drgondog
Major
As many of the B-24 drivers also started in right seat, both forearms were frequestly well developed.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've also heard about this Bill and Joe. Infact heres a quick (and rough!) scan of a cartoon from the book "Wild Blue" by Stephen E. Ambrose.
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.A lot more built, more versatile.. the lack of space was more limited to the cramped nose, true, and the nose wheel sucked on the B-24.
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
Douglas XB-19 maybe ?
It's design predates the B-24 (IIRC it flew later).
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.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 agree, a different bunch for sure.I aslo recall that landing gear and helicopter Transmission design engineers were regarded as 'odd' characters.
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
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.
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........
Here's where my data came from: "The B-24 Liberator" by Allan G Blue, published in the UK by Ian Allan
The B-24's lower operating altitude may have resulted in slightly better accuracy.
I think I posed that as a possible influence - a couple of posts above
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)