Just call Andy Rooney and ask him what he would fly over Germany in if he had to again. I think B17 will be his answer.
Thanks for the post Nick.
I will always have a great respect for the people of Britain and how they have been our best ally in many wars. [:)]
I have always been a big fan of your SAS especially.
Those are some incredible spec ops guys you have there. [;)]
Mike
As a fan of both planes and with a trove of information on both- the B-24 Was a superior plane statistically- but the B-17 ON AVERAGE, would bring you back froman encounter that would have felled the B-24. The B-24 was also a notoriously bad plane to “ditch” and the crew would bail out rather than risk a “belly in.” Simply a matter of how the plane was designed made the fort “tougher”. My hats off to the crews of both planes.
(My article on building the “Memphis Belle” is slated to appear soon in FSM.)
A Histroy Channel show, as usual, addresses all this. The B-17 was not called the flying fortress for nothing. The big difference between the two was apparently the production techniques.
The B-17 was built largely by hand, with minimal use of production line techniques. Thus it also took longer, but they were built much stronger.
The B-24 was built by firms that had more experience with true assembly line production, and thats where the B-24’s were built. Cheaper, faster to produce, but not as tough in battle.
I thought this was accepted as general knowledge.
Hey guys, I think it’s important to keep sight of the circumstances surrounding each types employment in WWII.
To say one was better able to absorb battle damage than another is difficult. As was mentioned, a small hit in the right (or wrong!) spot…
At any rate, Lanc’s operated largely at night, with it’s inherent advantages, the 24’s did a lot of work all over the place, but I don’t think any aircraft in history, has ever been asked to undertake missions in such hostile an environment as the 17’s. Daylight and un-escorted (early on)… is a receipe for bulk battle damage.
As an aside, the Vickers Wellington with it’s Barnes Wallace designed “lattice” construction method is highly regarded in terms of airframe “toughness”
Hey guys, I think it’s important to keep sight of the circumstances surrounding each types employment in WWII.
To say one was better able to absorb battle damage than another is difficult. As was mentioned, a small hit in the right (or wrong!) spot…
At any rate, Lanc’s operated largely at night, with it’s inherent advantages, the 24’s did a lot of work all over the place, but I don’t think any aircraft in history, has ever been asked to undertake missions in such hostile an environment as the 17’s. Daylight and un-escorted (early on)… is a receipe for bulk battle damage.
As an aside, the Vickers Wellington with it’s Barnes Wallace designed “lattice” construction method is highly regarded in terms of airframe “toughness”
My reading has been consistent with what I have seen here. I, too, have numerous books that show pictures of B-17’s coming home (and landing) with excessive amounts of damage and abuse.
Not to diminish the B-24’s role in WWII, but the Davis wing just wasn’t designed to take the amount of abuse that the B-17’s conventional shape could take. As a result, I have seen and read about B-24’s that were not-too-fortunate in the air, that literally folded up or fell apart as soon as their Davis wing was knocked out.
I prefer the B-17 simply because it has an elegant grace to its design. I appreciate the B-24 and what it did to help us win the war, but I guess I’m just not one of those people who care for the Liberator’s unconventional shape.
The Davis Wing was one of the detractors of the B-24, in that it had an area of 1048 square feet and had to lift from 62000 to 72000 lbs. The Davis Wing makes a whole lot of its lift by Bernoullis principal.
The B-17 had a wing area of 1420 square feet and lifted from 55000 (combat) to 70000 (max overload) lbs.
The B-29 in contrast had a wing area of 1736 square feet and had to lift over 120000 lbs.
I saw a picture once where a B-24 was lost its very outer wing panel being knocked off sadly by the body of a bailing out airman.
Some good places to visit concerning the B-24 B-17 controversy would be www.armyairforces.com they have forums and quite a few veterans visit the site. One who frequents the board there was a flight engineer / top turret gunner on a B-17.
Next time your around a B-17, B-24 or B-29 take a look at the spacing of the rivets. Youll see that the B-17 and B-29s rivets are very closely spaced while the B-24 is spaced fairly far apart. If its a flying aircraft take a look at just how things hold together while sitting with the engines running. The B-24 flexes a lot, the wing tips kinda flap and the tail section especially flaps.
I realize this topic concerns function rather than form but was just curious as to whether anyone else out there felt as I do.
Whenever I look at a photo of a B24 I can’t help but wonder if the team that designed the wing was told that they were building an airplane and the other teams thought they were being contracted to build a barn.
I realize that the Davis wing may have been the Lib’s Achilles Heel, but it was the only graceful looking section on what otherwise looked like a pregnant cow with Mickey Mouse ears stapled to its tail. (imho of course)
Yea,Yea, What he said!!![8D][:D][:p]
Now, now, fellas! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
Of course, I think the B-17 is a much more graceful and elegant (but tough as nails!) aircraft than the B-24, but that’s just my opinion!
True, it was war, and not a beauty contest, but it’s a virtue to be able to appreciate beauty in all things and all situations, no?[:)]
As far as i have read on the 2 aircraft and from what i have heard commented by the men who flew in them , the B-24 was the more advanced technologically of the 2. Being a crew chief i know that the more " advance " an aircraft is technally the more weaknesses it has, i know the B-24 had a more advanced hydro system and it was more pleasant to fly in for the fact it had more creature comforts compared to the fort i have heard crewman from both say each was as tough as nails, its is like was said before, the golden bb has alot to do with whether a plane went down or not. Rig
I agree with you 100%, Hulk.
I definitely subscribe to the “beauty is as beauty does” philosophy.
Heck, I once built a model of the old Super Guppy, but that’s for another topic![:)]
There is a story my uncle has told me several times. They escorted B-17’s on a mission deep into Germany. On the return trip his lead and he (wingman) came across a damaged B-17 returning alone. It had the # 2 engine feathered, the # 1 was smoking. The tail gun compartment was blown away. They could see day light throught the vertical stabilizer. There were chunks torn out of the fuselage with ammo belts, wire bundles and control cables streaming back from the holes. The #2 engine cowling was mostly missing.
Over the chanel the #1 engine cought fire and the pilot feathered it and the fire went out. They escorted it all the way back to England and as the B-17 was lining up for a straight in approach, the aircraft just broke in two. It nosed straight down and no one got out. My uncle always said. “They fought it for so long only to get home and die within sight of safety.” He also said that he doesn’t see how the aircraft stayed together for as long as it did.
There is documented proof where the B-17 and B-24 brought their crews home in aircraft so damaged they fell apart after landing. As the saying goes, “Flying on a wing and a prayer”.
Maybe its the water but there are more former B24 crews around here than B17 crews. So the plane of choice is of course the B24 at the VFW on Friday nights.
I myself was stationed in Alaska, and flew over many B24 wrecks. They crashed due to the horrible weather. . .Hmmmm really nasty weather, and the requirement for a big bomb load, what aircraft was sent to Alaska???
Don
One thing that I may have missed, no one has mentioned that the B-24 was based on a flying boat design. I don’t really think this is secret knowledge. That may account for the “odd” look of the aircraft. It is also possible that the design origins had something to do with the planes “weakness”. I have also heard that the B-24 was a more tiring craft to fly. ( this came from a veteran pilot of both, and was on the history channel)
I have heard it said that a trait that made it easy to recognize a B-24 pilot was his large forearms.
Jim
Half a wing, three engines, and a prayer…
this should settle the argumet
Some years ago, I used to work with a man who was a flight engineer on a B-24 based in North Africa which took part in one of the Ploesti raids. Believe it or not, I once asked him this very same question. He said that he thought the B-17 could take more damage and still return to base. However, because of its relatively small bomb load, they used to call it the “hand grenade carrier”. [;)]
Pete