Tom Moungovan Wrote
> I'd like to know what the wing loading is on a
> B-24 compared to a B-17.
The B-17 had a lot more wing area and the two weren't too far off in weight, so the B-24's wing loading was higher. Don't remember the exact figures offhand (wing loading more usually comes up in discussion of fighters) but doubtless it's posted somewhere. The B-24's wing section was quite thin and generally regarded as a bit fragile. It was optimized for cruise efficiency rather than for handling characteristics.
The often-forgotten Martin B-26 was another U.S. bomber type known for (optionally: notorious for) high wing loading, associated high landing speeds, and a high accident rate. It was so bad Martin got in some hot water with Congress over it.