Author Topic: B-24 vs. B-17 (Read 1435 times)

Reynolds · « **on:** August 14, 2006, 04:12:06 AM »

Okay, lets duke this out. The plusses and minuses of each heavy bomber. I like both, personally, though now that the OD has come out for the 17, i have stopped flying the 24. And may i say, i dont want just the statistcal plusses and minuses, i also want asthetics. Which one has the better skins, and which looks cooler. So lets go, Fortress vs Liberator. Superbowl I-IX-IV-III

Reynolds · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2006, 04:13:16 AM »

Ill start. I say the 17, for purely asthetic reasons. The engines on the 24 are too small. They look really wierd, and as far as skins, the only good B24 one is the Blue. The new OD Fortresses are UBER AWESOME!!!

OOZ662 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2006, 04:27:47 AM »

I prefer the B-17 because of the faster climb rate to 30,000 feet (my home) and the higher speed at that altitude. I think the custom bare metal skin is great, too. Mmmh...shiney.

Flayed1 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2006, 05:53:52 AM »

I prefer the 17 mainly due to how durable it is, I find it can take load more damage than the B-24 (fireball) can. Usually the only reason I'll take a 24 up is the 2000lb bomb load is great for killing hangers.

Yoshimbo · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2006, 07:42:59 AM »

i agree with u flayed i take the b17 cuz of the extra damage i can take and if ooz is correct about the climb rate (nvr tried to really compare it myself) then ima stick with the b17 even more now

Bodhi · « **Reply #5 on:** August 14, 2006, 09:28:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
The engines on the 24 are too small. They look really wierd...

B-17 has a Wright R-1820-97 rated to 1200hp.

B-24 has a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-65 rated to 1200 hp.

The engines are roughly the same size, although the 24's have 10 cubic inches more per engine.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2006, 01:30:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yoshimbo
if ooz is correct about the climb rate

Reynolds · « **Reply #7 on:** August 14, 2006, 02:06:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
B-17 has a Wright R-1820-97 rated to 1200hp.

B-24 has a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-65 rated to 1200 hp.

The engines are roughly the same size, although the 24's have 10 cubic inches more per engine.

REALLY?!? They look soooooooo small compared to the 17... I gues im just used to the overwing engines looking so big (comparitively).

Debonair · « **Reply #8 on:** August 14, 2006, 02:51:12 PM »

i guess the high aspect ratio wing make an optical illusion for you

mussie · « **Reply #9 on:** August 14, 2006, 04:18:29 PM »

B-17 is FAR more durable

B-24 More Bombs better rear guns (twin tail)

Nuff Said

Reynolds · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2006, 02:49:35 AM »

I DO like the way the 24's bomb bay looks though.

mentalguy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2006, 09:47:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mussie
B-17 is FAR more durable

B-24 More Bombs better rear guns (twin tail)

Nuff Said

B17 has twin 50s in the tail, right?

joeblogs · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2006, 09:56:44 AM »

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

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
REALLY?!? They look soooooooo small compared to the 17... I gues im just used to the overwing engines looking so big (comparitively).

mussie · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2006, 10:37:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mentalguy
B17 has twin 50s in the tail, right?

Same guns but the top turret in the 17 has the tail blocking its rear arc... (Its a F*&^ing big tail)

Reynolds · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:11:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mussie
(Its a F*&^ing big tail)

LOL!!!