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

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...

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

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

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

this should settle the argumet


www.daveswarbirds.com/B-17/

Half a wing, three engines, and a prayer...

I have heard it said that a trait that made it easy to recognize a B-24 pilot was his large forearms.

Jim

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)

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

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".

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!

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

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?

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!!!

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)

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.)

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

I'll amen those amens!

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