Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Virage on May 23, 2004, 10:27:26 PM
-
I caught a few minutes of a B-24 special on PBS last week and overheard the remark that the B24 had a bigger bomb load AND was faster than the B-17. I always assumed the b24 was slow. Any B-24 gurus out there that can shed some light?
-
I'm no guru, but comparing specs over at Baugher's place shows a few things. Comparing the B-17E with the B-24D shows the B-24 could haul half a ton more bombs and go a further 300 miles than the B-17. The B-24 also cruised at 200mph, while the B-17 tooled along around 180mph. Both had a max bomb load of 8,000 lbs, which isn't entirely relevant as you can't carry that big a load very far.
Comparing the B-17G with the B-24J showed roughly the same thing. The B-24J moved a touch faster than the -17G and carried half a ton more bombs in a typical load (4k vs 5k). The B-17G went a tad further though; 1,700 miles for the -24J while the -17G droned on for 1,850 miles. But, the Lib in any version could fly higher. Typically B-17's flew around 25,000 feet, with B-24's moving along up to 5,000 feet higher. The B-17's Wright engines were certified to produce 1,200 hp up to 25,000 ft, while the Pratt & Whitney on the B-24 could maintain that same power setting up to 31,500 ft. I find this odd because aside from the difference in engine makes, both used the same turbo system.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/thirdseriesbombers.html
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/geek.gif)
-
That's it!!! We've got to have Libs in AH2 now! :aok
-
B-24 is my favorite plane.
its the most produced bomber ever and it served on every U.S. front.
it has never been done justice ina 3d model.
all artists rendeing plans have large innacuracies that makes 3d modelling directly from available plans impossible if accurate results are desired.
however I have 1:12 scale plans (1 inch per foot) for a B-24D that is accurate in every detail except pilots canopy from the rather wel known R/C model plans maker Dan Palmer...
all his plans are very authentic in scale and proportion and include accurate information and proportion on wing area chord camber etc etc etc.
http://www.mag-web.com/rc-modeler/palmer/product.html
-
I am a big fan of the B-24 as well - always liked it better than the B-17 for some reason.
Had an old friend of the family that was a B-24 pilot in the 8th AF during WW2 so got to hear some good stories about the B-24 vs. B-17's. I remembering him talking about a few things that I since have read elsewhere and heard on TV shows.
The B-24 was faster than the B-17 and had greater range. (He flew a J model but he didn't say which B-17 model).
He said the B-17 was an "easier" plane to fly. The Davis Airfoil the B-24's wing used made flying it quite a task and made for a brick like glide. He said if you lost power you were screwed.
Remembered him saying he thought the B-24 was a better built a/c than the B-17 and it would soak up more damage.
-
Lotsa good B-24 stuff on Google search. Always thought it kinda ugly but eminently practical design to haul lotsa stuff.
Had to be doing something right to be the most produced U.S. plane of WWII, including fighters, trainers, and transports, and the most produced bomber of any nation.
-
I just read that B24s replaced B17s in the pacific in 1943.
Pretty good bomber for what I assumed was an old tub. B24 was designed later than the B17, didn't know that either.
-
And one had the greatest noseart of all time.
(http://www.air-and-space.com/20020516%20SBA/2%2028%20B-24J%20N224J%20right%20side%20nose%20art%20l.jpg)
-
...and one of the saddest air mysteries ever.
(http://www.qmfound.com/lady_be_good_1959_3.jpg)
-
(http://www.collingsfoundation.org/hiresaircaft/high-B-24water2.jpg)
-
The B-24 had a higher cruise speed than the B-17, but the B-17 had a higher max speed.
B-24s were killed left and right when they were forced to fly at the same speeds and altitudes as B-17s. The Germans either knew the B-24s carried a bigger bomb load or were easier to kill than the -17s.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The B-24 had a higher cruise speed than the B-17, but the B-17 had a higher max speed.
B-24s were killed left and right when they were forced to fly at the same speeds and altitudes as B-17s. The Germans either knew the B-24s carried a bigger bomb load or were easier to kill than the -17s.
That is not quite correct.
I remember reading somewhere it was because of the speed differences (B-17 being slower) and the altitudes the planes flew at is the reason the B-24's always seemed to catch all the damage and attention from both fighters and flak.
The B-24's were always placed in the higher combat boxes (B-17's and B-24's hardly ever flew in the same boxes) formations so they got the most attention from the fighters.
-
Do wish they would bring the B-24 LIBERATOR to AH.
Would like to see them come out with the "D" model.
That way we could have an early war Heavy bomber with the B-24D and a Late War one with the B-17G we have now. Would make set-ups much easier in the SEA and CT.
-
Originally posted by Jester
Do wish they would bring the B-24 LIBERATOR to AH.
Would like to see them come out with the "D" model.
That way we could have an early war Heavy bomber with the B-24D and a Late War one with the B-17G we have now. Would make set-ups much easier in the SEA and CT.
Agreed, especially when you consider the B-24 did most of the bombing work in the Med and Pacific.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
Im a big B24 fan, have been ever since I heard my grandfather tell stories of him "winning" the war by shooting down Japanese Zeros from his ball turret.
The B24 outclasses the B17 in almost all categories except for its ability to withstand damage.
Great bird the B24 is... would love to see it in AH :D
-
The B-24 was really a generation ahead of the B17. The initial design dates are nearly a decade apart. The B-24 benefited from a more efficient, but less rugged wing design, plus more advanced systems (many electric).
But the B-24 was somewhat hampered by its P&W engines, which were not initially turbosupercharged. Even when mated with turbosuperchargers, these engines just were not as good above 30k or so as was the Cyclone after ten years of experimentation with the GE superchargers. As a result, most B24 missions were flown at lower altitudes and this made them more vulnerable.
-Blogs
Originally posted by SunTracker
The B-24 had a higher cruise speed than the B-17, but the B-17 had a higher max speed.
B-24s were killed left and right when they were forced to fly at the same speeds and altitudes as B-17s. The Germans either knew the B-24s carried a bigger bomb load or were easier to kill than the -17s.
-
B-24 was not easier to kill, it could not, like United said, witstand damage as good as the B-17, but it wasn't easier to kill.
Though it could fly faster and carried a bigger payload, it had the same armament and the B-17 could fly higher.
The B-24 was the equivalent of the B-17. There's been a research of which was better in which they asked former Axis pilots on which was easier to kill. "neither" they answered, fighter pilots disliked guns, and that's exactly what the B-17 and the B-24 both had alot!
Instead of looking at it's survivability, we can better look at the chances the crew had to get out.
When you'd had to ditch the B-17, you'd have to step back a couple of feet, clamper trough the tunnel and squeesh oneself trough the tiny hatch.
B-24 pilots on the contrary just had to step back, open the door on the side of the fuselage and jump out.
In these things one can't say "this aircraft is better". They were both put into action alot and both suffered a substancial deal of punishment.
-
A good book if you are interested in the B-24 was "The Wild Blue" by Stephen Ambrose (The guy who wrote Band of Brothers), there is a story in there about a B-24 catching up with a B17, and the 24 pilot shutting down the #4 engine and motoring past the 17 just to prove they were that much faster. Anyways, just thought I'd add that. :aok
--Howitzer
-
AFAIK the main reason the B-24s flew lower altitudes than the B-17s was that it could not keep tight formations at high altitude due to some stability problems. Late B-24 models had redesigned tall tail.
gripen
-
You're right howitser, a B-24 could overtake a B-17 going full power while cruising on 3 engines itself :eek: