Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,622
- Feb 27, 2020
To me, the front turret B-24s are more aesthetical than the earlier models, but the eye of the beholder.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
To me, the front turret B-24s are more aesthetical than the earlier models, but the eye of the beholder.Well it is often described as the looking like the crate the B-17 came in! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Adding the front turret did nothing for it aesthetically but was a vast improvement defence wise.
The time line doesn't work for this.The B-17 was originally sold as hemisphere defence carrying the 1,600 AP bombs against approaching ships,
That it was but both the B-17 and the B-24 were evolving.the B-24 was meant as a heavy bomber, not a B-17 replacement but a second design in production.
I Believe the PB4Y-2 did not have turbocharges which makes comparisons of ranges and speeds a little difficult as they were flying at different altitudes?USN PB4Y-2
"The B-24 bomber one of the most difficult planes to fly during WWII. It was unpressurized, underpowered and prone to explode on takeoff. Unlike the B-17, the B-24 could not maintain altitude if one engine was lost. If two engines were lost, the plane would drop pretty much like a rock." B-24 NAVIGATOR HARRY FORNALCZYK
Why did the single tail work better?The 'single tail' B-24N was always intended as the definitive B-24.
It had been test flown in 1943 as the XB-24K, demonstrating superior handling, climb and speed - it cruised 30mph faster than a B-17 while carrying a much bigger bomb load.
It became a very substantial redevelopment of the basic B-24 into almost a new aircraft. Production was ramped up for commencement in mid 1945 at Willow Run, but the end of the war saw the order for 5,160 cancelled.
XB-24K
View attachment 666150
B-25N
View attachment 666151
NOT TRUE!Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they'd look like B-24s.
It was a pregnant glider, it should have been made from girders, painted blue and never allowed in the air, like that stuff from Grumman.NOT TRUE!
It's the coolest-looking heavy, ever! The long, slender Davis wing with its distinct airfoilprofile, the unmistakable oval twin tail and the contrasting cumbersome, flabsided fuselage with a dog-snout (with turret) give it a unique appearance. It is COOL!
The B-17 is a boring sterotypical prom queen. The Lancaster is a fling hunchback.
Well that "exaggeration" was from a gentleman who flew multiple missions in the aircraft, was shot down and taken prisoner, so I think he might be just a tad biased! There were many aircraft that flew on Tidal Wave that made it back with extensive damage, it does show a side of the aircraft for being somewhat rugged, but at the same time this ill-planned mission showed some of the deficiencies with the aircraft. Hell, the lead aircraft spiraled into the sea for no apparent reason!What about the "Liberty Lad" which participated on Operation Tidal Wave and came back with two engines lost on one side(!) after an 16 hours flight?
"...drop pretty much like a rock." sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.
Great point! Well documented, even in movies. When limping home the crew jettisoned everything they possibly can.Some of the accounts of both B-17s and B-24s coming back with 2 engines not running involve judgment calls on when they started throwing out the ammo and other items of equipment. Once they were pretty sure they were out of the range of enemy aircraft ALL of the ammo went out the side and a fair number of .50 cal guns went to, subject to how much effort and/or tools needed. There were also judgment calls on how hard to push the remaining engines (how long since last overhaul?) as well as battle damage. Did you have two engines konk out or did they help from AA guns or a few hundred machine gun bullets? Or to put it another way, different bombers had different amounts of open space exposed to the slipstream that weren't there on take off in not actual large flaps of sheet metal acting like air brakes.
In some cases they had controls shot up and the damaged air craft had to fly an even more crablike course than a plane that had all functioning control surfaces and could trimmed to a better degree. You loose both engines on one side you may run out of trim authority
I would guess on two engines they were trying to get down to the 32,000-33,000lb empty weight plus crew weight and enough fuel to land?Great point! Well documented, even in movies. When limping home the crew jettisoned everything they possibly can.
I would think the goal would be to keep it aloft until safe, then decide on landing or bailing out. Of concern with two out on one side is also fuel balance. Cross feeding (fuel management) would be required to keep the wings close to the same weight. Having two dead on one side causes the wing to be heavy (requires more rudder / aileron displacement which in turn causes more drag). I would think there were quite a few decisions to land due to wounded not being able or safe to bail out (opine).I would guess on two engines they were trying to get down to the 32,000-33,000lb empty weight plus crew weight and enough fuel to land?
From that piece I posted earlier...I would guess on two engines they were trying to get down to the 32,000-33,000lb empty weight plus crew weight and enough fuel to land?
Why did the single tail work better?
I thought a twin tail is suited to be more in the airstream of the engine blade (2 engines and more) and thus provide more control.
Maybe someone can explain it from aerodynamical view.
Consolidated recognized at an early date that a single tail configuration for the Liberator might prove highly desirable, but because of the press of early production commitments it was not until 10 October 1942 that the first wind tunnel tests got under way on a model incorporating this feature. When they gave encouraging results, B-24D 42-40058 was selected as a test article. Known as the B-24ST (for Single Tail) . . . [t]his version continued the flight test programme until June when, on the 29th of that month, the entire rear fuselage assembly of 42-40058 was removed and spliced to another similarly-dissected Liberator, B-24D-40-CO 42-40234 . . . [n]ow with its grafted on single fin empennage, 42-40234 was given the designation XB-24K . . .
After a series of flights from San Diego, the first of which took place on 9 September 1943, the XB-24K was flown to the USAAF Proving Ground Command at Elgin Field for official tests. Elgin's experienced B-24 pilots—not usually given to superlatives in their reports—found it decidedly superior to any other B-24 they had flown. Handling characteristics and manoeuverability were excellent, controls more sensitive, directional stability increased, and performance with two engines out on the same side was a great improvement over the standard B-24. Also noted were large increases in the fields of fire of the top turret, ball turret, tail turret and waist guns. Without qualification, Elgin recommended on 26 April 1944 that 'an empennage of similar design be incorporated in all future production B-24 aircraft' and preliminary contract negotiations were initiated for an unprecedented order of 4,500 B-24K machines. In time this resulted in the B-24N.
— p.59
During World War II, complaints from the operational theatres concerning lack of aircraft performance could often be traced to the fact that the aircraft was being operated under conditions far in excess of design specifications. Yet when changes were made to improve lagging performance, the theatres invariably used these improvements to further increase maximum loads instead of taking the improvement in terms of the increased performance that was originally requested.
Under this axiom, the B-24J was as a routine being flown on missions at gross weights in excess of 36 tons and flying characteristics suffered accordingly. Liberator controls had always been heavy, and continual addition of weight made them worse. It was extremely difficult to fly a tight formation with the B-24J, and so tiring that many pilots found it physically impossible after a few hours. The slow rate of roll, an inborn characteristic of the Liberator because of the large wing span, had been made slower by the addition of the outer wing tanks. Initial climb of a combat-loaded B-24 was slow, usually taking about six minutes to reach the 1,000 ft mark. Visibility from the flight deck was inadequate for formation flying. Because of the manner in which the side windows sloped inward, the pilot and co-pilot had be be seated low in order to have enough head room. This made it difficult to see over the instrument panel. In addition, the astrodome and the top of the nose turret were directly in front of the windshield which, to begin with, was considered too narrow and already partly blocked by the above-the-dash location of the compass. Furthermore, the side windows were so small that it was dangerous for the pilot to put his head through the window while taxiing. Lack of visibility from the nose compartment was equally serious—the only way the bombardier could adequately see was to get down on his hands and knees, and it was impossible for the navigator to help in target identification because of the lack of window area.
The Eighth Air Force experimented with various means of reducing the weight and visibility problems of the Liberator, including the removal of all ball turrets in July 1944 and the addition of various additional window areas in the nose. General Doolittle eventually rejected the Liberator on the grounds of too much weight and too little visibility and it was his intention, if sufficient B-17's could be obtained, to convert the entire Eighth Air Force to the Fortress.
— The B-24 Liberator: A Pictorial History by Allan G. Blue, pp. 61 and 63
Can we all agree though: the B-24 was an ugly aircraft! If pigs could fly, they'd look like B-24s.