Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 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
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Yoshimbo
if ooz is correct about the climb rate
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/b17gclmb.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/b24jclmb.gif)
-
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).
-
i guess the high aspect ratio wing make an optical illusion for you
-
B-17 is FAR more durable
B-24 More Bombs better rear guns (twin tail)
Nuff Said
-
I DO like the way the 24's bomb bay looks though.
-
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?
-
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
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).
-
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)
-
Originally posted by mussie
(Its a F*&^ing big tail)
LOL!!!
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
LOL!!!
The only bigger tail I have ever was one of my X's
-
Originally posted by mussie
The only bigger tail I have ever was one of my X's
okay... :confused:
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
okay... :confused:
he'll explain when you get a bit older
-
Originally posted by Furball
he'll explain when you get a bit older
:rofl
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
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.
-
B17 superchargers are underneath the engine. You can see them, just like on the P38.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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 (http://flyingknights.csmsites.com) today!
-
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~
-
B-24J: Good :aok[/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 :aok[/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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Either way, those numbers say one thing= YAY 17!!!