Yank bomber boys in Norfolk.

Profile picture for user Richard gray

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 485

Some great pictures here. http://www.edp24.co.uk/norfolk-life/yank_bomber_boys_in_norfolk_1_3671442?storyId=1.3671443.1404639158
Original post
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

Thanks for those. That final one is an awful moment. If the assembly ship is on finals, then the other B24 must have crashed on take off. Moggy

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 552

I would suggest from the fire's intensity that the burning aircraft had just crashed and was a returning aircraft that came down short of the runway.
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

We can probably never know for certain, but why would the assembly ship be airborne if that was the case? Once the stream had set off for the target the assembly ship's work is over. Moggy

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 552

I see your point.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 700

The photograph is printed on the back cover of "Assembly Ships of the Mighty Eighth". Simply captioned "Ball of Fire of the 93rd BG landing at Hardwick. In the foreground, the wreckage of a 93rd BG B-24 in flames after crashing during take-off". The crashed B-24 is not identified.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

Was the B24 more prone to crashing on takeoff than the B17? In `Target Berlin` by Ethell and Price that mission also saw the loss of a B24 during takeoff. I've not heard any mention of B17 losses during takeoff in any of the books I have read.
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

Can't see why it would be. The tricycle u/c should make all ground handling easier. Moggy
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 9,617

Was the B24 more prone to crashing on takeoff than the B17?
Perhaps it has to do with the high aspect ratio wing? It might be more prone to stalling than the B-17 wing. Anyone have take off and stall figures for both types? There is one well-known case of a B-17 crashing on takeoff...the loss of the Model 299 at Wright Field...attributed to forgotten elevator locks.
Can't see why it would be. The tricycle u/c should make all ground handling easier. Moggy
Tricycle gear would only prevent ground loops, not what I'd consider a crash on takeoff...
Profile picture for user bazv

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 5,811

The B24 could have turned back with a problem after takeoff and just not made it : ( The B24 did have a slightly weak nose u/c leg and also was definitely more difficult to fly than the B17 in all flight regimes - higher wing loading etc etc
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

Tricycle gear would only prevent ground loops, not what I'd consider a crash on takeoff...
You might like to consider swings on take-off. They are not unknown and claimed a lot of victims during WW2. But really I know as little as everybody else, other than that googling "B17 crash on take off" gets you many results. Moggy

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 66

I've not heard any mention of B17 losses during takeoff in any of the books I have read.
... I'd imagine that there were a fair few weather related crashes on take-off during the poor winter of 1944 - a 390th BG B-17 crashed on 27 December 1944 attempting to get airborne from Framlingham/Parham - came down alongside the main Parham-Framlingham road, the explosion damaged every house in the village. although there was no loss of life on the ground (visited the excellent Framlingham tower museum last week. This incident is also cited in Parker " To win the winter sky ") the pics at the OP's original link are from Peter Bodle's book of the same title