The ceiling for the B-24D was 32,000 feet and 30,000 for a B-24J.
Seems the selective folks are pulling out details in defense of the status quo.
"Under optimum conditions and for brief periods, the B-24 had a top speed of about 300 miles per hour, could carry 8,800 pounds of bombs 3,000 miles at altitudes of up to 30,000 feet. However, standard operational procedure in actual combat operations with the 8th and 15th Air Force in Europe called for 155 miles per hour indicated, 25000 feet altitude with a bomb load of 5500 pounds and a maximum total range of 1200 miles. In the Pacific, Liberators gradually replaced the B-17 in the heavy bomber role, largely because of the B-24's greater range. During the early part of the war, the B-24 and PB4Y were the only American heavy bombers covering the seas from Alaska to India.
---- Colonel John R. Kane, leader of the 98th Bomb Group ("The Pyramiders") in the Ploesti Air Raids."
As for alts,
"It was designed with the high aspect ratio 'Davis Wing' (long and thin) which was theoretically more efficient and faster for flying at high altitudes. However, the Liberator had been designed for more powerful engines than it got, so its performance at high altitude wasn't what it should have been and it's ceiling was limited because it could not achieve the intended design cruise speed. Even though it was still 10-15 knots faster, the B-24 wing did not actually provide as much lift under the same load at the same altitude as the Fortress."
More info about the wing and alts:
"The design team choose a wing - the 'Davis' wing - that is thinner when compared to the B-17 but generates more lift. However, the plane is heavier and the plane has to fly faster to achieve takeoff speed and just in cruise.
However, the Davis wing on the Liberator creates an altitude design limit by using the efficient wing which limited its high altitude ceiling since it used the same horsepower as the Fortress - thus with a combat load it could not get to the same altitude as a B-17. The pre-war thick B-17 wing is more lift efficient at a slower speed in thinner air."
B-24s capabilities were even noted by the USAAF as being insufficient:
"The availability of the Consolidated B-24 in increasing numbers soon made it evident that, whatever the qualities of its companion, the B-17, the Liberator led in several vital areas, especially in range and bomb load. But by 1944, an additional turret in the nose had increased weight and drag reduced the margin. In addition, the Liberator's ceiling, already less than the B-17s, was further reduced. Furthermore, the addition of the turred reduced forward vision from the flight deck, and cramped the working areas of the naviagtor and bombardier, in the nose."
Several projects were undertaken to test various fixes for this, one of them the frankenstein B-17 nose on a B-24J body. (this was a failure, FYI).
Then there was Col. Lawrence Gilbert, who commanded a B-24 squadron:
"The esteem in which the American fighter pilots held the B-24's was not high; the B-17, by the nature of the beast, was able to fly tighter more compact formations then we were. We often joined the bomber stream in loose and scattered formations, whereas the Fort's were very tight and compact. Most B-24 pilots will tell you, that it was a difficult aircraft to hold in formation. It was physically demanding and after twenty or thirty minutes at altitude, you were worn out.
Initially, we attempted to fly with the B-17's because there were not sufficient numbers for them to route us independently. From July of 1943, we were scheduled by necessity, with the Forts because of the limited fighter cover available. They were bombing at 27,000 feet, which was four to five thousand feet higher than the optimum altitude for the B-24. It was not a comfortable ride, although we could stay with them by pulling excessive power. The wing lost a lot of it's efficiency up there and we burned up tremendous amounts of fuel. It was something like a boat on a lake. . . just mashing along. The tail would drop down and the nose would tip up, and the engines would suffer badly."
Doesn't seem to be modeled correctly, as B-24s keep going up past 30K with no engine/performance falloff.
Clyde Whitt's B-24 diary:
http://www.unc.edu/~landon/combat.htmlOnly once did they go to 25k, most other times 20k or lower, where it apparently (according to the quotes I've listed above, and MANY other books and resources) had better performance.
Another quote, from "Wings of Morning":
"The B-24 was a difficult plane to handle. The long, tapering Davis wing, which gave the aircraft its speed and power, also created problems. Although the Liberator could sustain considerable damage and still keep flying, hit that wing, one instructor delighted in warning them, and the plane would go down. Many veteran pilots also felt that the B-24 was less table and more prone to high-speed stalls than the slower B-17, and at altitudes over twenty thousand feet the controls tended to go sluggish. These problems became particularly hazardous in high-alititude formation flying, which was the key to American air strategy in Europe. "You don't know what toejam hittin' the fan means," one veteran told them, "till you've seen a Liberator flip over on its side in the middle of a forty-plane formation." "
In-game it's just a B-17 flight model with more engine power, when historically they were quite different in handling and altitude performance, according to EVERY source I've ever read.
