Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: USCH on January 05, 2010, 10:04:20 PM
-
ok i have read my fair share of WWII books and WWII aircraft books in most of them the b24 is said to be faster than the b17... i did the AH comparison test on the web page and this seems to not be the case, or in game. im not home but if i were i could look up more refrences but for now wkipedia will do with them stating the 24 does 290 vs the b17's 287 (i know that i shouldnt trust it but i though it was even greater not to mention different) if memory serves me right the 17 was say 300 to the 24's 315 depending on the book you read.
i have read books from 24 pilots and 17 pilots am i going nuts or am i just missing something?
-
I thought they used the same engines, and I think the B24 is heavier, but honestly I dont know :salute
-
I thought they used the same engines, and I think the B24 is heavier, but honestly I dont know :salute
B24: "Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-43 or -65 fourteen cylinder radial engines at 1,200 hp"
B17: "Four 1,200 h.p. Wright R-1820-97 radial piston engines"
According to http://www.globalaircraft.org/
-
ok i have read my fair share of WWII books and WWII aircraft books in most of them the b24 is said to be faster than the b17... i did the AH comparison test on the web page and this seems to not be the case, or in game. im not home but if i were i could look up more refrences but for now wkipedia will do with them stating the 24 does 290 vs the b17's 287 (i know that i shouldnt trust it but i though it was even greater not to mention different) if memory serves me right the 17 was say 300 to the 24's 315 depending on the book you read.
i have read books from 24 pilots and 17 pilots am i going nuts or am i just missing something?
According to http://www.aviation-history.com/consolidated/b24.html vs. http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17.html, the top speeds are as you listed, 287mph for the 17 and 290mph for the 24.
Where you see a large difference is in typical cruise speed. This would be the speed at which you would most likely find the planes flying the tight defensive formations over enemy territory. The B-17 is listed at 182mph. The B-24 at 215mph. A difference of 33mph is certainly significant.
We sometimes have to remind ourselves that the cartoon AH world of constant throttle-to-the-firewall flight is not what was experienced by the men who flew in the real deals in WWII.
-
wellfrom just looking at top speed on the aircraft vs aircaft page it seems that the top speeds are reversed or at least the 17's is off past 27,000ft.
i dont know everything but im out of town cant fly and boared. :cry
-
When I was flying the -24 and -17 for the Collings Foundation the B-24 would do about 170-180 IAS at 30" and 2000 RPM. The B-17 at that power setting would be doing about 160-170.
The airplanes carried the same amount of fuel, they burned fuel at the same rate but due to the higher speed of the B-24 it had a considerably longer range.
-
The B-24 also seems to benefit from going above 30k more than the B-17 does. The range of the B-17 drops pretty bad around 35k but I wouldnt know why (must be something technical).
The 24 had a reputation of being faster in the war and it was also more manoeuvreable but it also suffered from icing much more than the B-17 (the wing would just stop working with ice buildup). Bombers in AH fly at higher powers settings than bombers that flew during the war though.
Wiki also doesnt mention which model they are listing the top speeds for.
-
The B-24 also seems to benefit from going above 30k more than the B-17 does. The range of the B-17 drops pretty bad around 35k but I wouldnt know why (must be something technical).
The 24 had a reputation of being faster in the war and it was also more manoeuvreable but it also suffered from icing much more than the B-17 (the wing would just stop working with ice buildup). Bombers in AH fly at higher powers settings than bombers that flew during the war though.
Wiki also doesnt mention which model they are listing the top speeds for.
I just got done reading: "WOW!" by Ralph Welsh (B-24 Pilot) which was a compendium of 80+ B-24 stories, not one "Mission" recollection was at 30k or higher.
Seeing as the known Service Ceiling was 28k, I doubt it was "regularly" exceeded. In fact I'd say the common alt of 24's in WWII was 25-27k.
-
colmbo, were you a pilot for Collings Foundation? I've flowin in the B-24 a couple of times and in the B-25 once. Man, what an awesome experience!
-
colmbo, were you a pilot for Collings Foundation? I've flowin in the B-24 a couple of times and in the B-25 once. Man, what an awesome experience!
Yes sir...luckiest man in the world. <G>
-
I read somewhere the B24 wing is "laminar flow". The same technology that gave the P51 it's incredible range and speed. If true, I'm sure that has a part to play too.
-
Yes sir...luckiest man in the world. <G>
Wow! Impressive! Way to go, and congratulations. :salute :aok I think it is awesome that the Collings Foundation does their touring with the planes.
-
From what I've read and heard from talking to a pilot who flew both B-24's and B-17's in the war, the B-24 was faster, carried more, and had a longer range. The B-17 was easier to handle (lower control forces) and might have been able to take more damage.
In the war, there were more B-24's than B-17's built (about 18,000 and 13,000 respectively).
-
colmbo, can you tell us the tale of how you got into flying B-24's and B-17's?
-
B24's overated in the game ...unless your taking BURN RATE!.....lol
999000 <S>
ps. and why people continuely put Lancasters in missions verses B17i'll never know why.
-
B24's overated in the game ...unless your taking BURN RATE!.....lol
999000 <S>
ps. and why people continuely put Lancasters in missions verses B17i'll never know why.
Bomb load out "I perfer the 24's myself" :airplane:
-
ps. and why people continuely put Lancasters in missions verses B17i'll never know why.
Because of the "awesome" bomb loadout. Which is simply overkill most of the time. Its very rare a Lanc pilot does really utilize his 14k of bombs, because he either get's shot down first or he is using 5 bombs where (with good aim) one bomb would be enough.
-
colmbo, can you tell us the tale of how you got into flying B-24's and B-17's?
Sure. I had just retired and the wife wanted me out of the house. <G>
I visited the airplanes when the came to Alaska in 2000. I hung with them as much as I could, volunteered to help on the ramp (I had just retired as an airport Police Officer so knew the rules), wiped oil off the airplanes - lots of oil and went for rides in both airplanes. I donated the bucks to become a plane sponsor which let me fly to Fairbanks with them and then onto Juneau as well. I just put out some effort. The Chief Pilot asked me if I was interested in flying the airplanes on tour - the dumbest question I've ever been asked <G>. When I replied in the affirmative he said go get your multi-engine rating and come see us. That was June of 2000. In July the wife and I flew our 182 to Oshkosh and back - bumping into the bombers again in Montana and once back in Alaska I tied up some lose ends then it was off to the LA area for a quickie multi course then on the Hartford, Conn where I met with the crew and spent the rest of the year on tour with them. At first I only got to fly the city to city flight (no paying pax), but once I had the minimum times I was flying right seat in the airplanes. Kept building time and ended up getting pushed in the B-24 and worked up for a type rating. Left the tour in May of 2002. The wife toured with us as well for over a year...probably the best memories of my life flying the airplanes and getting to meet the wonderful men who flew them in combat.
-
The B-17 was easier to handle (lower control forces) and might have been able to take more damage.
The B-17 is a nicer flying airplane than the B-24 for sure. The B-24 takes more work to fly well..but they were both flown into combat by guys with only 200-300 hours. As for control forces the B-17 has very, very heavy ailerons and a very slow roll rate. The rudder is stiff but very powerful and the elevator is fairly light but the airplane responds slowly to any control input. The B-24 has a very heavy elevator (sometimes you almost need two hands for the flare), the ailerons aren't heavy and the airplane has a good roll rate, the rudder is heavy -- especially with an engine out. After the 2-engine out landing for the checkride the right leg was crippled. <G>
-
I remember seeing a vid on youtube years ago of you taking off in the b-24 can you post a link if you still have it. :cheers:
-
Bomb load out "I perfer the 24's myself" :airplane:
if you take the 500lbers in the 17 you can drop the same number of hangers with better durability than the 24s
-
if you take the 500lbers in the 17 you can drop the same number of hangers with better durability than the 24s
I prefer durability and defenses over bomb load as well. Have patience, use only the amount of ordnance you need, plan your approach to target to "get the most bang for your buck", and effectively get back home. When you fly with others in your group, it's not how fast you get there and back that matters, it's how cohesive your group is- keeping defensive firepower together as best you can.
-
E25280 wrote:
We sometimes have to remind ourselves that the cartoon AH world of constant throttle-to-the-firewall flight is not what was experienced by the men who flew in the real deals in WWII.
:O
You don't say... :D
Careful, Addink will come to take your head off for suggesting that...
-
I remember seeing a vid on youtube years ago of you taking off in the b-24 can you post a link if you still have it. :cheers:
I think you'll find it here. (http://www.dalefalk.com/Movies)
-
I think Thndregg and Becinhu ...drinking the same juice as I.......
999000 <S>
-
I especially like the B-24 because it played such an important role in WWII yet is so much less well-known than the B-17.
Similarly for the P-47/P-51 relationship.
-
I especially like the B-24 because it played such an important role in WWII yet is so much less well-known than the B-17.
Similarly for the P-47/P-51 relationship.
I had a WWII 8th AF vet tell me that the reason the B-17 got so much more press/fame was that the B-17 bases were closer to London, the press guys didn't take the time to go farther out for their stories...no idea how accurate that is.
The B-24 flew in all theaters, it could haul more, farther and faster than the B-17. She really didn't get a fair shake in the glory department IMO.
-
I think you'll find it here. (http://www.dalefalk.com/Movies)
thanks mate
-
In the game, im still undecided and ive been flyin em since warbirds back in the late 90's
B17- Love how it turns, how it looks and that rear gun, and a tad better climb rate at low alt (important for CV killin)
B24- Love the History of it, Good Friends with a wwII Vet B24 Pilot from 90th HBG, like the extra 2x1000 pounders or the 4x2000 loadout, love Greebos Navy Skin and that 90th Jolly Roger
B24 dies quicker, but carries more ord, so you have to decide whats more important
Colmbo,what a sweet job, I always go to Livermore and Concord when you guys are here in N.Cali,
last time, smacked my head pretty bad climbing around in the B17, Inside of the B24 seemed much more roomy
I would think the Crews prefered the B24, cept for Ploesti type missions
-
I just got done reading: "WOW!" by Ralph Welsh (B-24 Pilot) which was a compendium of 80+ B-24 stories, not one "Mission" recollection was at 30k or higher.
Seeing as the known Service Ceiling was 28k, I doubt it was "regularly" exceeded. In fact I'd say the common alt of 24's in WWII was 25-27k.
Service ceiling is defined as the point at which climb rate is 100 feet/second. Service ceiling at 50000 lbs is lower than 42000 lbs. Either way it doesnt matter what the plane did in WWII because in AH it can and does go above 30k. If you have absolute proof that the plane COULD NEVER get above 30k then post it.
-
<S> colmbo
nice to know you flew the real deals, lucky man, thanks for shareing
so how does the AH flight sim compare ?
would be intresting to know from some one in the know
:salute Jimmy
-
<S> colmbo
nice to know you flew the real deals, lucky man, thanks for shareing
so how does the AH flight sim compare ?
would be intresting to know from some one in the know
:salute Jimmy
Seeing as how the real ships were described as being like "flying a hotel from the basement window" and that everytime I try to take up a Fort with full bomb load and full fuel, I end up hovering about 150 feet off the ground begging the thing to climb, I'd wager that the simulation is faithful in the extreme. :o
-
Service ceiling is defined as the point at which climb rate is 100 feet/second. Service ceiling at 50000 lbs is lower than 42000 lbs. Either way it doesnt matter what the plane did in WWII because in AH it can and does go above 30k. If you have absolute proof that the plane COULD NEVER get above 30k then post it.
Published service ceiling is 100 feet per minute, not seconds.
-
so how does the AH flight sim compare ?
My stock answer...none of the flight sims really get it right BUT AH and Warbirds do give a good impression of flying the real airplane. The cartoon planes perform too well and are too easy to fly/are too forgiving.
-
Be kinda fun now that kills and damage is recorded to see in the game which bomber is really more successful.
999000 <S>
-
I've been trying to fly the 17 more but I honestly cannot survive as long in them. Which really makes no sense.... The Liberator catches fire sometimes with just a dirty look.... But in the end, my gunnery success rate, and survivability, is 514% better in the FireBucket.
Be kinda fun now that kills and damage is recorded to see in the game which bomber is really more successful.
999000 <S>
-
I just got done reading: "WOW!" by Ralph Welsh (B-24 Pilot) which was a compendium of 80+ B-24 stories, not one "Mission" recollection was at 30k or higher.
Seeing as the known Service Ceiling was 28k, I doubt it was "regularly" exceeded. In fact I'd say the common alt of 24's in WWII was 25-27k.
there wereonly 2 bombs dropped over 30k, the norden bombsite was usless above 27k. And yes those 2 bombs were one on Nagasiki, and 1 on Hiroshima
-
there wereonly 2 bombs dropped over 30k, the norden bombsite was usless above 27k. And yes those 2 bombs were one on Nagasiki, and 1 on Hiroshima
351st BG, B-17s flew one mission at 32K...according to Dick Dinning, he was one of the pilots on the raid, it didn't work well at that altitude and they pretty much never went above 28K after that.
The vets I talked to said 22-28K for bombing altitudes..sometimes lower due to cloud, etc.
-
Its all in the wing :cheers:
-
Production numbers alone don't really tell the whole story. B-24's were a later design, so it is logical that it should have been an improvement over the B-17. One improvement was to simplify the structure of the aircraft to make it easier to produce. While USAAF leadership preferred the B-17, those producing the B-24 could make a lot more of them given the same time and money. The wing design of the B-24 was both its greatest strength and weakness. The high aspect ratio meant better high altitude performance (less drag while sustaining 1g). This allowed greater speed and/or payload. However, the longer, thinner wing was built for aerodynamic efficiency whereas to this day Boeing generally makes their aircraft much stronger than any specification requires. Unfortunately, that extra strength costs weight. The B-24 also shaved a few pounds by carrying fewer guns/ammo/gunners. The fact is, both bombers did a great job. To say which one was really better, don't compare standard flight performance figures, instead look at tons delivered versus sortie rates versus losses. Was the B-24 significantly less rugged than the B-17? If there is a significant difference in the loss rates (i.e. the B-24 got shot down a lot more times for the same number of sorties), is this difference high enough to cancel out the cost/production advantages of the B-24? I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but those are the ones that must be answered to eliminate bias. Personally, I have always loved the B-17 for both its looks and its guns. The B-24, especially the later versions with the nose turret, looks purely utilitarian compared to the graceful lines of the B-17. IMHO, the B-17G looks great with the chin turret, though the B-17F is truly the sleekest looking version. I love all aircraft, but the B-17 has always been one of my favorites. On paper, the Lancaster is much better than either the B-17 or B-24. But it is hard to draw conclusions since the Lancasters flew at night
-
Service ceiling is defined as the point at which climb rate is 100 feet/second. Service ceiling at 50000 lbs is lower than 42000 lbs. Either way it doesnt matter what the plane did in WWII because in AH it can and does go above 30k. If you have absolute proof that the plane COULD NEVER get above 30k then post it.
That's a false statement and a misconception.
It's not that they "did not" -- they COULD not.
B-24s were warping, twisting, and bouncing around so bad they could not fly in level formation at 30k. Just trying it was lethal. One bomber pilot was quoted as saying "You don't know what [soup] hitting the fan means til you see a B-24 flip on its back trying to keep formation at 30,000 feet"
It's a glaring issue with the way AH has modeled heavy level-bombers.
I *have* posted this and many other facts and tidbits of evidence before, and was shouted down by the hecklers that don't want "their babies" nerfed.
-
Production numbers alone don't really tell the whole story. B-24's were a later design, so it is logical that it should have been an improvement over the B-17. One improvement was to simplify the structure of the aircraft to make it easier to produce. While USAAF leadership preferred the B-17, those producing the B-24 could make a lot more of them given the same time and money. The wing design of the B-24 was both its greatest strength and weakness. The high aspect ratio meant better high altitude performance (less drag while sustaining 1g). This allowed greater speed and/or payload. However, the longer, thinner wing was built for aerodynamic efficiency whereas to this day Boeing generally makes their aircraft much stronger than any specification requires. Unfortunately, that extra strength costs weight. The B-24 also shaved a few pounds by carrying fewer guns/ammo/gunners. The fact is, both bombers did a great job. To say which one was really better, don't compare standard flight performance figures, instead look at tons delivered versus sortie rates versus losses. Was the B-24 significantly less rugged than the B-17? If there is a significant difference in the loss rates (i.e. the B-24 got shot down a lot more times for the same number of sorties), is this difference high enough to cancel out the cost/production advantages of the B-24? I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but those are the ones that must be answered to eliminate bias. Personally, I have always loved the B-17 for both its looks and its guns. The B-24, especially the later versions with the nose turret, looks purely utilitarian compared to the graceful lines of the B-17. IMHO, the B-17G looks great with the chin turret, though the B-17F is truly the sleekest looking version. I love all aircraft, but the B-17 has always been one of my favorites. On paper, the Lancaster is much better than either the B-17 or B-24. But it is hard to draw conclusions since the Lancasters flew at night
24's often had to Ditch, or Return to Base because of Engine Problems. 17 was the better, more reliable bomber.
-
That's a false statement and a misconception.
It's not that they "did not" -- they COULD not.
B-24s were warping, twisting, and bouncing around so bad they could not fly in level formation at 30k. Just trying it was lethal. One bomber pilot was quoted as saying "You don't know what [soup] hitting the fan means til you see a B-24 flip on its back trying to keep formation at 30,000 feet"
It's a glaring issue with the way AH has modeled heavy level-bombers.
I *have* posted this and many other facts and tidbits of evidence before, and was shouted down by the hecklers that don't want "their babies" nerfed.
I have read an awful lot of books on WWII and especially on the long-range bomber sorties and I have never heard that.
The plane was designed for 300-3000-30000 (mph-range-altitude) and yes the military is well known for operating over maximum load however after 'bombs away' the plane cant be over maximum load.
I have heard that the 'Davis Wing' design of the B-24 was supposed to be of a 'laminar design' and it was claimed that the wing was the best at the time but these days it is better known that isnt the case. I know the B-24 had issues with ice buildup and that the nose turrets added for the H (North American) and G (Consolidated) added some buffeting to the airplane. The B-24 had a huge wet section to the wing and it would burn readily. If damaged there was no way to easily ditch the plane and any wheels up landing meant a plane would be written off.
Your description made me laugh though (warping?)... :huh 30k sorties were unpopular with the crews but they did happen.
-
I can't speak to the difference in loss rates between the B-17 and B-24, but similar types can have noticeably different loss rates:
Stirling: 3.81%
Blenheim: 3.62%
Ventura: 3.6%
Wellington: 2.8%
Boston: 2.48%
Halifax: 2.28%
Lancaster: 2.13%
Mosquito: 0.63%
-
I believe this account of B-24 operations is one instance of high altitude operations.
From the the combat diary of S/Sgt Theodore A. Rausch
http://www.b24.net/stories/Rausch.htm (http://www.b24.net/stories/Rausch.htm)
"6. MUNSTER (city) Germany. December 22, 1943
Turned back when we were about 30 minutes from target but we still got credit for the mission. Ship couldn't keep up with rest of formation. Had supercharger trouble on one engine and prop on another. Went to 29,500 feet, highest I've ever been, didn't think a B24 would make it. 04:10"
That's right 29,500 feet with a bad supercharger on one engine and a bad prop on another engine. And they RTB'd because they couldn't keep up with the rest of the formation, I guess Hitech MUST have been the lead pilot of the group. :lol
-
The B-24 had a huge wet section to the wing and it would burn readily.
If by "wet wing" you mean the wing was used as a fuel tank....that is incorrect. There were many fuel bladders within the wing. The fuel leak problem with the B-24 was at the fuel manifold located above the wing in the fuselage. The leakage problem was caused because the original fuel lines were oval in shape (imagine trying to get a hose clamp to seal around it <G>). The leaks put a lot of fuel vapor in the airplane...that's why they normally flew with the bomb bay cracked open a bit for ventilation.
-
No when I say 'wet wing' I mean it had ALOT of fuel in the wing and (from memory) I believe the fuel tanks ran from inboard engine to inboard engine and two more tanks between the inner and outer engines. Add to that the fact that the plane just didnt have the armor of the B17 and just wasnt as rugged either AND was prone to fires in places it didnt have extinguishers. The B17s had engine fires almost every flight but they also had methods to extinguish them.
-
No when I say 'wet wing' I mean it had ALOT of fuel in the wing and (from memory) I believe the fuel tanks ran from inboard engine to inboard engine and two more tanks between the inner and outer engines. Add to that the fact that the plane just didnt have the armor of the B17 and just wasnt as rugged either AND was prone to fires in places it didnt have extinguishers. The B17s had engine fires almost every flight but they also had methods to extinguish them.
Roger on the wet wingn thing...both of the bombers had a lot of fuel in the wings. In fact they both carred the same basic fuel load of 27-2800 gallons (with Tokyo tanks).
B-24 had the same extinguishers on the engine that the B-17 did.
The "fuel tanks" on the B-24 are actually a series of fuel cells. The outboard "Tokyo tanks" were 9 cells each IIRC. (My systems book is packed away the the moment)
-
When I was flying the -24 and -17 for the Collings Foundation the B-24 would do about 170-180 IAS at 30" and 2000 RPM. The B-17 at that power setting would be doing about 160-170.
The airplanes carried the same amount of fuel, they burned fuel at the same rate but due to the higher speed of the B-24 it had a considerably longer range.
What was the difference in landing speeds? I imagine that the B-24 was a good bit faster on landing.
-
What was the difference in landing speeds? I imagine that the B-24 was a good bit faster on landing.
Not really. We used 120mph on final for both of them. The big difference is on takeoff. The B-17 is up and away with little effort. The B-24 climbs like a pig at first, the gear produce a LOT of drag. The hydraulic system is such that you can raise the gear or the flaps, but not both at once...well you can, but it's going to take a very long time for them to come up. Normal retraction time for the gear on the B-24 is about 17 seconds...and that can be a long time if you lose an engine early.
-
Given the large difference in wing area, with the same loaded weight, I would assume the B-17 was much more docile than the B-24. Its also why the B-24 was a good bit faster, and probably why its higher altitude performance suffered.
I'm sure the book values probably differ, but you guys used 120mph to be on the safe side?
-
I'm sure the book values probably differ, but you guys used 120mph to be on the safe side?
The Army manual for the B-17 shows a 95mph approach speed for a short field landing so we had some margin built into the numbers. We also had a minimum runway length of 4000'.
The B-24 stalls down around 85 mph. We don't do stalls in it...they are a bit exciting. <G> For training we slow to the buffet. Some of the guys early on stalled the airplane, it has a pretty nasty aileron buffet that can yank the yoke out of your hand if you're not expecting it, all that banging around isn't good for the airplane.
Both of them are unforgiving of aileron use at the stall. If you try to pick a wing up using aileron you'll roll sharply toward the low wing...as one of the long time bombers said about the B-17 when we were doing approaches to stalls..."If you use aileron to pick up the wing we'll be upside down". He also advised not to roll the Fortress. <G>
-
The Army manual for the B-17 shows a 95mph approach speed for a short field landing so we had some margin built into the numbers. We also had a minimum runway length of 4000'.
The B-24 stalls down around 85 mph. We don't do stalls in it...they are a bit exciting. <G> For training we slow to the buffet. Some of the guys early on stalled the airplane, it has a pretty nasty aileron buffet that can yank the yoke out of your hand if you're not expecting it, all that banging around isn't good for the airplane.
Both of them are unforgiving of aileron use at the stall. If you try to pick a wing up using aileron you'll roll sharply toward the low wing...as one of the long time bombers said about the B-17 when we were doing approaches to stalls..."If you use aileron to pick up the wing we'll be upside down". He also advised not to roll the Fortress. <G>
Interesting--shows the effect of all that planform taper...
-
This is fascinating as hell!
<S>Colmbo :aok
-
This is fascinating as hell!
<S>Colmbo :aok
its great to get the info first hand <S> colombo
-
its great to get the info first hand <S> colombo
It was even greater getting to gather the info. :D
-
Agreed, by all means, feel free to share first hand knowledge. If it isn't shared it will be lost over time.