B-17 "All American" - Remarkable Story
Discussion
I've just been lead to read this and it's absolutely amazing!!
What Courage and airmanship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_American_(aircra...
What Courage and airmanship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_American_(aircra...
http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17tail.htm...
...and it "buffed out" too! Repaired and returned to flight until broken up in 1945.
No man would have felt as fortunate as the tail gunner, Sam T. Sarpolus...
...and it "buffed out" too! Repaired and returned to flight until broken up in 1945.
No man would have felt as fortunate as the tail gunner, Sam T. Sarpolus...
Eric Mc said:
If ever you needed an example to demonstrate how "over engineered" the B-17 was, this is it.
Have another...
One fatality, toggler/bombardier Sgt George Abbott. Hardly surprising when a German 88mm flak shell lands in your lap. But hey? No instruments, no brakes, and the wind whipping down the inside of the fuselage through a massive hole in the nose? No problem, we'll land at Nuthampstead. Lt Lawrence M DeLancey in command... http://www.americanairmuseum.com/person/142091
https://www.398th.org/Images/Images_Aircraft_B-17/...
Plenty more images of B-17s with "how the flip did that get back?" levels of damage... https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-...
Regarding the aluminium/aluminum skin on the B-17, read this item.
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/B17/B17_art...
Not exactly what you would call thick and those extremely brave guys would have been acutely aware of this as would have every other guy in an aircraft at that time.
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/B17/B17_art...
Not exactly what you would call thick and those extremely brave guys would have been acutely aware of this as would have every other guy in an aircraft at that time.
yellowjack said:
No man would have felt as fortunate as the tail gunner, Sam T. Sarpolus...
It was shown on the "Great Planes" episode on the B-17 from the 90's.
Here we go- 40mins in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbpcwyWAv28
just read that the other day - amazing.
this is another interesting one.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Fr...
this is another interesting one.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Fr...
Eric Mc said:
It was a very well screwed together aeroplane - unlike its contemporary, the B-24 Liberator.
That's like saying the Hurricane was screwed together better than the Spitfire was, just because the Hurricanes older design was able to absorb more battle damage than the newer and more modern design of the Spitfire.aeropilot said:
That's like saying the Hurricane was screwed together better than the Spitfire was, just because the Hurricanes older design was able to absorb more battle damage than the newer and more modern design of the Spitfire.
True to an extent. The B-24 was a more efficient aeroplane but that efficiency was partly at the expense of durability.Eric Mc said:
aeropilot said:
That's like saying the Hurricane was screwed together better than the Spitfire was, just because the Hurricanes older design was able to absorb more battle damage than the newer and more modern design of the Spitfire.
True to an extent. The B-24 was a more efficient aeroplane but that efficiency was partly at the expense of durability.Its a myth that the 17 was more durable than the 24, the facts don't bear it out.
Yes, the Fort could take more punishment, as it was lighter than the 24, and had more expanse of unused space within the structure, than the Lib......but, it just as well it did, as it was so much slower, that it was much more of a target. The B-24 was the better bomber in just about every respect, and could do everything the B-17 could do, plus a hell of a lot more besides, due to speed, range, payload advantage. Plus its production and the infrastructure created by the USA to build it in the numbers it did, at the rate it did, is probably one of the astounding feats of the industrial age.
aeropilot said:
That's obviously why the loss per sortie ratio of the B-24 was lower than the B-17 then....
Its a myth that the 17 was more durable than the 24, the facts don't bear it out.
Yes, the Fort could take more punishment, as it was lighter than the 24, and had more expanse of unused space within the structure, than the Lib......but, it just as well it did, as it was so much slower, that it was much more of a target. The B-24 was the better bomber in just about every respect, and could do everything the B-17 could do, plus a hell of a lot more besides, due to speed, range, payload advantage. Plus its production and the infrastructure created by the USA to build it in the numbers it did, at the rate it did, is probably one of the astounding feats of the industrial age.
Logistics wins wars.Its a myth that the 17 was more durable than the 24, the facts don't bear it out.
Yes, the Fort could take more punishment, as it was lighter than the 24, and had more expanse of unused space within the structure, than the Lib......but, it just as well it did, as it was so much slower, that it was much more of a target. The B-24 was the better bomber in just about every respect, and could do everything the B-17 could do, plus a hell of a lot more besides, due to speed, range, payload advantage. Plus its production and the infrastructure created by the USA to build it in the numbers it did, at the rate it did, is probably one of the astounding feats of the industrial age.
aeropilot said:
That's obviously why the loss per sortie ratio of the B-24 was lower than the B-17 then....
Its a myth that the 17 was more durable than the 24, the facts don't bear it out.
Yes, the Fort could take more punishment, as it was lighter than the 24, and had more expanse of unused space within the structure, than the Lib......but, it just as well it did, as it was so much slower, that it was much more of a target. The B-24 was the better bomber in just about every respect, and could do everything the B-17 could do, plus a hell of a lot more besides, due to speed, range, payload advantage. Plus its production and the infrastructure created by the USA to build it in the numbers it did, at the rate it did, is probably one of the astounding feats of the industrial age.
Loss rates are determined as much by the manner and place where you operate (and who you were operating against). The B-24 was also a more modern and efficient design and as a result, was used in more theaters of war than the B-17. It was also produced in greater numbers (the greatest of any of the heavy bombers).Its a myth that the 17 was more durable than the 24, the facts don't bear it out.
Yes, the Fort could take more punishment, as it was lighter than the 24, and had more expanse of unused space within the structure, than the Lib......but, it just as well it did, as it was so much slower, that it was much more of a target. The B-24 was the better bomber in just about every respect, and could do everything the B-17 could do, plus a hell of a lot more besides, due to speed, range, payload advantage. Plus its production and the infrastructure created by the USA to build it in the numbers it did, at the rate it did, is probably one of the astounding feats of the industrial age.
I was thinking more of the Northern European theatre of operations - especially in the period 1942 to the end of 1943 when the opposition was still strong and lethal and far more American bombers were getting hit by enemy aircraft and flak. In those circumstances, the B-17 was a better proposition to be in because it literally could take the flak. A direct hit on a B-24 often caused it to just fold up in mid-air. There is some dramatic film of just what can happen -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lioRCye2Dug
If I was an American bomber crewman in 1942/43 flying over Germany, I'd have preferred to have been in a B-17 rather than a B-24.
Eric Mc said:
In those circumstances, the B-17 was a better proposition to be in because it literally could take the flak. A direct hit on a B-24 often caused it to just fold up in mid-air. There is some dramatic film of just what can happen -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lioRCye2Dug
If I was an American bomber crewman in 1942/43 flying over Germany, I'd have preferred to have been in a B-17 rather than a B-24.
I know you know a lot about this, but your video looks like the plane was hit by a 'friendly' bomb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lioRCye2Dug
If I was an American bomber crewman in 1942/43 flying over Germany, I'd have preferred to have been in a B-17 rather than a B-24.
I've only watched the first few mins so far but this former B24 pilot talks about encountering flak and being hit by bombs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGum35EdZiY
Eric Mc said:
I've always understood it was anti-aircraft fire that brought it down.
I agree. Looking at the fuel spray - bigger hole on the top, smaller one underneath - it looks like an impact from underneath which exploded out of the top which matches with AA fire rather than the more common belief that it was a bomb dropped from above (plus there's no following bombs).eldar said:
aeropilot said:
That's obviously why the loss per sortie ratio of the B-24 was lower than the B-17 then....
Its a myth that the 17 was more durable than the 24, the facts don't bear it out.
Yes, the Fort could take more punishment, as it was lighter than the 24, and had more expanse of unused space within the structure, than the Lib......but, it just as well it did, as it was so much slower, that it was much more of a target. The B-24 was the better bomber in just about every respect, and could do everything the B-17 could do, plus a hell of a lot more besides, due to speed, range, payload advantage. Plus its production and the infrastructure created by the USA to build it in the numbers it did, at the rate it did, is probably one of the astounding feats of the industrial age.
Logistics wins wars.Its a myth that the 17 was more durable than the 24, the facts don't bear it out.
Yes, the Fort could take more punishment, as it was lighter than the 24, and had more expanse of unused space within the structure, than the Lib......but, it just as well it did, as it was so much slower, that it was much more of a target. The B-24 was the better bomber in just about every respect, and could do everything the B-17 could do, plus a hell of a lot more besides, due to speed, range, payload advantage. Plus its production and the infrastructure created by the USA to build it in the numbers it did, at the rate it did, is probably one of the astounding feats of the industrial age.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff