drgondog
Major
As many of the B-24 drivers also started in right seat, both forearms were frequestly well developed.
taking a pounding - b-17 or b-24
- Thread starter mlpractice
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As many of the B-24 drivers also started in right seat, both forearms were frequestly well developed.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-24 my wife's grandfather flew had nose damage. In one of the pictures I seen of it you could actually see the repair and I think there was something mentioned about a nose collapse in a data base I seen when I looked up the serial numbers.
Here's a story of the guy I posted several years ago...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/pilots-u-know-1623-3.html#post79327
drgondog
Major
The B-24 my wife's grandfather flew had nose damage. In one of the pictures I seen of it you could actually see the repair and I think there was something mentioned about a nose collapse in a data base I seen when I looked up the serial numbers.
Here's a story of the guy I posted several years ago...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/pilots-u-know-1623-3.html#post79327
Joe - it was notorius for having a problem and a noticable 'shimmy' seemingly indicating a design issue..
I suspect without proof that 90% of the nose over shots on landing are traced right back there.. I'm trying to remember a heavy a/c with a nosewheel before the B-24 and nothing pops. It was definitely a new experience to Consolidated.
I aslo recall that landing gear and helicopter Transmission design engineers were regarded as 'odd' characters.
drgondog
Major
Douglas XB-19 maybe ?
It's design predates the B-24 (IIRC it flew later).
The 24 did fly a couple of months earlier. I actually was thinking in the context about prior experience in nosewheel design that the Consolidated engineers 'didn't have' before designing the B-24
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - BTW he (my wife's grandfather) also had a MLG collapse as he taxied out on a training mission a few weeks after the war ended.
I agree, a different bunch for sure.
Downwind.Maddl-Land
Airman 1st Class
Hi Guys, 
Been a bit of a while but you are discussing 2 of my favourite aeroplanes here! I have read much about both of them so – as an impartial Brit - may I add my 2 pennyworth?
No? Thought not! Don't care! So - in summation - here goes!
B-17 – Pros:
Easier to fly in general; less training required.
Much easier to fly in formation; therefore maintained defensive formation much more easily.
Higher ceiling when loaded; therefore kept out of the flak (and to a lesser extent the fighters) for longer resulting in a slightly lower loss rate.
Far more comfortable for long-range missions; (relatively) good heating.
Much better ditching characteristics.
Better visibility for target acquisition.
Better battle damage tolerance, except for Tokyo Tanks.
B-17 – Cons:
SLOW!
Relatively short-ranged. Moreover, the Tokyo Tanks needed to get what range it had proved to be VERY vulnerable.
Tiny, tiny bombload for all that effort!
Three power turrets.
Cyclones dirtier and less reliable than the Twin Wasps on a '17.
B-24 – Pros:
Faster than a '17, especially light; therefore within contested airspace for less time.
Much longer ranged.
Bigger bombload over a far longer range.
Produced better bombing accuracy, despite the poorer visibility from bombardier's position.
Four power turrets.
B-24 – Cons:
Very hard work for formation flying; therefore formations appeared less disciplined and easier to attack to Luftwaffe pilots. Consequently, they would attack B-24 formations in preference to a B-17 formation.
Needed careful training and handling when fully loaded.
Lower ceiling; therefore more vulnerable to Flak and fighters.
Poor(er) visibility from navigator's and bombardier's positions
DREADFUL ditching characteristics.
Uncomfortable cold (poor heating), with lots of equipment 'bolted-in' producing fittings to snag on when trying to abandon at the rush.
Much lower Battle Damage tolerance; caught fire more easily and the thin Davis wing was prone to failing at the root or wheel-well areas.
Twin Wasps cleaner and easier to maintain than the Cyclones on a '17.
B-17 crews would say: "The B-24 was the best escort we could have....."
B-24 crews would say: They (B-17s) got all the glory, we did all the work.......
Not coming down on the side of either! ALL flown by heroes.
(Of course, a real daylight bomber would have been a Lancaster with the Martin Mid-upper and Rose-Rice tail turrets.......
)
Been a bit of a while but you are discussing 2 of my favourite aeroplanes here! I have read much about both of them so – as an impartial Brit - may I add my 2 pennyworth?
No? Thought not! Don't care! So - in summation - here goes!
B-17 – Pros:
Easier to fly in general; less training required.
Much easier to fly in formation; therefore maintained defensive formation much more easily.
Higher ceiling when loaded; therefore kept out of the flak (and to a lesser extent the fighters) for longer resulting in a slightly lower loss rate.
Far more comfortable for long-range missions; (relatively) good heating.
Much better ditching characteristics.
Better visibility for target acquisition.
Better battle damage tolerance, except for Tokyo Tanks.
B-17 – Cons:
SLOW!
Relatively short-ranged. Moreover, the Tokyo Tanks needed to get what range it had proved to be VERY vulnerable.
Tiny, tiny bombload for all that effort!
Three power turrets.
Cyclones dirtier and less reliable than the Twin Wasps on a '17.
B-24 – Pros:
Faster than a '17, especially light; therefore within contested airspace for less time.
Much longer ranged.
Bigger bombload over a far longer range.
Produced better bombing accuracy, despite the poorer visibility from bombardier's position.
Four power turrets.
B-24 – Cons:
Very hard work for formation flying; therefore formations appeared less disciplined and easier to attack to Luftwaffe pilots. Consequently, they would attack B-24 formations in preference to a B-17 formation.
Needed careful training and handling when fully loaded.
Lower ceiling; therefore more vulnerable to Flak and fighters.
Poor(er) visibility from navigator's and bombardier's positions
DREADFUL ditching characteristics.
Uncomfortable cold (poor heating), with lots of equipment 'bolted-in' producing fittings to snag on when trying to abandon at the rush.
Much lower Battle Damage tolerance; caught fire more easily and the thin Davis wing was prone to failing at the root or wheel-well areas.
Twin Wasps cleaner and easier to maintain than the Cyclones on a '17.
B-17 crews would say: "The B-24 was the best escort we could have....."
B-24 crews would say: They (B-17s) got all the glory, we did all the work.......
Not coming down on the side of either! ALL flown by heroes.
(Of course, a real daylight bomber would have been a Lancaster with the Martin Mid-upper and Rose-Rice tail turrets.......
)
Hohun's old post from Aces High forum ( I hope you don't mind me reposting it here, very interesting stats):
I got "B-17 Flying Fortress" by HP Willmott here with a breakdown of the 8th Air Force bomber units by type, sorties, tonnage on target and losses.
Counting only the combat losses, I can compare the combat survivability of the B-17 and B-24. (I'm leaving out a few bomber groups operating both types as their successes and losses can't be identified by type.)
The total 8th Air Force B-17/B-24 losses were 1.50% per sortie.
The B-17 losses were 1.64% per sortie.
The B-24 losses were 1.21% per sortie.
Surprise: The B-24 was the more survivable bomber!
I initially assumed that the B-17's poorer performance could be attributed to its earlier arrival - many B-17s were lost when they tried to fly into the fangs of the Luftwaffe without fighter escort, after all.
However, even when only taking into account bomb groups that arrived December 1943 (along with the Mustangs) or later, the B-17 still has the higher losses with B-17: 1.42% vs. B-24%: 1.11%.
(Since both aircraft carried virtually the same load per sortie, this doesn't change the picture either.)
Highly interesting
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
---cut----------------
100th BG (B-17): 8630 sorties, 177 lost in combat
301st BG (B-17): 104 sorties, 1 lost in combat
303rd BG (B-17): 10721 sorties, 165 lost in combat
305th BG (B-17): 9231 sorties, 154 lost in combat
306th BG (B-17): 9614 sorties, 171 lost in combat
351st BG (B-17): 8600 sorties, 124 lost in combat
379th BG (B-17): 10492 sorties, 141 lost in combat
381st BG (B-17): 9035 sorties, 131 lost in combat
384th BG (B-17): 9248 sorties, 159 lost in combat
385th BG (B-17): 8264 sorties, 129 lost in combat
390th BG (B-17): 8725 sorties, 144 lost in combat
398th BG (B-17): 6419 sorties, 58 lost in combat
401st BG (B-17): 7430 sorties, 95 lost in combat
447th BG (B-17): 7605 sorties, 153 lost in combat
452nd BG (B-17): 7279 sorties, 110 lost in combat
457th BG (B-17): 7086 sorties, 83 lost in combat
91st BG (B-17): 9591 sorties, 197 lost in combat
92nd BG (B-17): 8633 sorties, 154 lost in combat
94th BG (B-17): 8884 sorties, 153 lost in combat
95th BG (B-17): 8903 sorties, 157 lost in combat
96th BG (B-17): 8924 sorties, 189 lost in combat
97th BG (B-17): 247 sorties, 4 lost in combat
389th BG (B-24): 7579 sorties, 116 lost in combat
392nd BG (B-24): 7060 sorties, 127 lost in combat
445th BG (B-24): 7145 sorties, 108 lost in combat
446th BG (B-24): 7259 sorties, 58 lost in combat
448th BG (B-24): 9774 sorties, 101 lost in combat
44th BG (B-24): 8009 sorties, 153 lost in combat
453rd BG (B-24): 6655 sorties, 58 lost in combat
458th BG (B-24): 5759 sorties, 47 lost in combat
466th BG (B-24): 5762 sorties, 47 lost in combat
467th BG (B-24): 5538 sorties, 29 lost in combat
489th BG (B-24): 2998 sorties, 29 lost in combat
491st BG (B-24): 5005 sorties, 47 lost in combat
492nd BG (B-24): 1513 sorties, 51 lost in combat
93rd BG (B-24): 8169 sorties, 100 lost in combat
drgondog
Major
Hi Guys,
Been a bit of a while but you are discussing 2 of my favourite aeroplanes here! I have read much about both of them so – as an impartial Brit - may I add my 2 pennyworth?
No? Thought not! Don't care! So - in summation - here goes!
B-17 – Pros:
Easier to fly in general; less training required.
Much easier to fly in formation; therefore maintained defensive formation much more easily.
Higher ceiling when loaded; therefore kept out of the flak (and to a lesser extent the fighters) for longer resulting in a slightly lower loss rate.
Far more comfortable for long-range missions; (relatively) good heating.
Much better ditching characteristics.
Better visibility for target acquisition.
Better battle damage tolerance, except for Tokyo Tanks.
B-17 – Cons:
SLOW!
Relatively short-ranged. Moreover, the Tokyo Tanks needed to get what range it had proved to be VERY vulnerable.
Tiny, tiny bombload for all that effort!
Three power turrets.
Cyclones dirtier and less reliable than the Twin Wasps on a '17.
B-24 – Pros:
Faster than a '17, especially light; therefore within contested airspace for less time.
Much longer ranged.
Bigger bombload over a far longer range.
Produced better bombing accuracy, despite the poorer visibility from bombardier's position.
Four power turrets.
B-24 – Cons:
Very hard work for formation flying; therefore formations appeared less disciplined and easier to attack to Luftwaffe pilots. Consequently, they would attack B-24 formations in preference to a B-17 formation.
Needed careful training and handling when fully loaded.
Lower ceiling; therefore more vulnerable to Flak and fighters.
Poor(er) visibility from navigator's and bombardier's positions
DREADFUL ditching characteristics.
Uncomfortable cold (poor heating), with lots of equipment 'bolted-in' producing fittings to snag on when trying to abandon at the rush.
Much lower Battle Damage tolerance; caught fire more easily and the thin Davis wing was prone to failing at the root or wheel-well areas.
Twin Wasps cleaner and easier to maintain than the Cyclones on a '17.
I would agree all except one comment - namely B-24 'producing better bombing accuracy'. Unless you have some statistics demonstrating that the B-24 Bomb Groups produced better MPI results as a result of the platform - then we are faced with a.) a question regarding crew training, and perhaps filter out 'pre-lead crew doctrine' followed in first 6-9 months of combat ops when every B-17 bombadier indivisually sigted and bombed, and b.) questioned the difference in MPI results based on 3,000+ feet lower altitude for typical bomb runs.
There is a difference between (in my own mind) between tactical results and platform accuracy (Taking into account formation 'tightness', speed over target, a/c stability).
I could be ignorant of the facts you used to derive your conclusions?
Downwind.Maddl-Land
Airman 1st Class
Hi drgondog,
Currently at work (and bored for the first time in months!) and don't have access to my References. However, I'll try to post them when I get home tonight........
Currently at work (and bored for the first time in months!) and don't have access to my References. However, I'll try to post them when I get home tonight........
drgondog
Major
The primary reason for my question regarding platform is that by all accounts the Fort was more stable (except when on ragged edge of aft Cg - which also by all accounts was not a problem at the half way point).
They both have the same bomsight and same Automatic Flight Control Director coupled to the Norden bombsight... if the 17 was in fact more stable then the 'accuracy' should go to B-17 - if all flight conditions are equal.
Adding 2-4K altitude should change the statistical results for MPI as well as number of bombs within 600 yards of Point of Aim purely based on 10-15% increased 'range' for a crappy aerodynamic projectile.
So, it is a question - not a statement of fact.
Downwind.Maddl-Land
Airman 1st Class
Don't disagree with your reasoning at all, with which I concur!
I'm just recalling that which I have read in the past. This info stuck in what passes for my mind due to the illogical nature of it, for all the reasons you mention, allied to the poorer visibilty from the Nav and bomb-aimer (sorry bombardier) positions in the '24. However, the argument was well made as I recall.
I'm just recalling that which I have read in the past. This info stuck in what passes for my mind due to the illogical nature of it, for all the reasons you mention, allied to the poorer visibilty from the Nav and bomb-aimer (sorry bombardier) positions in the '24. However, the argument was well made as I recall.
Downwind.Maddl-Land
Airman 1st Class
Here's where my data came from: "The B-24 Liberator" by Allan G Blue, published in the UK by Ian Allan
drgondog
Major
Good stuff.. had not seen this - thx
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The B-24's lower operating altitude may have resulted in slightly better accuracy.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the speed comparison depends strongly on the models you compare (the B-17G being significantly slower than the E/F) and the loading conditions of the a/c. (the B-24 will generally cruise faster and have a faster top speed when loaded than the B-17, but the -17 tends to gain the advantage when they've dropped their bombs)
As I mentioned earlier, I think the speed comparison depends strongly on the models you compare (the B-17G being significantly slower than the E/F) and the loading conditions of the a/c. (the B-24 will generally cruise faster and have a faster top speed when loaded than the B-17, but the -17 tends to gain the advantage when they've dropped their bombs)
drgondog
Major
Slower, yes but negligible relative to B-17F's in combat as all were flying in formation at 150mph IAS as doctrine... capable of much faster with a load.
The higher speed of the B-24 formations would have a potentially offsetting effect to lower altitudes but that is conjecture on my part.
The reason the Forts flew at 150 IAS with a load is twofold. 1.) old a/c with high time engines (like a lot of F's that flew with G's, even though lighter) couldn't push the engine power without risk, and 2.) course changes for the 'outside' wings were hell - particularly on a significant (20+ degrees) change. Essentially the Task Force Commander had to be attuned to the issues of 'keeping up' for the slower formations.
r2800doublewasp
Senior Airman
The B-24 had a very poor ditching capability because those weak bomb doors would collapse in on themselves, especially in water. But since it wasn't a tail dragger like a B-17 it could jettison its bombs if there is an accident on the tarmac.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I believe ditching refers spcifcally to a water landing. On land it would be called a belly landing or wheels up landing. (or sometimes just a "crash landing")
But, yes I've heard similar things about the B-24 compared to the B-17. Part of the difference was that the B-17 had a low wing configuration, greatly adding strength to the belly. The B-24 seems to have had a tendency to "break its back" in watter landings, often breaking off the rear fuselage.
But, yes I've heard similar things about the B-24 compared to the B-17. Part of the difference was that the B-17 had a low wing configuration, greatly adding strength to the belly. The B-24 seems to have had a tendency to "break its back" in watter landings, often breaking off the rear fuselage.
jhor9
Airman
Interesting reading the above posts.
I never cruised at 180mph as stated above, usually 150-155.
I remember 1 mission where B24s flew right behind my B17 sqdn.
On a sortie from Tunis to Weiner Neustadt (40 miles below Vienna), we were airbourne 13+ hours, a distance of 1900 miles R.T. We landed in Sicily as pre arranged, Next morning we got enough fuel to get back to our base. Many hours on oxygen, and at temp of -50F.
I never cruised at 180mph as stated above, usually 150-155.
I remember 1 mission where B24s flew right behind my B17 sqdn.
On a sortie from Tunis to Weiner Neustadt (40 miles below Vienna), we were airbourne 13+ hours, a distance of 1900 miles R.T. We landed in Sicily as pre arranged, Next morning we got enough fuel to get back to our base. Many hours on oxygen, and at temp of -50F.
Eurofighter
Airman
- 26
- Dec 11, 2008
Without a doubt the B-17 could take more damage of the two of them, it could fly two or even one engine at given time while the Liberator could not make it back with two engines; it also had a higher service ceiling and was easier to fly.
