Ultimate WWII Heavy Bomber

[Woodlouse2002]

I'm afraid it has to go to the Lancaster. No other aicraft could carry such a bomb, let alone drop it accurately enough to fall within 30 yards of its intended target from 18,000 feet.

As for the B17/B24 thing, a B24 could out run a B17 on three engines. However, the B17 could fly with ten foot of wing missing. As to why the B17 is more remembered, just look at it, then look at a B24. The Liberator is a rectangle with wings, or, as the CFS1 manual put it, a flying truck. The B17 looks good (the F model was by far the best looking) and so people remember it because, as an aircraft, it was so much more memorable.

[Felix/FFDS]

The B17 looks good (the F model was by far the best looking) and so people remember it because, as an aircraft, it was so much more memorable.

So you're saying that Boeing had a better PR department?  :)

[SilverFox441]

Boeing's PR dept was all those B-17's coming home with major damage.

Besides..."Flying Fortress" is just sexier than "Liberator".

[Meyekul]

Yes its amazing to see pictures of half-destroyed B-17s that flew home; for example:

(click for more)

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]


So you're saying that Boeing had a better PR department?

[Akula.]

I've heard a story about a B-17 that took a German timed rocket to the nose. apparently the rocket slammed into the plane, killed the pilot, co-pilot, and bombardier. the radio operator took over the flying and managed to take the crippled bomber back to england
Akula

[bricks4wings]

I admit  that to the average person the Liberator may not have been as pleasing to the eye as the Fortress. It was not as sleek looking. And the fort was a dang sight easier to fly. But the question was not which was the prettiest bomber. And as I said

But the B-24 was a much better Bomber (notice I said bomber and not plane)

But I hope you dont think the Libs couldnt absorb a tremendous amount of battle damage and still come home. They may not have been "the comingest back airplane" of the war. But they got many a man home when it shouldnt have. Maybe they should have sent B-17s over Ploesti to see how many came home.

[OTTOL]

If you're saying that because the B24 was faster, then it was a better aircraft(at least at Ploesti).  I think that

a B24 could out run a B17 on three engines  

....might possibly already be saying that. BUT, to make the aircraft go faster meant higher wing loading and a less resilient wing surface. Ergo, the B24 couldn't come home "with ten feet of wing missing" in most cases.  In  fact, there were reports of 24's lost in stall/spin accidents with what the crew reported as "light rime ice".

[bricks4wings]

I never said the B-24 was a better aircraft. I said the B-24 was a better bomber. I'm sure we can agree that the whole reason for a bombers existance is to drop bombs and blow stuff up, right. So if you can carry more bombs more efficently (higher, faster,and farther). Then it stands to reason that you can blow up more stuff. So you have designed a "better" bomber. Now just because you cannot remove large chunks of the structure of that bomber and expect it to fly, like they did in the "good 'ol days".  Does not detract from the fact that you have a superior bomber than what you had before.
  More B-24s were lost than were B-17s. But there were also more than 7000 more in use.
I also am sure that the loss of the 10' of wing of the B-17 that keeps coming up. Was the exception, and not the rule. I can say with complete confidence that not every B-17 that lost 10' of wing came home.

[zeberdee]

I can say with complete confidence that not every B-17 that lost 10' of wing came home.

That will depend upon which 10 foot it was!!!!

[bricks4wings]

I change my vote. Lancaster

[OTTOL]

Uuuhhhhhhhhh.......dude.......bombers that make one way trips are called Kamikazee's. Notice... I said Kamikazee's not airplanes.    :-X


             

[bricks4wings]

OTTOL.
    Why dont you learn something new. Start here   http://www.b24.mach3ww.com/ They can tell you more and explain it better than I can.

[Hagar]

Depends on who you believe.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24.html

A comparison between the B-24 Liberator and the B-17 Fortress is perhaps inevitable. The Liberator was slightly faster than the Fort, carried a heavier bombload and could carry it farther and higher than the Fort. It was slightly more maneuverable than the Fort, and was much more adaptable to other missions. On the debit side, the Liberator was harder to fly, less stable, and much more difficult to hold in the tight bomber formations that were mandatory in the European theatre of operations. The Liberator was not capable of absorbing nearly the same amount of battle damage that the Fortress could handle. Any sort of solid hit on the wing of a Liberator was generally fatal, the high-aspect ratio Davis wing often collapsing and folding up when hit. In comparison to the B-17, there are relatively few photographs of Liberators returning home with half their wings shot away or with major sections of their tails missing. The Liberator was not very crashworthy, a "wheels up" landing generally causing the fuselage to split into two or three pieces, resulting in a complete writeoff. In contrast, a Fortress which had undergone a "wheels-up" landing could often be quickly repaired and returned to service. When ditching at sea, the Liberator's lightly-built bomb bay doors would often immediately collapse upon impact, the interior of the aircraft quickly filling up with water, causing the aircraft to sink rapidly. In spite of the Liberator's defects, Eighth Air Force records show that B-17 operational losses were 15.2 percent as compared with 13.3 percent for the B-24,which meant that a crew had statistically a better chance of surviving the war in a Liberator than in a Fortress.

I'm sure someone once told me that the B-24 had problems operating at altitude due to the wing section. This meant it was more suitable for low-altitude missions.

[FLYING_TRUCKER]

For us Canucks it is the Halifax.  To us it was a much better bomber than anything that has been mentioned thus far.

HMMM...wonder why it is not included in the poll?

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug