Lancaster Vs. B-24

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's the Lancaster, notice all the subassemblies like Lockheed.....

 

[Nonskimmer]

Can I pick the one I want?

 

[syscom3]

Wasnt Ploesti in 1943?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Can I pick the one I want?

If you accept bare aluminum, you could have on in 58 minutes...

Here's another photo of williow run, note how the sub assemblies come together on a really long production line, "segments" aren't set aside, other heavy bomber production lines were probably 1/4 of the size of willow run...

Notice the overhead conveyor inserting fuselage sections along the assembly line.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Wasnt Ploesti in 1943?

you're right

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The first raid was in 1942 - 13 aircraft participated from Egypt....

 

[syscom3]

Operation tidal wave was on Aug 1 1943.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

By Sept 1942, at least 300 B-24s were already built and being delivered or already deployed - Consolidated SD and Douglas Tulsa...

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1941_2.html

 

[Erich]

I see this is as an almost endless debate gentlemen, the B-24 used in the day role primarily and the Lanc used in the evening role primarily. Both needed Allied escorts in the day time or they were sitting ducks, the historical archival reports testify to this. the Lanc could fly the higher altitudes and the B-24 was used under the B-17 altitude for the miles strung out to clobber the Reich by day. maybe it would be better to compare the B-24 vs the Halibag ? Ask a vet which a/c was better and they will ALL TELL YOU it was the craft they flew in.

both could take a bit of punishment and then both could also be carved like a hot knife to butter

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ask a vet which a/c was better and they will ALL TELL YOU it was the craft they flew in.

Very Very true.

 

[Gnomey]

Ask a vet which a/c was better and they will ALL TELL YOU it was the craft they flew in.

Very Very true.

Agreed.

 

[Erich]

I am still uncertain why all the posting of production on the other thread of the B-24 vs the Lanc. Seems pretty silly to me as both planes were used for the job intended. You guys are beating a dead turnip into salad fixings in my opinion. comparison as to the best for a/c is a useless point. look at all the pages listed and for really what reason ? nobody is going to have a changed mind. you can endlessly quote passages from books and the net because that is what is happeneing and it really isn't your free opinion of the a/c since you were not living in that time frame.

so the figures given for production and graphs of altitude performance just seem like a total bore and really prove nothing. the a/c comparisons can only be done by and with the veterans themselves. the threads like this loose their integrity too fast and continue to show random thought

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

All the posting about the production was because syscom thinks that because you build 18000 of an aircraft it is easier to build and a better aircraft. It was really pointless and proved nothing.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

just like most of sys's arguments

 

[Erich]

gentlemen lets be frank, the majority of posters are going along with his ramblings. say enough and be done with it

 

[FLYBOYJ]

gentlemen lets be frank, the majority of posters are going along with his ramblings. say enough and be done with it

Agree - LANCASTER 8)

 

[syscom3]

All the posting about the production was because syscom thinks that because you build 18000 of an aircraft it is easier to build and a better aircraft. It was really pointless and proved nothing.

I proved plenty. One of them is the Lanc experts didnt have any information about the production untill I made them go dig up the info.

I also proved that the B24 was easier to build as it was put under a mass production technique with phenominal results. The Lanc wasnt, so its just conjecture it could have been done too. Thats among many of the hypotheticals the Lanc has.

Anyway you dice it, nearly 3 times more B24's were produced than the Lanc. One every 56 minutes. What were the Lanc averages? A couple per day?

 

[Glider]

I admit to not understanding what this is all about. The fact that a plane is built at one every 56 mins compared to one every hour and say ten minutes has absolutely nothing to do with how easy it is to build.

Put it another way. If two factories are building the same aircraft one will be faster than the other. The logic that seems to be applied here is that the plane produced in the faster factory is easier to build than plane bult in the slower factory. Am I the only person who thinks this is about as stupid a bit of logic as can Be?

Then to apply this fundamentally madly flawed logic to two different aircraft built in two different countries, in totally different circumstances, make this I would suggest, one of the biggest wastes of time this Forum has ever seen.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Well, like Erich said, this topic has been up, down, and all over the place trying to determine which bomber was better than the other. I'm among those who can't see how production figures determine that exactly, but what the hell.

So what's next, everybody? The chemical composition of the various paints used?

 

[syscom3]

Well, like Erich said, this topic has been up, down, and all over the place trying to determine which bomber was better than the other. I'm among those who can't see how production figures determine that exactly, but what the hell.

So what's next, everybody? The chemical composition of the various paints used?

The B24 was superior in the paint catagory too!

Ever see those assembly ships with the outrageous paint schemes?