I believe you are right. I have never seen that B-29 but do think I remember seeing that name on one on the Internet. Here is the website for both FIFI and a B24A http://www.cafb29b24.org/
The B-24 mentioned on the above post is in fact "Diamond Lil". The aircraft was assigned to join No.120 Squadron RAF Coastal Command in 1941 with the British serial number AM927 but she met with an accident at Kansas City and never completed her journey until 1992 when she was flown over to Britain to take part in the 50th anniversary celebrations of the arrival of the USAAF in this country. The aircraft did indeed join 120 Squadron if only for a short time, 51 years late. A few details.... Contract No. F-677 Consolidated Aircraft No. 18 USAAC Model B-24A USAAC Serial No. 40-2366 British Model. LB.30B British serial No. AM927 Regards Peter Clare
The only B-29 still flyable is in Midland, Texas and is in desperate need of help. Google B-29 and FiFi and you will get their site. Copied from Texas Photo Forum, where they have some good photos of the restoration progress: This is about Fifi the only flying B29 from WW2 Sad news ..FIFI is down for an indterminate time. It will be Wednesday of next week before a prognosis can be estimated. Nevertheless the outcome of these current tests, she will ultimately need 5 engines..includes one spare. These will be carbureted instead of fuel injected. If you or if you know of anyone that can spare a mere $1,250,000 please let me know. That is the estimate to re-engine FIFI. We have the cores but they need to be reworked and adapted to FIFI's engine mounts. FIFI flew well for 3 days but these major problems on 2 and 3 occured Monday. Lil's leaky fuel tanks are still curing with patching material. We plan to gas her up Friday and see if the patches hold. Until we know the air-worthiness of both aircraft the tour is on hold. Bill Copeland B-29/B-24 hangar Midland, Tx.
Great thread. Very impressive knowledge as well as opinions. The only think I can contribute is a link to a site that has info on both of these planes as well as a bunch of others. Cheers http://www.acepilots.com/planes/main.html
Due to its high-aspect ratio, thin Davis wing, the B24 was much harder to fly in tight formation at high altitude - exactly the tactics employed by the 8th AF Bomber command as the best protection against enemy fighters. However, the B24 was a much more modern aircraft than the B-17. For instance, it featured a steerable nosewheel instead of a tailwheel - something of a novelty on aircraft at that time.
The B-24 was indeed a very modern aircraft for its time, in some cases far ahead of of its contempories. Among other things, a flight deck which could be accomodated by crew members along with the two pilots, a bomb bay that could be walked through, although it being only a 10" wide cat-walk, the bomb bay doors being the rollers shutter type. The flight deck was even supplied with ash trays for the two pilots. I could go on but it would become boring to the uninitiated. Regards Peter Clare
The B-24 was indeed a very modern aircraft for its time, in some cases far ahead of of its contempories. Among other things, a flight deck which could be accomodated by crew members along with the two pilots, a bomb bay that could be walked through, although it being only a 10" wide cat-walk, the bomb bay doors being the rollers shutter type. The flight deck was even supplied with ash trays for the two pilots. I could go on but it would become boring to the uninitiated. Regards Peter Clare Indeed it was! And later, Consolidated went on to design even more complex and massive B-36 - arguably the single biggest deterrent of the cold war. Might want to take a look at this site: http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/B36_Home.htm
The B-24 was indeed a very modern aircraft for its time, in some cases far ahead of of its contempories. Among other things, a flight deck which could be accomodated by crew members along with the two pilots, a bomb bay that could be walked through, although it being only a 10" wide cat-walk, the bomb bay doors being the rollers shutter type. The flight deck was even supplied with ash trays for the two pilots. I could go on but it would become boring to the uninitiated. Regards Peter Clare Peter I don't know what you are smoking, but there is no comparison between the two for the roles thry played in the European theatre. Commanding General Spaatz stated that the air war in Europe was won by the B17. The B24 was better used in the Pacific because of it's longer range, If the 8th AF used B24s in 1942 and early 43, daylight bombing would probably would have been stopped because of losses. During that period 17s lost about 10% I'd hate to think of the losses the 24s would have had. I still say that while flying my tour I would rather have B24s along with us them fighter escort, because all we would have had to worry about would have been flak
Hi Jhor. In a slight aside to the discussion, did you ever have the chance to get up close to the Commonwealth bombers? What did you think of them compared to the B17? Kitty
Peter I don't know what you are smoking, but there is no comparison between the two for the roles thry played in the European theatre. Commanding General Spaatz stated that the air war in Europe was won by the B17. The B24 was better used in the Pacific because of it's longer range, If the 8th AF used B24s in 1942 and early 43, daylight bombing would probably would have been stopped because of losses. During that period 17s lost about 10% I'd hate to think of the losses the 24s would have had. I still say that while flying my tour I would rather have B24s along with us them fighter escort, because all we would have had to worry about would have been flak Jthor, don't understand the last bit of your post. Are you saying your fighter escort posed a danger you yourselfs somehow?
A while back Jhor9 said that if they had B24's with them the enemy fighters would concentrate on the 24's and leave the 17's alone. Better than fighter escort.
Peter I don't know what you are smoking, but there is no comparison between the two for the roles thry played in the European theatre. Commanding General Spaatz stated that the air war in Europe was won by the B17. The B24 was better used in the Pacific because of it's longer range, If the 8th AF used B24s in 1942 and early 43, daylight bombing would probably would have been stopped because of losses. During that period 17s lost about 10% I'd hate to think of the losses the 24s would have had. I still say that while flying my tour I would rather have B24s along with us them fighter escort, because all we would have had to worry about would have been flak Jules, I'm not really in a position to coment too much on the European air war as my area of research covers No.120 Squadron RAF Coastal Command during the Battle of the Atlantic. But I have to say that I cannot agree when you that say that the air war in Europe was won by the B-17, don't forget, the Royal Air Force was there also operating with the Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling, aircraft equally as good as the B-17. I agree that a comparison has to be made for each theatre of operations and that the B-24 was a better aircraft for use in the Pacific due to its advantage of range but the B-24 also had the advantage over the B-17 during the Battle of the Atlantic. The B-24 destroying 74 U-boats and the B-17 12 As an aside. No.120 Squadron RAF were the first squadron take the B-24 Liberator into combat. Regards Peter Clare
A while back Jhor9 said that if they had B24's with them the enemy fighters would concentrate on the 24's and leave the 17's alone. Better than fighter escort. I see. Thanks.
Jules, I'm not really in a position to coment too much on the European air war as my area of research covers No.120 Squadron RAF Coastal Command during the Battle of the Atlantic. But I have to say that I cannot agree when you that say that the air war in Europe was won by the B-17, don't forget, the Royal Air Force was there also operating with the Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling, aircraft equally as good as the B-17. I agree that a comparison has to be made for each theatre of operations and that the B-24 was a better aircraft for use in the Pacific due to its advantage of range but the B-24 also had the advantage over the B-17 during the Battle of the Atlantic. The B-24 destroying 74 U-boats and the B-17 12 As an aside. No.120 Squadron RAF were the first squadron take the B-24 Liberator into combat. Regards Peter Clare Peter, I was quoting Gen. Spaatz, not my statement. I have the geatest respect for any airman in any type aircraft who braved the skies of Europe during WW2. My comment regarding B24 vs B17 is the survivability of the planes with their encounters with fighters and flak. This is from my personal experience, and from the opinion of others during my time of service,
Peter, I was quoting Gen. Spaatz, not my statement. I have the geatest respect for any airman in any type aircraft who braved the skies of Europe during WW2. My comment regarding B24 vs B17 is the survivability of the planes with their encounters with fighters and flak. This is from my personal experience, and from the opinion of others during my time of service, Jules, no offence intended. I bow to your experience. regards Peter.
B17 V B24. So i need to make a decision? Hmm, toughy, but going on what Jules has said, then if i had to choose then I'll go for the 17. Though i still say the Lanc was better Kitty
I would go with the B-17. I own a documentary from The History Channel about the ball turret, Ande Rooney who was a editor for the newspaper of the 8th Airforce is interviewed. He says that the B-24 would win any comparison when it comes to technical data but if you asked any airman who had flown both planes, they would choose the B-17 because of its superior handling and durability. Durability being key the B-17 was a far tougher aircraft than the B-24 and could take insane amounts of damage yet bring its crew home alive. In my opinion the Fortress was the best bomber of the war.
Just adding this excellent site on the 17 & 24: http://www.b17sam.com/index.html Seems to have been compiled by the people who flew both Including one gent who visited this forum a while back. Some Wonderful Photos and more evidence of the extreme toughness of the B17 that Jhor9 alludes to. A flavour of the whole site in this quote: "Life Member of the Lucky Bastards Club, an exclusive club, no rules, no officers, no meetings. Open only to those who have paid their dues by completing a tour of missions with the 8th" (Thread where I noticed the link: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/general/4542-most-dangerous-air-target-wwii.html)
Hi Jhor. In a slight aside to the discussion, did you ever have the chance to get up close to the Commonwealth bombers? What did you think of them compared to the B17? Kitty If you are referring to the UK bombers, no Iv'e never been close to any. At my base in Tunis there were Wellingtons based on the other side of the field, they bombed at night, and I was told that they took heavy losses. Re: comparisons --- I can't answer that because the big honchos had each type of plane do the job that they were designed for, some did better then others. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
