Escuadrilla Azul
Master Sergeant
- 2,312
- Feb 27, 2020
To me, the front turret B-24s are more aesthetical than the earlier models, but the eye of the beholder.
Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A few notes if I may.
The 1600lb AP bomb only came into service in May of 1942.
They may have been fooling around with the design for a number of years?
There were five different AP bombs ranging from 600lbs to 1400lbs that are older.
The US was using 600lb GP bombs as standard in the 1930s At the time the Y1B-17s intercepted the Rex (May of 1938) The official bomb load was eight 600lb bpmbs.
Miss print or a bit of creative writing?
They were being sold as hemisphere defence, just not with 1600lb bombs.
BTW the Y1B-17s only had 930hp per engine at this time and the turbos would not be installed until until the last Y1B-17 was built and delivered in Jan 1939.
The original XB-24 did not have turbo chargers or power turrets, and grossed under 40,000lbs.
The original XB-24 also missed it's predicted speed of 311mph and only managed 273 which was rather below what the B-17C (with turbos) could manage.
Consolidated went to work figuring out how to install turbos but in the meantime the French and British got the slots on the production while the AAC waited for the "improved" planes. The modified XB-24 was flown with turbos on Feb 1941, in the mean time, the French had ordered 60 B-24s with an option for 120 more and the British had ordered 164 more.
The time line doesn't work for this.
The 1600lb AP bomb only came into service in May of 1942.
They may have been fooling around with the design for a number of years?
There were five different AP bombs ranging from 600lbs to 1400lbs that are older.
The US was using 600lb GP bombs as standard in the 1930s At the time the Y1B-17s intercepted the Rex (May of 1938) The official bomb load was eight 600lb bpmbs.
Miss print or a bit of creative writing?
They were being sold as hemisphere defence, just not with 1600lb bombs.
BTW the Y1B-17s only had 930hp per engine at this time and the turbos would not be installed until until the last Y1B-17 was built and delivered in Jan 1939.
That it was but both the B-17 and the B-24 were evolving.
The original XB-24 did not have turbo chargers or power turrets, and grossed under 40,000lbs.
The original XB-24 also missed it's predicted speed of 311mph and only managed 273 which was rather below what the B-17C (with turbos) could manage.
Consolidated went to work figuring out how to install turbos but in the meantime the French and British got the slots on the production while the AAC waited for the "improved" planes. The modified XB-24 was flown with turbos on Feb 1941, in the mean time, the French had ordered 60 B-24s with an option for 120 more and the British had ordered 164 more.
I Believe the PB4Y-2 did not have turbocharges which makes comparisons of ranges and speeds a little difficult as they were flying at different altitudes?
- Thread starter
- #243
What about the "Liberty Lad" which participated on Operation Tidal Wave and came back with two engines lost on one side(!) after an 16 hours flight?
"...drop pretty much like a rock." sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.
- Thread starter
- #244
Why did the single tail work better?
I thought a twin tail is suited to be more in the airstream of the engine blade (2 engines and more) and thus provide more control.
Maybe someone can explain it from aerodynamical view.
The B-17 wasnt what the USA wanted but it was pretty much the only game in town, so it was ordered. The B-24 was ordered to have more range payload and altitude which is a big ask with the same engines, it didnt succeed in all that but extra range and payload made it complimentary, if it wasnt better in many/most respects it wouldnt have been made at all. Consolidated would have been building B-17s. What the US wanted was a B-29 or similar but you cant design and build a plane without the engines to power it and the B-29 engines were the next generation, So the US did the logical thing, you pee on the pot that you have until a better pot is available. If they hadnt and waited and waited, they wouldnt have had an airforce in 1944 and the whole of WW2 would have passed them bye.
- Thread starter
- #246
NOT TRUE!
It's the coolest-looking heavy, ever! The long, slender Davis wing with its distinct airfoilprofile, the unmistakable oval twin tail and the contrasting cumbersome, flabsided fuselage with a dog-snout (with turret) give it a unique appearance. It is COOL!
The B-17 is a boring stereotypical prom queen. The Lancaster is a flying hunchback.
Last edited:
It was a pregnant glider, it should have been made from girders, painted blue and never allowed in the air, like that stuff from Grumman.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The early (around 1940 to early 1941 ) B-17s and B-24 were around 40,000lb planes that they were running overloaded.
the B-17E showed up in Nov 1941. weights were
Weights: 32,350 pounds empty, 40,260 pounds gross, 53,000 pounds maximum. Much like some of our ideas for escort fighters the intent was to burn off a lot of the fuel before the planes got into combat. That and use lighter bombloads until the reality of poor accuracy sank in and the idea of having to use more planes to get the same tonnage of bombs to the target crossed over to using fewer but slower aircraft to get the same tonnage.
The last B-17Gs went:
Weights: 32,720 pounds empty, 55,000 pounds normal loaded, 72,000 pounds maximum.
Make sure you are comparing like to like.
As far as the single tail B-24s goes, just look at the pictures.
This was converted to be an air tanker for firefighting. Not sure if the tail was changed or not. The engines are Wright R-2600s to help get the plane off the runway and to help pull outs at the end of a canyon.
You have an awful lot of tail and just like wings, a high aspect ratio tail (tall and skinny vs short and wide) will give a different bite on the air.
the B-17E showed up in Nov 1941. weights were
Weights: 32,350 pounds empty, 40,260 pounds gross, 53,000 pounds maximum. Much like some of our ideas for escort fighters the intent was to burn off a lot of the fuel before the planes got into combat. That and use lighter bombloads until the reality of poor accuracy sank in and the idea of having to use more planes to get the same tonnage of bombs to the target crossed over to using fewer but slower aircraft to get the same tonnage.
The last B-17Gs went:
Weights: 32,720 pounds empty, 55,000 pounds normal loaded, 72,000 pounds maximum.
Make sure you are comparing like to like.
As far as the single tail B-24s goes, just look at the pictures.
This was converted to be an air tanker for firefighting. Not sure if the tail was changed or not. The engines are Wright R-2600s to help get the plane off the runway and to help pull outs at the end of a canyon.
You have an awful lot of tail and just like wings, a high aspect ratio tail (tall and skinny vs short and wide) will give a different bite on the air.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well that "exaggeration" was from a gentleman who flew multiple missions in the aircraft, was shot down and taken prisoner, so I think he might be just a tad biased! There were many aircraft that flew on Tidal Wave that made it back with extensive damage, it does show a side of the aircraft for being somewhat rugged, but at the same time this ill-planned mission showed some of the deficiencies with the aircraft. Hell, the lead aircraft spiraled into the sea for no apparent reason!
From Wiki -
The formation reached the Adriatic Sea without further incident; however aircraft #28, Wongo Wongo, belonging to the 376th Bombardment Group (the lead group, about 40 B-24s)[ and piloted by Lt. Brian Flavelle began to fly erratically before plunging into the sea due to unknown causes
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Look again at the B-17 weights provided. The B-17 could have gained nearly 10 tons between the E and G but even if the G was taking off at 65,000lbs and had trouble on the way in or while forming up it was in a very deferent flight regime than when coming back.
Some of the accounts of both B-17s and B-24s coming back with 2 engines not running involve judgment calls on when they started throwing out the ammo and other items of equipment. Once they were pretty sure they were out of the range of enemy aircraft ALL of the ammo went out the side and a fair number of .50 cal guns went to, subject to how much effort and/or tools needed. There were also judgment calls on how hard to push the remaining engines (how long since last overhaul?) as well as battle damage. Did you have two engines konk out or did they help from AA guns or a few hundred machine gun bullets? Or to put it another way, different bombers had different amounts of open space exposed to the slipstream that weren't there on take off in not actual large flaps of sheet metal acting like air brakes.
In some cases they had controls shot up and the damaged air craft had to fly an even more crablike course than a plane that had all functioning control surfaces and could trimmed to a better degree. You loose both engines on one side you may run out of trim authority
Some of the accounts of both B-17s and B-24s coming back with 2 engines not running involve judgment calls on when they started throwing out the ammo and other items of equipment. Once they were pretty sure they were out of the range of enemy aircraft ALL of the ammo went out the side and a fair number of .50 cal guns went to, subject to how much effort and/or tools needed. There were also judgment calls on how hard to push the remaining engines (how long since last overhaul?) as well as battle damage. Did you have two engines konk out or did they help from AA guns or a few hundred machine gun bullets? Or to put it another way, different bombers had different amounts of open space exposed to the slipstream that weren't there on take off in not actual large flaps of sheet metal acting like air brakes.
In some cases they had controls shot up and the damaged air craft had to fly an even more crablike course than a plane that had all functioning control surfaces and could trimmed to a better degree. You loose both engines on one side you may run out of trim authority
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great point! Well documented, even in movies. When limping home the crew jettisoned everything they possibly can.Some of the accounts of both B-17s and B-24s coming back with 2 engines not running involve judgment calls on when they started throwing out the ammo and other items of equipment. Once they were pretty sure they were out of the range of enemy aircraft ALL of the ammo went out the side and a fair number of .50 cal guns went to, subject to how much effort and/or tools needed. There were also judgment calls on how hard to push the remaining engines (how long since last overhaul?) as well as battle damage. Did you have two engines konk out or did they help from AA guns or a few hundred machine gun bullets? Or to put it another way, different bombers had different amounts of open space exposed to the slipstream that weren't there on take off in not actual large flaps of sheet metal acting like air brakes.
In some cases they had controls shot up and the damaged air craft had to fly an even more crablike course than a plane that had all functioning control surfaces and could trimmed to a better degree. You loose both engines on one side you may run out of trim authority
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I would guess on two engines they were trying to get down to the 32,000-33,000lb empty weight plus crew weight and enough fuel to land?
I would think the goal would be to keep it aloft until safe, then decide on landing or bailing out. Of concern with two out on one side is also fuel balance. Cross feeding (fuel management) would be required to keep the wings close to the same weight. Having two dead on one side causes the wing to be heavy (requires more rudder / aileron displacement which in turn causes more drag). I would think there were quite a few decisions to land due to wounded not being able or safe to bail out (opine).
Cheers,
Biff
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
From that piece I posted earlier...
After Harry's twelfth mission, the original crew Harry trained with was assembled and assigned a combat mission. Their assigned primary target for this mission was the rail yards at Vienna, Austria with the secondary target being the Messerschmitt factory at Regensburg, Germany.
By this time, Harry had completed far more missions than any other members of his original crew. The date of this final mission was March 26, 1945. The crew was able to complete the bombing run over Vienna, but upon turn out and setting a course back to the base, they encountered flak and lost the number three engine. On the B-24, the number three engine provides hydraulic pressure for the landing gear and landing flaps in addition to other flight systems.
Since the B-24 cannot maintain altitude with only three operational engines, Harry's plane had to drop out of the bomber formation making it a prime target for German fighters and flack. Fortunately, as they began to fall behind and lose altitude, a Red-Tailed P-51 joined up with the stricken bomber and provided protection from the German fighter planes.
With only three engines operational, the B-24 bomber was losing altitude at about one hundred feet per minute. As the navigator, Harry was expected to calculate how far the plane could fly given the altitude loss and fuel remaining. Based on his calculations, Harry figured the plane would be able to reach an alternate runway under so called "friendly" control. The crew "dumped' everything out of the airplane at this time to try and maintain altitude for as long as possible.
Since the B-24 did not fly well on three engines, the pilot was required to push up the remaining three engines to their maximum operational limits. After two hundred miles of flying on only three engines, the number one engine coughed and shut down, leaving only two engines remaining. The B-24 bomber began to rapidly lose altitude.
The pilot announced that the plane could not make it to a safe landing site and they would have to attempt a crash landing. He also informed the crew that they could bailout as B-24 crash landings were not often very successful. The entire crew decided to stay with the airplane and hoped to survive a cash landing.
The pilot selected a farmer's pasture for the attempted landing site. As the plane came down, the crew were directed to manually crank down the landing gear since there was no longer hydraulic pressure available with the loss of the number three engine. During the excitement, the crew forgot to crank down the nose landing gear, which meant only the two main landing gears were down and locked at landing.
They crashed near Zagreb, Yugoslavia which was located about 250 miles behind German lines at the time. Fortunately, the field they landed in was very soft and grass covered. It was filled with cows, and luckily for the crew, no cows were harmed during the crash or the farmer might have taken some deadly action toward the crew as civilians were prone to do during this time of war. The escorting Red-Tailed P-51 made several passes over the downed airplane and departed with a wag of his wings saying good-by to the crew. Harry credits that P-51 pilot for saving the B-24 and enabling the crew to land without further harm.
During the crash, the tail of the plane actually rose up and the nose of the plane dug a deep trench in the soft earth. This was a result of the nose landing gear not being down and most likely prevented the plane from breaking apart and killing most of the crew. The crew was shaken up, but no one sustained any serious injuries.
Defying the Flying Coffin: The Combat and POW Experiences of B-24 Navigator Harry Fornalczyk - Daedalians
by Gary Fullmer, Pioneer Flight Harry was born in Erie, Pennsylvania on September 9, 1923. As a typical young boy of that period, Harry managed to stay out of serious trouble but was very active in several unexplained happenings around his neighborhood. In his high school years, Harry excelled...
www.daedalians.org
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
A couple notes on the B-24:
The group commander and one squadron commander of the 90th Bomb Group had to be relieved because they refused to fly the B-24 in combat.
In a crash the B-24 fuselage folded up with the top turret often collapsing into the flight deck, killing or trapping the pilots.
The group commander and one squadron commander of the 90th Bomb Group had to be relieved because they refused to fly the B-24 in combat.
In a crash the B-24 fuselage folded up with the top turret often collapsing into the flight deck, killing or trapping the pilots.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
Regarding the B-24's performance and characteristics:
Jabberwocky
Tech Sergeant
I recall an account of an Eighth Air Force B-17 crewman who joked that on mixed group missions, the B-24 was the best escort a B-17 could have - because they flew lower and looser and so the German fighters and flak preferred to attack them.
German fighter pilots thought something similar too. There are multiple accounts stating the B-24s were a preferential target and had a tendency to catch fire, explode or suffer wing failure when hit. The B-17 was seen as more resilient, requiring more accurate shooting if in a rear quarter attack. Head on attacks were considered to have about the same success rate for either aircraft.
German fighter pilots thought something similar too. There are multiple accounts stating the B-24s were a preferential target and had a tendency to catch fire, explode or suffer wing failure when hit. The B-17 was seen as more resilient, requiring more accurate shooting if in a rear quarter attack. Head on attacks were considered to have about the same success rate for either aircraft.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
It's qualities as a bomber and maritime-patrol craft aside, I always though it looked like a pregnant cow.
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,094
- May 13, 2018
When landed wheels up the B-24 fuselage often broke into three sections. This happened more often landing in water. There is a video elsewhere on the forum of a test landing on the Potomac? river.
