Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,383
- Dec 6, 2006
Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Wow.
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,383
- Dec 6, 2006
Before Ford was able to provide knockdowns to Fort Worth and Tulsa, San Diego provided 303 knockdowns to Fort Worth and 10 to Tulsa. The number I have for Fort Worth compete assemblies is 1501. Subtracting 303 from 1861 yields 1531 so there is a slight discrepancy. The 10 kits to Tulsa explains the 964 vs 954 in your Tulsa numbers. i also have San Diego production at 7034 not including knockdowns
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,383
- Dec 6, 2006
Yes and no. Some of Fords problems were self inflicted. Willow Run was located in the middle of nowhere with no housing and no means of getting there from Detroit. Labor was hard to attract and turn over was high . Also Ford didn't understand the properties of aluminum.
That being said the AAF did demand a lot of changes certainly more than they the demanded for the B-17. Was that because the B-17 was simply a better design or perhaps Boeing was more in tune with the requirements of the AAF.
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,383
- Dec 6, 2006
One of the interesting facts is that B-24s required more time in modification centers than the B-17
- Thread starter
- #86
Why is there 40 % savings in personnel and material?
Last edited:
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,383
- Dec 6, 2006
Modification time and materials, maintenance time and material , production time and material ( to compensate for greater losses). It all adds up
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Because B-17s were less likely to be shot down.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think a little bit of both. I think we know that the B-17 design, development and deployment was earlier than the B-24 and I also think that early in the program, Boeing was doing everything they can to see the B-17 was going to be produced. The B-24 started out as a well planned design with it's Davis Airfoil but I think Ruben Fleet did everything he could to ensure that Consolidated was able to produce a heavy bomber (rather than build B-17s under license), therefore the design was rushed and the B-24 turned into a bit of a flying monstrosity rather than a sleek streamlined bomber.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,231
- Jan 31, 2021
Allan G. Blue's The B-24 Liberator — A Pictorial History (a great reference source in my opinion) has this for total production by location:
7,500 — Consolidated, San Diego
3,034 — Consolidated, Fort Worth
6,792 — Ford, Willow Run
.. 964 — Douglas, Tulsa
.. 966 — North American, Dallas
Note that the above includes 740 PB4Y-2 and 34 RY-3 at San Diego; 280 C-87, 6 C-87A, and 5 AT-22 at Fort Worth.
Total production by type:
. . . . 1 XB-24
. . . . 6 LB-30A
. . . 20 Liberator I
. . . . 1 YB-24
. . . . 9 B-24A
. . 140 Liberator II
. . . . 9 B-24C
2,728 B-24D
.. 801 B-24E
.. 430 B-24G
3,100 B-25H
6,678 B-25J
1,667 B-24L
2,593 B-24M
. . . . 1 XB-24N
. . . . 7 YB-24N
. . 280 C-87
. . . . 6 C-87A
. . . . 5 AT-22
. . 740 PB4Y-2
. . . 34 RY-3
19,256 total
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
From what I have read so far (in this thread) I think it is correct to say that the B-24 is the most redundant. It appears to me that if Consolidated-Ford-Douglas-NA etal had begun producing B-17s at the time they began producing the B-24 there would have been very little disadvantage(s) and quite significant advantage(s) to be had.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
So F-7s were conversions?
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,231
- Jan 31, 2021
Yes. Blue's book lists the serial numbers of the B-24s converted to F-7/F-7A/F-7B on pp. 203-204.
drgondog
Major
In general, all recon versions of every manufacturer were Depot modifications. Few ships converted but requiring specialized processes and different skills in the primary plant tended to slow production down and increase direct costs/overheads
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 783
- Sep 30, 2021
No information on the planned end 1945 operational B-29 force.
The wind down of the 8th and 15th Air Forces started with the B-24 groups, apart from the 492nd all had been sent to the US or the ATC by mid June 1945. Three 15th Air Force B-17 groups remained as occupation forces, 2 were inactivated in Italy in September 1945, the 301st went to the US in July, redesignated Very Heavy in August.
Three 15th Air Force B-24 groups went to the ATC, the remaining 12 to the US, of which 7 had been redesignated Very Heavy by end August 1945. For the 14 8th Air Force B-24 groups again 7 were redesignated Very Heavy by end August 1945. No returned B-24 groups were inactivated before 18 August 1945.
Seven 8th Air Force B-17 groups had returned to the US by end July 1945, none redesignated Very Heavy, none inactivated before 28 August 1945, 2 more B-17 groups inactivated in Morocco in July 1945.
Measuring the B-24 safety record by number of accidents and fatalities is being somewhat unfair, given the numbers of B-24 built versus other types and a multi seat aircraft by definition exposes more people to risk in a crash. Accident rates are a better comparison. Having said that the B-24 accidents in the US 1942 to 1945 accounted for 8.8% of fatal accidents, 20.5% of fatalities and 5.9% of destroyed aircraft, the B-17 figures were 5.1%, 12.7% and 3.8%. Accidents by Primary, Basic and Advanced trainers were responsible for 37.8% of fatal accidents, 25.5% of fatalities and 38.3% of destroyed aircraft. The fighters, percentage of total fatal accidents, P-38 6.1%, P-39 6.6%, P-40 5.8%, P-47 7.5%, P-51 2.5%, P-63 0.3%. An average of 7.9 people were killed in a B-29 fatal accident, 6.2 in a B-17 and 5.7 in a B-24.
The San Diego Air and Space Museum holds a lot of Consolidated Company Records, plenty of details on B-24 production.
All F-7 were conversions however 3 B-24L were accepted as such but delivered to USAAF as F-7B in November and December 1944 and 29 B-24M were accepted as such but delivered to USAAF as F-7B January to June 1945, all from San Diego, so in these cases the conversion happened before USAAF service. How many B-24 does Allan Blue think were converted to F-7, by B-24 version?
The US production reports agree with Allan Blue's totals with a couple of exceptions, like designations, using LB-30B versus Liberator I, LB-30 versus Liberator II (The RAF used LB-30A for its first 6 aircraft), also having 285 C-87 and 0 AT-22, considering all 5 AT-22 as conversions.
The production reports have two less aircraft from Consolidated, San Diego,
1 LB-30, AL503 was destroyed in an accident on 2 June 1941, "contractually non-existant inasmuch as it never been delivered", unusually for the US system it was omitted from the production reports, to make up the numbers another LB-30, FP685, was built, Allan Blue has the correct total.
1 RY-3. Order NOa(s)-3236 dated 14 March 1944 was for 112 RY-3, 86 for the USN and 26 for the British, Bureau Numbers 90020 to 90131, but 79 of the USN order were cancelled on V-J day (maybe first 66 then another 13), leaving 33 on the order of which 90020, 21 and 90023 to 50 and 90057 to 59, were built, (26 as JT936, JT937, JT975 to 998), the 33 Bureau Numbers matching the acceptances of 1 for the USN in June 1944, then 19 for Britain December 1944 to March 1945, another 7 from June to August 1945, then 6 for the USN November and December 1945. However Bureau Number 90022 is marked retained by contractor, making it the 34th aircraft. What does Allan Blue say about 90022? If it flew then it is an omission from the production reports, Consolidated say they built it. Air Arsenal North America thinks the entire order was for Britain, with one aircraft retained in the US for trials, so the 86 to 26 split in the USN documents could be reflecting what the order became, not as placed.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,231
- Jan 31, 2021
It doesn't list it by B-24 version. It lists by serial number in Appendix H, pp. 203-204. Appendix I lists by serial number the B-24s converted to C-109.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,231
- Jan 31, 2021
From p.76:
One hundred and twelve examples of a cargo version of the Privateer, which received the designation RY-3 (C-87C or Convair Model 101), were ordered in March 1944. Also built at San Diego, four were delivered in 1944 and twenty-nine more in 1945 before the balance of the order was cancelled. RY-3 BuNos were 90020/021, 023/050 and 057/059. (Cancelled numbers were 90051/056 and 060/131. One RY-3, ex-BuNo 90022, was retained by Convair.) Of the thirty-three delivered, twenty-six went to the UK as the Liberator C.IX where they were assigned serials JT973, JT975/998, and JV936.
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,383
- Dec 6, 2006
The numbers I have match yours from the B-24E on. I do seem to be short a on early San Diego prosecution.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Did you check your pockets?
