Great film on the B-24 Liberator

Cool

 

An airplane with never ending opposing reviews. Comments of adoration meshing with vitriolic outbursts about the airplane. I have flown in both the B-17 and B-24 and as an avid observer, I witnessed most of the good, the bad, and the ugly about both airplanes and if I were to see action over Germany in one of them as many of my friends did, I would chose the B-17. In the summer time on a hot ramp, the B-24 reeked of fuel vapors and on my first flight in one, the bomb bay doors were cracked open to ventilate the airplane. The mass of brass piping and brass hardware store variety valves in the aft flight deck were not leak-proof. A glass tube manometer board was mounted on the bulkhead to gauge fuel in tanks that were being filled by transfer in flight. The welded tubing nose gear mechanism was often kicked to make certain that it wasn't past dead center , enclosed by a zippered canvas bag. It was prone to collapsing. It had a limited altitude when it was fully loaded and that was somewhere around 25,000 ft. The B-17 had a service ceiling of 40,000 ft. The B-24 was very difficult to fly at high altitudes, especially with an engine out and required two very strong men at the controls.It was faster, carried more, and had more range than the B-17 but it folded like a wet paper bag if it took a heavy hit and erupted in flames from the well placed fighter attack. BUT I knew several pilots with many missions who swore by the airplane and loved it.

 

Thanks Bob.

We got to walk through the B-24 Witchcraft yesterday.

 

I have thought about the difference that 6 years between designs made when I compare the B-17 to the B-24. I mentioned it before that the B-17 structure was an all metal version of the early Model 80 transport structure; square aluminum tube trusses of the spars and ribs in the same style as an old wooden airplane but it was then covered with two layers of skin, an inner layer of corrugated aluminum and then an outer layer of fairly heavy skin. Rigid as a sidewalk. Then the fuselage was a new technique, semi-monocoque round in shape and just as strong as the wing. The B-17E with the new large fin and horizontal tail made it essentially the final configuration. All the dimensioning ahead of the empennage was in English fractions; 1/8th , 3/32, etc. but the empennage was in decimal values, so you had two systems of measurement on one airplane. The horizontal tail was actually a B-29 test unit but with an inverted section where the B-29's is symmetrical, the planform is identical. The B-17 rode like a covered wagon on cobblestones in rough air where the B-24 was flexible and sashayed around in rough air. The -24 was designed with the newer semi-monocoque technique throughout; spars and ribs with web,stiffeners and chords style, no trusses anywhere. It was startling on first flight to see how wiggly the fins were and how much everything moved around where the B-17 was stiff and rigid.

 

The B-17 horizontal tail had a symmetrical section and the B-29 had an inverted section. The B-17 had a symmetrical NACA0012 at the wing root while the B-29 had a Boeing airfoil..

 

Another slip in my old brain. The B-17 had a NACA0018 at the root and a NACA0009 at the tip. No twist, just straight line elements from root to tip.

 

Great details, Bob - thanks

 

I hope that I haven't sounded like a blabbermouth when I rake over some of the things in which I'm interested. Just thought that others might find it interesting, too. Bunch of old stuff that has no bearing on anything now.

 

Mr. Parks: A friend of ours who just passed away earlier in the year flew B-24's in raids against the Polesti Oil Fields and P-51's and F-86's in the Ohio National Guard (ONG). He was quite a gentleman reaching the rank of Lt. Colonel before retiring. Just a thought and thank you for the details you provided regarding each airplane!

 

Thank you. Most of my B-24 in action information came from dear friends who flew it in the 15th AF out of Italy. One of them, gone now,too, flew both the B-17 and the B-24 and admitted the problems and good points with both of them. One comment that sticks with me was that "You could get every single drop of fuel out of the '-24 and you couldn't in the '-17." He and his crew told me about their making making it to the Island of Vis, in the Adriatic, with two engines out and the third bursting into flame on short final. And, they worshipped their old pilot.
Thanks for your note. I have never gotten comfortable with the "Mr." thing. I'm always just Ol' Bob.

 

I am afraid our industry could no longer respond like this.
Bob, your words always helps to appreciate what it must be like to fly these machines.
A while back I was able to fly aboard the Collings Lib when it was liveried as Dragon and it's Tail. At the time it was the only Lib flying so while my heart is with the naturally beautiful B-17 I chose to fly the Lib over their B-17.
Hanging out the gun doors, listening to those huge round motors was fantastic.
Being in one of these(or a B-17) at high altitude, freezing your nuts off and being shot at must have been terrifying.

 

Bob, you mentioned that most of your friends flew the B-24's in the 15th AF out of Italy. Our friend flew in the 446th Bomb group and I've got no idea where that was stationed or attached to the 15th or not?

 

The 446th Bomb Squadron was stationed in Bungay, England and operated in the European theater with missions to Germany and France.

 

Bob Zambelli,

I immediately noticed your last name and the slight similarity to 'Zamparini', as in Louis... when I saw "B-24" in the title.

Louie Zamparini ("Unbroken") was in a B-24 when they crashed; resulting in spending years in a Japanese POW camp... tortured...

That B-24 had been damaged and repaired poorly... it flew poorly and needed much rudder, etc. just to stay on course. It went down in he middle of the Pacific.

 

I got to go up in Witchcraft a couple of years ago..crawled from one tip to the other..could not hear for days..loudest experience ever,and I worked on A-6's in the Navy..amoung others.
I wish I had chosen to go on the P-51..but at the time it seemed expensive.I still have that two thousand dollars by the way. When you come to the fork in the road,take it.

Cheers,RE

 

Thanks Bob for that insight on the B-24. I never liked it and favoured the B-17G above all

bombers. Would love to see more footage of them buzzing to Ploesti.

I got to see both of them fly along with the FiFi in the CAF (Confederate Air Force) in

Harlingen Tx. back in the 70's into the 80's many a times going to the air shows. The B-

24(Cow) back then was in a pink-ish livery along with the B-17 (Texas Raiders).

The air show would do the Battle of Britain with an Heinkel 111, Stuka's, Folke-Wolf, Me-

109 and groung crew in full german garb along with German half-tracks and motorcycles

they played the part very well......intimidating for a 12yo at the time.

Then the TORA TORA TORA scene with KATES, VALS, and ZERO's (all Texans) but there

was one authentic Mitsubishi Zero in the group and one B-17 landing with one wheel

trailing smoke. Above P-51's, P-40's, F4U, Hellcats buzzing all around making kills.

 

Have heard it said (maybe from Bob) that the B-24 was the box that the B-17 came in.

 

Yeah, I think that I said that a few times.