B-24 vs B-17....Which was tougher?

The B-24 with the Davis wing was more stable at lower altitude than the B-17. The long Davis wing allowed the B-24 to fly at lower altitudes with less bouncing. It could maintain speed and be a very stable bombing platform at low altitude, something the B-17 couldn't because of its broad wing platform. The B-24 also was faster at low altitude than the B-17. The B-24 had greater range than the B-17, but it could not fly as high. The B-17 was used as high and mid altitude bombers and the B-24 was used as mid and low altitude bombers. Ability to take damage had nothing to do with it.

Hi, folks!

Mike and I had started this discussion over at "techniques" and felt we ought to bring it to the experts (that's you folks!).

It had always been my understanding that the B-17 was one of the toughest, most durable, and most resilient aircraft ever built.
Whenever I read comparisons between the B-17 and B-24, the B-24 came on on top for range and load-carrying ability, but I remember reading about how much tougher the B-17 was.

Both of these great aircraft hold very important places in aviation history, so I wanted to make sure I understood their particular reputations clearly.

Thanks for all the opinions I know we're gonna get!

Berny,
Mike and I began this discussion because the word "fragile" was used to describe the B-17, which I thought was unusual, given my understanding of the B-17's reputation for absorbing enormous amounts of damage and still bringing its crews home.

I think we're talking more reputation than statistics here.

I had read somewhere that the Davis wing was more fragile. And due to that it wasn't used in more aircraft. And for that primary reason I'd say the B-17 was tougher.

I would not refer to the B-17 as fragile. I have seen plenty of picture of the B-17 damaged and still brought its crew home. I have a book somewhere that shows a B-17 almost cut in half by a FW-190 that crashed into it. It flew the crew back to England for a safe landing. Another picture shows a B-17 with 2/3 of its vertical stab and rudder gone. Some with holes in the wing big enough for a man to stand in. Engines torn from their mounts. Parts of the wing missing. All returned back to England.

The B-24 with the Davis wing could not take as much punishment as the "Fort". The Davis wing was more flexable but could not take a hit in the spar without folding.

IMHO, I would say the B-17 could take more punishment than the B-24.

QUOTE: Originally posted by J-Hulk Berny, Mike and I began this discussion because the word "fragile" was used to describe the B-17, which I thought was unusual, given my understanding of the B-17's reputation for absorbing enormous amounts of damage and still bringing its crews home.

I think the word "fragile" was a bad choice of words on my part.

Mike

Which is tougher well if you look at the 17's wing at the root it's longer & thicker then the 24's, and which would allow more hits to degrade the lifting capabilities of the 17's wing but I've see pix of the ole Libby had taken alot of serious hits that would have brought the ole Forts down and vise versa the most popular scene is a B/M Libby being hit at Polesti at the root and the bombers wing colapses and it goes down with all on board, and you have the 17 being hit by a falling bomb from the bomber above taken out it R/H Stabalizer & elevator and it goes down, and to compair a 24 was hit by AAA and it came home with 1 vert stab/rudder & horiz stab/elevator, so I think both where just as tough as the other but they had soft spots that would cause them to go down with the GOLDEN BB hit
Ugly Butt Well Hung; Hawgs
Cuda

Mike, I think it started a great topic!

I'm really interested in hearing the opinions people have about the comparative toughness of these two excellent aircraft.

Keep 'em coming, folks!

My father flew a B-24 into Ploesti, but he said that he never cared for the aircraft (he later flew P-51s)
I have seen pics of B-17s returning without a rudder. I saw a pilot on the History Channel say that a B-17 could be steered with its cowl flaps. (how else could it have gotten home w/o a rudder ?)
The connections for the fuel lines on a B-24 were in a vulnerable place (top of bomb bay). There is famous footage of a 24 bursting into flames at the left wing root while dropping its bombs.
Statistically, on paper, the B-24 exceeded the B-17 in most catagories (bomb load, range, altitude, etc.). But I have yet to see a pic of a B-24 returning from a mission w/o rudders.
There are some great shots of returning, battle-damaged B-17s in William Wyler's documentary, "The Memphis Belle."

This topic has been debated for years by the men who flew them so I don't think us guys that build the miniatures of them will settle it either. My grandfather was a tailgunner on the Lib's and used to call the Fort's a flying coffin. But my wife's grandad was a ball gunner on the Fort and said the Lib was only good for a one way ticket to the grave. The 24's did have the 17's beat in almost every statistic but this is really a question I don't think will ever be solved.

Both aircraft were certainly graves and coffins to the thousands of brave men who died in them fighting for their country, to be sure.
Also, I'm sure many thousands of airmen are grateful for the particular aircraft that returned them safely from the hell of war.

In starting this topic, I believe we were only interested in exploring the reputations of both aircraft for toughness, not settle anything or solve a question that the men who flew them could not even agree on themselves.

Well, that's not entirely true, I suppose. I had always thought that the B-17 was universally regarded as one of the "toughest" aircraft of all time, and sought the opinions of others concerning that reputation, which, of course, was given to it by the men who flew it, not us today who build the models.

Anyway, I think this is a great topic and a great way to remember two magnificent aircraft that fought for freedom!

Amen,my friend. AMEN!!

QUOTE: Originally posted by J-Hulk Anyway, I think this is a great topic and a great way to remember two magnificent aircraft that fought for freedom!

Amen to that my friend.

It is sometimes hard to get a true answer on subjects like this because too many times the people who flew these aircraft had a bias toward their particular aircraft. If you flew a B-17 on missions and saw them come back with major damage you would be a believer in that aircraft.
The same would hold true for pilots and crews of the B-24, B-25, B-26 and any other aircraft that proved itself in battle such as the old Jug P-47 (My favorite WWII aircraft).

I salute all of the brave men who fought and died so that we may have the privilege to come on forums like this and discuss these issues with others of like mind in a free country.

Mike

I'll amen those amens!

In light of the use that these aircraft saw, I would have to say that God gave a particular "genious" to the designers and builders of each. So many crews lost their lives in that struggle, that it is surpising that any made it home. Whenever I see movies dealing with the airwar of ww2 I can't help but think. God had his hand on those men to make planes that saved the many lives and defeated tyranny. B-17 or B-24 give me either one. Bob

QUOTE: Originally posted by Pixilater My father flew a B-24 into Ploesti, but he said that he never cared for the aircraft (he later flew P-51s) I have seen pics of B-17s returning without a rudder. I saw a pilot on the History Channel say that a B-17 could be steered with its cowl flaps. (how else could it have gotten home w/o a rudder ?) The connections for the fuel lines on a B-24 were in a vulnerable place (top of bomb bay). There is famous footage of a 24 bursting into flames at the left wing root while dropping its bombs. Statistically, on paper, the B-24 exceeded the B-17 in most catagories (bomb load, range, altitude, etc.). But I have yet to see a pic of a B-24 returning from a mission w/o rudders. There are some great shots of returning, battle-damaged B-17s in William Wyler's documentary, "The Memphis Belle."

I agree that both aircraft were tough and each had its weaknesses. As far as the rudder goes it is really not used for turning. I've only used the rudder for assisting with rolls or turning while on the ground. In flight turns are made with the ailerons and the elevator. Pull right or left on the stick and some up elevator to avoid losing altitude and you turn real nice like.

A few weeks ago @ the Lancaster PA airport there was the B-24 ( dragon and his tail) and also a B-17, I take every oppertunity possible to see either of these two planes. I have heard that the dragon and his tail B-24 is the only flying B-24.
Is this true? They built 16,000, what happened to them? Are there any in those airplane junkyards? Does anyone know of other B-24's?
jason

Hi, Jason.
I don't know if it's still flying, but I saw the B-24J All American fly into a small airport in Jacksonville, Florida about 10 years ago. Well, maybe around 1990.
I think it was operated by the Confederate Air Force.

Then, around 1995, I saw another B-24 (a D, I think) at Jacksonville International Airport, on display with the Confederate Air Force's B-29 Fifi, and a C-46 Commando. I don't recall the name of that B-24.

hi guys
just read all the posts here...v cool
by the way, if i can try to add to this topic, what about the good old Avro Lancaster?!
my guess is that on paper it would compare very favourably with the b-24, and in practice it really did the business, just like the b-17!
(just a not to say that i am NOT implying the b-24 didn't do it's bit...don't want to offend anyone here)
i'd like to quote some of my relatives here, but my grandad drove tanks in normandy, and my great uncle was on motor torpedo boats for the Royal Navy during WWII...they still did their bit tho...
i've been to quite a few "shows" this summer in the uk, and met many US and British vets; the debt we owe is incalculable.
happy modelling guys,
nick

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)

QUOTE: Originally posted by merlin V1650 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!!!