What are the POOR FORMATION flying Characteristics on the B-24 ?

The thin Davis wing of the B-24 gave it better lift capability and speed verses the traditional thick cord wing on the B-17.  This meant that at altitudes above 20,000 feet, the B-24 wallowed in the thin air because of the smaller wing surface area.  The thin wing and the stresses imposed on the wing meant that the wing was more likely to structural failure when damaged.  Reports of the wing snapping off at the outboard motor due to flak damage were not uncommon and I have a photo of a 445th B-24 losing it's left wing after a flak hit.
Pilots also reported a problem of trying to keep station with the formation leader who normally let 'George' (the autopilot) fly the plane.  They mentioned something called "getting on the step" which dealt with maintaining position in the formation without excessive use of throttle changes.
The multitude of fuel lines meeting in the bomb bay area made the B-24 more susceptible to fires and pilots regularly flew with the bomb doors partially cracked to allow the fumes to vent out.

One of my friends trained in the B-24 as a pilot but was assigned to a B-17 group as part of a replacement crew.  The only comment I recall him making about the difference in their flying characteristics was that the B-24 was easier to land.
 
Marty

PA.Dutchman

The fire issue was a problem with several of Ford Cars later on as well. Our 1978 Mustang's bottom of the trunk was the top of the fuel tank. A Mechanic friend told us to immediately put a 1/2 Inch plywood board in our trunk to protect the fuel tank. Many of his customers had punctured their fuel tanks when dropping things in the trunk not realizing the bottom of their trunk was the top of their fuel tank. He had to replace many Mustang fuel tanks from this kind of damage. 

Then we purchased a Ford Pinto and again the fuel tanks were a real problem and like the Mustang easily damaged and often burn quickly when both models were rear ended.

The Big Fords used by local and State Police departments also had a problem if rear ended, several State Troopers and other police were badly burned when rear ended.

If the Mustang, Pinto or the State Police Models were rear ended they all were known to burn badly. ... Even with the Ford cars none of them were repaired or improved until the Government made Ford correct the problem. Then it took many deaths or seriously burned owners and passengers who with consumer groups pushed for the changes and things improved with Fords' cars.

 
Mind if I take issue?  My profession is auto physical damage estimator for a large insurance company;  cars were my first interest before aircraft.  And my first car was a '71 Ford Pinto, first model year it was sold here.  It was recalled to modify the fuel system as a result of the NHTSA investigation into the rear-end crashes.  The fix was to install a longer filler tube and a rubber seal around the base of the tube.  That was it.  The fuel tank was not redesigned or replaced.  The 1974-78 Mustang II was based on the Pinto so the location and type of fuel tank was similar.  (I had a '74 model after the Pinto.)  The earlier Mustangs (of the '60s-'70s vintage, the same as Chevy Camaros, Dodge and Plymouth sedans, and others) were the ones that exposed the top of the fuel tank IF you removed the covering of the trunk floor.
 
The problem with many rear-wheel drive vehicles of the time (not only Ford vehicles; recall that most cars of the period were rear-drive) was that the fuel tank was located under the deck floor behind the rear axle.  In a hard rear-end collision, the tank could be crushed against the solid rear-axle assembly, causing it to rupture and possibly catch fire IF there were a source of ignition (the scraping of the metal tank against the undercarriage SOMETIMES provided that).  In the Pinto, as the tank deformed from the impact, the filler tube pulled away as the quarter panel to which it was attached buckled outward to absorb the impact energy, and fuel could then spill.  IIRC  the Pinto case became national news due to a couple of spectacular accidents where the vehicle was struck so hard from the rear that the doors jammed shut, trapping the occupants (which in some cases had already been killed from the severity of the impact) who were then immolated. 
 
In many instances where public safety officials were injured, their cars were sitting stopped on the side of the road and then rear-ended at high speed.  Keep in mind that more police departments were using the large Ford sedans at the time, but the problem was also present in the large Chevy Impala cruiser.  This was also the beginning of the rise of the product-liability specialist in the legal profession -- IOW the lawyers who today make a career out of suing manufacturers resulting in an increase of the price of products for everyone. 
 
Case in point:  remember the brouhaha over the side-saddle fuel tanks installed in Chevy pickup trucks just a few years after the Pinto publicity?  When CBS News staged a side-impact crash and installed model rocket motors on the prow of the impacting vehicle to provide an ignition source, ostensibly to prove the danger in these pickup trucks?
The rise of the front-wheel drive configuration, the relocation of the fuel tank to a more protected location ahead of the rear axle, and the manufacture of fuel tanks in plastics and composites has relegated the myth of the rear-end impact exploding vehicle largely to the trash heap of automotive history.
 
Still, if you hit a modern-day car hard enough in the rear, it's possible to have a fire.  Scarcely likely, but possible.
 
-- Alan

drummerboy

The B-24 Liberator built by the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation had GREATER SPEED ,LONGER  RANGE and carried a heavier bomb load than the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Despite these advantages the B-24 was more difficult to fly and had POOR FORMATION flying Characteristics, and was more vulnerable to battle damage. What are the POOR FORMATION flying Characteristics on the B-24 ?

 
As Jim pointed out, the loss ratios of the two bombers were nearly identical.  Why, then, is it said that the Liberator was "more prone to battle damage?"  I've seen many photos of shot-up B-24s that brought their crews safely home, which then were condemned on the spot and scrapped.  I listened to one 15th AF veteran describe his plane being shot so full of holes that the ground crew stopped counting at 4,000, and the pilot received a reprimand for then flying the battle-damaged aircraft back to its home base after having the wounded warhorse refueled and the injured crewmen removed! 
 
Part of the poor formation flying characteristics of the B-24 were corrected later in its life when Consolidated experimented with various improvements and re-designs of the Liberator's systems.  The single-tail (tall vertical stabiliser) configuration was said to have been much more stable along the yaw axis which contributed to less effort needed by the pilots to maintain formation.
-- Alan

Alan..To answer your question.. 
Quote : 
(Still doesn't remove the presence of "fuel in the cockpit" but was it as dangerous a hazard as you seem to feel?)
Unquote :
 
I think the B-24 pilots could answer that better than I..it is my understanding that NO SMOKING was allowed on a B-24, due to the usual presence of fuel fumes...that is the reason that the B-24 was flown with the bomb doors paritally open.
 
In contrast, my copilot,right after clearing the flak area would light a cigarette..by pushing  the O2 mask off his face....true, the cigarette did not last long..with the free oxygen flowing past the cigarette. The minute the cigarette was out, he refastened the O2 mask, until we reached 10,000 ft in our descent from the target. 
 
As to the remark that the B-24 was more prone to battle damage.... a close look at the construction of the B-24 will show the reason why....one reason is the shape of the fuselage..the B-24 is oblong in shape..while the B-17 is circular in design.
Next ...look at the rivet pattern...the B-17 has a closely spaced rivet pattern,while the B-24 has large spacing in it's panels.
One can best see this when the Collings Foundation brings both their B-17 and B-24 together to an airshow,where a side by side comparison can easily be made.
 
Jim :-)

Alan...If you can vist an airshow where the Colling's Foundation brings both the B-17 and B-24 to view and fly passengers...the comparison is readily apparent.
The B-24 fuselage is an oblong shape, while the B-17 is a circular design. I am not an aeronautical engieer, but, the circular design of the B-17's fuselage, better spreads the impact forces more equally than an oblong shape, in the case of an impact with the ground.
 
Another reason is the design of the bomb bay doors of the B-24....they were thin sliding panels that moved up the fuselage..while the B-17 bomb bay doors were of a much heavier construction...this was, in the case of a B-24 ditching, the reason (with the inpact with the water), the B-24's bomb bay doors would collapse, with the result that the B-24 would fill with water quickly, in comparison the the B-17, where the bomb bay doors would stay intact...thus slowing the flooding of the fusleage.
 
Another reason for the rapid flooding of the B-24, was the lack of internal segregated compartments..I.E. the B-17 had solid bulkheads with doors, that, could be closed...with the B-24, one can stand at the tail and look forward to the cockpit. The added bulkheads added to the structural integrity of the B-17.
 
Another small item was the provision of safety ropes in the B-17's bomb bay alongside the catwalk, which the B-24 did not have.
 
The B-17 could, and DID, fly a closer formation than the B-24. This was one reason why Jules Horowitz remarked that the e/a would attack a B-24 formation rather than a B-17 formation,providing a B-24 formation was near.
 
The B-17, once trimmed, would fly hands off, while the B-24 would, (according to several B-24 pilots), have to be constantly flown...and those same several pilots remarked that their arm muscles would be more heavily developed as a result.
 
The later B-32 had a circular fuselage,as did the later B-36....along with  the Boeing B-29.......the B-32 contract was signed at the same time as the B-29, as a parallel design, in the event that the B-29 was not successful.
 
The B-32 had development problems with pressurization, and, thus was finally put into production at the end of the war...minus the pressurization...along with manual local controlled gun turrets, instead of the remote controlled turrets of the B-29. .(one B-32 was supposed to be spared from scrapping, however, the one example was also scrapped. so only the specifications and photos are all that have survived).
 
Jim :-)

You have received a wealth of information regarding the B-24 formation flight problems. I know next to nothing about the aircraft but a B-24 pilot friend said they were a beast to fly in close formation. I have a feeling the "Davis Wing" had a lot to do with the problem. Regarding battle damage etc., There was a comment or two floating around following mission briefings," glad to hear that B-24s will be in the bomber stream because they will receive the enemy fighter attacks before we(B-17) will". While these comments were made largely in jest I think there was a grain of truth there-in. This possibility was also attributed to the "Davis Wing" factor.

Alan...I can pnly speak about the 15th AF....Most of my missions were flown at altutudes of 27,000 ft.
 
I can tell you that on several missions, my B-17 formation actually passed the B-24s flying at a lower altitude.
 
One pilot explained that this was due to the difference in air density....with sea level air pressure at close to 14.9, the air pressure at 20,000 ft was on the order of slightly over 2.0...and at 27,000 ft was slightly below 2.0 or in the 1.9 range.
 
This meant that a B-17 flying at 27,000 ft's TRUE airspeed was around 240 MPH, with an indicated air speed of 155 MPH.
 
A B-24 flying at 20,000 ft would have a TRUE airspeed of around 220 MPH at an indicated air speed of 165 MPH....a difference of 20 MPH True airspeed between the B-17 and the B-24.  Net difference would be 10 MPH TRUE airspeed...with the B-17 being the faster, because of the higher altitude.
 
The Official quoted Service Ceiling of the B-24 is given as 28,000 ft, while the B-17 had a 35,600 ft Service Ceiling.
 
In the 15th AF, both the B-17 and B-24 carried the EXACT bomb load...on most missions ( 12 500 lb bombs or 6 1000 lb bombs).
 
R.H. Dodd.... (a B-24 pilot from the 15th AF) ,  has posted on these forums, some time back, that the B-24 had to struggle to attain 24,000 ft...where most of the B-24s bombed from.
 
I would like to add a comment here...namely that the airliners flying today have a modified Davis Wing.
For a takeoff/landing there are slats on the leading edge of the wing, and the Fowler flaps on the  trailiing edge of the wing. What this relates to...is... when taking off/landing, the airliners have in essence a WW II B-17 wing,. and once airborne with the leading edge slats and trailing edge Fowler flaps retracted...the airliners have in essence, a WW II B-24 wing....the main difference is that the airliners have the necessary power to attain an crusing airspeed of some 580 MPH, versus the WW II B-24, with it's 165 MPH cruising airspeed.  
 
Jim :-)

Shawn...I think you have an interesting point....perhaps I should have emphasized that poddilbly the lack of internal bulkheads as are found on the B-17 contributed to the weaker structure.
As I just recently learned from another posting, the B-24 was an outgrowth of previous designs of seaplanes by Consolidated-Vultee....however, that theory also applies to Boeing as well, as when I worked at Boeing after retirement from the USAF, in the design of the B-52, in that one of the reference points in determining the location of an assembly ALSO referred to one of the reference points as the "Water Buttocks Line" such as so many inches above or below the WBL...in addtion to left and right and top to bottom. What this means is that Boeing also procuced seaplanes as well.
The WBL is the imaginary line of where the water line would be if the fuselage was submerged in water....when referencing the loocation of the B-52, as in the hull of a seaplane.
 
In my mind, the construction of the Boeing aircraft is far stronger in all respects...the box trangular construction of the B-17 wing shows this, inculding the intermal bulkheads.
 
I am speaking only of the construction of the B-24, and in no way reflects on the aircrews that flew the B-24.
 
Jim :-)

Shawn...The B-17 was slow in reacting to an aileron input...and I suspect the B-24 was as well.
I think from reading some information from the B-24 pilots, that the formation speed was a determining factor...if the lead ship that set the formation airspeed, was set on a borderline, the other aircraft in the formation were on the verge of a stall most of the time.
The figures I have seen for the B-24 in formation was 165 MPH...and this was in climb with a bomb load...and was only about a 10 MPH difference from that of a B-17 formation at 155 MPH. Much has been made of the faster B-24, but, in actuallity, the difference in combat was again only 10 MPH.
If I recall correctly, the cruise speed of the B-17 (no bomb load)was about 150 MPH, with the B-24 at 170 MPH, (again no bomb load)....so, in combat, with the bomb loads both carried, the difference was only 10 MPH.
 
Jim :-)