Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
I find it interesting how the marketing (not sure if that is the right term, maybe propaganda?) of the time was so focused on certain aircraft, the B-17 being one (P-51 is the other I'm thinking of). I wonder why the Flying Fortress was the "pretty girl" of WWII US bombers when more B-24s were produced and the Liberator had arguably better "statistics" (range, altitude, bomb load, etc). Was it simply because the FF came first? Or was it because the B-17 was a stylistically better looking aircraft than the Liberator, which might be described as a box with wings due to the fuselage shape?
I've read the B-24 was more difficult to fly, especially when fully loaded. It also just doesn't have the same lines. The B-17 is straight up beautiful. The B-24 is, well, more capable.