taking a pounding - b-17 or b-24

[syscom3]

....

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 bet you needed help to get out of your seat in the cockpit!

 

[Marshall_Stack]

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.

This is what I have heard about the two aircraft, that the B-17's lower wing gave it a stronger structure. IIRC, the wing is part of (or more integral) with the fuselage. This made for greater strength but lessened the bomb carrying capability with a higher wing such as on the B-24 or Lanc.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

Speaking of the Lancaster, can we add this plane into the discussion? I imagine that the B-17 would be tougher but I don't know about comparing it against the B-24.

 

[MikeGazdik]

I believe early B-26 Marauder had nose gear failures.

As far the the B-17 vs B-24, if I were to be a crewman or pilot, I would want my missions to be in the B-17. If I were a General or theatre Commander, I would want the B-24 because it had a better "package" of range / payload.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

A quick point. Didn't the highly inflammable hydraulic fluid used in the B-24 make it, at least theoretically, more prone to fire from incediary ammo than the electrical system of the B-17? I'm doing this from memory, so if I'm wrong, will someone please correct me!

 

[kool kitty89]

This is what I have heard about the two aircraft, that the B-17's lower wing gave it a stronger structure. IIRC, the wing is part of (or more integral) with the fuselage. This made for greater strength but lessened the bomb carrying capability with a higher wing such as on the B-24 or Lanc.

The actual internal capacity of the two was about the same I believe. But the B-24 could fly much further wit a heavy bombload. One of the reasons was that the B-17 had a large, single bomb bay, while the B-24 had 2 seperate, smaller ones. this allowed an auxiliary fuel tank to be carried i one bay, while leaving the other open. With the B-17 a tank took up half of the single bomb bay, cutting the capacity by more than the B-24 due to the configuration.