simple sheet metal box. The Fort, on the other hand, comes from an earlier generation in the evolution of large all metal monoplanes, and is full of little complexities, forgings, castings and a built up main spar fabricated of heavy sheet metal box members riveted together to form a truss. Hell for stout, but not cheap, quick, or easy to build. I betcha the structural parts count for a B-17 airframe is near twice what it is for a 24. Those with GA experience can relate to this. The B-24 is built like a Cherokee/Saratoga/Seneca, the B-17 like a Beech 18.
I got the privilege of making these observations onederful day when Collings was in town, and I got to turn a wrench on both birds, and then ride in them both.
Cheers,
Wes
Aw, come on, Jake! A suspension bridge?? Like an Eindecker or a Deperdussin? How about the Bayonne Bridge instead? At least it's a truss structure, even if it is arched.the B-17 is built like the Brooklyn Bridge.
Ref. operational ceiling of the 17 v. 24. Reminds me that the RAFish chaps in Lancs, Halifaxes etc tended to cheer when they learnt that Stirlings were on the roster for Tonight's Mission. Reason being: the Air Ministry required that Shorts build the machine to fit the standard hangar, which limited wingspan, which limited wing area, which limited...well, you know.
Sidebar: I got to know Johannes Steinhoff tolerably well. He expressed no difference in discussing the 17 v. 24. I cited Jimmy Thach's wartime interview in which he said that if the GAF had adopted the USN overhead gunnery pass, daylight bombing would've ended in '43. JS agreed. he said the advantages were well known: bigger target to shoot at and semi-impossible to defend against. But the GAF lacked the fuel and resources to teach sufficient numbers of Jagdfliegern how to fly the pattern.
In my five minutes in the right seat of the B-24, I never did get the dang thing trimmed up to hold altitude and heading hands off. And that was in single flight with nothing else around. Later that day, in the B-17, flying tandem (not formation) with the Lib, it trimmed up steady as a rock, and kept station easily. And the Fort didn't have a large fuel tank in the fuselage right behind your head to act as a bullet magnet. I know which one I'd rather take into harm's way!Attempts to remedy these and other short-comings increased the weight of the plane and altered flight characteristics in such a way as to render it less stable.
Don't forget, the B24 has cowl "cheeks" which house intercooler and oil cooler, so drag differences are not going to be directly proportional to engine diameters. Also, for most piston aircraft, INTERNAL cooling drag accounts for between 20 and 40℅ of total airframe drag. Air entering the B17 cowling flows around one set of cylinders and baffles and exits, whereas in the B24 it has to find its way through another set of cylinders and their associated baffles.I can't find data on the nacelle size, though I would expect it would be proportional to the engine.
Good points!Don't forget, the B24 has cowl "cheeks" which house intercooler and oil cooler, so drag differences are not going to be directly proportional to engine diameters. Also, for most piston aircraft, INTERNAL cooling drag accounts for between 20 and 40℅ of total airframe drag. Air entering the B17 cowling flows around one set of cylinders and baffles and exits, whereas in the B24 it has to find its way through another set of cylinders and their associated baffles.
Now check out their fuselages. The B24J is an oval torpedo with only a windshield and two turrets to break the flow of air. The B17G has a chin turret, cheek guns, a (streamlined) doghouse type crew compartment, and various bumps and protrusions here and there. OTOH, the speeds you see on spec sheets aren't truly representative of combat conditions, as most missions were flown at grossly overloaded weights. Cruising at overload weight, with the resulting higher AOA, increases induced drag on the B24's Davis wing proportionally more than the B17's wider chord, more tapered wing. I think you'd find that the speed differential in combat use was less than the spec sheets would lead you to believe.
Having (briefly) flown both aircraft "hands on" (albeit at light weights), I can vouch for the B17 as a sweet and steady flyer, and the B24 as a nervous pig. The B24's narrow wing chord makes for a relatively narrow CG range, and I suspect we were loaded toward the aft limit, which tends to make any plane a little less steady.
Cheers,
Wes