B-24 Liberator

[[email protected]]

I have been doing some research and was amazed at the B-24's accident
> rate. From April 10, 1944 to August 31,1944, the Replacement Training
> Unit at Chatham AAF, Savannah, Georgia had 23 accidents. In those
> accidents, nine of the B-24s were destroyed and there were 54 deaths.
> The Navy had similiar results. In ten days at Miramar, there were three crashes with 36 fatalities.
My question: Was the B-24 particularly difficult to fly? How
> difficult was it in relation to the B-17?

[Phineas Pinkham]

>
..
> My question: Was the B-24 particularly difficult to fly? How
> > difficult was it in relation to the B-17?

Not that difficult to fly. I went through Nashville Transition School, no
major accidents.
Can't compare to B-17 since I never flew one.
We lost one in OTU at Walla Walla, hit a mountain but that was the only one
i remember.
The North American built was the easiest, the Willow Run built was a heavy
truck, the San Diego version was in-between.
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-24 Liberator
>From: "George R. Gonzalez"
>Date: 8/30/03 6:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ernest K. Gann flew B-24's, or was it the cargo equivalent? Anyway, he had
>a very strong dislike for the plane. His complaints as I recall them, in no
>particular order:
>
>The instrument lighting was this new "ultraviolet light" doohickey which was
>supposed to be easier on the eyes. It consisted of several uv flourescent
>tubes.
>
>Quite often the inverter would crap out during takeoff or shortly after.
>Normally this wasnt a huge deal, as the inverter only drove the autopilot
>and a very few instruments. A second inverter was available at the flip of
>a switch. But the uv lights, being ballasted flourescents, had to run off
>AC-- the unreliable inverter's AC. So it got quite thrilling to be taking
>off and have all the instrument lighting go out.
>
>If the lights stayed on, they were fine for a while, but after a few hours
>the uv lighting would hurt your eyes.
>
>The very efficient wing allowed the plane to carry heavy loads. But even a
>cocktail's worth of ice could severely degrade the wing's lift. The B-17
>has a less advanced wing, the upside of this was that it could tolerate
>considerable icing before it was severely affected.
>
>The center tanks on some builds leaked a lot, and it didnt help to have a
>open-frame DC motor (hyd. pump?) in the same compartment.
>
>To transfer fuel between tanks, you had to hook up some jumper hoses to a
>patch panel. No real way of testing for leaky hose connections short of
>opening the valves and looking for squirts and drips.
>
>I take my hat off to anyone brave enough to fly in that thing!
>
>
>
And it aways stank of leaking gas and all too often blew up in midair.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Gooneybird]

Phineas Pinkham wrote:
> "George R. Gonzalez" < wrote in message
>
> I take my hat off to anyone brave enough to fly in that thing!
>>
>>
> We didn't have much choice George! We were assigned to 24's or 17's etc,
> without regard to what we wanted to fly!>
> It wasn't that bad, got me home.>

Former Sen. George McGovern said the same thing about them.....he flew a full
tour in them for 8AF.

George Z.

[Cub Driver]

>The very efficient wing allowed the plane to carry heavy loads. But even a
>cocktail's worth of ice could severely degrade the wing's lift. The B-17
>has a less advanced wing, the upside of this was that it could tolerate
>considerable icing before it was severely affected.

I think the same was true of flak damage.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-24 Liberator
>From: Guy Alcala
>Date: 8/31/03 11:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> The general feeling seemed to be that the brass liked the B-24 because
>> it could carry more bombs farther, whereas aircrew (given a choice)
>> would opt for the B-17 because it was easier to fly and more like to
>> survive battle damage.
>
>It entirely depends on the theater. The B-24 was preferred in the PTO and
>CBI by both "the Brass" and crews because of its better range and payload,
>and its lower ceiling and somewhat lower vulnerability to damage compared
>to the B-17 wasn't as important when facing more lightly-armed and lower
>performance Japanese fighters. In the ETO the B-17 was preferred, because
>of its higher ceiling (in formation) and relative ease of close formation
>flying for hours, better damage tolerance, and because its lesser
>payload/range really didn't matter in Europe (oh, and better heating).
>The MTO was sort of the balancing theater, where the benefits and
>advantages of both more or less cancelled out. Even so, since most crews
>never got to try the other brand, they tended to prefer the one they were
>flying, appreciating its advantages and deprecating its disadvantages vis
>a vis the other type. Here's Walter Hughes, who flew B-24s in the ETO
>(93rd BG), and who got a single ride in a B-17:
>
>"There was always rivalry about the merits of the B-17 versus the B-24.
>We thought the B-17s were slow; we flew just above staling speed on joint
>missions so we wouldn't overrun them. They thought the B-24 couldn't take
>it because we needed more engines to stay in the air. There was only an
>individual answer to which was best. I liked the greater versatility,
>speed and bomb capacity of my B-24 and would never willingly trade it for
>a B-17.
>
>"A cadet classmate of mine was in a B-17 squadron nearby and through him I
>got my only ride in 'the Fortress'. They did have some advantages. For
>example the cockpit was warm* so they flew missions in flying suits only,
>whereas we wore five layers of clothing and if our electric-heated suit
>went out, we could not survive the intense cold. In fact, if two of our
>crew members' electric suits failed, we could abort the mission. Our
>coldest mission was at a temperature of minus 60 degress F. On that
>mission, the bomb bay doors froze shut so we dropped the bombs right
>through them. The oil operating the hydraulic propeller controls got so
>thick we couldn't change power settings on the engines."
>
>*Elsewhere, Hughes writes: "The B-24 was a cold ship to fly missions in.
>It had a heater for the flight deck but very few pilots would allow it to
>be used because it burned raw gasoline and was a fire hazard. The other
>stations (nose, tail and waist) had no auxiliary heat." At least on
>earlier B-24s, there were also usually fumes from the leaky Rube Goldberg
>transfer system in the bomb bay, so most pilots tended to fly with the
>bomb bay doors slightly cracked open to prevent the fumes from building
>up. This didn't help the comfort of the gunners in the after part of the
>a/c.
>
>
>> In "The Day We Bombed Switzerland," a former B-24 crewman wrote about
>> the court-martial (headed by Jimmy Stewart!) of the crew of the plane
>> that bombed a Swiss railway junction instead of a German one. Guilt
>> hinged on whether "a reasonable man" would have made the mistake they
>> did.
>>
>> The author goes out and looks at the 24s on the flight line, dripping
>> gasoline and just waiting to go up in flames, and he muses: "A
>> reasonable man wouldn't go within a mile of a B-24."
>
>In a biography of Stewart published shortly before he died, the story is
>related of one of his missions where a heavy flak round passed through the
>ship from bottom to top, just behind the flight deck, not detonating but
>breaking much of the structure. Stewart brought the a/c back and landed
>it as gently as possible, whereupon the bottom of the fuselage broke just
>there (the upper fuselage was still connected), dragging the two
>barely-connected bottom pieces of the fuselage along the runway before the
>a/c finally came to a halt. The crew chief (who related the story) went
>running over to see if everyone got out okay, and came upon Stewart
>standing off to the side of the a/c, looking at the damage. Stewart
>turned to him and said (in Stewart's drawl), "You know, Sergeant,
>somebody could get hurt in one of these things!"
>
>Guy
>

Guy,

Thanks for those interesting quotes We need more combat flying stuff around
here. Got more? Post it.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Marc Reeve]

George R. Gonzalez > wrote:

> Ernest K. Gann flew B-24's, or was it the cargo equivalent? Anyway, he
> had a very strong dislike for the plane. His complaints as I recall them,
> in no particular order:
>
[gripes snipped]

Gann was co-pilot on an LB-30 (cargo version). I recall reading an
article he wrote that appeared in Reader's Digest (don't know where it
originally appeared) where he talked of almost taking out the Taj Mahal
when taking off somewhat overloaded from Accra airport on a hot day,
then losing power temporarily on one engine shortly after takeoff.

That article was what got me reading his books.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Tex Houston]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
. ..

> Gann was co-pilot on an LB-30 (cargo version). I recall reading an
> article he wrote that appeared in Reader's Digest (don't know where it
> originally appeared) where he talked of almost taking out the Taj Mahal
> when taking off somewhat overloaded from Accra airport on a hot day,
> then losing power temporarily on one engine shortly after takeoff.
>
> That article was what got me reading his books.
>
> -Marc

The aircraft Gann flew as a contract pilot for American Airlines during WWII
was designated a C-87.

Accra is in Ghana, West Africa...You've mislocated the Taj Mahal.

Tex Houston

[Dave Kearton]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
| . ..
|
| > Gann was co-pilot on an LB-30 (cargo version). I recall reading an
| > article he wrote that appeared in Reader's Digest (don't know where it
| > originally appeared) where he talked of almost taking out the Taj Mahal
| > when taking off somewhat overloaded from Accra airport on a hot day,
| > then losing power temporarily on one engine shortly after takeoff.
| >
| > That article was what got me reading his books.
| >
| > -Marc
|
| The aircraft Gann flew as a contract pilot for American Airlines during
WWII
| was designated a C-87.
|
| Accra is in Ghana, West Africa...You've mislocated the Taj Mahal.
|
| Tex Houston



I remember the Readers' Digest story from about 25 years ago.
Apparently, it was a load of PSP (perf steel plate) that was calculated as
aluminium plate instead of steel plate - which is quite a difference in the
W&B sheet.


Would have taken quite a bit of 'pucker' factor to clear or avoid the Taj
Mahal.




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Cub Driver]

>It entirely depends on the theater. The B-24 was preferred in the PTO and
>CBI by both "the Brass" and crews because of its better range and payload,
>and its lower ceiling and somewhat lower vulnerability to damage compared
>to the B-17 wasn't as important when facing more lightly-armed and lower
>performance Japanese fighters

Well, of course everyone thinks the horse he's riding is the best that
ever was (unless he thinks it's the worst). But I find it hard to
believe that air crew would value range and payload over the ability
to sustain battle damage, whatever the opposition. Plenty of aircraft
went down over Rabaul, for example. That Japanese air defenses were
less formidable than German would have been made up, in my mind, by
the fact that their prison system was more awful.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-24 Liberator
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 9/1/03 3:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <qc86lvk1k521nbrv0lc2vph2go3r

>Well, of course everyone thinks the horse he's riding is the best that
>ever was (unless he thinks it's the worst). But I find it hard to

I had it both ways. The Marauder w as both the best and the worst. (sigh)

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[George R. Gonzalez]

"Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
. ..
> George R. Gonzalez > wrote:
>
> > Ernest K. Gann flew B-24's, or was it the cargo equivalent? Anyway, he
> > had a very strong dislike for the plane. His complaints as I recall
them,
> > in no particular order:
> >
> [gripes snipped]
>
> Gann was co-pilot on an LB-30 (cargo version). I recall reading an
> article he wrote that appeared in Reader's Digest (don't know where it
> originally appeared) where he talked of almost taking out the Taj Mahal
> when taking off somewhat overloaded from Accra airport on a hot day,
> then losing power temporarily on one engine shortly after takeoff.


As I recall thwe story, he knew the plane was a bit heavy, sio he told
the fueler guy to put 500 gallons total in the tanks.
The guy heard this as ADD 500 gallons, which put him waaay overweight.
Gann wrote that he could see the whites of the eyes of the guys on the
scaffolds repairing the Taj Mahal. Bigger than usual eyeballs, with a B-24
bearing down on you..



You'd think there would be some double-checks for this kind of
misunderstanding.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Dave Kearton" > writes:
>
> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message
> ...
>|
>| "Marc Reeve" > wrote in message
>| . ..
>|
>| > Gann was co-pilot on an LB-30 (cargo version). I recall reading an
>| > article he wrote that appeared in Reader's Digest (don't know where it
>| > originally appeared) where he talked of almost taking out the Taj Mahal
>| > when taking off somewhat overloaded from Accra airport on a hot day,
>| > then losing power temporarily on one engine shortly after takeoff.
>| >
>| > That article was what got me reading his books.
>| The aircraft Gann flew as a contract pilot for American Airlines during
> WWII
>| was designated a C-87.
> I remember the Readers' Digest story from about 25 years ago.
> Apparently, it was a load of PSP (perf steel plate) that was calculated as
> aluminium plate instead of steel plate - which is quite a difference in the
> W&B sheet.
>
>
> Would have taken quite a bit of 'pucker' factor to clear or avoid the Taj
> Mahal.

A few notes, here.
Gann did indeed start out flying right seat in LB-30s, but as the
Tansatlantic Ferry Routes expanded, upgraded to Captain (As in
Aircraft Commander, he wasn't military). The transatlantic route
originally was flown by LB-30s, annd as C-87s were built, they filled
in. In "Fate is teh Hunter", gann talks at some point about not
having turbosupercharged engines. LB=30s didn't,C-87s did.
A fellow who used to run a convenience store acros the street from where
I used to live in Manchester, NH, was a C-54 FE, and flew with him a
number of times.

The story of teh LB-30/C-97s nearly whacking into the Taj Mahal is
something I've run into from a number of directions. An aritcle in
_Air_Force_Magazine from the 1950s credits to teh adventures of an
early LB-30 flown by Army pilots. It could be that the tale was too
good to leave out.

The PSP/PAP story comes from the Berlin Airlift, in the early days
when C-47s were still on line. The airplane was carrying a load of
Marston Mat for one of teh runway expansion projects, ond on that
particular day, it just didn't want to fly. Examination of the load
afterward showed that the cargo was Pierced Steel Plank, rather than
Pierced Aluminum Plank. (A very easy error, of you're loading it by
bundles - an individual PSP section os pretty light, and they're both
painted the same color.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Cub Driver wrote:

> >It entirely depends on the theater. The B-24 was preferred in the PTO and
> >CBI by both "the Brass" and crews because of its better range and payload,
> >and its lower ceiling and somewhat lower vulnerability to damage compared
> >to the B-17 wasn't as important when facing more lightly-armed and lower
> >performance Japanese fighters
>
> Well, of course everyone thinks the horse he's riding is the best that
> ever was (unless he thinks it's the worst). But I find it hard to
> believe that air crew would value range and payload over the ability
> to sustain battle damage, whatever the opposition. Plenty of aircraft
> went down over Rabaul, for example. That Japanese air defenses were
> less formidable than German would have been made up, in my mind, by
> the fact that their prison system was more awful.

I also tend to discount the opinions of those pilots who swear their type of
a/c was the best, when they flew only a single type and are in no position to
compare. However, see Eric Bergerud's book on the air war in the SW Pacific
("Fire in The Sky"?). He has quotes from a former B-17 pilot who later flew
B-24s, where he says essentially just what I wrote. His first flight in a
B-24, as a passenger in a ferry flight IIRR, didn't fill him with confidence.
The B-24's wing was a lot less stiff than the B-17's, and he could see it
flexing up and down. He decided that he never wanted to fly one if he could
avoid it. He then flew combat in the PTO in B-17s, before his unit
transitioned to B-24s. He said it was not as easy to fly, but the extra
bombload was nice, and the extra range _very_ much appreciated, so much so that
he became a convert. There were a few other things he liked about the B-24
compared to the B-17, such as (IIRR) takeoffs and landings on bad airstrips
(the trike apparenly made things easier), it was faster, etc. Other pilots
make the same points. The cold wasn't as much an issue in the PTO as it was in
the ETO, as most missions involved lots of flying at moderate altitudes over
water during the approach and return, and there was no need to fly tight
formation for as long as was necessary in the ETO. Combat loss rates were
quite low regardless of type, while operational losses were probably higher
(see appreciation for extra B-24 range/endurance).

Guy

[[email protected]]

"George R. Gonzalez" > wrote:

>
>
>As I recall thwe story, he knew the plane was a bit heavy, sio he told
>the fueler guy to put 500 gallons total in the tanks.
>The guy heard this as ADD 500 gallons, which put him waaay overweight.
>Gann wrote that he could see the whites of the eyes of the guys on the
>scaffolds repairing the Taj Mahal. Bigger than usual eyeballs, with a B-24
>bearing down on you..
>
>
>
>You'd think there would be some double-checks for this kind of
>misunderstanding.
>
>

Well, there is...it's called 'The common sense filter'. You get
so used to using large numbers and so many of them when flying
that it pays to run the results of some critical computations
through the 'Common sense filter'. "OK, it's 0100L now, our fuel
endurance is 27 hours, our transit time is 9 hours so our PLE
time is 0530Z" ... Now does that make sense??.

Mind you, they're still happening...remember the Gimli Glider?
(btw, I met Bob Pearson about a month ago here)
--

-Gord.