Sedalia Dave Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 Long read but interesting. Rather than rely on the opinions of people that never flew them; the author examines their actual war records including the percentage of AC lost vs the percentage of sorties flown. The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, or the Consolidated B-24 Liberator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blarney Kid Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 I have a personal bias towards the B-24. My Dad flew on them as a flight engineer/top turret gunner in the Pacific in the 7th AAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall Tale Todd Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 Grandfather was co-pilot on the B-24. Liberator gets my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 Having read a lot about both, the Liberator comes out #1. The B17 got all the press when it was dubbed a “Flying Fortress”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 The B-24 could fly faster and farther than the B-17, however to get that performance required an air frame and higher wing loading that wasn't quite as robust as the B-17. The B-17 could carry heavier loads and sustain a lot more damage and still bring it's crew home, but sacrificed speed & range in favor of an air frame that was "over-built", not uncommon among some of the aircraft designs of the mid 1930's (see the PBY Catalina, DC-3/C-47 & T-6 Texan, all of which can still be seen flying, al of which first flew in 1935) when aircraft designers were still learning how to built "modern" aircraft. The B-17 also had a reputation of being a fairly easy plane to fly, if a bit heavy on the controls. Some more information: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-17-b-24.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 Well, they made 12,700 B-17s and 18,500 B-24s. A good indicator of why the allies won the war is to look at the production numbers just for aircraft. The U.S. production capabliites alone, not counting the other Allies, overwhelmed the Axis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedalia Dave Posted December 31, 2021 Author Share Posted December 31, 2021 40 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said: Well, they made 12,700 B-17s and 18,500 B-24s. A good indicator of why the allies won the war is to look at the production numbers just for aircraft. The U.S. production capabliites alone, not counting the other Allies, overwhelmed the Axis. Was watching a show about the ME-109 and in the show they pointed out that the reason the Allies defeated the Germans was we were able to out manufacture them. Early on the Germans easly out fought the Allies but over time the Germans could not replace the men and machines they lost while the Allies could replace their losses largely due to the America's manufacturing might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 I'm rather partial to B12, .... ....... a vitamin found in Vegemite ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailrider #896 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 B-17 crews used to say that the Fort couldn't carry the bomb load of the -24, nor have the range. "But the -17 would get you home more often!" If you've seen pictures of B-17's that survived Black Thursday's Schwienfurt raid, you'd believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 My father-in-law was the navigator on a B-17 assigned to be a ferry. He went around the world several times. His short snorter was over 11 feet long, so he never had to pay the bartender. I’m glad the B-17 was such a good plane. He was a fine man, surviving the war, living a successful businessman’s life in the Missouri Bootheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 15 minutes ago, J-BAR #18287 said: His short snorter was over 11 feet long Out of curiosity what does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 7 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said: Out of curiosity what does this mean? Best explanation I could find: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/short-snorter-military-money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 My vote goes to the B-24 since my dad flew them into hurricanes and other weather sorties in the early '50s as a pilot with the Hurricane Hunters stationed in Jacksonville, FL. Had to be a rugged airframe to do that repeatedly. This is one of the ones he flew and is the Navy's configuration of the B-24, designated P4Y. The most significant differences are the single rudder, lengthened fuselage between cockpit & wings and lack of engine turbosuperchargers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 This is going to be purely scientific… ready for it? B-17 because I think they look better. and the first plane model I had when I was a kid was a B-17! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkie Lee Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 I am also partial to the B24. My Dad survived 30 combat missions and 2 crash landings in a few. He always said B24's flew higher, farther and carried a larger payload than a B17. The B17 just got better press. People use to say the B24 was the box the B17 came in. Waist Gunners did have problems with frostbite in the open bays of the early models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 One of our VFW post members who passed away last year flew 20 missions on a B24. In his opinion it was thee best bomber ever developed during the war. It had a bigger payload and many innovations. Low drag bomb bay doors, retractable belly turret, powered nose turret, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 And the B-17 evolved, into the B-29. Must have been some reason for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 2 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: Best explanation I could find: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/short-snorter-military-money I learn something new every day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 14 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said: Was watching a show about the ME-109 and in the show they pointed out that the reason the Allies defeated the Germans was we were able to out manufacture them. Early on the Germans easly out fought the Allies but over time the Germans could not replace the men and machines they lost while the Allies could replace their losses largely due to the America's manufacturing might. Part of the above it that the United States would rotate pilots who had completed a combat tour back to the US to teach the new pilots in training. German & Japanese pilots flew combat tours until they were wounded, died or the war ended. Arguably the Japanese started WWII with the best trained and most experienced combat pilots in the world, but their failure to rotate experienced pilots back to teach and the need to rush pilot training led to a steady decrease of well trained pilots until near the end of the war they switched to kamikaze pilots, many of which could barely take off and fly the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rough 'N Ready Rob Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 I have to go with the B17, only because I was lucky to take a ride in one. They were tough old birds from the pictures I've seen and brought the crews home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 There had to be a reason for why the B-24 was called The Flying Coffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.