Post by Merlin DorfmanMy wife is reading "Unbroken," the biography of Louis Zamperini.
Early in the book, there are some very negative comments about the B-24.
There are a lot of them around.
The B-24 was considered the more modern type, having first flown in
December 1939 versus July 1935 for the B-17, this seems a major
factor in the decision to create 5 B-24 production lines versus 3 for
the B-17, including the Ford Willow Run plant which built nearly
6,800 B-24.
Post by Merlin DorfmanZamperini's crew is disappointed that they were not assigned to a B-17, a
"noble, well-defended" aircraft. The B-24 is said to be very hard to fly
and keep in formation; the cockpit is cramped; the lack of a steerable
nosewheel makes it hard to control on the ground; and of course they have
a number of uncomplimentary nicknames for it.
If I understand things correctly the Zamperini was flying the
B-24D or E, which usually did have fewer machine guns than
the contemporary B-17F. The D model started off with 5
0.50 inch machine guns and ended up with 10, including 2 in
a Sperry ball turret, plus an upped maximum bomb load and
more than 50% extra fuel tankage.
It can be safely said the earlier D models would have flown
better than the later ones. The addition of a nose turret in
later models caused balance problems.
The very hard to fly and stay in formation was something the
8th Air Force noted but at altitude, not at lower levels.
One point is the B-17 had nearly 40% more wing area than the
B-24, the Davis wing was meant to be high performance which
suggests it made the B-24 more vulnerable to any performance
loss from wing damage.
The Davis wing was really most efficient at high speed, which
meant it had problems at take off and low speed cruise,
this would cause problems in formation flying, it also meant
less precise control, less stability and more critical centre of
gravity limits compared with the B-17.
In other words incorrectly load your B-24 and you will quickly
notice problems and wartime units could easily over or
inappropriately load aircraft.
On the plus side there was more internal room, which made
long duration missions easier.
Post by Merlin DorfmanThey said that the B-24 is too vulnerable--it's hard to keep it
flying after losing one engine and almost impossible after losing two; a
B-17 will sustain much more damage before crashing (and in fact I've seen
several films of B-24 wings breaking off after an anti-aircraft hit, but I
can't recall a film of a B-17 losing a wing).
I have seen pictures of wingless B-17s. Generally the 4 engined
types could cope with an engine out, with 2 out, especially as
weights grew, it became much more of a problem.
It is a general opinion the B-24 was easier to shoot down, one
reason given is the fuel lines in the fuselage were prone to leak.
It was also a bad aircraft to ditch, the bomb bay doors tended
to give way resulting in quick flooding.
Looking at the 8th Air Force losses there were fewer survivors from
shot down B-24s, but more badly damaged B-24s appear to have
made it back to friendly territory.
USAAF accident statistics suggest the B-24 had a higher accident
rate and took on average more damage in accidents.
Post by Merlin DorfmanDid most B-24 crews dislike the airplane? Did crews of other bombers
such as the B-17 and B-26 like theirs better?
You can find good and bad things said about all the major WWII
aircraft, there is definitely a lot more bad about the B-24 than
the B-17 and it is noticeable the USAAF kept the B-17 in service
after WWII and quickly retired the B-24.
The B-26, at least early, probably had a much worse reputation
than the B-24, "one a day in Tampa Bay" comes to mind, along
with the Martin Murderer, the B-26 ended up with a larger fin,
rudder and wings to cope with the increasing weights and to
improve low speed handling.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.