Author Topic: B-24 vs. B-17  (Read 1363 times)

Offline mussie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2006, 12:17:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
LOL!!!


The only bigger tail I have ever was one of my X's

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2006, 01:44:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by mussie
The only bigger tail I have ever was one of my X's



okay... :confused:

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2006, 01:48:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
okay... :confused:


he'll explain when you get a bit older
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2006, 01:49:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
he'll explain when you get a bit older


:rofl
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2006, 01:51:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
he'll explain when you get a bit older


I get it, its just kinda wierd... didnt expect it to go quite that far...

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2006, 01:54:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by joeblogs
The Cyclone is a wider engine than the Twin Wasp: 57" vs 48".

The Twin Wasp has 14 cylinders in two rows while the Cyclone has 9 cylinders in a single row. Result, the Nacelle is narrower, but longer. Add to that the eliptical shape of the B24 nacelle...

-Blogs


Bzzzzt! I'm sorry, that's not the answer we're looking for!

The B24's engines are oval because they crammed the superchargers into each side of the engine. if you look you'll see something similar to the F6Fs chin inlet, only it's on each side of the engine.

Privateers, because they were low alt planes, had the 'chargers removed, and as a result they had plain round nacelles.

About all the other info I've not the foggiest, but I knew this tidbit about the oval shape.

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2006, 03:52:37 PM »
Nice job Krusty! But it still doesnt change the fact that those engines look too small. If only they looked just a little bigger, i would fly them much more often! I just always look out the window and go "eeewww" in the 24s.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2006, 03:56:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
Nice job Krusty! But it still doesnt change the fact that those engines look too small. If only they looked just a little bigger, i would fly them much more often! I just always look out the window and go "eeewww" in the 24s.



As apposed to looking out the window of your 109 and going "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK a TBM".
:D :D :D

Bronk

Just ribbing ya a little cuz lord knows I'd do no better against the Furball.
See Rule #4

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2006, 04:15:27 PM »
Maybe it's just a perspective thing. The wing of the B24 is further back and higher up putting the engines back there more. The wing of the B17 is right at the cockpit and the engines close in. It's just the optics of it, I think.

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2006, 04:47:40 PM »
B-17 vs B-24 is a choice I make depending upon mission.  

B-17 is definitely much more durable, and I get a lot more fighter kills in it.  If I'm running bombs into an airfield with a lot of enemy around, give me a B-17 anytime.  It takes a licking and keeps on ticking (and shooting back at you).

B-24 is great for CV killing - it'll hold together while I come in on a shallow dive at 300 Kts IAS, pull up and then dump bombs all over the enemy CV.  It has a better bombload, and slightly greater level speed, but a few hits in the wings and it  burns like it is filled with gasoline-soaked rags.  

All in all, I'd take the 17 if you are going into a fight and want to get home alive, or at least take some of the b..tards with you.  Take the 24 if you are going on a suicidal dive bombing CV killing frenzy, or if you have some escort.

EagleDNY
$.02

:aok

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2006, 07:29:42 PM »
and yet, the superchargers on the B-17 are also in the nacelles...

a better guess would be the position of the oil coolers...

-blogs


Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Bzzzzt! I'm sorry, that's not the answer we're looking for!

The B24's engines are oval because they crammed the superchargers into each side of the engine. if you look you'll see something similar to the F6Fs chin inlet, only it's on each side of the engine.

Privateers, because they were low alt planes, had the 'chargers removed, and as a result they had plain round nacelles.

About all the other info I've not the foggiest, but I knew this tidbit about the oval shape.

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2006, 08:37:24 PM »
B17 superchargers are underneath the engine. You can see them, just like on the P38.
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2006, 09:16:07 PM »
Well this almost right. It's not the supercharger, it's the position of the oil cooler and the intercooler (for the supercharged air) on either side of the engine. They are positioned differently on the B17.

As with the B17 installation, the supercharger itself is on the bottom of the Nacelle.

One other thing that is likelly to affect the size of the nacelle on the B24, relative to the B-17 is the way the landing gear retracts. On the B17 the gear retracts into the nacelle. On the B24, they retract into the wing behind the outboard nacelle.

-Blogs


Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Bzzzzt! I'm sorry, that's not the answer we're looking for!

The B24's engines are oval because they crammed the superchargers into each side of the engine. if you look you'll see something similar to the F6Fs chin inlet, only it's on each side of the engine.

Privateers, because they were low alt planes, had the 'chargers removed, and as a result they had plain round nacelles.

About all the other info I've not the foggiest, but I knew this tidbit about the oval shape.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 09:42:39 PM by joeblogs »

Offline nirvana

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5640
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2006, 09:57:29 PM »
You fly a plane based on it's looks rather then performance?  Boy that isn't gonna get you all too far in life, especially with the ladies.
Who are you to wave your finger?

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
B-24 vs. B-17
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2006, 11:10:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by nirvana
You fly a plane based on it's looks rather then performance?  Boy that isn't gonna get you all too far in life, especially with the ladies.


Well, for me they are pretty much even. Theres nothing i cant do in a 17 that i can in a 24. And even carrier killing. All of my carrier kills have been in a B17, and from at least 10,000 feet up. A single 17 can kill a CV if you drop just right.