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

Amen,my friend. AMEN!!

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!

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.

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."

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.