B-24 Design Analysis

Here is a detailed WWII Design Analysis of the B-24.

Great! thanks

Here is some data on the B-24 Production Line.

Many thanks to MIflyer for posting the info on "design analysis" for the B-24.

However, whatever else it is it is not an analysis of the design. Written by a Consolidated employee it is an explanation of the steps involved, but a true analysis it is not. Nor, honestly, could one expect it to be, for to do an honest analysis of the B-24 would require the admission and discussion of a number of quite damning points.

Among these points, all to be covered in "Consolidated Mess, Vol. 2" are:
* The B-24 was a deathtrap when it came to ditching. I just recently read an AAF document stating that only 8% of crews ditching in Europe were recovered. This is a whole
chapter in itself, as well as all the tests and experiments done to try to protect the crew and lessen the impact of ditching itself.
* Early B-24's had a habit of the horizontal tails falling off. Also to be covered and why.
* The fuel transfer system of the B-24 was byzantine in its complexity and a fire trap. You will note many B-24s on fire and frequently it is the center fuselage burning furiously.
This was due to the leaky fuel transfer system and is why you will often see B-24's in flight with the bomb bay doors slightly open to draw off the fumes.
* The wing fuel tanks retained fuel vapor, creating a huge fire hazard. This was due to the original design feature of supposedly sealing the metal wings fuel cells. Even when self-sealing tanks were used there was still a tendency for them to retain vapors once empty. The solution - as such - was to put a series of air vents on the top of the wing so the air flow would draw away fumes. I'm still not quite sure how ultimately effective this was.
* The so-called "Davis Wing" was fine for the prototype, but insufficient for a combat-laden aircraft. The prototype handled beautifully and was very fast, having a good combat
altitude as well. But it lacked the surface area and thus the lift that broad wings like that on the B-17 offered. As a result, a fully-loaded B-24 lacked the combat altitude of the
B-17. It was said that the best escort for the B-17's was a flight of B-24's below them as they were much better targets. Not only did the wing loading keep the aircraft from
reaching the same critical altitude as the B-17, but it also - in conjunction with the twin tail - made the aircraft very sluggish at altitude and a bitch to maintain a tight formation.
* Finally, the B-24 had one of the squirreliest Centers of Gravity of any plane. Originally designed for a hand-held tail gun, the addition of a heavy turret gave the D's their characteristic tail-low flight position. And when the nose turret was finally added the poor design of the fairing behind the turret caused tremendous drafts through the aircraft .
I speak here of the Consolidated J's which went through a variety of fairings for the Consolidated nose turret before finally switching to the Emerson turret in BLock 1085. The
Emerson's canister shape made it much easier to provide an aerodynamic fairing.

I hope this is of help. There are many details and more examples to be covered and discussed, but these are the beginning of a true analysis of the B-24.

AlanG
Author, "Consolidated Mess, Vol 1"

Last page of the B-24 Production Line article

Great stuff as always!

For all its faults the B-24 was a very valuable airplane in WWII, and one not matched by any other country. The very long range capabilities of the B-24 proved to be essential in defeating the U-boats in the Atlantic and in attacks on both sea and land targets in the Pacific and CBI. The tail turret on the B-24 was superior to that of the B-17 - or at least the Luftwaffe thought so, although in the Pacific it sometimes was deleted and replaced with a open gun position to save weight. A friend of mine's dad was a waist gunner on B-24;s out of GB and he had chat with a B-24 tailgunner who was racking up the kills, explaining that his secret was to wag the guns up and down, back and forth, when he saw a German fighter approaching, making it appear that the guns or turret were jammed. Then when the German got in close- BAM!

It was not a bad transport either. Churchiil used one to go all the way to the USSR.

Then there was the production rate, unsurpassed. In 1944 we probably should have taken some of the captured German officiers and diplomats on a tour of Willow Run - one B-24 an hour. Bethpage, 18 Hellcats a day. Inglewood, 18 Mustangs a day. Wichita, building B-29's. And then sent them home, to cry.

No disagreement with anything you've said there, MI. Well.....perhaps a quibbble. The Consolidated tail turret was superior to at least the early B-17 tail gun, i.e. prior to the so-called Cheyenne tail turret, especially in its ability to revolve left and right. However, the ammunition capacity and feed on the early A6 turrets was a bit wonky, with the ammo cans being in the turret rather than being fed from the rear fuselage as in later marks. I'm also not convinced the visibility from the early A6's was all that much better than the early B-17 tail gun. Then again, the weight of the B-24 rear turret invoked a substantial penalty which was why the B-24 had so many different tail gun configurations in an effort to save weight. The British were quite critical of the A6 turret and how cramped and drafty it was, which is why they so often put in their own tail turrets. I don't recall similar com- plaints about the Emerson turret.

As for the C-87 transport, it did provide yeoman service. It was also not the safest aircraft in the inventory. When a C-87 was modified for FDR's use the Secret Service would not allow him to use it because of all the safety concerns. I think that may have been the one Eleanor Roosevelt used on her big tour of the Pacific.

AlanG

The Engineering and Research Company (ERCO) turret used in the nose of some PB4Y-1's and most PB4Y-2's seems to have worked well. It looked like it did a better job of sealing around the nose. When the PB4Y-2 of a friend of mine was the subject of repeated passes by George II fighters (30 min of continuous combat) the ERCO nose turret's top was blown off, but it kept on working. The forward upper turret was knocked out on that pass but it turned out a round had hit the seat release and dropped the gunner onto the floor while another round caught in the turret gears and jammed them, so little damage was done in reality. My friend pulled the round out of the gears and still has it.

Thank You for posting the B-24 Design Analysis and Production info. Regardless of the B-24's rep, it is cool to see the info. If I had a time machine I would go back to before WW2 and show the Axis leaders the Willow Run facility and let them know this is what we do every day. Years ago, I met a North American rep that said that once we got our stuff together, they were producing 28 P-51s a day between Dallas and Inglewood. Along with our Victory Ship, aircraft and material production the Axis had no chance.

I read that the Grumman line building F6F's was in a competition to beat the Inglewood line building P-51's. Grumman did exceed the P-51 production one day. In fact they built F6F's so fast the USN asked them to slow down; the Navy could not accept them that fast.

Postwar, ERCO was building ten Ercoupe 415C's a day when mine rolled off the production line in Feb 1946. They knew how to do it then!

Yep. Grumman built 12,000 Hellcats in 3 years. Not too bad.

The Japanese only built about 10,000 Zekes even though they got started years ahead of the Hellcat and Mustang. One reason was that they built it so light that you could not take the wing off and swap it for another undamaged one. The fuselage and wing structure were so integral that they would fall apart if separated. One reason it needed long range was that you could not box it up and ship it! And the wings could not fold except way out at the tips

Contrast that with our fighters, or with that great video showing the two halves of the P-51 wings being bolted together in the middle.