B-25 or B-17. Which is better?

Question

B-25 or B-17. Which is better?

Answer 1

By far the B-17 was better.  The B-25 had the edge on maneuverability, but the B-17 was much sturdier, and 4 engines will take a lot more damage then 2 engines, and still get you home.    Look at the specs...

B-25 Specs

* Crew: six (two pilots, navigator/bombardier, turret gunner/engineer, radio operator/waist gunner, tail gunner

* Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.1 m)

* Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.6 m)

* Height: 17 ft 7 in (4.8 m)

* Wing area: 610 sq ft (57 m²)

* Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg)

* Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb (19,000 kg)

* Powerplant: 2× Wright R-2600 "Cyclone" radials, 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 knots, 442 km/h)

* Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)

* Combat radius: 1,350 mi (1,170 nm, 2,170 km)

* Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nm, 4,300 km)

* Service ceiling 25,000 ft (7,600 m)

* Rate of climb: 790 ft/min (4 m/s)

* Wing loading: 55 lb/sq ft (270 kg/m²)

* Power/mass: 0.110 hp/lb (182 W/kg)

B-17 Specs

General characteristics

* Crew: 10: Pilot, co-pilot, navigator, bombardier/nose gunner, flight engineer-top turret gunner, radio operator, waist gunners (2), ball turret gunner, tail gunner[122]

* Length: 74 ft 4 in (22.66 m)

* Wingspan: 103 ft 9 in (31.62 m)

* Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.82 m)

* Wing area: 1,420 ft² (131.92 m²)

* Airfoil: NACA 0018 / NACA 0010

* Empty weight: 36,135 lb (16,391 kg)

* Loaded weight: 54,000 lb (24,495 kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 65,500 lb (29710 kg)

* Powerplant: 4× Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone" turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 287 mph (249 knots, 462 km/h)

* Cruise speed: 182 mph (158 knots, 293 km/h)

* Range: 1,738 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,219 km) with 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) bombload

* Service ceiling 35,600 ft (10,850 m)

* Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)

* Wing loading: 38.0 lb/ft² (185.7 kg/m²)

* Power/mass: 0.089 hp/lb (150 W/kg)

Answer 2

Man, what a choice! Both were incredible aircraft but both were very different -- one being a very long range, extremely high payload bomber, the other a medium range tactical bomber that could take off from the deck of an aircraft carrier. I personally feel a love for the old B17 due to the fact that they could take incredible punishment and still manage to get their crews home, i.e; two engines dead (or missing!), landing gear blown out, huge sections of tail and wing destroyed and/or missing not to mention that the gun crews could usually knife-up incoming fighters pretty effectively while in flight. Even the Japanese and Germans had a huge respect for the old girl. The Japanese actually captured one near the end of WWII and let a group of Zero fighter pilots fly it for evaluations. They were ALL impressed with the superb build quality and handling of the big fortress.

Answer 3

B-17-- It had a greater range,higher ceiling,higher payload,and greater speed. Much more of them were built too.

Answer 4

The B-25 and the B-17 really aren't comparable. The B-24 Liberator and the B-17 were both 4-engine long range bombers, capable of delivering huge amount of ordnance whereas the B-25 was a medium bomber with many more strategic capabilities, but still capable of delivering tremendous punishment.

The only comparable attributes of the two planes is their ability to take large amounts of damage, an attribute that particularly favoured the B-17 to its aircrews.

Answer 5

Both  but the B-17 have more payload than the other so the B-17 is the most deathliest

Answer 6

The B-17 was better in almost every measurable category, such as speed, payload capacity, armament, and range. It was also larger in both wingspan and length, and with 4 engines, it sucked up fuel like a mother. However, the smaller and more maneuverable B-25 had the ability to perform rudimentary close air support, as it could be outfitted with rockets and .50 caliber machine guns. So as far as which is better overall, it's hard to say because they are not designed for the same roles. Trying to do long-range strategic bombing with a B-25 would not work, but trying to strafe the enemy and fire rockets at ground targets with a B-17 wouldn't work either.

Answer 7

As others said before, this is apples and oranges.  The -17 was a strategic bomber while the -25 was tactical.

And as AK said, the B-24 was a better bomber (more payload, faster, higher, more built, etc.) than the B-17.

Answer 8

I know I'll probably get a lot of thumbs downs, but I think the B-24 was better than both of them in terms of performance, record and payload.

If I had to pick between the 25 and the 17, I would have to go with the B-17. The Fortress is a beautiful machine, and it was definitely the star of the show, but the B-24 was the workhorse.

Answer 9

it is very hard to compare these 2 acft since they had seperate mission specifications. the b-17 was more likely to bring you home. more engines, sturdier construction, etc. both acft served their respective duties well (strategic vs tactical bombing)

Answer 10

I truly think that there is a mistake in the choice of bombers in this question. Are you sure that you're  not wanting to compare the b-24 to the b-17 that is a true comparison.

The b-25 was a complete different animal not only in size and payload but overall use in general

Answer 11

Boeing B-17 high altitude strategic bomber critical weapon in the long term plan to defeat the axis in WWII.  Primarily used in mass (150 to 1,000 aircraft) long range bombing raids against large industrial complexes.  Example: Schweinfurt, Germany ball bearing complex.

North American B-25 lower altitude tactical bomber primarily used in relatively short range attack raids and support roles against smaller targets.  Example: Doolittle raid on Tokyo, Japan.  Could also double as close support aircraft for ground troops.  

Both fine aircraft but not really comparable.