B-17 v. B-24

Amen brother Bobby! Isn't that the truth.

 

I should have added that the wing location was a contributing factor in the relative ditching characteristics of the B-17 and B-24. The B-17's low wing design spread the water forces over the wings and the fuselage, lessening the pressure per area. The shoulder wing design of the B-24 meant that the fuselage took the entire force and contributing to the bomb bay door failures.

 

I take the guy who designed the B-24 never had to ditch in a prototype to see how it holds up eh?

 

If I am a numbers cruncher at the pentagon planning a bomber offensive over Europe I would choose the B-24.

As a father, I would want my son in the B-17.

 

[video=youtube;25wuHjbQpzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25wuHjbQpzQ[/video]

In case anyone has not seen this video - enjoy:ac_p51b:.

There will be others listed on the right suggested column.

 

No, but because of the poor ditching performance of the B-24, the NACA got involved with testing to determine if structural changes or better procedures could improve survivability. The Youtube link below is film of an intentional test ditching on 20 Sept 44 in the James River. The bomb bay doors were replaced with 1/8" steel plate, but notice that the fuselage still broke at the wing leading edge. Also below are links to NACA reports on the ditching and on 1/16 scale tests conducted.

Ditching of a B-24 Airplane into the James River - YouTube
This link has some still photos of the test aircraft. Also at the bottom of the page is a link to film of the tank tests of models.
B-24 Liberator - NasaCRgis
NACA Reports
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADB815061
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA801426

 

I am far from an aeronautical engineer but was a sailor and followed sailboat design for many years. All modern competition sailboats have high aspects sails and keels, read long and skinny and perpendicular to the hull. Whereas older boats had the keel parallel to the hull and sails were shorter and wider. Now look at a 17 and 24. The 24 has high aspects wings and the 17 low aspect. Also look at the B-26 which has high aspect wings and was often criticized for it's flight characteristics....cut the power and they come down pretty fast. The 17 with it's short wider wings was a natural to fly, it's wide wings
"floated" nicely at it's capable speed. The long winged 24 was more efficient, read longer range , and potentially faster but a bit touchy at the helm. It's big proboscis was contradictory to it's slim design. Imagine the WW1 Fokker Triplane ( Dr 1) of the Red Baron. Highly maneuverable, , slow, multiple low aspect wings, the theoretical ancestor of the B 17. Imagine the Fokker D V11, two wings but longer, roughly the same speed but more refined aeronautics....the ancestor of the 24.

So my highly simplistic analogy says :

B 17 fat wings, stable, more drag. It probably reached it's theoretical hull speed. Very stronf frame wing junction

B 24, skinny , more efficient cantilevered wings, less drag , probabbly more fragil wing frame connection, better mpg but probably never reached theory hull speed.

Years ago I was visiting my daughter in Oregon when the Collins Foundation planes came to Corvallis. I had a choice, a short flight in the 17 or 24, roughly 30 minutes for $300, big bucks s for this school teacher but once in a lifetime opportunity. I choose the 17 out of my romantic notions of the iconic Flying Fortress and "12 O'clock High". Would have been happy either way. Was surprised at the noise and sense of confinement. While it was on the grown I ask if I could get into the belly turret, my already high respect for those brave guys went up 1000%. I cannot imagine the terror they must have felt.

GB