Knock Down Kit B24-H

[Jakko Westerbeke]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

All kidding aside, I think the B24 is underrated as a bomber. It was more capable and versatile than the B17 which may look “better”. Probably because of media attention in “Memphis Belle”?

It also doesn’t look as slick, which probably explains why the media liked the B-17 better, and IIRC, the B-24 had a reputation for not being as easy to fly.

Sort of aside: some years ago, I went to the war museum in Ramskapelle, Belgium. On driving up, the first thing I saw was the whole forward fuselage of a B-24 on the lawn outside … That turned out to be a 1:1 scale plywood replica made for a film, as I recall, but still, it was rather impressive.

[Lang]

B24 vs B17 Production

Lots of pro's and cons. The B-24 carried more and flew considerably faster and further than a B-17. The B-17 was an easier aircraft to fly with its fat old fashioned Clark wing and much more room for the crew (except tail gunner where B-24 won out). The B-24 with its high-speed laminar-flow wing, like the P-51 Mustang, was often constrained in Europe by having to slow down to B-17 speed to enable mass formation operations. The B-24 found its role in the Pacific and SE Asia where its long range and ability to fly more safely at lower more comfortable levels produced first class results. Opinion still rages and after 80 years none of the opinion makers has ever flown a B-17 or B-24 and many of them have never seen one in the flesh