If Consolidated had accepted to build the B17 under Boeing licence, at the place of the 20.261 Liberators built ( VS 12.700 B17s from Boeing) they could build the same number of Flying Fortresses
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