"b17g v b24j which was better?" Topic

the b17 has become the most famous and most well known of the 2 planes ,better pr (movies etc)
so in reality which one would you say was a better combat plane b17g or b24j

Range and payload: B-24

Reliability and durability: B-17

+1 for Big Red

With a father having been a top turret gunner and flight engineer on one, I'm always biased toward the B-17.

Jim

An uncle flew on both as a tail gunner. He liked
the 24 for it's 'good ride' but preferred the
17 'cause it'll get you home.'

His combat missions were all in B-17's.

Interesting and oft debated question

Two aircraft built for the same purpose but with radically different design philosophies

Big Red has it right – B-24s had double the bomb load and longer range but was not as durable and had many more accidents during training

Then there was the Lancaster with a bigger bomb load than a B-24 and a B-17 put together – but was not exactly what you would call crew friendly

The B-24 had more range so were sent to the Pacific rather than B-17's. Also ASW patrols in the Atlantic. During Guadalcanal, the Navy started converting from PBY Catalina's to PB4Y1 (B24). My father in law flew in single plane B-24 patrols up the Slot. Europe got most of the early war PR so it was B-17's. When the "Memphis Belle" became famous I don't think very many Groups in Europe had B-24's.

I've been in both and have flown in a B-24 and helped the ground crews. The B-24 is easier to work on because of the high wing. I'm 6'2" and hated ducking down to go under the B-17 wing. It's easier to get around in too.

Damage example: YouTube link
The extensive damage you find on B-17's can also be found on B-24's.

The B-24 had a hydraulic system, but the system had limited use. The hydraulic system was used to control bomb doors open/close, wheels up/down, and brakes left/right. Of the flight control surfaces, the hydraulic system powered ONLY the flaps. The other control surfaces must have used pilot muscle power amplified and transmitted by levers and cables.

The hydraulics reservoir is about the size of a small garbage can and located in the bomb bay with no armor. If that goes out the pilot loses most of his ailerons control and would not be able to close the bomb bay doors. The B-17 did not have this problem which made it sturdier. Hydraulic fluid can catch fire too.

The B-24 ball turret could retract, not a feature on the B-17. The crew in the B-24 nose was much better protected too from the turret and the front turret has some armor against small arms fire. The early B-24 were prone to fuel system fires. The B-17 had none, except plexiglass.

I think the B-24 was faster and more maneuverable from the Davis wing and carried a heavier bomb load. The B-17 flew higher and did not have to worry about hydraulics. It was better for formation flying too with less pilot fatigue and tighter formations for better protection.

The B-17 was safer from FLAK but the B-24 speed made it harder to intercept, especially by short-ranged Me-109's.

The B-24 had a fairly extensive post-war combat career with foreign militaries, not much for the B-17. It should also be noted that the B-24 was the most-produced American military aircraft in history, and the most-produced multi-engined aircraft ever worldwide, which says something about how much the military thought of its utility. The B-24 could be used as a transport too.

When I was a kid growing up in Miami, FL they used B-17's for mosquito spraying. The B-17 would fly about 100 feet over my house.

I guess it comes down to preferences and the mission.

Wolfhag

A few years ago on tour with "Sentimental Journey" the B17 of the Arizona Wing of the CAF my dad over heard a veteran of the 8th Airforce tell his grandson "that's a B17 the type of plane that I flew in" then he pointed to the Texas wing's B24 and said "and that's the box it came in"

Some very interesting insight here on this thread. My grandfather flew in a B24 as a bombardier. He was very biased in favor of his beloved Liberator. With all that being said he and his aircraft were shot down (by a FW 190 IIRC) over Austria on his 31st mission. His crew bailed out and were held in Stalag Luft III until the end of the war.

I remember that he spoke very highly of the "Red Tail" escorts his Liberators had the pleasure of flying with. My brother and I had the opportunity to pass that story on to a surviving Red Tail pilot that was signing books at the Udvar Hazy museum. Very moving moment.

B-17 v mosquitoes

Now that's an overkill! Reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch

It's tangential to the thread but it's always struck me as interesting that the Bf109 / Me109 was still in service in 1945 partly because it was good enough to be fitted with anti-bomber weaponry. When the bombers started to come over escorted by fighters, however, the 109's performance limitations were exposed. So its apparently longevity led to reliance on it way past the point when this was sensible or safe.

It's as though the RAF still had Hurricanes in front line service in 1944/5. If the Luftwaffe had been able to mount bombing raids against the UK that late, the Hurricanes would have done fine against them. But if they had started to arrive escorted by FW190s, the Hurricanes would have been in deep trouble, and those defenders that weren't Hurricanes would have faced an impossible task.

I've been told by a pilot who flies both B-17 & B-24 that the 24 is nuch harder to fly. But living near Willow Run (near Detroit Michigan) I have a soft spot for the B-24 as so many were produced within a couple of miles from my house.

I too have taken flights in the old warbirds. I have flown in both a B-17 (the Nine-o-Nine, RIP) and a B-24. The B-24 was indeed notably roomier inside, particularly in being high enough to stand up while inside the plane (which I could not do in a B-17 -- they were notably smaller than the impressions I had from seeing them in TV shows and films).

And I had the distinct pleasure of hearing two WW2 vets discussing their service in them. One was a B-17 crewman, the other was a B-24 crewman. Even ~70 years after the fact, they were still taking digs at the other's airplane as we watched the B-24 on approach to the airport. The B-24 crewman remarked about the B-24 carried more bombs farther, which was the job they had been called upon to do, while the B-17 crewman just watched the B-24 and observed how it looked like a moving van with wings.

The B-24 had more range so were sent to the Pacific rather than B-17's. Also ASW patrols in the Atlantic. … the Navy started converting from PBY Catalina's to PB4Y1 (B24). My father in law flew in single plane B-24 patrols up the Slot.

Not mentioned so far is that the B-24 could not be safely ditched at sea. It was a bit tough on the aircrew, as it was the choice for oceanic patrols, that in the event of flight failure the crew had to bail out. The shape of the fuselage, the high wing, and the long double bomb-bay with cantilever doors meant that upon a water landing the aircraft would break in half violently, and sink quickly. There were even some test ditchings conducted on the Potomac River, filmed from many angles in slow motion, with test pilots trying not to break the planes in half (talk about test pilots and their more-guts-than-brains club memberships…). In the end, it remained SOP to bail out, despite the known risks of parachuting a many-man crew across a wide expanse of ocean, because there was just no safe way to ditch the B-24.

I'm not surprised that B-17 crewmen express more affection for their planes, nor that the B-24 was produced in greater numbers. I think the B-24 was the more effective weapons system, but I personally would rather have been in a B-17.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

ZULUPAUL,

You mentioned Willow Run in Ypsilanti. It is one of the great airfields in our nation. What Ford did with mass producing 24s for the first time was an amazing feat. Excellent.

Colonel Morgan (of Memphis Belle fame) said at a lecture in Seattle, in front of dozens of old B-17 and B-24 crew, that you "drove" a B-24 but you "flew" a B-17. And while he had nothing against the boxcar with wings, he would bet his life on a B-17 bringing him and his crew home every time.

This is a good article that addresses some of the assumptions people have with stats and facts rather than personal opinions and preferences:
link

Wolfhag

That piece is a bit of a hack job on the B-17.

"If the B-17G was so much more "rugged" than the B-24J, why did it weigh 20 percent less standing empty?"

Because the B-17G had a much smaller interior volume than the B-24?

"U.S. newspapers that illustrated the "ruggedness" of the Flying Fortresses. Looking closely at these pictures, which have been republished in numerous books about the B-17 and the Eighth Air Force, one who is familiar with airplanes and aerodynamics sees that much of the damage is confined to structural areas of the airplane that are not necessary for flight."

Well duh. EVERY airplane that continued flying after being hit was hit in "strutural areas that are not necessary for flight" that's WHY THEY REMAINED FLYING!

All his half-baked statistical analysis about sortie and loss rates is predicated on sorties being fungible, which they clearly were not. A sortie taking off from Italy to Bomb Turin is clearly less onerous than one taking off from England to bomb Berlin.

Anyway, despite this guy's attempt to stack the deck for the Liberator, he only manages to "prove" a "draw" … right.

My father in law was a ball turret gunner on a B-24 first based in Tunisia then in Italy. His aircraft was called "Big Gas Bird", although on several missions they had to use spare aircraft. The crew was called upon to bail out after serious flak damage over Romania, but because he didn't have the correct chute the flight engineer and pilot worked to make it back to an airfield.

He was not concerned with which aircraft he flew in just that he and his crew made it through the war. He still has a large picture of the crew prominently displayed in his apartment. He is the last one left.

And that really sums it up. The best plane is the one that brings you back to base at the end of a mission.

Met an old guy at a museum once who said the only beef he had with a B-24 was when they had to change wheels, due to the tricycle undercarriage arrangement.

I've never liked the skinny wings of the B-24. It just seems more fragile.