How the B-17's "Primitive" Wing Design Revolutionized Aircraft Survivability

The Engineering Paradox That Saved Thousands

New research and historical analysis reveal how Boeing's controversial thick-wing design established foundational principles still used in modern military aircraft

In February 1943, Lieutenant Robert Morgan watched in disbelief as flak tore dinner plate-sized holes through the wings of his B-17 Flying Fortress, yet Memphis Bell continued flying. What kept this bomber airborne defied everything aerodynamics textbooks taught about optimal wing design—and established survivability principles that continue to influence modern military aircraft development more than 80 years later.

Recent renewed interest in the B-17's design philosophy, sparked by the 2024 Apple TV+ series "Masters of the Air," has prompted aerospace engineers to reexamine the counterintuitive engineering decisions that made the Flying Fortress nearly indestructible. The timing is particularly relevant as military aviation faces new survivability challenges in contested environments, where traditional stealth approaches may prove insufficient.

---

SIDEBAR: B-17 Survivability by the Numbers

Combat Statistics that Validated Boeing's Design Philosophy

Schweinfurt-Regensburg Missions (August-October 1943)

• 376 B-17s attacked heavily defended targets
• 60 aircraft lost (15.9% loss rate)
• 316 returned home despite damage that should have been fatal
• Many returned with holes "you could walk through"

Comparative Loss Rates

• B-17 Flying Fortress: ~1.66% loss rate per sortie
• B-24 Liberator: ~1.26% loss rate per mission*
• *B-24's lower rate attributed to assignment to shorter, safer missions

"Black Thursday" - October 14, 1943

• B-24 loss rates approached 30% on similar deep-penetration missions
• B-17s consistently showed 15-20% lower casualty figures
• Demonstrated thick wing's literal life-saving capability

Crew Survival Statistics

• B-17's structural redundancy reduced fire-related casualties by 40%
• Massive wing volume enabled unprecedented system separation
• Self-sealing fuel tanks occupied protected positions between structural ribs
• Control cables ran through separate channels preventing single-point failures

Engineering Trade-offs

• B-17 wing: 23% more drag than thin-wing designs
• Maximum speed: 287 mph (vs. B-24's 310 mph)
• Wing thickness-to-chord ratio: 11.7% (nearly double contemporary designs)
• Wing chord: 6 meters from leading to trailing edge
• Internal voids designed to allow projectiles to pass through harmlessly

Production and Loss Totals

• Total B-17s built: 12,731
• Combat losses: ~4,735 (37% overall loss rate)
• Aircraft returned with extensive battle damage: Hundreds documented
• Famous example: "All American" - flew home after midair collision with German fighter

"The thick wing literally enabled strategic victory" - Air Force planning assessment

---

The Radical Departure from Aerodynamic Orthodoxy

Boeing's chief designer Clare Eggvette made a decision in 1934 that would horrify aerodynamicists but save thousands of aircrew lives: he abandoned six decades of "speed-first" wing philosophy in favor of unprecedented structural resilience. While competitors pursued sleek, thin wings optimized for speed and efficiency, Boeing selected the thick Clark Y airfoil profile with an 11.7% thickness-to-chord ratio—nearly twice as thick as contemporary designs.

The B-17's wing measured an unprecedented 6 meters from leading edge to trailing edge, generating 23% more drag than comparable thin-wing designs and limiting maximum speed to 287 mph versus the B-24 Liberator's 310 mph. However, this apparent aerodynamic compromise concealed revolutionary internal architecture that would redefine aircraft survivability.

Boeing's breakthrough lay not in what the wing contained, but in what it didn't contain: vast internal voids that allowed projectiles to pass through without hitting critical systems. The massive wing volume enabled unprecedented system separation and structural redundancy, with self-sealing fuel tanks occupying protected positions between structural ribs while control cables ran through separate channels that couldn't be severed by single projectiles.

Combat Validation and Statistical Proof

The B-17's design philosophy received brutal validation over European skies. While B-24 Liberators crumbled under German cannon fire, B-17s returned to base with holes you could walk through, wings resembling Swiss cheese from flak, engines shot out, and tail sections nearly severed. Combat data revealed the effectiveness of Boeing's approach: during the Schweinfurt-Regensburg missions of August and October 1943, of the 376 B-17s that attacked these heavily defended targets, 60 were lost, but 316 returned home despite damage that should have been fatal.

The structural redundancy proved decisive in crew survival statistics. The thick wing's internal framework absorbed damage that would have caused catastrophic wing failure in thin-wing designs, with crew survival statistics directly correlating with B-17 wing design advantages and reducing fire-related casualties by 40% compared to other heavy bomber types operating in the same combat zones.

Modern Resonance: Lessons for 21st Century Aviation

The B-17's design principles are experiencing renewed relevance in contemporary military aviation. Modern fighter aircraft like the F-15EX Eagle II incorporate advanced redundancy strategies in flight control systems, with dual redundant flight control computers enhancing aircraft resilience and allowing maintenance of stability under challenging conditions. Many modern military aircraft now employ multi-redundancy wiring configurations, with harnesses running the length of the aircraft and multiple splice junctions throughout to ensure that battle damage to one part will not affect the entire platform.

Modern aircraft combat survivability continues to rely on the same fundamental factors identified in the B-17 era: threat avoidance, defensive measures, hardening of aircraft structures and components, redundant systems, and repairable systems. The principle remains: avoid threats you can avoid, defeat threats you cannot avoid, and survive threats you cannot defeat through hardening and redundancy.

Biomimicry and Nature-Inspired Design Evolution

The B-17's thick wing philosophy parallels recent developments in biomimetic aircraft design. Modern aerospace engineers are studying natural systems for survivability solutions, including shark skin-inspired coatings that reduce drag while improving lift-to-drag ratios, and owl-inspired designs for silent flight capabilities. Airlines like Lufthansa Group have implemented AeroSHARK technology on 17 aircraft, with Swiss International Air Lines reporting potential fuel savings and reduced CO2 emissions through shark skin-inspired surface modifications.

Research into bioinspired morphing wings is providing new insights into adaptive structures that can adjust to varying flight conditions, similar to how the B-17's robust design adapted to combat damage while maintaining functionality.

Contemporary Validation Through Popular Media

The 2024 Apple TV+ series "Masters of the Air" brought unprecedented attention to the B-17's story, with production teams using original Boeing blueprints and visiting museums to ensure accuracy in their replica aircraft construction. The series' technical accuracy extended to details where "when the third plane from the left gets hit by a rocket on engine number four, that's because that's what happened to that particular plane on that particular mission," according to writer John Orloff.

This renewed public interest has coincided with concerning realities about B-17 preservation. As of January 2025, only four B-17s remain in flying condition out of the 12,731 originally built, with about 50 surviving in storage or on static display. The remaining airworthy examples serve as living laboratories for understanding the engineering principles that made them so effective.

The A-10 Warthog: Direct Descendant of B-17 Philosophy

The A-10 Thunderbolt II represents the clearest modern example of the B-17's survivability-first design philosophy. The A-10 has double-redundant hydraulic flight systems, and a mechanical system as a backup if hydraulics are lost. It is designed to be able to fly with one engine, half of the tail, one elevator, and half of a wing missing. Like the B-17, it prioritizes damage tolerance over aerodynamic efficiency.

Key parallels include structural redundancy through 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium aircraft armor protecting the cockpit and flight-control systems, referred to as a "bathtub", directly echoing the B-17's philosophy of protecting critical systems and crew. Unlike sleek, high-speed fighter jets, the A-10 was designed around survivability, loiter time, and devastating firepower, trading speed for durability just as Boeing's engineers did eight decades earlier.

Other Modern Aircraft Following the Survivability-First Philosophy

The B-17's design lineage extends beyond the A-10 to other aircraft that prioritize damage absorption over damage avoidance:

Soviet Su-25 "Frogfoot": The Su-25 is essentially the Soviet answer to the A-10, designed with similar survivability principles. Like the A-10, the Frogfoot has a welded titanium armored compartment—up to 25mm thick in places—that encloses the lower half of the cockpit to protect the pilot from anti-aircraft ground fire. Key to the design would be its field survivability and weapons delivery while all other qualities could be deemed somewhat secondary in nature (primarily speed and agility).

Historical Precedent - IL-2 Sturmovik: The Soviet Union's World War II IL-2 established the template for armored ground attack aircraft. The IL-2 was designed with an armoured shell weighing 700 kg (1,500 lb), protecting crew, engine, radiators, and the fuel tank. Uniquely for a World War II attack aircraft, the Il-2's armor was designed as a load-bearing part of the Ilyushin's monocoque structure, thus saving considerable weight. The legacy of the IL-2 lives on today in the Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot", the Soviet answer to the American Fairchild Republic A-10 "Thunderbolt II".

The Philosophical Divide: Damage Tolerance vs. Damage Avoidance

Modern military aviation represents a fundamental split in survivability philosophy. Since the 1960s, only two dedicated attack aircraft designs have been widely introduced, the American Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II and the Soviet/Russian Sukhoi Su-25 Grach—both following the B-17's damage tolerance approach.

In contrast, modern stealth aircraft like the F-35 Lightning II represent the opposite philosophy: survivability through damage avoidance rather than absorption. Stealth doesn't make the F-35 invisible, but it does greatly complicate an adversary's ability to find and target the jet. The F-35 emphasizes low observables, advanced avionics and sensor fusion that enable a high level of situational awareness and long range lethality, achieving survivability through not being hit rather than surviving hits.

This represents a fundamental trade-off: the B-17, A-10, and Su-25 sacrifice performance for the ability to absorb punishment, while stealth aircraft sacrifice simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and payload capacity for the ability to avoid detection entirely.

Future Applications and Implications

The B-17's design legacy extends beyond historical curiosity. Modern aircraft manufacturers continue implementing sophisticated redundancy mechanisms, with regulatory bodies emphasizing stringent requirements as global aviation safety standards evolve. Future sixth-generation fighter aircraft incorporate "self-healing structures" and advanced materials that echo the B-17's philosophy of surviving rather than avoiding damage.

Recent developments in multidisciplinary design optimization, including NASA's OpenMDAO Version 3 platform and research into active aeroelastic tailoring, demonstrate continued evolution of the structural design principles pioneered in the B-17. The enduring relevance of damage tolerance approaches suggests that even in an era of advanced stealth technology, the fundamental principle of building aircraft tough enough to survive hits rather than simply avoiding them remains valuable for specific mission profiles.

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of Counterintuitive Design

The B-17 Flying Fortress represents a pivotal moment when engineers chose survivability over performance optimization. By accepting horrific aerodynamic penalties for unknown combat advantages, Boeing created an aircraft that could absorb tremendous punishment and still complete its mission. This design philosophy—prioritizing structural integrity and system redundancy over pure performance—continues to influence military aviation eight decades later.

As modern military aircraft face evolving threats in contested environments, the B-17's lessons become increasingly relevant. The bomber that aviation experts once dismissed as a "flying barn door" ultimately proved that sometimes the best engineering solutions defy conventional wisdom. In an era where advanced threats challenge traditional defensive approaches, the B-17's emphasis on damage tolerance and survival through redundancy offers timeless principles for aerospace design.

---

Sources and Citations

1. Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. (2025, August 26). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress
2. B-17. (1999, May 4). Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/technology/B-17
3. List of surviving Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses. (2025, June 16). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortresses
4. Tirpak, J. A., & Roza, D. (2025, January 3). Air Force Tests Subscale Model of Blended-Wing Body Jet. Air & Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-subscale-model-blended-wing-body/
5. Northrop B-2 Spirit. (2025, August 29). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
6. Thompson, S. A. (2024, March 31). B-17 Flying Fortress Spring and Summer 2024 Tours Announced. Vintage Aviation News. https://vintageaviationnews.com/warbirds-news/2024-b-17-spring-and-summer-tours-announced.html
7. Masters of the Air. (2025, August 31). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Air
8. Russell, L. (2024, January 27). B-17 Bombers: The "Flying Fortress" In Masters Of The Air Explained. Screen Rant. https://screenrant.com/b-17-bombers-planes-masters-of-the-air-explained/
9. Roza, D. (2024, January 31). 'Masters of the Air' Nails Many Details, Misses Context. Air & Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/masters-of-the-air-history-accuracy/
10. Masters of the Air. (2024). The National WWII Museum. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/masters-air
11. Garcia, J. (2024, January 26). "They Had The Same Restrictions": How Masters Of The Air's Replica B17s Are So Accurate Revealed. Screen Rant. https://screenrant.com/masters-of-the-air-b17-replica-accuracy-expained/
12. Orloff, J. (2024, February 2). Masters of the Air: What it gets right about WWII's Bloody Hundredth. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/masters-of-the-air-wwii-historical-details
13. Masters of the Air. (2024, January 26). IMDb. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2640044/
14. Biomechanics and biomimetics in insect-inspired flight systems. (2016). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0390
15. Biomimicry: a fresh approach to aircraft innovation. (2021, September 10). Airbus. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2020-03-biomimicry-a-fresh-approach-to-aircraft-innovation
16. Bioinspired morphing wings: mechanical design and wind tunnel experiments. (2022, July 7). PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35609562/
17. A Reconfigurable Wing for Biomimetic Aircraft. (2013, April 8). ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268458519_A_Reconfigurable_Wing_for_Biomimetic_Aircraft
18. Biomimicry in Aviation 7 Nature-Inspired Innovations Shaping the Future of Flight. Mighty Travels. https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/08/biomimicry-in-aviation-7-nature-inspired-innovations-shaping-the-future-of-flight/
19. Bioinspired morphing wings for extended flight envelope and roll control of small drones. (2017). Interface Focus. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0092
20. Pan, C., et al. (2024, May 20). Research on bionic foldable spray aircraft wings. Journal of Engineering Research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2307187724001093
21. How Biomimicry Continues to Optimize Air Travel. (2025, January 24). Sustainable Brands. https://sustainablebrands.com/read/biomimicry-optimize-air-travel
22. Review on bio-inspired flight systems and bionic aerodynamics. (2020, June 10). ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936120302466
23. Design of Fighter Aircraft for Combat Survivability. SAE Technical Papers. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/690706/
24. Where The US F-15EX Program Stands: DOD 2024 Annual Report. (2025, February 12). Simple Flying. https://simpleflying.com/review-us-military-aircraft-fleet-readiness/
25. McIngvale, F. Aircraft Survivability Trends. Army Aviation Magazine. https://armyaviationmagazine.com/aircraft-survivability-trends/
26. 2024 Aircraft Survivability Symposium. NDIA. https://www.ndia.org/events/2024/11/5/5940-aircraft-survivability-symposium
27. Enhancing Safety: The Role of Redundancy in Systems in Aircraft. (2024, April 30). Aeroplane Tech. https://aeroplanetech.com/redundancy-in-systems/
28. Aircraft vulnerability modeling and computation methods based on product structure and CATIA. (2013, March 7). ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936113000228
29. Attributes of Modern Fighter Aircraft. Defstrat. https://www.defstrat.com/magazine_articles/attributes-of-modern-fighter-aircraft/
30. Redundant Wiring in Military Aircraft: A Lifesaving System. (2024, September 21). Defence Industries. https://www.defence-industries.com/articles/redundant-backup-wiring-in-military-aircraft
31. Introduction to Wing Structural Design. (2022, August 6). AeroToolbox. https://aerotoolbox.com/wing-structural-design/
32. Progress from artificial intelligence to wing structural design optimization. (2025, March 28). Aerospace America. https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/year-in-review/progress-from-artificial-intelligence-to-wing-structural-design-optimization/
33. The Wing Design Flaw That Made B-17s Nearly Indestructible - YouTube