Several things distinguish the B-17 from the B-24, and may contribute to this reputation. The B-17 is widely acknowledged as a tougher aircraft, and this reputation manifested in the press even during the war. There are comparatively fewer pictures of battle-damaged B-24s that returned home than there are B-17s; in general, most searches for "B-24 battle damage" turn up images of B-24s on fire or falling out of the sky, while the same searches for B-17s do not. The B-24 could fly slightly farther and carry a larger normal bomb load in a more versatile bomb bay; the B-17 could carry more bombs than the B-24 in an "overload" configuration; 17,600-20,800 pounds (with the latter load any evasive maneuvers were severely restricted) versus 12,800 pounds. Many crews preferred the roomier slab-sided B-24 over the B-17. The B-24 was all around a faster aircraft than the B-17, and its slightly higher cruising speed when compared to the B-17, (~165 mph vs. ~155 mph IAS; cruising speeds varied depending upon weight and altitude) might have added something in the way of survivability. The service ceiling of the B-24 was slightly less than the B-17, ~28,000 feet vs ~35,000 feet. The B-24 did not have assisted controls, and as a result was much more difficult to fly, especially with engines out. The long, slender, high-mounted Davis wing of the B-24 was fragile, and prone to failing catastrophically if hit. The fuel tanks and snaking hydraulic lines (in contrast, the B-17 was entirely electrically-powered, save for the cowl flaps and wheel brakes) of the B-24, especially in the bomb bay, were prone to giving off fumes or leaking, increasing the chance of an explosion or fire. The B-24, more so than the B-17, experienced maintenance problems due to the sheer number of variants and factories producing them. This is not really the fault of the aircraft itself. Due to its high-mounted wing, the B-24 was more dangerous than the B-17 in a crash landing on land or sea, with a risk of tipping to one side or cartwheeling.