Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24

[Shortround6]

In many cases the speed listed in most published specifications is for a "normal" gross weight. From Joe Baugher's site under B-17F
"34,000 pounds empty, 40,437 pounds loaded, 56,500 pounds maximum. "

Which makes nonsense out of the speed listings as the planes were normally flown.
B-17s and B-24s over Europe did NOT run for home. Since part of their defence was the firepower of the large formation/s. stringing the formation out with each plane running at it's best speed was not going to happen. The faster you go the more fuel you burn per mile. Getting away from German fighters only to force land in North West France, Belgium, Holland or the English channel wasn't such a good plan either.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

B-17s and B-24s over Europe did NOT run for home.

Formation speed = best range speed of the oldest, tiredest, most beat up bomber in the box with four engines still turning and all gun positions manned. Three engine stragglers were on their own, as were planes so badly shot up they couldn't contribute much to defense of the box.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[IdahoRenegade]

I've always been curious-what limited the ceiling of the B-24 so much? Engine output was similar, both were turbocharged. Was it the airframe/wing design?

Another question-was the B-24 design geared more towards volume production than the '17? They cranked a lot out of Willow Run in a short period of time. I was under the impression that the assembly process was geared much more towards an automotive style production.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Another question-was the B-24 design geared more towards volume production than the '17? They cranked a lot out of Willow Run in a short period of time. I was under the impression that the assembly process was geared much more towards an automotive style production.

Go back and read posts #168, 170, and 190 in this thread. You're right, the Liberator was a simpler plane to build, and slightly less damage tolerant than the Fort. (And a nervous pig in the air.)
The B24's Davis wing had a very pronounced drag rise with increasing AOA, which negatively affected its high altitude performance at heavy weights. It was designed to go faster at lower altitudes and weights and with less armament drag. At the fuel and bomb loads, the altitudes and the defensive firepower that ETO ops demanded, it just didn't take the overloads as gracefully as the B17.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

The only mechanic they had with them was their chief pilot, who was an AI

AI = Aircraft Inspector?

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.

Which meant they were the easiest targets, basically...

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.

I've never heard of this tactic before: Why was it nearly impossible to defend against?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

AI = Aircraft Inspector?

Should be "IA"

Inspection Authorization

 

[fubar57]

https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=338319.0

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've never heard of this tactic before: Why was it nearly impossible to defend against?

14:06

 

[Zipper730]

FLYBOYJ

1. The high-side approach looks a bit like an intercept profile the RAF was using either during the war or in the post war period. There was such a demo against B-29's. I don't remember seeing a turn-reversal in there which would have made the attack harder to stop, but it would get to the plane faster.

2. The overhead one looks particularly bad if it's head on... you have no warning he's going to pull it off because there's a remote possibility the gunner would see the plane overtaking them and getting in front. It'd still be difficult to shoot at as it comes on down from the rear too, but it'd be worse from the head-on. That said the prospect of being attacked a second time from the rear attack is not pleasant.