B-24 versus B-17

Ken,
 
Thanks for the more technical information on the B-24. Sounds like your
father was a great pilot.

We had an ops officer who was a poor pilot in my estimation. Whenever he led the sqdn the planes were all over the sky. When a good pilot led, it wasn't too difficult to keep the planes in tight, even with the constant throttle jockeying.
 
Ken  I remember when synchronizing the engines, it wasn;t very hard. I looked for the shdow that moved between #3 and #4. I used the throttle to stop the shadow from moving, then did the same thing with #1 and #2. The engines then purred like a kitten

Gentlemen,            It's been about a week since my original post, and I thank everyone for the input.  After rereading everything, it all boils down to "which A/C brought you home each time and that final trip home."  I was talking this week with a peer (a naval aviator who flew about every type of jet post Vietnam) and whose father was a B-24 Pilot in the PTO during 1945.  His dad swore by "his B-24" and had no time for the B-17.  He had his reasons, I'm sure.  Again, this A/C brought him home!  I just received the book:  Bomber Missions: Aviation Art of World War II  by G.E. Patrick Murray, 2007, Barnes and Noble.  It's a beautiful book filled with color prints by leading aviation artists.  As part of the "Introduction" to the book, it talks about the differences between the two planes in a terse, popular style.  Worth taking a look at, even though many of the prints are fairly common.   Steven

Steven, et al,
I just ran across the following, 
Everyone had something to say about the Liberator, and the pilots said it everywhere (in the Pacific, a commander had to sack several officers who asserted their preference for the B-17 after a decision had been made to convert a unit to the B-24). Few however, found better words for the Consolidated bomber, which ultimately became the backbone of the Fifteenth Air Force, than pilot 1 Lt Bud Markel, who ( many months after Ploesti ); flew with the 827th BS 484th BG out of Torretto;
The B-24 bomber was a cantankerous, lumbering, draughty, unforgiving SOB, heavy on the controls, over grossed and difficult to fly in formation with an ancient boiler guage-style fuel quantity system that was almost useless. The heaters never worked when you needed them and were removed by many combat groups as being too dangerous to operate because of the fuel lines on the flight deck necessary to feed them. Nose steering, such as today's power steering in an automobile was non-existent. Headway was maintained by throttles and brakes. The famously weak nose gear had a mind of it's own, often collapsing of it's own volition. So the flight engineer would have to sit astride the mechanism, waiting with a heavy foot to kick the stubborn thing down to lock.
The Liberator was an aeroplane often ridiculed by the B-17 boys, who delighted in finding hundreds of new derogatory names to call it. Even to day the B-24 versus B-17 controversy continues because every throttle jock and gunner knows that sooner or later you learn to accept and then eventually to love the the equiptment assigned to you. It's not romance but survival that triggers the match. Familiarity 
breeds self confidence, at least in this case. You soon learned not to take off with the cowl flaps open as this caused too much drag. You learned to keep the generators parallel and to plot cruise control charts to calculate fuel consumption, or how to transfer fuel without starving the engines or pumping it overboard. Many would call this becoming professional, but we called it accommodation - a deal struck with the aeroplane, like a stand-off between two boxers who respect each other's strengths. With this out of the way, the war could be attended to. 

John,
 I enjoyed reading your post. True it is only banter between the jocks of each plane. In spite of my past comments, I have the utmost respect for those people who flew  in the 24.

John,        Well written and well spoken!!!  We thank you!  Steven

Steven,
I thought you would enjoy reading the objective thoughts on the subject from someone thats been there and done that, like Kens dad, and like most of the flyboys in this forum, very professional.
God Bless em, one and all

John,     Reread your post tonight, and thought I'd send along one of my  favorite photos of a "factory fresh" WR Lib which I know you will enjoy, and I am sure Ken Alexander will also appreciate it.  This photo gives a nice view of the fully extended ball turret, high profile Davis wing, staggered waist windows, clean lines and the "signature" notched anti-glare paint template in front of the windshield.  Not having been a WWII combat veteran, I truly appreciate hearing about any of the "heavies," but most especially the WR Lib.    Steven

Attached Image(s)

Steven,
Thanks for sharing, she's a  beauty. Being a WWII water-boy I always enjoy hearing of the WWII fly-boy exploits. I am amazed at their memories and learned a long time ago (under a different user name) be d--n carefull when you question their input, they can make you look foolish, not with willful intent, by by your ignorance.

 A beautiful shot, wish I could learn to upload pctures!!
RHD

From beginning to end this has been a delightful thread to follow.  Thanks to all for the informative and passionate posts.  Here is a little bit from the 461st web site to put a little humor in the mix.
 
http://www.461st.org/Liberaider/lib_or_fort_which_was_best.htm
 
Hal

Gentlemen,   Many thanks for the very interesting responses since starting this thread!  Like John stated, we can learn so much from these flyboy veterans.  In fact they have forgotten more than we would ever be able to learn.  I this thread may have run its course, but I am sure that there will always be something that will arise anew in the debate between the B-24 and the B-17 just to remind us that "they are not forgotten."    Steven

That is truly a beautiful shot of a Willow Run 'J' Steven. Easy to see why it is one of your favorites.

Thanks for sharing it.

Ken

As one of the vets who flew in WW2,  I follow this web site with the greatest pleasure. One of the reasons I enjoy it is the enthusiasm shown by you younger people.
I may not remember my own phone number , but I know that I don;t have Alzheimer yet, so keep asking questions.

I second Jules' thoughts. Mine exactly too
RHD

Had a PM the other day referencing this old (19JN07) thread, but asking more generic questions about the manufacturing aspects at the three Boeing sites and the five  Liberator sites.  I reference FO WR in more or less anything I post as that is "what I'm about!"  I know very little and have read even less on the Boeing sites.  I shall continue writing about, asking and answering questions, posting photos, but don't think I'll be involved in comparing manufacturing techniques.  Bottom line is that  they all are fairly similar.  The Lib plants followed basic prints set forth by Consolidated, approved by the USAAF and then modified thru engineering changes.  There were distinctive items to the different plants, but usually they were not structural.     Steven

My father was an instructor pilot in both B-17's and B-24's.  The B-17's had standardized cockpits whereas the B-24's did not.  Everytime my father got behind the controls of a B-24 he had to figure out where certain instruments were located in the panel because he said they were usually in different locations in almost every B-24 he flew.   He said the Ford built B-24's were much quieter than the Consolidated built planes.  The Consolidated built planes he said would usually creak when their airframes were put under stress.   The only reason I can think of as to why Consolidated only put one engine driven hydraulic pump on the #3 engine was to save weight.  If they had two or even three additional hydraulic pumps as a backup system they most likely would have had to route in more hydraulic lines, restrictors and bypass valves, thus adding more weight to the aircraft.  The R-1830 Twin Wasp Radial engines were not as powerful in the early B-24 models as they were in later B-24's.  The Wright R-1820 engines were also further developed than the Twin Wasp engines were.  The R-1820's were mostly being produced by three manufacturers under license about a year after the war broke out that included Lycoming, Pratt & Whitney of Canada and Studebaker.  I believe Wright relegated production of their R-1820 engine to these other manufacturers so they could focus more on developing the R-3350 Cyclone engines used to power the Consolidated B-32 Dominator and Boeing B-29 Superfortress.  Even the B-17F Memphis Belle came from the Boeing factory with Lycoming built R-1820 engines.  In one mission when my father was in Italy with the 376th BG, he flew a mission as a co-pilot in a B-24D model where they carried eight 1,600 pound bombs in a Liberator; four in each bombay against some target in northern Italy that was not very far away from base.   The B-17 could also carry such a load if they used the external wing mounted bomb shackles that mounted on the under surface of the B-17's inner wing assemblies.  Each shackle could carry one 1600 pounder while the remaining six could be carried internally in the bomb bay.  Rarely were these external bomb shackles ever used on the Fortress to my knowlege.  The B-17 was much further developed when war broke out than the B-24 was.  Comparing the two together is like comparing and apple to an orange.  Both aircraft had their strengths and weaknesses, but they both got the job they were intended to do accomplished.  My father liked flying both aircraft. 
 
Jim  

Jim...From what I understood from a B-24 pilot who flew from Italy, the B-24 bombload was the same as the  B-17, on most missions......either 12 ea 500 lb bombs, or 6 ea 1000 lb bombs.
 
The much touted second bomb bay was not utillized all that much to carry a heavier bomb load than
the B-17, in Italy, plus in the 8th AAF, the B-24s were used as decoys, without a bomb load, to draw off the enemy fighters, while the main B-17 force bombed the assigned targets.
 
In addition, the fuel load was nearly equal (after the installation of the tokio tanks in the B-17).
 
Much has been made of the description that the B-24 was designed to fly farther, faster and "higher", than the B-17,....while it may have been "designed"  to fly higher, it never was able to do so.
 
It seems Consolidated had problems...the B-32 also, was to be a alternate to the B-29, with simultaneous developement, however, Consolidated never was able to solve the pressurization, for the B-32, so it was then completed as an unpressurized aircraft with manned turrets, and  there were only three ever were used in combat at the very end of the war in the Phillipines.  
 
Jim :-)
 
Jim :-)

Jim,     I have heard the same comment about the instrumentation cluster in the B-24's, and, I can only speak for the FO WR Facility, but that does bring up an interesting point: 5 Liberator Facilities (4 Manufacturers) against Boeing (3 Facilities & 3 Manufacturers) which means that beyond BP Specs, differences do occur.  Maybe of interest,  I've attached a standard, early 1943 vintage B-24E FO WR cockpit shot, pilot/left seat.  I am not sure about the post going on, but if "consistency" is the question, then I'm sure that you will see that in the FO A/C's (ole Henry didn't want it any other way).  I can understand the variance among the manufacturing sites, but not within FO itself.  As for the "quietness" of the A/C, it has to do with the integrity of the structure itself.  Even FO wasn't ahead of its time in soundproofing!    Steven

Attached Image(s)

Jim and Ken,    Found the 2nd picture of an early FO WR cockpit, left seat.   It is from the same sequence of the one in the previous post, but would not load properly.  Although the detail is very good and clear, several of my photos had gotten water damaged, so that will explain the upper right quadrant.   Steven

Attached Image(s)