How good were B-17 bombers?

How good were B-17 bombers?

It was a very effective weapons system, dropping more bombs during the war than any other American aircraft. The B-17 was a sturdily built aircraft. Though many were shot down, many more severely damaged aircraft were able to return their crews safely to base.

Can a B-17 fly on one engine?

It had a crew of ten and could carry 6,000 pounds of bombs at 300 miles per hour for a range of 2,000 miles. Its famous nickname came from the fact it carried 13 . 50 caliber M2 Browning machine guns for protection, and had a legendary toughness for carrying its crew home on one engine or even with the tail shot away.

READ:   What age is a child when they can decide to not see parent?

Is the B-17 hard to fly?

The rugged B-17s would often return with many of their working parts shot up, but the Flying Fortress earned its reputation as one of the toughest planes to fly in World War II.

How does the B-17 bomber compare to the Avro Lancaster?

If I was to look at areas of drag on B-17 that would stand out in comparison to the Avro Lancaster, it’d be the ventral guns, though the Lancaster had the provision for such an armament, though they rarely carried it (Evidently, it was difficult to sight the guns, though I’m surprised the B-17 wouldn’t have the same problem.

What is the difference between a B-17 and a b17e?

The B-17’s all have a single vertical-fin, which the B-17E’s is larger than the previous designs, and the same as the later models that would see service (far as I know): I’m not entirely sure the advantages of one tail over two except that if they were mounted on the tail, they would act as endplates.

READ:   Which government sold the Port of Darwin to the Chinese?

How many B-17s were shot down in WW2?

During the air war B-17s dropped 640,035 tons of bombs and the Lancaster dropped 681,645 tons of bombs. There were 3126 B-17′s lost in the effort and there were 3,249 Lancaster’s lost in 156,000 sorties.

Is the B-17 bomber more aerodynamically efficient?

The B-17’s tail-surface looks more aerodynamically efficient, but looks can be deceiving: The highly swept-dorsal root extension does look like a way to avoid fin-stalls, though it’s highly swept configuration might (if my knowledge of swept wings is correct) yield a lower T/C ratio.