b17vs b24

[JimmyC]

<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
  Jimmy

[Demetrious]

<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
  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. 

[colmbo]

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.

 

[colmbo]

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.

[999000]

Be kinda fun now that kills and damage is recorded to see in the game which bomber is really more successful.
999000 <S>

[LLogann]

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>

[Digr1]

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

[colmbo]

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.

[Closer]

 Its all in the wing 

[streakeagle]

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

[Krusty]

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.

[Masherbrum]

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.   

[Chalenge]

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?)...  30k sorties were unpopular with the crews but they did happen.

[Karnak]

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%

[Baumer]

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

"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.