B-24 Liberator

Subject: 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

"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.

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

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

"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.