B-24 vs. B-17

[Karnak]

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.

The '17 has more character and better personality along with it's better looks.

Happy now?

[nirvana]

Originally posted by Karnak
The '17 has more character and better personality along with it's better looks.

Happy now?

Yes thank you

A 24 can carry more ord meaning you could kill more stuff:p

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by nirvana
Yes thank you

A 24 can carry more ord meaning you could kill more stuff:p

But the 17... now THAT is a classic! I can tell you, every kid who learns about bombers first asks "Where is the Flying Fortress?". I have an entire squadron full of people who just love the 17s. And, now is a very convinient time to advertise my squad! (its not a new squad, just new name) If you love B17s, join the 303rd Bomber Group today!

[Bruv119]

From a fighters perspective I find B17's much easier to kill.

I aim right for the fuselage/ tail section its very narrow and snaps real easy.

B24's however go burnies real nice from a p51's 50 cals.  

Was funny the other day and I said this to cabby over ventrilo and both of us timed a dive on this poor buff driver both of us hit our passes around the same time and both the left and right drones went burnies.

Did a big loop and converged on the last like 2 buzzsaws.  

Bruv
~S~

[Kazaa]

B-24J: Good [/color]

Great gun load out, can use the top turret from direct 6 thanks to the double vertical stabiliser.

Angle of the tail gunner nearly has 180 degrees radius.

A better bomb load of 8,000lbs.

A smaller wing which can be more difficult to hit.

B-24J: Bad [/color]

Goes on fire if someone farts in its general vicinity.

That little cross bar in the rear turret gets in the way a lot.

B-17G: Good [/color]

Greater armour.

Better climb performance.

B-17G: Bad [/color]

Big target from any angle.

No use of the top turret from direct 6 due to the single vertical stabiliser.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Bruv119
From a fighters perspective I find B17's much easier to kill.

I aim right for the fuselage/ tail section its very narrow and snaps real easy.

B24's however go burnies real nice from a p51's 50 cals.  

Another opinion from the purely fighter perspective as I hardly ever fly buffs but attack them often either from directly above or an uppercut to the chin.  B24's seem more deadly, probably due to the free fire zones for the upper and nose turrets; however, the wings are weak.  It's pretty easy to chop them off with a few rounds or torch them from hits near the engines.  B17's seem tougher.  Best bet for me is a direct shot into the cockpit.

Mace

[mussie]

I forgot 1 thing

B-17
16x250lbs <-- Great for strat targets

B-24
12x250lbs <-- Something dont add up here

B-25
12x250lbs <-- Same load as 24 but faster and better climber

[Widewing]

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.

Both the Privateer and B-24s had oval cowlings, with the Privateer's being vertically oval and the B-24's being horizontally oval. The oval shape resulted from moving the oil coolers inlets to the leading edge of the cowling. B-24s had the turbos installed in the underside of the nacelles. As you noted, the Navy omitted the turbos as the PB4Y-2 was a low to medium altitude patrol aircraft.

By the way, the oval cowling was introduced on the B-24D. Previous versions had round cowlings.

My regards,

Widewing

[Reynolds]

Either way, those numbers say one thing= YAY 17!!!