Warbird Information Exchange

Why weren't more B-24s preserved today compared to B-17s. Was it because a large number of B-17s were more easily suited to fire bombers?

Why B17's & not B24's? Good Question, with many answers...

Many reasons, not the least of which is that some B17's continued to serve in the USAAF after the war ended and the B24 quickly did not. IIRC B17's served in some capacity in air-sea rescue, plus as drone directors (& Remotely Piloted Aircraft?) for nuclear tests and as VIP transport aircraft.

Many B17's relatively quickly found post-war civilian work, including flight testing of various technologies (radar, avionics & engines, among others testing) plus aerial mapping duties relatively soon after the war ended, and then, later, some transport and fire-bomber work.

I will leave it to others to talk about the post-war "popularity" of one type over the other.

For m-a-n-y more details, suggest you buy and read Scott Thompson's terrific book "Final Cut: The Post-War B-17 Flying Fortress: The Survivors" . The book is available at his web site: http://aerovintage.com/catalog.htm

The B-17 is/was easier to fly than the B-24, easier to maintain and an overall stronger airframe. The B-17 is a stable platform for just about any application you choose for the airframe. By design the B-24 is limited to internal stores. It would be hard to hang a rescue boat from the fuselage. The B-24 is also, or can be maintenance intensive. Four electric prop governors prone to failure, miles of hydraulic tubing, and a weak nosewheel design. In the same breath you can also say that the PB4Y solderied well into the 00's as tankers whereas the B-17's were retired by the mid 80's. Both aircraft have thier vices but the B-17 had the advantage of being both rugged and simple to operate. Ok...hows that for .02?

JimH

Many of the B-24 survivors are ex-Indian. Without them, it would have been even rarer. The P-38 is in a similar position. Both were decided by senior powers to be too much trouble and shuffled out of the game. Simple vs complex? Maybe. I'd say that's give a dog a bad name. What might Ryan have to add?

_________________
Raven

Heinz Knoke descibes the B-24 as being less aerodynamic and easier to gamage and burn when attacking them, maybe with all the contibutary factors described here they simply were not robust enough in combat or if damaged.

I think there is the other angle as well, like who lobbied best for the best contracts and services both during and after the war. The arms industry is notorious for shall we say "favours".

Not really pertinent, I'd say. They were a perfectly good aircraft, as was the B-17. Arguments will continue to rage, but don't forget they both did their jobs well in the hands of the young men. The Lib had long range maritime patrol under it's belt - a tough task, so let's not buy the 'it wasn't very good' angle.

Actual surviving warbirds mostly (70%?) never saw front line combat. Combat attrition is simply not a factor in survival rates.

A much more important factor is secondary uses to see out the period between being 'obsolete' and becoming 'historic'. Vast numbers of both types were scrapped postwar stateside; the B-24 simply was not used by many people postwar, so when it came to preservation, they'd mostly gone.

Cheers!

_________________
Raven

It sure seems like the B-26 Marauder got shuffled out in a hurry, despite being one of the most successful medium bombers of the war (if not THE most successful medium bomber). Wonder if it's reputation caught up with it in the end...

Cheaper to procure & maintain.......just as a starter ?

What was the typical surplused price for a 24 vs a 17 ?

What is the $ difference in hourly operation ?

For more or less the same payload & functionality

If you have to buy, these are off the bat quite important also.

I think its 50% of the (complete)survivors are ex Indian & they only survived because the RAF did not have enough time to scrap them all before having to leave India when India gained independence

As I understand it the B-24s were strategically disabled abandoned in place. They were "disabled" by breaking part here or there, and the parts were carefully chosen so that no one part was broken on more than one airframe, hence they set-up things for canibalization by the Indian airforce. Apparently there was some legal reason the RAF couldn't just turn over the aircraft, so this was a solution to the problem. I could be wrong though. Can anyone correct me?

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

I am amazed that so many were built, 18,482, as so few survived today. I didn't realize the effect of the Indian airforce as it relates to some of those surviving examples we have today. Thanks to all providing info to this question so far.

The end of the war meant the end of the "Lend Lease" Agreement. If you kept the a/c, then you had to pay for it..... Britain had lots of other items to pay for.... The story that I have read/heard was that the RAF crews that were rendering the aircraft useless finally got to the point on the massive bombers that they simply raised the a/c up on jacks, cycled the gear up, then lowered the a/c to the ground, in effect rendering them useless (or at least through a camera's eye). RR, or any of our fellow Brits, was this real or imagined? Alan ... Could you imagine walking out into a field of B-24 bits and pieces only to discover that WHOLE aircraft were just waiting for you!!! A Literal "Field of Dreams!"

To this point, when I lived in Kingman, AZ where MANY bombers ended up after the war, I heard stories from the locals that many planes weren't even cut up, that they were just towed into a pit dug into the ground and then covered over.

Mike
Have a look at the link, its a very good account of what happened.
http://www.rquirk.com/fail/322mu/322mu.htm

It wasn't just B-24's , India also provided 21 ( approx 15 % ) of the worlds Spitfire survivors