Ok, so whats your favorite Heavy bomber, the Liberator or the B17?
From what I hear the Liberator was supposed to replace the B17. The B17 got alot of recognition, but I still like the old slab sided liberators!

Johnny

B17 is one of my personal faves, I've got models of it, scratchbuilt a couple in the past. Also got board games with it in, computer flight sims and lots of books!
It's true the B24 often gets overlooked, but there are a couple of good reasons for this. The main one being it was not as stable a bombing platform as the B17, owing to its wing design. Also, in contrast to the Fortress, the Liberator was fairly vulnerable to battle damage. I have several horrifying pictures of the wing box failing in mid-air on the Liberator, but I've only ever seen one pic of it going on a Fortress, and that one had been really badly hit in the fuel tanks. Despite all this, the B24 was, by all accounts, a pretty good ASW aircraft.
Anyway B17 all the way for me!!
Lastly, being a Brit I am legally obliged to say - "What about the Lancaster?!!' Vulnerable from underneath it's true, but tough and the only one to succesfully pull off an all the way low-level raid (discounting B17s and B24s at Ploesti, which was a bit of a fiasco and a High-Low-High profile). The Lancaster also carried over twice the bombload of the Fortress.
Then you've got the Stirling and the Halifax as well....

Ahhh which way to go.
You have to love the mystique of the B17. It was the 'little darling' in the air. Then there was the technologically more robust B24, what a work horse!
I've got to go with emotion and say my favorite US WWII heavy bomber is the B17 and I prefer the look of the pre F class versions.
On the other side of the Pond I do like the Lancaster, there's just something about it that says 'love me'.

B-17 could really kick butt

B-17 for me. Couple of uncles (on me wife's side) flew them in/over Europe during the war. One participated in the first 1,000 plane raid on Berlin, and the other bombed the town that I was stationed in during the early 1970's. (Another flew B-25s out of North Africa, Italy and then on to the CBI area.)

Plus the fact that I think that Boeing (IMHO) made and continues to make the best aircraft in the world.

Thanks,
Kevin Keefe
Mortars in Miniature

It's the B-24 for meit just has that something,.....................................Overall the it has to be the Lancaster.

B-24.18,888 built.Musta worked for orders to reach that level.See the single tail version? bet that coulda served into Korea.
Dad was Radio/Nose turret gunner,15th AF.Jan 44-Jul 44.Always took off w/4 engines running,came back w/4 engines running.Got his 50 credits,then rotated.No crew deaths or wounded.
Needless to say,I have /and still build lots of models of the Lib.
cut and paste and see...http://community.webshots.com/storage/1/v5/5/82/79/57858279kjtGLk_th.jpg

I am a 17 man.

Well, since the B-17 is one of only two aircraft models that I have ever built, I would have to say that it is my favourite heavy bomber.
I also agree with Holocaust59 when he says, "what about the Lancaster"
Andrew

Well heck....I'll have to say that I like them both

Definately the LANC, just something about that "grand slam" version. But if I had to pick, it would be the B-17. The 24 looks too much like a pot bellied pig for my taste.

Bison, what's wrong with a pig? I love pigs!

I like the b-17 more, but prefer a lancaster over the b-17 anyday.
Merry Xmas & a happy new year! (:-) (:-)

:-) If I have to choose then it's the B17, however my absolute favourite just has to be the Lancaster, 4 merlin engines and what a bomb load. If you ever get a chance to see and hear one of the, I think, 2 flying, 1 in Canada and 1 with the BBMF in England, don't miss it. Just awsome. (:-)

The Lanc and the B-24 may have had larger payloads, but neither could take the punishment the B-17 could. For reliability and what she could take and still fly home, The B-17 without question. I have never seen as many photos of one type of aircraft that could take what she did and keep flying. How about the one where the ME109 rammed into the tail section just behind the waist gunner and she still flew home. Or half the tail gone, maybe the entire nose section blown off back to the cockpit?. Could the B-24 or the Lanc fly back on 1 engine? 17 ALL THE WAY

i love the b-17 i had like 5 modles of the plan and i have books,
and i just saw the memphis bell last week at the air place

I'm with the Lanc brigade. The role of a bomber is to carry the maximum payload the maximum distance. Tall Boys, Grand Slams, Dambusters... wot more could you ask.

Oh, and the noise.....!

Father-in-law flew the one that is now a static display in Oz, cant remember the drome. (Thats old age for you.)

Regards Dave

I have to admit that the B17 and Lancaster both LOOKED like true fighting machines, but my favourite is the B24. Mind you I'm slightly influenced by the fact my dad was a ball turret gunner on them during WW2.
Martin

Hi All
My favourite USAF heavy bomber has to be the B17g,that chin turret just about sets it up.
Overall though being a Brit,the lanc comes out tops
happy Modelling
Peter

Sorry that it is not included but I have to vote for the Lancaster. Those other two just don't do it for me.

Hasty

It's a toss-up for me - I lived in England at an old RAF base that the USAAF used in WW II for Liberator anti-sup ops (RAF St. Eval), and a LOT more B-24's did the maritime role than did B-17's becauee of that range and load-carrying capacity.

Besides, the Eighth may have been a mainly B-17 force, but what about the guys in the 15th AF?

As for the B-17, the European bombing campaign certainly is a major feat of arms. But what really inspired me about the Fortress was the Fifth AF's use of them for skip bombing and anti-shipping work.

As for the Lanc, here's a neat little footnote in addition to its sterling work as an RAF heavy. I read this account in the Phoenix, AZ IPMS chapter website a few years back before it disappeared - the Lancaster was the first plane suggested to carry the A-bomb because it was the only plane with an unobstructed bomb bay long enough to carry the "little boy" configuration. Hap Arnold threw a fit over the idea, and some B-29's had th estructural framing modified in their bays to create an unobstructed bay.

What if . . . . .. . . .

the B17 and the Lanc have that 'look' about them. Planes that look like planes. For whatever the reason, the B24 has always looked sort of kluged together.
capnjock

The 48 portly lines of the 24, have some appeal. It looks like a heavy bomber. But the history of the Lanc and 17, I in my opinion, make them great planes in history. Real work horses.

All that said it's still a tough choice.

(Truth be known I like the 25 best, but that's another story, and another class of bomber)

Hello to all

I gotta go with the B17 yea I know the small bomb load The B24 had a Greater
range more speed, it wouldnt take the hammering the fort would and caome back
home. Just my two cents.


ponysoldier

Ponysoldier hit it dead on. If I had to fly one every day in combat it would have to be the B-17. From all the pictures I have seen and stories read, the Fort could dish it out and take it as well. Coming home is always a good thing to consider. Vote for the "17" here. Mav