The B 25 has two engines, The B 24 has four. Other than that, they look pretty similar. Anyone know what are the other major differences? Was the 24 in production prior to the 25?
The B-25 went into production first. The B-24 is a heavy bomber, the B-25 is classified as a medium bomber. One was made by Consolidated, the other by North American.
Although they were designed at roughly the same time, the B-25 went into production a few months earlier than the B-24, in late 1939.
I’ve never read anything to indicate that either design inspired the other. They were produced by different companies for starters.
Here’s a cool aircraft site: The Aviation History OnLine Museum Historic Aircraft Index
They are really pretty different machines. All the below comparisons are for late war configurations, B-25H vs B-24M
First off they are not really the same size
Full Load Weight: B-25 - 37,198 lbs; B-24 - 71,293 lbs
Wingspan: B-25 - 68’; B-25 - 110’
Bomb-load: B-25 - 3,004 lbs; B-25 - 12,803 lbs
Second they were designed for different missions. Both were bombers but the B-25 was also a ground/ship attack plane. As such, various versions had under wing rocket mounts, torpedo mounts, and/or the 75mm cannon in the nose which fired 15 lb shells. It was used very successfully in a low altitude (100’ or so) strafing attack missions, that the B-24 would have been utterly inappropriate for.
In comparison the B-24 was a pure long range strategic bomber. It never got any of the ground/ship attack weapons. It had an operating ceiling a mile and a half higher than the B-25 (32,000’ vs 24,000’). And it operated at much longer ranges (2,850 vs 1,350 miles).
There are some physical similarities, but that has more to do with aviation technology of the time than anything else. Design on both started within a year of each other. Neither was trying anything new or radical at the time. And there were a number of variants of each, some of which look more similar and some of which look less.
Other than high wing, twin tail, nosewheel, what are the similarities? :dubious:
First off they are not really the same size
Full Load Weight: B-25 - 37,198 lbs; B-24 - 71,293 lbs
Wingspan: B-25 - 68’; B-24 - 110’
Bomb-load: B-25 - 3,004 lbs; B-24 - 12,803 lbs
Thanks for the catch Johnny L.A., it makes a bit more sense that way.
Guess that explains why the 25’s, not 24’s, were used in the Doolittle raid in '42.
The B-25 is really more a mid-wing.
As mentioned, the tail planes and the tricycle landing gear are the only real similarities between the planes.
As trivia, I thought that I’d mention that the Liberator’s odd shape (tall, high wing, low ground clearance) was a direct result of Consolidated’s experience of building successful flying boats.
Hard to get a B-24 off a carrier, yes. 
My Father did maintenance on B-25s in New Guinea and Australia. When I was building model airplanes, he declared that the 75mm cannon bent the airframe and went largely unused. I believe the B-25Hwas in use after Dad was back in the USA.
Despite that background (see the PB2Y and PB4Y for family resemblance), the B-24 was almost unable to ditch successfully. The tambour-type bomb bay door would stave in almost immediately upon impact, and when the wings came to rest on the water, the fuselage was submerged along with its occupants.
When I was a teen I read this about configuration and ditching: High-wing airplanes ditch well because they keep the wings out of the water long enough for the plane to slow before they hit. The downside is that the cockpit is underwater. A low-wing airplane is good because the fuselage (and cockpit) are out of the water, allowing a better chance of escape. But there’s more of a chance for a wing tip to drag, possibly causing a cartwheel. A mid-wing airplane keeps the wing tips out of the water a little longer, reducing the chances of a cartwheel, and also keeps the cockpit out of the water so the pilot has a better chance of escape. (And of course, wheels-up is better than wheels-down.) Me, if I had to ditch in the sea I’d want to do it in a Catalina or a Goose. 
Consolidated Aircraft Company designed the B-24 but they were unable to keep up with the wartime demand. So other companies were licensed to build B-24’s as well. Douglas Aircraft, Ford Motor Company, and North American Aviation all manufactured B-24’s.
That might be so, but the high wing has two practical advantages: It lets you have a simply enormous bomb bay (unlike the B-17, whose bomb bay was between the front and rear wing spars, limiting the size of bombs you could carry) and lets you use great big propellors (and hence great big engines).
I think it usually means longer and heavier main landing gear, though, which winds up lowering the payload a bit.
The B-17 is iconic to the image of the American bomber effort in Europe, and the B-29 in the later Pacific theater. But the B-24 seems almost forgotten, despite being the single most produced US aircraft in the war.
Weren’t B-24s in Catch-22?
They were B-25s.
Walter Cronkite had an anecdote in his memoirs (either written or televised, he did both) about how as a WWII correspondent the army air corps begged a writer to go on a B-24 mission. The B-24 crewmen felt left out over all the attention the B-17s got. One of Cronkite’s friends agreed to go on a mission and do a story but tragically the plane and all people were killed on the mission.
Never sure why the B-17 was more well known. Was the name “Flying Fortress” more memorable than a dopey one like “Liberator”? Was Boeing better at PR? Did films such as “Command Decision” and “12 O’Clock High” set the picture of the B-17 as the bomber of American forces in Europe?