MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > GENERAL WW2 TOPICS > WW2 Military History & Equipment

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 24-02-23, 13:58
David Dunlop David Dunlop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,384
Default Knock Down Kit B24-H

Apparently these were produced at Ford’s Willow Run factory and shipped via rail to Tulsa for full assembly.

David
Attached Thumbnails
F9AF9350-4D40-4FDD-BEF2-C37C3672EF8A.jpeg  
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24-02-23, 20:53
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 14,400
Default

That’s amazing, wouldn’t it be a dream to find a crated B24?!? I’m sure you can find it next to the crated Jeep for $50…

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”?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25-02-23, 00:22
Bruce Parker (RIP) Bruce Parker (RIP) is offline
GM Fox I
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,606
Default

If you like B-24 bombers, or are in awe of the mighty WW2 American production capability (or just how complicated a WW2 bomber is), try this video on the Willow Run plant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2zu...=PeriscopeFilm
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-02-23, 11:20
Jakko Westerbeke Jakko Westerbeke is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26-02-23, 04:11
Lang Lang is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 1,650
Default

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
Attached Thumbnails
Screenshot (401).jpg   Screenshot (400).jpg  

Last edited by Lang; 26-02-23 at 04:25.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to misunderstand a knock on the door. maple_leaf_eh The Sergeants' Mess 1 18-07-15 20:43
Knock me down with a feather, M43 under my nose Robin Craig Post-war Military Vehicles 15 10-02-14 01:51


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016