WW II aircraft fatigue life

[SaparotRob]

Most B-17s saw military use as combat aircraft or in crew training in the U.S.A. It was only AFTER military use they got surplussed. Very few B-17s were exactly "low-time" birds when surplussed. A few were, but not many. The Planes of Fame has the B-17 that was the last one in active U.S. military service (Picadilly Lilly). While it is NOT a low-time bird; neither is it a high-time bird.

I was about to respond to BlackSheep's comment about Sentimental Journey by saying I've always been fond of the Picadilly Lilly. I got to get back to The Planes Of Fame Museum. I never knew it survived all this time and has a good home. Thanks!

 

[pbehn]

The B-17 was not a good warplane. Hmmm. The things one learns here. Just not from you.

No use as a night fighter, out turned by the Fw 190 out climbed by the Bf 109. Need I go on?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which is a good example…

The B-17 was not a 'good' warplane, it was seriously overbuilt and over engineered - see their long post war lives, but despite its fairly simple design, it was expensive and time consuming to build.

The B-24 however was a'good' warplane - despite being a much more complex design, it was built just strong enough to do the job, and the savings meant it could be massed produced easily and cheaply - but, it was fragile and they went quickly 'war weary' and they quickly died out after the War.

Early B-17 54,800 man hours
Late B-17 18,600 man hours

Early B-24 24,800 man hours
Late B-24. 14,500 man hours

The -24 was a good bomber, the -17 was great. When you're up against 88 and 105mm flak, and fighters armed with 20 and 30mm cannons, you kinda want "overengineered."

Consider too that probably the most expensive component of either bomber was the crew. Their training cost more than anything else the bomber had aboard. A plane that can get that precious asset home safely is a plane that will soon pay for its expensive production.

 

[Macandy]

The B-17 was not a good warplane. Hmmm. The things one learns here. Just not from you.

I never said a good airplane, it was however NOT a good plane for fighting a war.
It was manpower intensive to build and took significantly longer to build than the newer and superior B-24.
War is a battle of production - a lesson neither the British or Germans really grasped - allowing their engineers to indulge their ideal fantasies, rather than applying the cold hard eye of production engineering.

The B-17 was incredibly strong, aviation fans still swoon at the pictures of B-17's limping home with half a wing and the tail missing, while sneering at the fragility of the B-24 which wasn't much good at absorbing battle damage.
But the USAAF much preferred the B-24, they didn't want a super strong bomber that could limp home to be written off - they wanted a bomber that carried as big a bomb load as possible, as far as possible - the B-24 did that, and in war, all the planes were expendible. This was why the B-17 was kicked into touch while huge orders for the B-24 continued. It was the better warplane

 

[Macandy]

The -24 was a good bomber, the -17 was great. When you're up against 88 and 105mm flak, and fighters armed with 20 and 30mm cannons, you kinda want "overengineered."

Consider too that probably the most expensive component of either bomber was the crew. Their training cost more than anything else the bomber had aboard. A plane that can get that precious asset home safely is a plane that will soon pay for its expensive production.

No you do not want 'over engineered'.
You want as many planes as possible in the shortest time for the lowest cost.
Nope, the crews were expendable too - that's war.

The USAAF wasn't drooling over the 'over engineering' of the B-17 in 1944, they were giving it the bums rush in favour of the quicker and cheaper to build B-24.
Yes, the B-24 was a fairly fragile plane, but who cared, they had them pouring off the lines so fast, they couldn't train crews fast enough to man them.
And when VJ Day came, its job done, the B-24's were ushered off fast to the boneyards

 

[SaparotRob]

No use as a night fighter, out turned by the Fw 190 out climbed by the Bf 109. Need I go on?

At least they didn't waste much blue paint on them.

 

[SaparotRob]

If the U.S. built Sherman tanks with less armor, we could have cranked out more of them.

 

[Macandy]

If the U.S. built Sherman tanks with less armor, we could have cranked out more of them.

Actually, no, it wasn't much of an issue the armour, it was on par with the opposition's medium tanks, and making a tank from 2" armour wouldn't significantly cut the time to make them from 3" - the US wasn't short of steel.

The US could have significantly improved the Sherman, it chose not too. It was good enough, it could be mass produced far faster than the Germans could attrit them.

It was a good tank to fight a war - while all the 'superior' German tanks weren't, not a one. They were over engineered - took far too long to make.

 

[GrauGeist]

It was manpower intensive to build and took significantly longer to build than the newer and superior B-24

Give us a year by year production number for both the B-17 and B-24, and break those numbers down by manufacturing facility to give a proper idea of how and why the B-17 was so much more labor intensive.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I never said a good airplane, it was however NOT a good plane for fighting a war.
It was manpower intensive to build and took significantly longer to build than the newer and superior B-24.
War is a battle of production - a lesson neither the British or Germans really grasped - allowing their engineers to indulge their ideal fantasies, rather than applying the cold hard eye of production engineering.

The B-17 was incredibly strong, aviation fans still swoon at the pictures of B-17's limping home with half a wing and the tail missing, while sneering at the fragility of the B-24 which wasn't much good at absorbing battle damage.
But the USAAF much preferred the B-24, they didn't want a super strong bomber that could limp home to be written off - they wanted a bomber that carried as big a bomb load as possible, as far as possible - the B-24 did that, and in war, all the planes were expendible. This was why the B-17 was kicked into touch while huge orders for the B-24 continued. It was the better warplane

Macandy - your rationale behind some of your statements seem to be half fantasy, half truth, and half dime store comic book. Please give some documented evidence to back up some of your outlandish statements

 

[SaparotRob]

Full disclosure. You might not know it but I'm a B-17 fanboy.
I didn't like my flippant response to Macandy. Coffee hadn't kicked in yet. You did bring up some good points though.
The B-17 was an excellent warplane. Except for the British, no nation had anything like the Fortress that didn't catch fire while taxiing. The B-17 came from that time when aeronautical break throughs were obsolete a few months later. Yet it remained in service to VJ Day. Not so much the B-18 (ASW patrols?) Everyone here is more than familiar with the exploits of the B-17. I love reading about "Old 666". There may have been a B-24 equivalent but I'm not much of a researcher and haven't seen anything on it.
The fact is those priceless crews stood a better chance getting home in Boeing's Queen of the Skies. Source? Most of the voices in my head.
The B-24 was an excellent machine despite certain deficiencies. I get the impression that it was as dangerous to smoke a cigarette in one as it was to be over Berlin in one due to gasoline vapor.
As I know how the Second World War turned out, I am more interested in the pilots opinions of flying an airplane than I am over its stats.
I will say this; the B-17 was faster than the B-24 at 32000 feet.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

War is a battle of production - a lesson neither the British or Germans really grasped - allowing their engineers to indulge their ideal fantasies, rather than applying the cold hard eye of production engineering.

The American economy could support "overengineering" like no other nation on Earth at that time.

No you do not want 'over engineered'.
You want as many planes as possible in the shortest time for the lowest cost.
Nope, the crews were expendable too - that's war.

Highly-trained technical crews were not expendable, as you kinda get at when you talked in another thread about the difficulties Japan had in training their aircrew. Building stronger airplanes should certainly have some knock-on effect in crew survival, such that even if you have to scrap the battle-damaged bomber on landing, if it's saved all or most of its crew, it has still shown some amelioration of the economic impact of losing the plane over the target.

A large number of less-robust planes will suffer larger losses statistically even if they accomplish their mission.

Put another way: how many trained tank crews has Russia lost in Ukraine due to using outdated equipment (combined, of course, with shoddy doctrine and tactics)? I bet the Russians have plenty of tanks in reserve, but where are they getting the manning for that reserve kit?

The USAAF wasn't drooling over the 'over engineering' of the B-17 in 1944, they were giving it the bums rush in favour of the quicker and cheaper to build B-24.

Nor did I say that was the case. But I think we can all agree that USAAF made several serious blunders in the war, so assuming that their preferences were right may be questionable, and that's what I am doing.

Yes, the B-24 was a fairly fragile plane, but who cared, they had them pouring off the lines so fast, they couldn't train crews fast enough to man them.

Do you see the problem built into this comment here? A piece of kit is only as good as the crew manning it.

And when VJ Day came, its job done, the B-24's were ushered off fast to the boneyards

As were B-17s, of course. There's a reason for that: the B-29 made both obsolete outside of wartime needs. You don't fund and build obsolete designs in peacetime ... ideally.

The issue under discussion needs to be seen in several contexts.

 

[mjfur]

B-17 - Production - B-17 Flying Fortress Production Numbers & Assembly Plants & B-17 Production List - Aero Vintage Books
B-24 Production - B-24 Liberator Assembly Plants

 

[pbehn]

If the U.S. built Sherman tanks with less armor, we could have cranked out more of them.

If you cut out the engine and gun, there could have been millions shipped. Schoolboy errors nearly cost us.

 

[GregP]

I was about to respond to BlackSheep's comment about Sentimental Journey by saying I've always been fond of the Picadilly Lilly. I got to get back to The Planes Of Fame Museum. I never knew it survived all this time and has a good home. Thanks!

Hi SparotRob, Come to Chino anytime. You can sty with me and we can see 3 or 4 air museums including Planes of Fame, Yanks Air Museum, Palm Springs, and a few others.

 

[GregP]

I never said a good airplane, it was however NOT a good plane for fighting a war.
It was manpower intensive to build and took significantly longer to build than the newer and superior B-24.
War is a battle of production - a lesson neither the British or Germans really grasped - allowing their engineers to indulge their ideal fantasies, rather than applying the cold hard eye of production engineering.

The B-17 was incredibly strong, aviation fans still swoon at the pictures of B-17's limping home with half a wing and the tail missing, while sneering at the fragility of the B-24 which wasn't much good at absorbing battle damage.
But the USAAF much preferred the B-24, they didn't want a super strong bomber that could limp home to be written off - they wanted a bomber that carried as big a bomb load as possible, as far as possible - the B-24 did that, and in war, all the planes were expendible. This was why the B-17 was kicked into touch while huge orders for the B-24 continued. It was the better warplane

With your contention here, you've solidly cemented yourself as a very questionable opinion.

The B-17 was not only a good warplane, it was also a great one, especially from the point of view of the crew. Nobody in a warplane on an actual war mission gives a tinker's damn about the opinion of an accountant. They want a plane that will get them there, take whatever punishment it has to, deliver the mission, and get them home. Everything else is meaningless, at least until they land and another mission is scheduled.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hi SparotRob, Come to Chino anytime. You can sty with me and we can see 3 or 4 air museums including Planes of Fame, Yanks Air Museum, Palm Springs, and a few others.

THANKS! I'm thinking this summer. Wife and I are going to Thailand in March and I'll be back around June (gotta check the itinerary). I'll look into the hotels. You know what they say about guests and fish.

 

[SaparotRob]

No use as a night fighter, out turned by the Fw 190 out climbed by the Bf 109. Need I go on?

They did dogfight with Zeros. Some successfully.

 

[GregP]

Well, you know SparotRob, my wife and I have room. Just offering. It might make for an easier visit.

Your call. Cheers.

 

[BlackSheep]

TI suspect that translates to "robust", because those B-17s could absorbe battle damage like no other machine ever made...

I would have to agree to be the tÿtllllllllll

Actually, no, it wasn't much of an issue the armour, it was on par with the opposition's medium tanks, and making a tank from 2" armour wouldn't significantly cut the time to make them from 3" - the US wasn't short of steel.

The US could have significantly improved the Sherman, it chose not too. It was good enough, it could be mass produced far faster than the Germans could attrit them.

It was a good tank to fight a war - while all the 'superior' German tanks weren't, not a one. They were over engineered - took far too long to make.

R/Whoosh