• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

LOST!!!

PutPut

PutPut

Charter Member 2014
Pilot to Nav, "I told you not to buy the cheapy GPS, this is not March Field!" :icon34:

(The XB-19 is on final, maybe next week).

Cheers, Paul
 
Co-pilot looks over at the pilot "I dare you to land it on that!" :applause:
 
For all the woefully inadequate state of fighter (then called pursuit) aircraft in the interwar years in America, the USAAC really did a world class job of developing heavy bombers. Of course, even the decision to use the term "pursuit aircraft" revealed a fundamental obsession on bombers. The mantra, "the bomber will always get through" echoed up and down the halls of the US air staff.

Pilots like Claire Chennault eloquently lobbied (and sometimes not so eloquently) that fighters needed greater emphasis. For his excellent advice, he was never promoted past the rank of Captain, drummed out of the Air Corps with a trumped up medical issue, and went from Captain (ret) to general officer -- one heck of a career path!

The B-19 is often overlooked, but unlike the B-17, it was outclassed when it first came out in 1941. But it didn't add too much extra to the B-17 and the Boeing already had a record contract to produce the unheard of quantity of 13 of the then record costly YB-17. Boeing produced the 13 initial aircraft in about six months. Then the USAAC ordered another 10 and then a year later ordered another 29. At that time, the world fleet of B-17's tallied a cool 52 through 1939 -- a four year run! And hails of protests were heard over the lavish costs! :icon_lol:

Four years later, by end of 1943, around 7,000 were built. By the end of the war, a record 12,731 were produced!

The story of the B-19 is considerably different. While Boeing fell in love with their Model 200, Douglas almost immediately wanted to cancel the B-19 project out of cost concerns. In essence the B-19 was a test program to produce "very large bombers." In a way it was a test concept that ultimately led to the Boeing B-29.

Only one aircraft was ever built. So, I don't think the co-pilot could convince the pilot to land on that carrier! :icon_lol:

Ken
 
i've never understood why the b17 is held in the high regard that it is today, sure it was a good aircraft but in terms of bomb load and range it was outclassed by both the lanc and b24. It wasnt even much of a fortress, it got absolutly mauled (like every other bomber did) before fighter escorts where available all the way to germany and back. Guess it just goes to show what a good war bonds tour and a few movies does to a planes reputation :mixedsmi:
 
stiz said:
i've never understood why the b17 is held in the high regard that it is today, sure it was a good aircraft but in terms of bomb load and range it was outclassed by both the lanc and b24.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I´m not a historian, but I like to read and watch docs. I´ve understood, that the reason is the durability. In the wartime crews loved the B-17, because it could take the crew back home after taking tremendous damage. For example, the B-24's center(?) fuel tank could have exploded very easily, instantly taking out the crew.

As for today, the Fortress has the best look of WWII bombers, IMO.
 
stiz said:
i've never understood why the b17 is held in the high regard that it is today, sure it was a good aircraft but in terms of bomb load and range it was outclassed by both the lanc and b24.
Click to expand...

Perhaps one of the reasons the B-17 bomb load is relatively low, is the fact the B-17 was build to meet the Air Corps requirement for a long-range maritime patrol bomber to protect America's coastlines. Remember the prototype flew already six and a half year before America entered the war and the US was just focussing on "self defense". The name "Flying Fortress" was invented by the press long before the war and based on imagination and not on facts.

Perhaps not very well known, but the B-17 saw first action with 90 and 2 squadron from the RAF in July 1941. As the RAF used them in small formations and faced many technical problems this wasn't a big success. But as wiltzei already said; it looks nice ;)

Cheers,
Huub
 
looks are a personal thing, personaly i think the wellington was the best looking bomber of ww2, but others disagree :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top