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

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


www.daveswarbirds.com/B-17/

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

nmayhew

Don't want to offend my countrymen here, but, maybe American participation in the ETO is emphasized over the contributions of its allies in defeating the Axis........

Based on numbers, war materiel, and ideological direction, the real war was on the Eastern front, anyhow, in my opinion........

Too, the RAF's performance in the B.O.B is just as significant as the Normandy invasion from the perspective of its historical outcome............. RAF pilots were flying sortie after sortie and were completely worn out, almost to the point of collapse........ Then the Luftwaffe stupidly switched strategy........ American pilots had considerably more down time, though the peril may have been worse and the casualties much higher.........

Not downplaying the participation of America at all, I just think that oftentimes we should look at history from the perspective of others...........

As to the topic, I feel nothing but a sense of admiration and awe for the American airmen of the ETO.......... I recently talked with a veteran who was shot down over Ploesti and spent many months in a POW camp........ His point was: More airmen lost their lives in Europe than were killed in the Marine Corps against the Japanese........ Point well taken.

footcav42

Both were great aircraft indeed! The B-24 was tougher to fly in tight formation at altitude and it was said the B-24 could NOT be successfully ditched. I would suggest everyone read Steven Ambrose's great book " The Wild Blue" about George McGovern's WW2 experiences in the B-24. Lots of amazing stories about that under-rated aircraft.

Joe

Speaking of The Wild Blue, if you have a BORDERS near you, they may have a stack of this book in hardcover for $4. (Price & availability may vary by region.) Check it out, it's a great read.


Fade to Black...

I have read The Wild Blue and thoroughly enjoyed it as well as all the other Ambrose books I've read in the past. RIP

As far as the Collings Foundation bombers, I have seen them both several times up close and personal and this year even took a ride on the B24 . It is indeed the last flying B24. My grandfather was a nose gunner based on Ie Shima in the Pacific. I spent at least 1/2 the flight sitting in that turret and trying to imagine what it must have been like in formation with dozens of other 24s or even having bandits coming at your ship with guns blazing. I don't believe any large bird at 25,000 ft with 1/8th inch of aluminum between you and 20 or 30 mm cannon shells and flak hitting it would be very tough. I'd have to say the 17 though between the two. The 24s were indeed not what you would want to be in if you had to ditch. The bomb bays would collapse due to their design. The 17, with its large wings and more conventional bomb bay would be the plane to ditch in. I imagine it would float longer than a 24 would anyways.

I believe I read somewhere that someone was working on bringing another 24 to flying condition. There are several around as static displays and the rest (as with most other post war surplus) wound up being scrapped. Several bombers were put to use after the war as
fire bombers though and I believe the Colling Foundation B17 '909' served time fighting western wild fires.

Does anyone know what happened to the B-24J "All-American?" I saw it fly in 1995 in Jacksonville, Florida. I'm hoping it's lovingly on display somewhere, and not lost to us. When I saw it in '95, it was in beautiful shape, like a new aircraft.

Hulk

The B-24 formerly known as"All American" is still flying with the Collings Foundation but was repainted as "Dragon and His Tail"
You can go for a ride in it or its sister ship the B-17 "Nine-O-Nine" for a mere $400.00 for a half hour.

The Collings foundation maintains those aircraft..www. collingsfoundation.org...I've flown in both..I'm in awe of anyone who would go into combat in such a thing..truly brave...there are 3 B-24s that can fly..one is actually an LB-30(CAF) and one was owned privately and is being restored in Florida at I belive kevin Weeks fantasy of flight works..all those B-24s in junkyards are gone...if anyone wants ..go to Heavybombers.com..they have the stats on all restorations and locations of heavy bombers in the US and in other countries.
its a great resource for the B17 b24 and B29 ...also try accessing under www. armyairforces.com.

The B-24J at Barksdale AFB is a flyable machine. It would probably need an overhaul now after sittingout in the open for so long. I talked to a guy that was there when I was visiting the museum and he told me that they had flown it from Phoenix, Az to Shreveport, La! I wish I had been on that flight, as the B-24 is my favorite heavy.
For the record the B-24 carried more farther and faster! But the B-17 is more popular. Don't know why because the B-24 just looks better!!

QUOTE: Originally posted by roadkill_275 Don't know why because the B-24 just looks better!!

Yep...........and Madelyn Albright's much prettier than Demi Moore!

Merlin,
Hey, like the B-24, Ms. Albright is a fine, upstanding lady!
Oh wait...you said DEMI Moore, Right?
Thought you said DUDLEY Moore...OK. No argument there!!

So "All American" got a name change! I'm just glad to hear she's still flying! Thanks for the info.

Whatever happened to Diamond Lil?

Oh, I think she's still around. I dunno what her flight status is, though...


Fade to Black...

Yes, Diamond Lil is still in service with the Commemorative Air Force.

If "tougher" means being able to absorb greater punishment and still fly home I think it is the B-17.

Can't help but weigh in here...I grew up near a fellow who flew gunner on B-17 and he said he did time in B-24 as well. I thought the one comment that B-17 was a "flying coffin" was interesting....he said the same about the B-24! He indicated there was much more confidence in the B-17 by most airmen.

In addition, I have read quite a bit of WWII aviation history and certainly got the impression that the B-17 had a "tougher" reputation than the B-24. But I sure don't see this settling the debate! If memory serves, there were a lot more construction type things that flyers liked about the B-17 more than the B-24.
Seems to me I read the German flyers were more afraid of attacking the B-17 also (altho that certainly depended on the version)

Just my thoughts...

Just thought I'd contribute with an interesting story I heard, though slightly OT.

FWIW, I've also read that the B-17 was able to absorb more punishment than many other bombers, but it's all subjective i guess.

Anyway, my story is that while on vacation last year, we took a break from Disneyworld and I dragged the wife and kids to a warbird restoration museum in Kissimmee(sp?) FL. They were restoring a B-17 there (ca't remember what her 'name' was) that had been used to test early turboprop engines. They had pics of this bird with a turboprop mounted in the nose, replacing the bombardier's compartment. The guide said that during the tests, with the four original props feathered, the plane flew faster with the turboprop than in its 'stock' configuration. Interestingly, on the first flight, they had to land rather abruptly because rivets were popping out all over the place inside the aircraft! They attributed this at first to a bad batch of rivets during a repair, so they fixed it and sent it up again. Same thing happened! It turns out the airframe was actually twisting enough to pop the rivets because it wasn't designed to handle the amount of torque exerted by the turboprop! The plane eventually ended up at the museum where they were restoring it to combat condition. I thought this was a cool story, even though it doesn't really add anything to the debate about B17 v. B24.

Okay, to beat this dead horse a little more.
In the book The Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle pilot Robert Morgan talks about a conversation he had with a former Focke-Wulfe pilot years after the war.
Morgan asked him about the Luftwaffe's tendency to veer from the B-17s and go after the B-24s when they showed up. The German pilot's response "Oh, ja,...If the B-24s were there, we would attack them, because they were easier to knock down."

There was a saying amongst B17 crews that the B24 was the packing case that the B17 came in!!!!

If you want to read about B24s and the crews that flew them read 'Wild Blue', it really is an eye opener.

Aparently the stated maximun take of weight for a B24 was 60,000lbs, but the actual take off weight was nearer 70,000 for a machine going into combat!!!!! Crashes on take off were not uncommon.

The B24 was a more stable bombing platform because its bomb doors did not project into the slipstream like those of the B17, thus upsetting aiming.

However B17 was definitely the machine to be in, in the case of a forced landing due to the tendency of the B24 to break its back, especially when ditching.

As a result of the Davis wing the B24 could not reach the same altitudes as the B17, and therefore suffered more at the hands of the German 88s and 128mm Flak.

All the above does, is put into perspective the risks facing those flying in these machines!

Dear friends,

One final thought...after giving this some more thought, I realized that it probably is pretty difficult to have a final answer to this...I would guess if you were in either a B-17 or B-24 and had a close call with a shot up aircraft that one would tend to think that plane really did well in getting you back...likewise, watching one go down in flames probably reinforced a negative view. I would suppose there are fliers from both planes with absolutely CERTAIN beliefs in their aircraft. In each case, I would think they would be right...

Matt

Actually Dragon and his Tail was All American. They redid the paint scheme. The real Dragon and His Tail Never escaped the scrap pile. Now back to the subject, I really like both of the bombers and it really dont matter in my eyes which one was tougher than the other.