Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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!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.
No use as a night fighter, out turned by the Fw 190 out climbed by the Bf 109. Need I go on?The B-17 was not a good warplane. Hmmm. The things one learns here. Just not from you.
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 B-17 was not a good warplane. Hmmm. The things one learns here. Just not from you.
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.
At least they didn't waste much blue paint on them.No use as a night fighter, out turned by the Fw 190 out climbed by the Bf 109. Need I go on?
If the U.S. built Sherman tanks with less armor, we could have cranked out more of them.
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.It was manpower intensive to build and took significantly longer to build than the newer and superior B-24
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
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.
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
If you cut out the engine and gun, there could have been millions shipped. Schoolboy errors nearly cost us.If the U.S. built Sherman tanks with less armor, we could have cranked out more of them.
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.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!
With your contention here, you've solidly cemented yourself as a very questionable opinion.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
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.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.
They did dogfight with Zeros. Some successfully.No use as a night fighter, out turned by the Fw 190 out climbed by the Bf 109. Need I go on?
I would have to agree to be the tÿtllllllllllTI suspect that translates to "robust", because those B-17s could absorbe battle damage like no other machine ever made...
R/WhooshActually, 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.