Can you believe they made it back?!

**Holzauge** · February 28th, 2009 12:14 PM

Name: 398th%20Bomb%20GroupMA13299360-0022.jpg
Views: 59
Size: 36.7 KB

Name: D4261MA12462025-0004.jpg
Views: 59
Size: 53.2 KB

Name: D3119MA12462025-0003.jpg
Views: 59
Size: 43.7 KB

Name: damage%20photos%20HarlickMA13274257-0021.jpg
Views: 59
Size: 53.9 KB

**RAF Liberators** · February 28th, 2009 1:41 PM

You should look at this site, http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

**Holzauge** · March 1st, 2009 3:03 AM

Originally Posted by RAF Liberators

You should look at this site, http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm

Thanks for the site! That B-17 was one tough bird....

**RAF Liberators** · March 1st, 2009 5:24 AM

So was the flying box car aka the B-24 Liberator

I think a lot of it was to do with the pilots to be honest, they knew how to fly back then

**Geek44** · March 1st, 2009 6:16 AM

Great pics and a great site.
I've read that the B-17 could absorb a lot of damage...more than the B-24 I think but I'm not certain there. It's my understanding that the Fortresses were more popular with crews for this reason despite it's lack of payload space and relatively poor performance compared with the more advanced B-24.

Peace.

**RAF Liberators** · March 1st, 2009 1:29 PM

It's a myth depending on which veterans you talk to, the biggest problem with the 24 was the rear stabilisers. She didn't like flying without them, having said that I've seen kites make it back without them.
There has always been the rivalry between the B-24 and the B-17 pilots, the biggest and probably the single most reason as to why the B-17 got more publicity was the media attention to the crew of Memphis Belle. After that the B-24 couldn't get a look in.
They do say you had to have strong arms to fly the B-24 i've seen plenty of cartoons of popeye like pilots with one bulging arm.
A B-24 held the record for the longest flight of WWII and it was an RAF and RAAF one to boot

**Holzauge** · March 2nd, 2009 2:34 PM

Originally Posted by RAF Liberators

It's a myth depending on which veterans you talk to, the biggest problem with the 24 was the rear stabilisers. She didn't like flying without them, having said that I've seen kites make it back without them.
There has always been the rivalry between the B-24 and the B-17 pilots, the biggest and probably the single most reason as to why the B-17 got more publicity was the media attention to the crew of Memphis Belle. After that the B-24 couldn't get a look in.
They do say you had to have strong arms to fly the B-24 i've seen plenty of cartoons of popeye like pilots with one bulging arm.
A B-24 held the record for the longest flight of WWII and it was an RAF and RAAF one to boot

I am on the Board of Directors, 8th Air Force Historical Society, and past President (2007-08), Oregon Chapter, USA, and I have listened to all the arguments between the WW II pilots of both bombers, and the concensus seems to be that the B-17 could take a lot more punishment and return. The most convincing person is a vet who flew both planes, and told a story of getting shot up quite badly in a B-17, and he said that if he would have been in B-24, he would not be here now! There are at least two others in the Society that flew both and agree. And, all agree that you really have to fly the B-24, because of the Davis wing they said, and yes, you can end up with bulging arms! The B-24 guys say - it took a real pilot to fly the B-24!