Comparative Study of B-17 vs B-24

[flakhappy]

After reading all the msgs. in this forum here are only a couple of comments from an 85-yr old geezer who flew 51 missions in a B-17 in the 15th AF: There was very rarely any advantage from speed in a heavy bomber when the fighters could outpace any of us by at least a hundred mph. Much more important was a stable aircraft that one could depend on, and a plane that could fly the highest. There seems to be a big interest in the defenses against fighters when the much greater danger to bombers was the flak, to which we lost many more planes than to fighters. At least we could shoot back against fighters. We were mostly skinny kids who were scared to death on most missions---and cold. I see very few discussions or comments about the terrible cold. I for one chose to wear my GI shoes inside fleece-lined boots because if one had to bail out the boots usually flew off, and I didn't want to tramp around Europe in my stocking feet. My feet got so cold in 50-below temperatures that I kicked the bulkhead ahead of me in the radio room until it bulged into the bomb bay. The ground crew chief asked me one day if I had something against his airplane. Later developments in electric suits included heated gloves and shoes. Another memory that might be interesting to some: brass at 15th AF headquarters at one time wanted to remove the tracers from our ammo belts. We knew that tracers didnj't fly straight, but we argued successfully that it was most important that the enemy fighter pilots knew they had been seen and were being fired at. They would often pull away if they saw those golf balls flying past.

 

[flakhappy]

Renrich, maneuvering after bomb release was pretty tricky, and could easily break up a formation, and that of course could be dangerous. At briefings before missions the officer leading the group, flying in the left seat of the lead plane, would gather the other pilots together and among other things agree on which way he planned to "break" after bombs away. That way we didn't end up scattered all over the sky. B-17s didn't dive well for one thing. Our group commander swore on taking over the group in the summer of 44 that he didn't intend to "cruise" over any defended targets. Consequently, as we made the big turn at our Initial Point (IP) he'd boost power quite a lot and we'd sail over the Aiming Point at a much higher speed. Only a few planes in my experience had to fall behind during the run. I think the tactic threw the flak gunners off enough to help us. One objective of flak defenses was to try to break up our formations while lead bombardiers were setting up on target. If they could blow up leading elements, they had it made.

 

[renrich]

FH, your observations are greatly appreciated. One of the books I have read about your war mentioned that casualties from frostbite were a great hazard. Seems like I remember the gun the radio operator used was removed and that hatch closed up which helped slightly to decrease the draught. Was that true?

 

[vikingBerserker]

Thanks for sharing flakhappy, nothing beats data from the source!

 

[Flyboy2]

Wow thanks for the information!

 

[flakhappy]

FH, your observations are greatly appreciated. One of the books I have read about your war mentioned that casualties from frostbite were a great hazard. Seems like I remember the gun the radio operator used was removed and that hatch closed up which helped slightly to decrease the draught. Was that true?

In the G model Seventeen the radio gun and both waist gun windows were fixed, with the gun in each case mounted at the bottom, so that source of wind was eliminated. In the 15th AF while I was a member the radio operator's gun remained in use. I always thought it and the waist guns could have been eliminated, saving much weight. The only heat on a Seventeen, beyond our electric "blue bunnies," was on the flight deck, provided by a device attached to NO. 2 engine. That kept the pilots and engineer reasonably comfortable, but nobody else. One of the radio operator's duties was to observe the release of bombs during thebomb run and report it as 'bombs away!" or if they did not release, to yell "salvo", so the bombardier could use a different circuit and still dump the load in the formation's pattern. Salvoing three tons of bombs at once would make the plane leap a few feet. I once forgot to pull my goggles down before the bomb run and when the bay doors opened the moisture on my eyeballs froze, crystallizing my view. My eyes were red and sore for a week. On one occasion we were carrying clusters of 20-lb frag bombs and the lower clusers had frozen solid. Those lower racks failed the release their clusters for about 20 seconds, resulting in several 20-pound frag bombs rolling on the narrow catwalk. The engineer and I had to use walk-around oxygen bottles and gingerly kick them off before we could close the bay doors.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Ok, frozen eyeballs made me cringe!

 

[Butters]

flakhappy,

The accounts of the men who did the fighting in WWII has always been the focus of my interest in military aviation. Your accounts are fascinating, and really add the essential human touch that is so often absent in these discussions about numbers and specs. I just want you to know how much I, and everyone here, appreciates your taking the time to share your experiences with us. And we're even more appreciative of what you went thru for all of us.

Thank you,sir.

James

 

[renrich]

Butters, I concur with all you said. Thanks for expressing those sentiments.

 

[Airbone Bunny]

I agree. Thanks a lot Flakhappy for so much valuable information

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

I have to agree with VB on the frozen eyeball thing making me cringe.

Thanks for taking the time to tell us about your experiences.
It brings home the realness of the situation vividly to me.


Wheelsup

 

[beaupower32]

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.

Is he serious?

 

[hoangtrang]

Thanks ....
I hope other members would love to share their great photos and memories this site.

I'm also an idiot spammer.....

 

[jimh]

Great stories Flakhappy...there is nothing better than firsthand accounts. I am lucky enough to fly both the 17 and 24. Shot this picture over NAS Weymouth just the other night.

The 24 is a much more demanding airplane to fly but is very comfortable once you get used to it. The 17 is much more stable but ALOT slower, almost 20mph slower in cruise. We are flying around at an average weight of 40,000lbs. BOTH aircraft perform well with two engines out (simulated on checkride) but you would not want to do this for any length of time. The 24 and 17 have NO boost on the controls. The only two things hydraulic on a 17 are the brakes and cowl flaps, everything else is electric...including the ball turret. The 24 is just the opposite, flaps, brakes, and bomb bay doors are hydraulic while the prop governors and cowl flaps are electric. The fuel booster pumps are located in the bomb bay and as long as the the system is maintained you shouldn't get any fuel smell at all with them running (take off and landing OR emergency) The 24 is much easier to land compared to the 17 in a stiff crosswind and in general they both have thier own personalities, none of them bad.

jim harley

 

[syscom3]

....I am lucky enough to fly both the 17 and 24. Shot this picture over NAS Weymouth just the other night.

Fly in as a passanger or actuall pilot the aircraft?

 

[jimh]

Pilot...typed in the 24, 25, and 17...also fly the T-6(60hours), Stearman(50hours), and around 30 hours in the 51. Most of my time is in the bombers, probably 1500 combined. Doesn't mean a whole lot in todays jet world, but I have a rule, I don't fly anything built after 1955...love the history and the men and women that made these aircraft what they are.

jim harley
cfdn.org

 

[syscom3]

You are one lucky man!

 

[vikingBerserker]

Nice Jim!

 

[JohnC]

I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24. Reality check. You bet.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I laughed when I read the posts that have been written here. While both aircraft were important and did their respective jobs, the B-17 got the glory while the B-24 did the work. Not only did the B-24 have a longer range in flight, it could carry a much larger payload of bombs. Sadly, historians have got it wrong. The B-s4 was not only a durable bomber in flight, it had many features that the B-17 did not have. For instance, German pilots would be wary attempting to fly into "the box" of B-24's due to the tailgunners range of movement in the B-24, which was much more capable than that of the B-17. Further, if you want "true valor" the B-24 raid on Ploesti was the only mission in WW2 that garnered 5 Medals of honor in one mission. Even todays movies still "glorify" the B-17 like Memphis Belle and Red Tails when in reality german cities were being pummeled at twice the payload from the B-24. Reality check. You bet.

John, can you provide DOCUMENTED proof of this? Although I sway with the B-24, on this site I would suggest backing your claim up with evidence before "laughing" at some of the posts on here.