Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
Couple that with the flimsy roll up bomb bay doors, which would cave in when the a/c pancaked.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Couple that with the flimsy roll up bomb bay doors, which would cave in when the a/c pancaked.Different construction designs.
Also, the B-17 had a better ditching survivability because of the shape of the fuselage, low wing placement and a stall speed of about 80mph.
The B-24's stall speed was just about 100mph and the nose of the B-24 had the turret up high, lots of narrow framing for the Bombardier station, which would not offer much resistance when it hit the water, and that, coupled with the high wing meant the B-24 would be submerged before the main-wing offered resistance to the water as it ditched.
Makes the common joke that the B-24 was "designed as a seaplane, but Consolidated never managed to plug all the leaks" particularly topical. I think I first heard it in Martin Bowman's B-24 Combat Missions. Does certainly look like a flying boat, probably part of why I like it. Incidentally I never understood how the PB2Y, that looks like a combination of a PBY and B-24, had less range than either aircraft.Couple that with the flimsy roll up bomb bay doors, which would cave in when the a/c pancaked.
Lancasters aren't afraid of the dark.
It wasn't 'particularly weak', but there were design related issues such as nose wheels that failed and impact related issues that were never designed for until the 1960s.The structure of the B-24 seems particular weak even though the empty weight is comparable tö the B-17's and Lancaster's. How come?
Is the nose wheel collapse only an issue because the B-24 was the only one with a nose wheel? The problems of heavily loaded tail draggers were well known but the norm at the time. For example there are no pictures of the Halifax that went off the runway here because the resulting fire and explosion of the bombload just left a hole in the ground and 4 Merlins scattered across North Yorkshire.It wasn't 'particularly weak', but there were design related issues such as nose wheels that failed and impact related issues that were never designed for until the 1960s.
Good question but P-39 and P-38 also had nosewheels. The issues for B-24 design seemed rooted in the 'shimmy' experienced during high speed roll and would sem to me to depend somewhat on the attach infrastructure or even the stiffness of the Nose assembly more than the gear itself.Is the nose wheel collapse only an issue because the B-24 was the only one with a nose wheel? The problems of heavily loaded tail draggers were well known but the norm at the time. For example there are no pictures of the Halifax that went off the runway here because the resulting fire and explosion of the bombload just left a hole in the ground and 4 Merlins scattered across North Yorkshire.
It makes for a major difference, the B-17 could carry internally under half the weight of HE versus AP. Thanks for the pre war list of bomb types, if the War Production Board is correct of the USAAF types only the 100 pound M31 was in production in July 1940 or later, the Navy 1,000, 500 and 100 pound mark IV continues production.The B-17 was not designed with any particular AP bomb in mind. In fact, as far as I have been able to find there were no standard USAAC AP bombs before the early-war converted artillery projectiles. The reason the B-17 was able to carry 8x 1600 lb AP was due to the small diameter of the 1600 lb AP bomb body.
Clearly not optimised for carrying AP from the start, but ended up so, almost like the bomb was designed for the aircraft. The B-17 maximum weight went up abut 10 short tons without increasing the bomb bay volume. The question now is why so many references choose to report the AP only bomb load, makes me wonder what the Lancaster AP only bomb load was, whether it hit weight or volume limits first.The conclusion is the USAAF B-17 ended up optimised for carrying a specific AP bomb (and possibly AP bombs from the start) which carried over to the B-24.
The B-17 was one of the last bombers in USAAF service that had a conventional configuration.Is the nose wheel collapse only an issue because the B-24 was the only one with a nose wheel? The problems of heavily loaded tail draggers were well known but the norm at the time. For example there are no pictures of the Halifax that went off the runway here because the resulting fire and explosion of the bombload just left a hole in the ground and 4 Merlins scattered across North Yorkshire.
I previously mentioned I knew a guy that was flying both the B-17 and B-24 for the Collings Foundation. His remarks mirrored those of the Vets that flew both. Those being that the Fortress was much easier to fly, and this was all low altitude cross country and air show flying without all the combat gear / weight.Has anyone interviewed the pilots of the flying circuses that orbit air shows if they had flown both the B-17 and B-24 and what was their opinion of the two types?
I watched the Lancaster fly at the Abbotsford air show in 2010, and was pretty impressed with how the pilot threw it around. Mount Baker in the background.
View attachment 666748View attachment 666749
I wasnt discussing facts as much as perception of facts. The P-39 had problems with the nose wheel at the start (things happen) but the late war tail draggers were very hairy on take of and landing, this was not perceived as a problem with having a tail wheel more an attitude of "it goes with the territory"Good question but P-39 and P-38 also had nosewheels. The issues for B-24 design seemed rooted in the 'shimmy' experienced during high speed roll and would sem to me to depend somewhat on the attach infrastructure or even the stiffness of the Nose assembly more than the gear itself.
And this is the reason why taildraggers went away on the majority of aircraft produced after WW2, especially on military aircraft.I wasnt discussing facts as much as perception of facts. The P-39 had problems with the nose wheel at the start (things happen) but the late war tail draggers were very hairy on take of and landing, this was not perceived as a problem with having a tail wheel more an attitude of "it goes with the territory"