My Korean Conflict-era Buick with a couple of midcentury bombers…everyday stuff.
I am terrified of flying. It’s not rational (are most phobias?), and it doesn’t matter how many times my mom reminds me that I regularly drive a Corvair, my year is ruined if a flight is in my future. With that being said, airplanes are fascinating and historically significant machines, so when our regional airport hosted a small airshow, I was more than happy to tour a couple of World War II-era bombers. In doing so, I was reminded that the title of Clinton Portis’s revisionist western does not apply to me at all, but is appropriate in defining the guys who had to fly these hulking bombers.
Dilettante that I am, I am entranced by older military aircraft. It’s a shame, however, that man’s greatest achievements often correspond with man’s ugliest impulses. My dad and I both contemplated the fact that these heroic machines were built to kill and destroy, but that fact ignores the myriad complexities of world politics and man’s incessant need for territorial domination. And it definitely ignores the fact that the kids who boarded these planes were total badasses, full stop. As a team member aboard this Boeing B-29 Superfortress named “FIFI” told me, “You’re an old man compared to the kids who manned this plane.” He’s right, of course. (By the way, the topic of war and who pays the price has never been covered more artistically than it was in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, a literary classic involving bombers if there ever was one.)
The host and I discussed the guts it would take for a young man, or any man, to work a bomber crew. The quarters are tight, the level of danger astronomically high, and the chances of survival ludicrously low. The host rightfully said that we owe a lot to those young men, and I can’t disagree. One of the best accounts I’ve read of flying a bomber was, surprisingly, in Smokey Yunick’s autobiography titled Best Damn Garage in Town: My Life and Adventures. That yarn as a whole is bawdy and meandering, but the chapters on his days as a bomber pilot are completely captivating.
This is the front bomb bay of the B-29. The B-29 is famous and infamous as the plane that dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945: both of those planes survive. The Enola Gay is owned by the Smithsonian (but is not on display) and the Bockscar is housed at the National Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. “FIFI” on the other hand didn’t see much combat, which is likely why it is one of two B-29s that remain in operable condition.
The tunnel near the top of the bomb bay in the previous picture was used by the plane’s rear gunner, who had to crawl through it on his hands and knees to reach his command post.
This is the cockpit of the B-29. Pictures do not truly show how little space there is to “move about the cabin.”
This is the navigator’s station, one of many cramped, uncomfortable workspaces aboard a B-29.
The host explained that this hole in the bottom of the plane was sometimes used as an escape hatch. In an emergency, a crew member could lower the front landing gear, and the crew could (if they were able) jump through this hatch (with a parachute). This was the most “real” part of the plane to me, trying to reconcile my brain with being 20 years old, staring at this hatch, standing at the precipice of a small hole, watching the freezing cosmos whiz past the fuselage of my crashing plane, and knowing I had to jump. There wasn’t much to say.
The B-29 was powered by four Curtiss-Wright 18-cylinder twin-row supercharged radial engines (model R-3350). “FIFI” has been upgraded with more modern engines, a good idea considering that it flies many miles to shows.
Considering the relative incontinence of my fleet of vintage cars, the oil on the runway underneath each engine made me chuckle. The fight against leaks is never ending. A couple days after visiting the air show, Dad and I watched the crews start the bombers for their flight tours, and my wife and I returned the following day because I like watching old machinery do its thing. Each engine on the B-29 would emit a cloud of oil smoke as it started. I know little about radial engines other than what I’ve read, but what I’ve read is that oil drips down into the lowest cylinder (thanks, gravity) where it is burned on startup, which to me simply adds a little extra personality to the behemoth.
I took a variety of pictures of the bombers, so please see some random B-29 pictures before I discuss the B-24 Liberator.
To the layperson, the myriad instruments that keep a B-29 aloft are bewildering, but everyone on a bomber crew had his job, and he usually had to learn it quickly.
Also in attendance was a Consolidated B-24 Liberator, one of the most prolifically-manufactured warplanes ever. This was the plane that eventually was mass-produced by Ford Motor Company at its huge, contructed-for-this-purpose plant at Willow Run, near Ypsilanti, Michigan. After the war, Kaiser-Fraser bought the plant to build its automobiles, and General Motors eventually purchased it to build Corvairs, Novas, HydraMatic transmissions, and other things.
“Diamond Lil” was not, however, one of those planes, being built well before the Willow Run plant opened. Over 18,000 Liberators were eventually produced, and they (along with the Boeing B-17) were instrumental in winning the war in Europe.
The Liberator was a long-range bomber, but it was dwarfed by the more modern B-29. Apparently, bomber pilots often preferred the B-17 to the Liberator, but that may have been due to familiarity (as it was the first four-engine bomber). Some pilots also thought it was easier to fly than the B-24.
The Liberator was more “walkable” than the B-29, but you still have to watch your head. It was not built for walking upright.
Additionally, the cockpit is far more confining, lacking the large, open nose of the B-29. The high cowl seems to make visibility difficult.
This view shows the passageway to the tail gunner’s station, certainly a dangerous vantage point in a bomber. Please see additional images of the Liberator below.
Like the B-29, the Liberator used twin-row radial engines, although they were manufactured by Pratt & Whitney and had “only” 14 cylinders.
The planes at the airshow are owned by the “Commemorative Air Force,” which also brought along a couple of “trainers” and a beautiful P-51 Mustang (seen in the short clip above).
But the bombers (the B-29 coming in for a landing in the clip above) were the stars of the show, with their rumbling radial engines and hulking size.
I always feel a little lump in my throat when I see historic machinery that has done or will do great things, so I really enjoyed the airshow. The pride I felt in our national aviation history was tempered a little, however, by my concern that America might not be able to pull off an “Arsenal of Democracy” if it were necessary these days, in addition to the fact that the existence of so many majestic machines was the result of (and led to) so many tragic circumstances. That doesn’t diminish the fact that these planes were built and flown by some remarkable people who, in many, many cases, were the images of selflessness. If an airshow does nothing else, it can ask us to think about that every once in a while.
Impressive airplanes and great pictures, it looks like a very enjoyable outing! We are (sadly) reaching the point where the docents are no longer people who actually served aboard these machines, now that seems to be the forte of Vietnam era stuff, but there is still a wealth of knowledge gathered, retained, and disseminated to anyone who displays an interest.
Many (most or close to all) of these planes are maintained and restored by purely volunteer crews (as are the ships whose history is also being preserved), so my hat is off to those crews as well. It can’t be easy doing that either although the results bring more enjoyment to more people than the inherent purpose of the machinery itself.
I’d say that most of the docents I saw were in their 50s and 60s, so you’re right about that. The only thing that worries me about these 80-year-old airplanes is the occasional mistake or parts failure that can happen to anyone (like that B-17 crash a few years ago).
The only thing that worries me about these 80-year-old airplanes is the occasional mistake or parts failure that can happen to anyone (like that B-17 crash a few years ago).
Given my tendency to fly on old planes, I took a bit closer look at 909’s crash. That plane’s material condition was terrible. One of the mags on one engine had been bypassed. The plugs on two engines were bad. When they had the passengers loaded for the flight, they couldn’t get one engine started. They putzed around with it until they finally coaxed it to life. Following that investigation, the FAA yanked Collins Foundation’s license to carry passengers in any of their aircraft.
There was some discussion at that time whether the FAA should prohibit carrying passengers in any aircraft that old. The reasoning being first, they were never designed to fly for 80 years. New production components are not available, they keep overhauling the old components. Then there is the maintenance by volunteers and flown, often, by people who are well past airline mandatory retirement age, The guy who flew the C-47 I rode to Oshkosh in 18 and 21, is a retired Navy P3 driver. He joined the Navy after graduating Michigan State in 1965, so he is pushing 80 now. The museum does have several other pilots who are younger.
The actor Jimmy Stewart flew 20 combat missions as a B24 pilot in WWII. His service is detailed in a very good book called “Mission: Jimmy Stewart and the Fight for Europe” by Robert Matzen.
Jimmy Stewart seemed to be a rare guy, didn’t he?
Yes, he was a bit of an exception – the war hero who refused to play heroes on the big screen.
My favourite actor. I’ve never read a bad word about him. A real gentleman.
Thanks for the great article, and I especially enjoyed the close-up photos.
I have been inside the B-24 and the B-29, and flown on a B-17, and the great stories of these planes and people should continue to be told.
Your article and pictorial is a great overview of the rich history of this part of World War II. Another way to think about it, is without the B-17s and 24s(about 30,000 of them!), the war would quite likely not have ended until 1947, rather than 1945.
Even if you weren’t born then, which year would you prefer?
Excellent story and photos, Aaron. As people who have known me for decades would confirm, I had a thing for planes (and taking photos of airplanes…something known as “Jeff’s Boring Airplane Slides”) before I fell equally in love with cars. This was, I believe, inspired by my Dad who in turn had a life-long love of planes starting with the Curtiss P-40s flown by the AVG pilots who he interacted with as a young child in China during the early years of WWII. That experience (falling in love with Americans, America, and in particular the machines attached to both) eventually brought him to the US. And me here. So it all connects.
Your point about how it’s difficult to separate the majesty of the machines from their intended purpose is a good one and one that it never hurts to be reminded of.
I hadn’t realized that the “Confederate Air Force” had rebranded as the “Commemorative Air Force”. Makes sense (to me).
Nice that you got to walk through them. I saw Fifi start up and take off when she was at the Hamilton airshow a few years ago. You feel it in your chest when those engines fire up.
As a child I was very interested in warplanes, but I had a sobering moment in college when I realized that all those guys in the photos were my age.
Although I love airplanes I hate flying, a combination of a little claustrophobia, control issues, and a few scary experiences on commercial flights. I did take a flight in a Stearman biplane for my 40th birthday, which was really enjoyable. Open cockpit took care of the claustrophobia, and my own stick & pedals helped with the control issues. The pilot even let me fly it for a couple of minutes. A real bucket list item!
Nice! My late uncle was a career Boeing 707 flight engineer, and in the early ’80s was working for a cargo company (the name escapes me). I was down in Miami visiting, and he took me to work with him. Long story short, my 16 year old carcass got to take the controls and fly it for almost half an hour. Being a cargo plane there was just us crew on board, and we were over the Atlantic ocean, so not much danger of killing anybody but us. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. 🙂
That had to be the coolest thing ever! Actually at the controls of a 707 in flight!
I got to sit in the left seat of a 707 when I was about 14. The pilot of the plane was back trying to get the movie projector working for the flight attendants while we were still on the ground before the flight. He asked me if I was a movie buff, and I said no and that I was more interested in aviation.
He finished up what he was doing (or maybe dropped what he was doing) and took me up to the cockpit and showed me around. It was pretty cool.
I can totally relate to that bucket list item of getting to fly a Stearman, Doug.
For me, it was my 44th birthday, cashing in a gift I got the previous Christmas. My wife bought me a 1/2 hour flight, but I upgraded that to a full hour that day.
Of the hour, I got about 40 minutes of stick and rudder time.
It probably took 3 days to wipe the smile off of my face.
My dad trained as a radio operator on B-29s, but the atomic bombs were dropped and the war ended before he could be sent to the Pacific, so he spent the first few months of 1946 flying new planes from Boeing’s assembly line in Seattle to a “boneyard” in the Mojave Desert. He was 25 at the time. Maybe some of the planes eventually saw some use in Korea before the jets came into service.
Uncle Bill, one of my mom’s brothers, completed his 30 missions over Germany as a bombardier in a B-17, but always claimed he hadn’t been told the proper way to arm the bombs before they were dropped and didn’t find out until his tour was over. I don’t know, but I guess something has to explain all those unexploded munitions they’re still finding. 😉
Dad drove a tractor in Ky. Flew in a B29, survived, came home, drove the tractor till he died. That’s what they did.
My dad was a photo lab technician, attached to a B-17 reconn squadron based in the UK. He apparently flew with the squad in March 1944 and took a number of photos, mostly B-17s and a few B-24s, including this one.
Very impressive to see this, EarlJam: I’ll never see every official Army/Navy etc. photo, much less all these one-of-a-kind personal things out there, hopefully being saved and treasured by the grandchildren.
By March ’44, we clearly had air superiority. The number of planes, flying daytime raids, is astonishing.
Those pictures are amazing, Earl.
Great to see these—with a thoughtful writeup about the responsibilities of those young, young men…
I got to see “Fifi” a few years ago, and now sorta-wish I’d paid for a flight. My picture-taking was both big-scale and small (including things like the plane’s serial-number plate (B29A 44-62070). I guess everything on the plane was the product of weight/strength/temperature calculations; this is the massive 24V-DC motor that moved the nose landing gear. To my surprise, I saw “Jack & Heintz” on it–a suburban Cleveland maker of precision instruments and such, and worth Googling as an example of very progressive treat-your-employees-well policies at the time. My grandfather worked there as a machinist during the war, and just *may* have had a hand in this one, I tell myself:
I just read about them, George. It’s too bad their business got swallowed up after the war, but it sounds as if they wouldn’t be able to afford to continue their policies anyway.
AARON65, your first photo with the Buick drew me right in—love it! I had the same impulse, and (being early in the day, five Augusts ago in WI) I was almost able to talk my way into permission to take my car out onto the tarmac for a quick photo. This is the best I could do (and with a much newer car), but I see great minds think alike:
At an airshow I attended many years ago a B-17 was on display and I got a chance to enter it, there definitely was not a lot of room and with flying suits and flak jackets things would have been extremely cramped indeed. I got the impression that being a crew member was probably not a pleasant experience.
Sub zero temperatures at altitude over Europe added greatly to the overall misery too.
One thing told to me at one of these shows, about the B-17 vs. the B-24, was that the B-24 was a very dangerous plane in a very hard or crash landing, in that the high-mounted wing had a habit of crashing its way through the cockpit during the landing. The B-17 didn’t do that.
I like how they indexed the propeller blades of the bombers at the show.
I enjoy air shows, though, after 25 years, and several people I have seen perform getting themselves killed performing, the thought has grown in the back of my mind that I don’t want to see anyone get themselves killed trying to entertain me. I was planning to go to the show in Battle Creek again this year. I was planning to go Sunday. On Saturday, the jet powered truck crashed while performing, killing the driver. I didn’t go to the show on Sunday. Not sure if I will go to an air show again, as I came too close to seeing someone die.
The museum at Willow Run organizes group trips to Oshkosh each year: fly to Oshkosh in their C-47, they take care of hotel rooms and transportation between hotel and airport. That is the way to do Oshkosh. Nothing to do but enjoy the show.
I determined there is nothing wrong with a Ford Tri-Motor that can’t be cured with a good pair of ear plugs.
Bell 47s have excellent outward visibility.
The party bus for the trip. The plane had taken off from Oshkosh at dawn for a photo shoot, so, rather than fight the traffic getting back in to Oshkosh, picked we passengers up at the FBO in Appleton, which was also more convenient for us as the hotel was in Appleton.
The Goodyear blimp was there last year. I had just finished my lunch, and saw the blimp’s ground base was nearby, so plopped down to watch the pre-flight and take-off.
If they had been selling blimp rides, I would have done that too.
I won a radio station contest many years ago wherein I received two tickets to fly on the Goodyear Blimp.
Everyone in the gondola got a chance at the controls. It was more like piloting a big boat that a flying machine.
The weirdest feeling flying in that thing? – The pilot has to go to full throttle to DECEND.
It’s a totally different kind of flying all together.
My dad actually talked me into a ride in a Ford Tri-Motor 10 or 15 years ago. I was getting queasy and was anxious the whole time, and we were only going 80 mph. No more old plane rides for me (but it was pretty cool).
>>we were only going 80 mph.<<
If that much. When I took that ride, I looked up in the cockpit. The copilot had his side window open, resting his elbow on the window sill, just like he was driving a car. I could see his shirt sleeve flapping in the breeze.
When the Tri-Motor landed, I wanted to say "here, take my money, I want to go around again". Didn't do the Tri-Motor on the second trip. I hit all the places I had not had time for in 2018. Had ambitions of walking all the way to the far end of the flight line, but my feet gave out on me, so I stopped at the last tram stop, and rode back to show center.
Fifi & Diamond Lil were in Huntsville, AL when I was there at the end of May. I didn’t get to see them, but their crews were staying at the same hotel I was at so I got to have breakfast with them a couple days. My dad was a waist gunner on B-17’s in the South Pacific. I only ever heard him talk about his wartime experiences once.
I am the son of the tail gunner on the B-29 “The Lonesome Polecat”, and I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of what badasses these young men were. Although his service was later in the Korean war, his crew received awards for low level bombing. I have seen the pictures from the cameras in the wings of the plane showing not only a bomb going right down the smoke stack of a moving locomotive, but also showed the shadow of the plane on the ground
To the side of it.
Great pictures! I think I remember Diamond Lil at a show in Indianapolis I attended in the late 80s. I remember being a little disappointed there wasn’t a B-17 there.
On the rare occasions when those big old warbirds are in my area, listening to those growling piston engines as the big thing lumbers through the air never fails to send chills up my spine.
>>On the rare occasions when those big old warbirds are in my area, listening to those growling piston engines as the big thing lumbers through the air never fails to send chills up my spine.<<
The aviation museum at Willow Run hosts an air show each summer. They have "remiagined" the show in recent years. It used to be more of a warbird fly-in. In the warbird days, they would do a different theme each year. One year, they had every flyable B-17 in North America at the show. Seeing them lined up for take-off was like looking at an outtake from "12 O'Clock High". The sound when a dozen 17s fly overhead is not what I expected. I could not hear individual engines, just a steady hum, combined with a swish sound from all the air being displaced.
Here's some eye candy for you: a promo film the museum did for rides in it's 17 and 25. They used to have a "bomber buffing" party every spring, where volunteers would polish up the planes for the air show season. I staked out the nose of that 25 as "my" thing to polish. The 25 has since been repainted in the original OD paint it was delivered to the Army wearing, so I guess I'm out of a job.
At a party a few years ago I struck up a conversation with a retired airline pilot who started in B-52s under SAC. Badasses indeed. He said there was no way to get back to the US after bombing the USSR. The Air Force taught them some Russian phrases, gave them the equivalent of US$100 in rubles, a side arm, and a few days of food. And it didn’t much matter to them since it was unlikely their loved ones back home would have survived.
Great Post Aaron! – an it’s always nice to see your Buick. 😉
One minor nit, and maybe it’s merely a typo, but the Enola Gay is in fact on display, or at least it was when my Dad an I visited the Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum back in 2011….
That plane is way bigger that you think it is, that’s for sure. It practically fills the space on the right side of the museum’s entrance bridge as you walk in. It is bigger than the prototype 707 (the Dash-80) on the other side of that bridge. Getting it in one shot with my digital camera that day wasn’t going to happen.
The view from underneath…
Ok, I stand corrected when I said, “It is bigger than the prototype 707 (the Dash-80) on the other side of that bridge.”
Upon further review, only the wingspan is longer, based on the dimensions provided by Wikipedia. But in my defense, it was the WINGS that I could not fully get into that picture. 🤣
According to Wikipedia:
The 367-80
Length: 127′ 10″
Wingspan: 129′ 8″
Height: 38′
The B-29:
Length: 99′ 0″
Wingspan: 141′ 3″
Height: 27′ 9″
Yes, the non-swept wings on those old prop planes were much longer than those on jets, in relative terms. Check out the wings on a B-36: 230′!
Indeed! – I always liked this comparison photo from that same Wikipedia article on the B-36….
The B-29 vs. B-36 photo reminds me of this classic photo from back when the 747 was new when it was compared with the 707…
The B-36 at the USAF museum in Dayton is incredible. A must see if you are anywhere near Dayton.
I remember at least one B 36 flying over the home where I grew up. There was a nearby Air Force Base. What is memorable about it was one engine had stopped running (or at least one). I assume that it was headed for the landing approach path when it flew over.
The base had many B 52s later on.
And imagine changing the 336 spark plugs on the “six that turn”. (The “four that burn” had no plugs, of course.)
Thanks Rick, my mistake. I didn’t make it out to that hangar when I was last in DC in 2014, and I misremembered something I saw on a news program awhile back.
Udvar-Hazy is absolutely worth the time next time you’re in the DC area…or can arrange some extra time at Dulles.
AAron65, great pictures. I’ve toured or seen both the B-24 and B-29 at EAA Fly Ins I’ve attended at Oshkosh.
Earlier this year The Mrs. and I stopped at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH. Got pictures of their B-24 and B-29, the aforementioned “Bockscar”.
Besides Ford building the B-24 and GM building Wildcats and Avengers for the USN/USMC, Chrysler had a part in the B-29s success. Dodge built a giant factory outside of Chicago dedicated to building the Curtiss-Wright R-3350 Twin Cyclone. Mopar engineers introduced improvements in manufacturing techniques and durability learned from auto manufacturing to extend the engine’s life from 500 to roughly 2000 hours TBO (Time Between Overhaul). The also worked with Boeing to improve cylinder cooling and fuel flow. Post war Tucker started his car company in the plant, then Ford bought it for defense work. Most of it was torn down to make Ford City Shopping Mall.
Love this – I’m an old military history buff from short pants days. The B24 doesn’t get the ink or glory that the B17 did – but far more of them were produced, it had longer range and greater bomb payload. The B24 pretty much replaced the B17 for the most part in the Pacific, due to its longer range as well as the need to simplfy logistical support.
The B29 exceeded both of the former aircraft in terms of performance and payload, but often suffered from engine fires – no thanks to the magnesium used in its construction, which is highly inflammable. As a result, there were more B29s lost from engine fires than from enemy flak and aircraft during WWII.
Terrific pictures.
My grandfather (who I have often mentioned here) was in the Army Air Force and was stationed in England near the town of Wharton until sometime after D-Day.
He was primarily an airplane mechanic and rebuilt a lot of magnetos. While he never elaborated on it, I suspect he branched out into other tasks also. A picture of him at the time shows him holding what appears to be a handful of spark plugs, presumably from a plane.
When the war was over, he came back to New York in a B-29, if memory serves. He said there were ten people onboard with only two parachutes, so he knew what his outcome would be if there were to be issues.
The stories he told were more of the extraordinary things he saw, with much less about the ordinary. However, like so many of the other men mentioned in the comments, he saw a lot at such a young age.
I love warbirds just as much as classic cars. Was inside FiFi back in 2000 and the B-24 next to her at the time but it was not the one you saw. As you know my handle is tbm3fan nowadays although it was Cougar from the early days of the internet. Cougar was obvious given my long time car but then tbm3fan became obvious after I was asked/tasked with restoring the plane picture in late 1999. No clue on how to remove rivets, buck rievts, or make numerous panels for cowling and wing, install fabric, or install canopy so I taught myself.
Still have my first cowling panel hanging up in storage and the aluminum was not exactly cheap. Got the fit and bend perfect but those holes for the Zeus fasteners were off by 1/2 all around. Ugh! No one would directly help who had an A&P license as they were worried about it being compromised working on such a project. It was complicated so I could only get hints from them. I did ask the museum if I could start up the engine and idle,if I worked on what was needed, but they axed that idea. Oh, but 1900 HP.
Our local Avenger is almost ready.
https://www.warplane.com/aircraft/collection/details.aspx?aircraftId=39
Last I heard they were doing taxi tests. Haven’t seen it fly yet.
Very nice paint scheme. I see,like every other Avenger restoration, it doesn’t have the gun turret which is incredibly hard to find. The guy who sold us the plane I worked on did have a turret which I picked up from his hanger. That particular day let me see 10 warbirds on the ground in two hangers. All fighters.
It has been said the nose of Star wars Millennium Falcon (when viewed from the inside) was inspired by the B-29 nose.
Great article and comments!
“Apparently, bomber pilots often preferred the B-17 to the Liberator, but that may have been due to familiarity (as it was the first four-engine bomber). Some pilots also thought it was easier to fly than the B-24.”
The B-24 carried a larger bomb load and flew both higher and faster than the B-17, however, its thin Davis wing design was considered weak – lots of photos of 24s going down with the wing crumpled at the root where it took an AA hit. Crewmembers thought the 17 was simply a more rugged design. Not to mention that the 17 looked better – while some wags said it merely had a better press agent, the saying on base was that ‘the B-24 was the crate the B-17 came in.’
I had the good fortune to sit left seat and fly the EAA’s Aluminum Overcast back in the 1990s before the FAA nixed non-certified pilots controlling the aircraft – you can buy a ride still, but no sitting up front. My left-seat co-pilot was Col. Hal Weekley (since passed), who flew 18 missions before being shot down and eventually escaping to fly again. As he was also a CFI, all of us on that flight had him officially enter .3 hours multi-engine time in our logbooks.
Actually the ceiling of the B-24 was inferior to that of the B-17, speaking of typical subtypes of each plane.
I find it interesting how history can skew reality. The B-17 gets so much attention today when there were far more B-24’s and it served in both the European and Pacific theatres. I think the reality is the B-24 is probably underrated in in history today in comparison to the B-17. This is coming from someone who actually prefers the B-17. While both planes were similarly capable, but the B-24 certainly had an advantage on long range which is why it was used extensively in the Pacific theatre unlike the B-17. Plus, it was good enough to be Churchill’s personal transport.
Another factor is the extensive publicity that the B-17 received, particularly the Memphis Belle for being the first bomber in the 8th Air Force to complete 25 missions. The reality is that a B-24 named Hot Stuff was the first to complete 25 missions, but tragically it crashed before it could go on a publicity tour. No one has heard of that plane or it’s crew today and I wonder how much it would have changed the course of history for the B-24.
Despite the B-24 being a newer design that had somewhat more advanced technology and better bomb load, it was quite comparable to the B-17 for performance. IMO, the best YouTube Channel on WWII aircraft is Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles, and he does a video comparing the performance of the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster at various altitudes. Each plane is the top performer at different altitudes. It’s a worthwhile watch:
Cool video, Vince. That guy sure put a lot of time into poring over that data! I wonder if some of the B-17’s notoriety compared to the B-24’s is based on looks; I think few would deny that the B-17 (along with the later B-29) is more attractive than a Liberator.
I agree Aaron, one of the reasons for the notoriety of the B-17 is it’s looks. That is one of the reasons I favoured it over the B-24 since I was a kid.
Greg’s aircraft videos are all highly detailed and loaded with data, mostly based on a primary sources. IMO, he has some of if not the best info on WWII planes. His series on the P-47 is phenomenal. His stuff on cars isn’t as detailed, but you might enjoy his 60s muscle car series.
I’ll have to check out the P-47 video; I bought a scale model of one when I was at the Glenn Curtiss Museum in New York a few years ago.
Great point Aaron. I would have to agree with you on looks being a factor when comparing the B-24 to the B-17. For me is not even close. The B-17 is a graceful looking old gal with clean lines. Unfortunately for the B-24 it truly is an ugly duckling.
So, take the 17 to prom but always take the 24 to the fight after the big game.
The B-24 was the first large aircraft using the Davis laminar flow wing. This design produced much less drag, which is what accounts for the B-24’s range.
Similar to the B-26 Marauder, the B-24 had much higher landing speeds that pilots were accustomed to. There was not nearly enough recertification training in 1943 as there is now. Often there was none.
The B-24 was not a pleasant aircraft to fly. It was the last generation of unpowered control surfaces and the controls were very heavy. Pilots preferred the autopilot but that as not possible in combat situations.
The B-17 had reputation as an aircraft that could take more punishment than the B-24
My late FIL was a navigator on B24 “Rough Knights” late ’44 through early ’45. He didn’t talk a lot about the experience though he was thrilled to have never been shot down, or even shot up badly. Guess by then the air to air resistance was nominal but still, stuff would happen. He did relate how much better a plotter he was than even the lead plane, which was a better slot to be in as by then, the ground forces knew of an attack.
Someone in his unit just after demobilization did write up a complete operational review of their sorties on Chichi and Iwo Jima and it made for fascinating reading, esp aerial attacks on shipping. Wish I had kept a copy…
Great article and pictures Aaron. My dad and I share an interest in cars, but we also are WWII aircraft enthusiast too. Coming from a family with much military history and family member’s who were affected by war, these machines do have a strong impact on me. There certainly represent man’s best brought out by man’s worst. I have had the opportunity to see both the CAF’s B-29 and B-17 when they came to our local airports. The B-17 was truly small and archaic compared to the B-29. My daughter and I had the opportunity to see the B-17 fly which was amazing. Unfortunately when the B-29 was in town, I had to work when it was taking flight. I remember that day, working in my office and hearing a very unusual aircraft (my office was over the flight path for the airport). I instantly knew it was the B-17 and when out of the roof to watch it fly overhead. Truly a remarkable moment I won’t forget. I haven’t the chance to see the B-24, but would love to see it one day too.
My paternal grandfather, was imprisoned by the German’s shortly after Mussolini fell. He was in a POW farm labour camp near Bremen Germany. He used to tell stories of how he’d see so many American Bombers fly over that the sky would almost turn black. He was later liberated by American soldiers and was forever grateful for their service. My maternal Grandfather served in the RCAF as part of the ground crew for Lancasters and Halifaxes (like the B-24, a not so well remembered bomber). He too had lots of story’s to tell about the bombers and their crews returning home with damaged aircraft or not at all.
2011. We were in the USA, and saw an ad for Mid Atlantic Air Museum’s WW 2 Weekend. Some quick revisions to the itinary and we were there. At $600 AUD a flight in FIFI wasn’t cheap, but with a great exchange rate, I decided to try for one. Got the last seat on the last flight.
Delayed somewhat by a crack in an exhaust pipe, we took off quite late. Reasonable amount of space in the rear compartment, but very noisy. My companions were a Korean War B-29 gunner and an attractive lady in a WAAF’s Captain’s uniform. My gunner companion nudged me and observed “she’s a fine figure of a woman” He was right.
While the rear compartment were the ‘cheap seats’ you get a fantastic view from the upper and side blisters. They’ll spoil you for airliner windows.
Of course, had been injured or worse, my travel insurance would not a have covered me…. A sobering thought.