Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....? (1 Viewer)

[cheddar cheese]

my sources say the maximum payload for a b-17 was 17,900 for one model (read that from someone on the site, crazy i think ) and that the typical load for a b-17 was 6,000lbs and 5,000lbs for a b-24 8)

 

[plan_D]

I've just read the typical was 6000 lbs for the B-17G...and the B-24G could go 2,400 miles with 5000 lbs...obviously the combat radius would be 1,200 miles.

 

[Lightning Guy]

The 17,600lbs figure for a B-17 could only be used on VERY short range missions. That load was made up of 6x1600lbs in the bomb bay and 2x4000lbs under the wing. Typically the Americans used a load of 8-12 500lb bombs. The bay of the B-24 was designed to carry 12 so I assumed that was the standard load.

 

[plan_D]

The B-17G was a late mark B-17 though but the B-24G was really an early mark of B-24..so it's not really fair to compare the two..although I did...sort of..

 

[MP-Willow]

Lightening Guy, thanks for the help! You are right that the B-24 was not loved by the public, just think the Boeing media machine and a name like "Flying Fortress" was a lot to compeate with. But then the B-24 was a "Liberator" so shows people are fickel.

As for comparison, try the B-24J and B-17G. There you should find that the Lib has the range, speed and payload over the B-17. Normal loads were around 6,000 to 7,000lb a little lighter in the PTO because of the range, but it also would very for target type. B-24s could carry up to 12,000lbs of ordenance for the shorter flights. The bottum line is the B-24 had the range and layload over the B-17. That is why it was used so much in the pacific. Both planes were survivers! 8)

I will try to get better compairison numbers for the two. I used the B-24J because it is a latter model, the G was really a D built by Douglas, I think in '42? The j was also the first to be built by all 5 plants!

Got to love smiles!

 

[Lightning Guy]

If you are looking for info on the B-24 try this site

www.b24bestweb.com

 

[MP-Willow]

Lightening Guy, I love the sight! The resurch forum is a great place to read and find crew also good for nose art. 8)

My sig still needs some help, well life goes on!

 

[cheddar cheese]

take the rounded brackets out

 

[MP-Willow]

Vitory!!! 8)

Thanks C.C, now I hope you all do like the Grand Lady!

I hope to try and get a B-24 to put beside her, but that would mean a little work.

I am looking for good pics of the Liberator, any of you all have sugestions

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

tried google?

and back to the arument about payloads and ranges, i'm going to champion the lancaster and say it could carry a bigger payload further, thus, it's the better bomber................

 

[plan_D]

Not compared to the B-29...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the B-29 was never in the argument, it was between the B-17 and B-24, then i brought in the lancaster, there aint room for another one..........

 

[plan_D]

Hahah. The B-24 was better than the B-17...the Lancaster was better than the B-17..but I don't know about the Lanc Vs. B-24.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the lanc beats the B-24 everywhere apart from "servivability", that was the lanc's main downfall.................

 

[plan_D]

In that case, I'd rather be in the B-24 but I would rather send out Lancasters if I weren't going to be in them...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

what would be the point, the lanc carries nearly 3 times the payload on normal missions, so whats the point in sending out B-24's when they wont do any damage?

 

[plan_D]

Well I wouldn't care about the damage caused if I was in the thing, I would want to get home.

If I wasn't in the thing Lancasters all the way, they will do more damage of course but the B-24 did cause mass amounts of damage, I heard it was the bomber to drop most bombs on Axis Europe. But I don't know.

 

[MP-Willow]

plan_D, I have read, and if you do a google surch I think you can find it that the B-24 had the most tonage dropped.

Lanc, yes the Lancaster could take out more load, but at a shorter range, and the "Survivability" was not that great. If it could take the same amount of beating the B-24 or even the B-17 did then we might have an argument. For the night bombing the Lancaster and that big bombload were just great. But I should read up more on it.

As for Liberator pics, I did find some on Google, and am still looking. Also looking for information on Ford's Willow Run Plant. Now if the Lancaster could have been made on a mass line like the Liberator that would have been a sight 8)

 

[plan_D]

Yes, well I was just a little skeptical, as I had only read it from one source. But it's no surprise the Liberator did a lot of work.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Everything said about the B-17 in the B-17 v. Lanc argument applies to the B-24 as well. Yes the Lanc carried a bigger load but the B-24 closed the gap, plus it was tougher, better armed, and more accurate. Plus, it must be remembered that there were more than 18,000 B-24s built compared with 13,000 something B-17s and 7,000 something Lancs.