Hi All, Which of these two American aircraft - the B-17 and B-24 would you consider to have contributed the most all round effort during WWII. I know with which one my loyalty lies, but I would value your opinions on versatility of use in each theatre of the war. Regards Peter.
I lean towards the liberator. Purely down to it's versatility, used successfully all across the world in a variety of roles, not really a claim the b17 could make as it's star only really shone in Europe. Both nice looking beasts but it's quite hard to beat a polished aluminium b24 for a touch of class. (Does anyone know if it's true that the etymology of the word 'crate' for aircraft comes from b17 crews reffering to b24's as "the crate that ours came in"?.)
USAAF Retrospectives on the two aircraft yield the following B-24 Advantages over the B-17 -Longer range -Cheaper to make -Heavier payload B-17 Advantages over the B-24 -Easier to maintain and therefore more ready for combat -Much easier and safer to fly with far fewer training accidents -Faster at high altitude -More defensive fire -Shorter build and modification times -35% higher combat lifetime than the B-24 Couple of notes: ---------------- Gen Doolittle also wrote to Gen Spaatz that despite the maintenance problems of the B-24 he could not take out the Luftwaffe before OVERLORD with his B-24s sitting in the modification shops in the UK or the US so he took them as they were with their problems and without modifications. This may have had an impact on all the numbers. When the defensive armor was increased on the B-24 it lost a lot of its performance advantages. The RAF preferred the B-24 and nicknamed it "Liberator". They intended to use it for anti-sub patrols and channel patrol for the Focke Wolf bombers (sort of like a fighter). Some of the differences in production numbers came from the fact more companies could produce the B-24s and political issues like locating production a one senator’s state.
The RAF preferred the B-24 and nicknamed it "Liberator". They intended to use it for anti-sub patrols and channel patrol for the Focke Wolf bombers (sort of like a fighter). the RAF and IAF used the B24 as a bomber in the Far East. Again their very long range made them ideal for attacking deep behind Japanese lines. The RAF, despite the need for bombers, rejected the B17 as being unsuitable in the bombing role. it was not until the H model that the faults specified in the RAF report on the B17 were resolved.
the RAF and IAF used the B24 as a bomber in the Far East. Again their very long range made them ideal for attacking deep behind Japanese lines. The RAF, despite the need for bombers, rejected the B17 as being unsuitable in the bombing role. it was not until the H model that the faults specified in the RAF report on the B17 were resolved. The H model was the "flying dutchman" model right? What were their objections Morse? That's the first time I have heard it. I don't doubt you, but I was just wondering what they didn't like about the B-17s that they would like about the B-24s. Was it the forward radar or that droppable boat-thing that they liked about it? (or something else?) Both of those planes had their faults. Even the B-29 had some nasty surprizes like the occasional occurance of losing an engine on take off under a full load which could be unrecoverable. The B-29's four huge P&W Double Wasp engines (same one used on the P-47) had a problem about overheating if they stayed on the ground too long staging a takeoff. You start them up, you pretty much need to get them in the air or shut them down and let them cool down. A friend of mine's father was a navigator on these on Tinnian and he tells me stories his father told him about them.
B-17 Advantages over the B-24 -Easier to maintain and therefore more ready for combat -Much easier and safer to fly with far fewer training accidents -Faster at high altitude -More defensive fire -Shorter build and modification times -35% higher combat lifetime than the B-24 But they were buildng B-24's at a rate of one every 56 mins at the Ford plant at Willow Run.
Isn't that a fantastic figure? Both machines a testament to the adaptability and sheer manufacturing power of US industry, got some good articles on 'Ford at War',nearly all of the statistics are just incredible.
but I was just wondering what they didn't like about the B-17s that they would like about the B-24s. I think the B17 got off to a bad start in RAF service. About 20 were delivered in 1941, but it was much more complex than the RAF were used to and so had a series of mechanical failures and consequent losses. Also, these were the early B/C models with no tail gun and no power turrets, both of which all RAF bombers had by then. By the time the E/F versions were available the RAF was concentrating on night-bombing so the extra guns on these were an unnecessary trade-off for the smaller bomb load. Both types were used by Coastal Command, but the B24's more roomy fuselage would have made carrying the necessary equipment easier. I have heard that B24s were more difficult to keep in formation than 17's, and also that the B24 had a "one-shot lighter" reputation due to the large amount of fuel in the wings. (Does anyone know if it's true that the etymology of the word 'crate' for aircraft comes from b17 crews reffering to b24's as "the crate that ours came in"?.) The B17 crews may have said this, but I'm pretty sure the word "crate" for aircraft goes back to WW1. Adrian
The H model was the "flying dutchman" model right? What were their objections Morse? That's the first time I have heard it. My mind was distracted by the lovely delightful Kitty! I was thinking about the B24. the ultimate B17 model was the G! nevertheless, heres the objections 1 The Fortress cannot rely onevasion of enemy aircraft below 32 000 feet. 2 Once intercepted the Fortress has littlechance against modern fighters. 3 Despite reputed accuracy of the Sperry sight, precise bombing with the Fortress above 32 000 feet is extremely difficult,due to physical and mental strain im­posed in using equipment at that great height. 4 Dependence on suitable weather to carry out attack limits the frequency of operations. 5 Condensation trails can cause a raid to be abandoned. Gives away position of the B-17. 6 The average bomb load is uneconomical inrelation to the manning and maintenance effort. William Whitlow, who flew 500 hours inLiberators and about 400 in Fortresses, had no doubt which he and themajority pre­ferred in his Group. 'The main thing the B-17 had over the B-24 was that it could get up to 27 000feet and more on a mission with no trouble and take you away from a lot of the flak. Once you got past 20000 feet in a Lib' the controls started to get mushy. That Davis wing just wasn't made for taking heavy loads much higher and if you went to 24 000 feet, formation flying became really tricky. On the other hand the Fort" could be flown in forma­tion with little trouble, 5000 feet higher than the Liberator - and that's a lot of altitude when people on the ground are shooting at you. Over 20 000 feet the 8-24 needed a lot of work by the pilots. The B-17 didn't drain your physical strength like the B-24 did. The B-17 was strictly an aileron control type air­craft whereas with the B-24 you had to use rudder. 'I never met anyone in our group who regretted the change to B17. The conver­sion was fairly easy and the only real difficulty was landing. Each pilot had one and a half to two hours flight instruction before going solo. The b 24 was easier to land as it had a tricycle gear and you'd bring her in and plonk her down with little trouble. The B-17 had con­ventional gear and the technique was quite different; she tended to float along over the runway and you had to develop a more delicate touch. It could be tricky in a strong cross-wind. On the runway a B-24 definitely had better directional stability but needed a longer run on take-off if similarly loaded to a '17. We had a few accidents after conversion which were probably due to insufficient train­ing. We did have a few B-17s slam into one another because the pilot wasn't up to par or forgot he was in a Fort and instinctively acted as if he were still in a 6-24 using rudder instead of ailerons. We had a collision happen right in front of us over the field one day and both B-17 went down. A horrible thing to watch as men fell out with no parachutes.' Freeman Roger A., B17 - Fortress at War, Ian Allen, London, 1977, P 95
I think the B17 got off to a bad start in RAF service. About 20 were delivered in 1941 Adrian the RAF received twenty in the intial batch serial nos were in the AN518-537 block
Even the B-29 had some nasty surprizes like the occasional occurance of losing an engine on take off under a full load which could be unrecoverable. the main problem was the engine over heating which was the result of problems mating the engines to the aircraft. there was insufficent cooling for the rear cylinders. However, there is an interesting comment from the Crew manual In the past we have had many abortions due to lack of knowledge and skill on the part of the combat crew in flying the airplane, and on the part of the mechanics performing maintenance. This lack of skill was understandable due to our short training period with the B29. As our experience has increased, the percentage of abortions has decreased. The key to the success of a mission is good, precise maintenance. Insured maintenance will insure missios completed... XXI Bomber Command - Combat Crew Manual, APO 234.
How the Liberator got its name. Because the name Liberator was first commonly used in association with the early employment of the aircraft by the British, the general impression was formed that the name was British in origin. In fact this seemed to be confirmed in 1942 when Consolidated ran full-page advertisements in several popular US aviation magazines which stated in part. 'We always thought of her by her US Army designation - Consolidated B-24... Then we discovered she had already won a name. The British were calling her the Liberator. So from now on Liberator is official. On 28 October 1940, Reuben Fleet (Boss of Consolidated) stated the name was 'Consolidated Liberator' adding, 'We chose Liberator because this airplane can carry destruction to the heart of the Hun, and thus help to liberate those nations temporarily finding themselves under Hitler's yoke. In a reply to an inquiry on the subject in 1972 Fleet supplied the following additional information. The name Liberator was suggested by his children's governess. Her name was Miss Edith Brocklebank. She was British. Regards Peter Clare
The RAF first used its Liberators as transports - this would be the Liberator I, equivalent to the B24A. One use was by Ferry Command, returning Ferry crews from Prestwick to Gander to pick up more aircraft. Unfortunately, at least three of these Liberators crashed, wiping out a third of the pilots and half the navigators attached to Ferry Command. Adrian
The RAF first used its Liberators as transports - this would be the Liberator I, equivalent to the B24A. One use was by Ferry Command, returning Ferry crews from Prestwick to Gander to pick up more aircraft. Unfortunately, at least three of these Liberators crashed, wiping out a third of the pilots and half the navigators attached to Ferry Command. Adrian They were also used by BOAC on the Atlantic run. there an interesting article on the use of the Liberator in BOAC service the Aeroplane Monthy of some years back.
Liberators continued in use until December 1968 when the Indian Air Force retired its former RAF machines. taken from the Hendon Museum website
How the Liberator got its name. Because the name Liberator was first commonly used in association with the early employment of the aircraft by the British, the general impression was formed that the name was British in origin. In fact this seemed to be confirmed in 1942 when Consolidated ran full-page advertisements in several popular US aviation magazines which stated in part. 'We always thought of her by her US Army designation - Consolidated B-24... Then we discovered she had already won a name. The British were calling her the Liberator. So from now on Liberator is official. On 28 October 1940, Reuben Fleet (Boss of Consolidated) stated the name was 'Consolidated Liberator' adding, 'We chose Liberator because this airplane can carry destruction to the heart of the Hun, and thus help to liberate those nations temporarily finding themselves under Hitler's yoke. In a reply to an inquiry on the subject in 1972 Fleet supplied the following additional information. The name Liberator was suggested by his children's governess. Her name was Miss Edith Brocklebank. She was British. Regards Peter Clare Man, where did you find an obscure fact like that Peter?
The RAF first used its Liberators as transports - this would be the Liberator I, equivalent to the B24A. One use was by Ferry Command, returning Ferry crews from Prestwick to Gander to pick up more aircraft. Unfortunately, at least three of these Liberators crashed, wiping out a third of the pilots and half the navigators attached to Ferry Command. Adrian Liberators were not easy to fly. There were a few US crashes as well. Of course since the B-17 was designed in 1935 and the B-24 was designed in 1939, you had to figure that the B-17 got a lot of its kinks worked out in peacetime.
the main problem was the engine over heating which was the result of problems mating the engines to the aircraft. there was insufficent cooling for the rear cylinders. However, there is an interesting comment from the Crew manual XXI Bomber Command - Combat Crew Manual, APO 234. Interesting. I will pass that on to my buddy. Unfortunately his dad died about two years ago. Right before he died he took him to the Smithsonian and he got to see the Enola Gay. His dad got a real kick out of seeing another B-29. About every two years we get the Confederate Air Force to come through and they have a B-17 and a B-24 they land and display at the local airport and sell tickets to see it. Strangely enough I have never been. I did see them while out at the airport practicing landings a couple of years ago but didn't have the time to go visit it. You can take a ride in it for about $250 (I think). They use the proceeds to go to restoring aircraft.
About every two years we get the Confederate Air Force to come through and they have a B-17 and a B-24 they land and display at the local airport and sell tickets to see it. Strangely enough I have never been. I did see them while out at the airport practicing landings a couple of years ago but didn't have the time to go visit it. You can take a ride in it for about $250 (I think). They use the proceeds to go to restoring aircraft. The CAF seem to do a lot to maintain the publics interest in WW2 by their flying collection of aircraft. I seem to remember that they are flying a B29 FIFI.
