Re: B-24 Liberator

[Elmshoot]

>I spent a couple of years flying both the B-17 (as co-pilot) and B-24
>(Pilot/co-pilot) for the Collings Foundation.

I saw the 17/24 at BMG last month did I talk to you there? I fly for Fedex and
from your email addy You might as well?

Any way the display says it is the only flying B-24 but I have seen another
flying is this an error or somthing to do with the dash number or mfg?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Collings airplane is the only flying B-24. The CAF has an LB-30 which
they
> bill as a B-24. The LB-30 was a transport version and does not have a
bombbay.
> There were also differences in the engines (LB-30 didn't have
turbochargers).
>

The LB-30 was a bomber built for the British. After Pearl Harbor, and prior
to delivery to the British, the USAAF commandeered them. Some, like the
CAF's, were converted to transports.

[Bill Kambic]

"Dale" wrote in message

> > The LB-30 was a bomber built for the British. After Pearl Harbor, and
prior
> > to delivery to the British, the USAAF commandeered them. Some, like the
> > CAF's, were converted to transports.
>
> Just checked and it seems that they were all built as bombers....were
B-24A/B
> redesignated as LB (Liberator British) -30 when given to England. In the
case
> of the CAF Diamond Lil she crashed on her deliveray flight and rebuilt as
a
> transport version.

I took a flight on Diamond Lil a year ago last spring; posted a report here
(it was a mondo cool experience)!<g>

IIRC, that airframe was built for the French, but slated for delivery to the
Brits after the fall of France. While there is no bomb bay, there are large
box-like structures where the bomb bay would have been, and the mountings
for the turret guns were still evident. They had "grafted" a bomber nose
onto the transport airframe for appearance sake.

The pilots gave the same basic analysis of flying qualities that were posted
here.

It was one noisy SOB. I don't think I would have wanted to go very far on
it without GOOD hearing protection.

IIRC, the engines were an earlier version of the same Wright Cyclones that
powered the S2 series. The S2, in fact, had a larger weapons/stores
capacity than the Liberator did (but could not go quite so far<g>).

It was a great experience!

Bill Kambic

CDR, USNR(Ret). Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73 (among others)

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just checked and it seems that they were all built as bombers....were
B-24A/B
> redesignated as LB (Liberator British) -30 when given to England.
>

I believe the LB stood for Land Bomber, the name "Liberator" came along some
time later.

[Dale]

In article et>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > wrote:


> I believe the LB stood for Land Bomber, the name "Liberator" came along some
> time later.

Perhaps. I was quoting what is on the Air Force Museum web sight.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Guy Alcala]

Dale wrote:

> In article >, "Bill Kambic" > wrote:
>
> > It was one noisy SOB. I don't think I would have wanted to go very far on
> > it without GOOD hearing protection.
>
> I was told about 110 db in the cockpit. Pretty loud whatever it is.
>
> > IIRC, the engines were an earlier version of the same Wright Cyclones that
> > powered the S2 series. The S2, in fact, had a larger weapons/stores
> > capacity than the Liberator did (but could not go quite so far<g>).
>
> The Wrights are on the B-17. The Liberators used the P&W 1830.

FWIW, last year I went down to Moffett field to have a look at the Collings
Foundation B-17 and B-24. Tried to talk myself into ponying up the $350 they
wanted for an hour ride, but (perhaps fortunately) they were already fully
booked. Anyway, one of the things I noticed was how much quieter the B-24's
Twin Wasps were compared to the B-17's Cyclones during taxi, take-off, and
passing overhead. A lot smoother sounding, too, presumably due to the former
being a 14-cylinder twin-row versus the latter's 9-cylinder single row, of
roughly the same size (1830 vs. 1820 c.i.) -- the B-24 purred, the B-17 roared.
The turbos on the Collings B-24 had been blanked off, so the noise level and
quality may not be indicative of the typical B-24.

Actually, a later model B-25 seems a lot louder than either (due, I believe, to
the single-cylinder exhaust ports on the R-2600 nacelles), although I don't know
what the actual decibels are for each. Former B-25 pilots are renowned among
their contemporaries for their hearing loss, even in a field in which it was
pretty routine, and it is the one negative thing about the a/c that B-25 crewmen
always mention. The earlier B-25 models had a single exhaust on the outboard
side of each nacelle which was apparently much quieter (at least inside the
fuselage) than the individual cylinder exhausts, but also apparently more
maintenance trouble.

Guy

[Bill Kambic]

"Dale" wrote in message

> > IIRC, the engines were an earlier version of the same Wright Cyclones
that
> > powered the S2 series. The S2, in fact, had a larger weapons/stores
> > capacity than the Liberator did (but could not go quite so far<g>).
>
> The Wrights are on the B-17. The Liberators used the P&W 1830.

You're wright!!!!!<g>

I just looked at the handout. I guess I was having another senior
moment!<g>

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Dale]

In article >,
wrote:


> I can understand why you don't need the turbos for altitude performance, so
> it makes
> no sense to maintain them unnecessarily. But, why are the turbos in the
> B-24 still
> used? AIUI, the Cyclones have a mechanical supercharger for the first
> stage, which
> shpould give you the boost you need for take-off, with the turbo just
> maintaining
> boost for altitude; do the Twin Wasps have a different setup that would
> preclude
> doing without the turbos, or is it just too much hassle to remove given the
> installation?

The 1830s also have a supercharger. In the -17 a short section of ducting was
removed which bypassed the turbo and allowed plenty of air to the engine. With
the -24 it would be a lot more hassle to do without the turbos. And frankly,
unless I could get as much power without the turbo has can be pulled with the
turbo I'd want the turbo to function. With an engine out she can be a real dog.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html