Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24

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

I recall reading, somewhere, sometime, that the B-24's flight controls were hydraulics-operated, vs the B-17's electrically operated controls, and that the B-24 was more vulnerable because of all the hoses needed for the hydraulics. Whether that was accurate or not, I just don't know, can anyone clear that up?
 
Lightning Guy said:
If I were to take a guess, I would say that rocket-equipped fighters were sitting ducks against Allied escorts. Mid-1944 would have been right about the time the 8th AF finally figured out how to fly proper escort missions.
Click to expand...

I'm curious - what is your definition of a 'proper escort mission' and why you pinpoint Mid-1944? before the 'aha'?
 
glennasher said:
I recall reading, somewhere, sometime, that the B-24's flight controls were hydraulics-operated, vs the B-17's electrically operated controls, and that the B-24 was more vulnerable because of all the hoses needed for the hydraulics. Whether that was accurate or not, I just don't know, can anyone clear that up?
Click to expand...
I don't believe either one had boosted controls.
 
Lunatic said:
One only has to look for pictures of battle damaged B-17's and B-24's that made it home to see which was the tougher plane. Yes the MK108's could kill either plane, but the B-17 was more likely to survive such an attack. The B-24 was much more likey to succumb to less than instant killing damage on the way home than the B-17, especially the damage caused by flak.

The B-24 had the range advantage, and a minimal speed advantage, the B-17 could fly higher. So each was suited for different types of missions, though often they were used for the same types of missions. IIRC the big weak point of the B-24 was at the wing root - it could not take much damage between the inboard engine and the fuselage on the wing before the wing would fail catastrophically usually resulting in loss of the entire crew.

In the ETO and MTO - exactly same missions but usually 2-6,000 different altitudes - Pacific the B-24 was the better choice because of range advantage - about 200+miles greater ops radius with same load.

As for the guns, well IMO I think they'd have done better to eliminate all the fixed possition guns and go with the four turrets alone. On the B-17 (G) this would have meant the chin, top, belly, and tail turrets. Arguably the chin turret could have been removed as well - attacking fighters comming from the front were nearly impossible to hit anyway.

But the chin turret was effective - at least as effective as top turret for head on attacks, more if you want to look at plus/minus elevation. It could cover more frontal area than either Top or Ball, and didn't have to stop shooting when the German fighter 'crossed the plane' that took it out of Top or Ball Turret tracking ability. For head on attacks Id' rather have the chin turret than either of the other two.

Eliminating these other positions would have reduced the weight of the plane by over 1000 lbs (including reduction of crew) or perhaps 1500+ lbs if the chin turret were removed. This would have noticably increased the speed of the plane.

Another factor was the B-24 was eaiser to build. The B-17 was designed well before the war and production shortcuts were not really built into the design. The B-24 design was brought online during the war and much more thought was given to how to build them quickly.

Not disputing it but what is your source on this? Production tooling is easy to modify if real improvements are able to be made. A good rule of thumb is unit costs of both. Was the B-24 less expensive? if so your point is probably right as the GFE/Subcontractor assy (Turrets, engines, radios, etc) for both was probably close with maybe the B-24 being slightly higher because it had more power operated turrets plus built in capability to raise and lower Ball Turret - otherwise labor is usually biggest single component in WWII airframes

And yes, the B-24 did drop more tonnage than the B-17. But there were more B-24's so to get a good comparison it'd have to be indexed to number of sorties flown.
Click to expand...

IIRC, I believe that the B-24, particularly for 8th and 9th AF, averaged about 500 pounds more for same mission profiles? Would have to dig

The pilots that flew both in combat generally preferred the B-17 for sheer 'pilot's airplane' particularly at altitude. B-24 drivers are notorious for abnormal forearm development stimulated by formation flying in them.
 
i would go for b-17 beacuse if you have seen war movies the b-17s have come back with 3 engiens out and about a 4ft. hole in the side and part of wing and tail off and it still flys like it never been hit.
 
Sparvierro is right. B24s did magnificent service in the Pacific theater where neither high altitude nor close formations were necessary. They could fill one bomb bay with extra fuel and fly all day. Take it from a radio operator who flew in both planes, however, that the B17 was much more stable in flight, could fly to much higher altitudes, and could bring their crews home on two engines. German fighters didhn't have any preference, in my memory, but German flak gunners were happy to shoot at B-24s rather than B-17s when those B-24s were 5-6 thousand feet lower in altitude. The B-24s were built to carry a lot of bombs, but it was discovered that they couldn't climb past 25,000 feet when loaded with three tons, so they carried 2 1/2 tons. In B-17s our load was always 3 tons and we often bombed from over 30,000 feet. B-24s had what was called a Davis, high-speed wing that was not efficient at low speeds, i.e. takeoffs and climbing to the target. B-17s with a fairly low power setting, resulting in an indicated air speed of about 150 mph, would fly elegantly in close formation while climbing with a full load to the target. At those same power settings the B-24 wouldn't hold a heading and would bob all over the sky. Consequently, group leaders had to increase power settings to keep the planes reasonably stable, resulting in much higher fuel consumption. These were just a few of the reasons Gen. Doolittle placed his B24 groups in one air division and announced to Hap Arnold that he wouldn't accept any more. Some B-24 crews were transferred to B-17s at that time, including ours, and some B-24s were sent from England to the 15th AF in Italy. Anyone who is interested in hearing about more weaknesses in the B-24 can contact me if they wish. Naturally, most crews of B-24s, like crews of any other type of aircraft, will say they loved their planes if they brought them home safely. I must admit that during the was I discovered another plane that was even more unstable than the B24. It was the Curtiss C46.
 
Last edited:
flakhappy:.. great insight.. thanks for the info. Your post illustrates that each aircraft is a "weapons system" and you cannot measure an aircraft based on basic performance stats. You have to consider the whole package and how it works together.

Please stay around and visit other threads!

THANKS
 
Hi to wheelsup and syscom3. I was in the 414th Sqdn, 97th BG, 5th Wing, 15th AF. It was based at Amendola while I was there. My crew was switched to B-17s before we flew overseas, then by some odd fate we were sent to Italy rather than to Eng. My pilots were most pleased of all to switch to B-17s. In our crew of 10 we lost two KIA. One became a POW, and one (I) was in a crash-landing in then Yugoslavia. All these bad things happened when as individuals we were flying with other crews.
 
flakhappy, many thanks to you for your posts. I ditto what comis said. It is a lesson for us that raw performance numbers don't always tell all the story. I have(had) several friends who flew or flew in B17s and B24s in WW2. One who flew B24s said that one tactic the B24 utilised was that after the bomb release, the B24 could lose some altitude very quickly to confound the AA gunners. He indicated that the B17 was not well suited for this maneuver. Could you comment on that?
 
renrich said:
One who flew B24s said that one tactic the B24 utilised was that after the bomb release, the B24 could lose some altitude very quickly to confound the AA gunners. He indicated that the B17 was not well suited for this maneuver. Could you comment on that?
Click to expand...



I'd hate to have to make that decision. It seems like the trick would work once! It's a long climb back up.
:shock:

,
 
There used to be another member here that was a B17 pilot. "Jules" I think was his name.

He flew with the 2nd BG in 1943.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
Peter Gunn
Peter Gunn
CHen10
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
412
CHen10
CHen10
Spectre311
B-17E in Europe
Replies
17
Views
2K
Big Jake
B
f for freddy
B-17 Pathfinder Memorial, Brome, Suffolk.
Replies
7
Views
1K
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
Jugman
J
Back