Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:42 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:04 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm
Posts: 2904
Warbird Kid wrote:
Pat Carry wrote:
Doesn't the Yankee Air Force have substantial pieces of a B-24 now?


Im pretty sure the intention is to restore the pieces to static display and erect them in a 1:1 diorama / vignette of the assembly line.

What of this LB-30? Is the long-term plan to restore her as an LB-30? Don't think she would have much excitement factor out on the circuit if she is just a transport. Hopefully she'll be converted to a B-24A or better yet, a D model.

In case you missed it there is a thread in the RetroAviation Hangar on the YAF's "Libateer"...
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=54636


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:22 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:11 pm
Posts: 1559
Location: Damascus, MD
Dave Homewood wrote:
Did the USAAF Liberators arrive in Britain later than the first Flying Fortresses? I'm just wondering if a Liberator had made the first 25 trips (like Memphis Belle) would the type now be the glory bomber rather than the B-17?


The 24s started arriving in the early fall of 1942 with the arrival of the 44th and 93rd Bomb Groups. These two were sent off the to MTO during the winter of '42 - '43 to help beef up the 12th AF. They came back to the ETO, were joined by the 389th, then all three groups went back to the MTO for the Ploesti Mission. While B-24s were present from the early days of the 8th AF in England, they were never available in truly significant numbers until the latter part of 1943, early 1944, and then their numbers grew exponentially.

I recall once trying to debate the B-17 versus B-24 argument with a B-24 pilot. Even 50 some-odd years later when we were having this discussion, you could stir up an unbelievable amount of passion from B-24 crewmen if you told them their plane was "second best". I think it's like any other "versus" argument...the bottom line is both planes were needed and as a team, they helped defeat the enemy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:21 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1117
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Thanks Saxman.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:13 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am
Posts: 3321
Dave Homewood wrote:
Have those new CAA rules superseded the EU rules that saw all the DC-3's stop taking rides a few years back because they didn't have oxygen masks, escape chutes and the likes? Or would a B-17 and B-24 run into the same trouble?

The rule changes were not nearly as extreme as made out Dave. All the European operators bar one have continued flying rides. The story was a smokescreen put up by one particular operator in the UK who took the business decision to stop flying rides on their DC-3s and used the rule changes as a convenient scapegoat (after cashing in on a 'farewell tour' first)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:09 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1117
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
It just shows you can never believe anything you read on the internet, eh Mike? It almost makes me angry to think about all the fuss and hoohaa that subject of the rules change created on the Flypast forum, and for nothing.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:07 am
Posts: 282
Location: Grosse Pointe, Michigan
SaxMan wrote:
Dave Homewood wrote:
Did the USAAF Liberators arrive in Britain later than the first Flying Fortresses? I'm just wondering if a Liberator had made the first 25 trips (like Memphis Belle) would the type now be the glory bomber rather than the B-17?


The 24s started arriving in the early fall of 1942 with the arrival of the 44th and 93rd Bomb Groups. These two were sent off the to MTO during the winter of '42 - '43 to help beef up the 12th AF. They came back to the ETO, were joined by the 389th, then all three groups went back to the MTO for the Ploesti Mission. While B-24s were present from the early days of the 8th AF in England, they were never available in truly significant numbers until the latter part of 1943, early 1944, and then their numbers grew exponentially.

I recall once trying to debate the B-17 versus B-24 argument with a B-24 pilot. Even 50 some-odd years later when we were having this discussion, you could stir up an unbelievable amount of passion from B-24 crewmen if you told them their plane was "second best". I think it's like any other "versus" argument...the bottom line is both planes were needed and as a team, they helped defeat the enemy.


No doubt the debate over the legacies of the B-17 and B-24 will echo down the ages. Like comparing the Spitfire to the Mustang, each type will have its own adherents. However, the fact remains that B-24s were not kept in the post-war inventory as were B-17s for reasons that in some cases are clear and in others less clear. According to ARSENAL OF AIRPOWER: USAF Aircraft Inventory 1950-2009 A Mitchell Institute Study | November 2010 By Col. James C. Ruehrmund Jr., USAF (Ret.) and Christopher J. Bowie, no B-24s were in inventory in 1950; however, this cannot be correct as the B-24M ice research aircraft was documented in 1953. It appears that the Mitchell Institute study did not account for special purpose and test aircraft (for example, no QB-17s are shown). In any case, the minimal use of the B-24 by the post-war air force is a major reason why so few B-24 airframes remain in existence. It is ironic that the B-24 - often lauded for its versatility - was discarded in favor of the B-17 - which became the post-war "maid of all work." Had the B-24 been found useful for these applications the B-24 warbird story would be far different.

_________________
Daviemax
Researcher of Post-War B-17 History
Maintains database of B-17s used from 46- on.


Last edited by daviemax on Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 3:48 pm 
Offline
Newly minted Mustang Pilot
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:41 pm
Posts: 1410
Location: Everywhere
The B-24 will always be better :)

Jim

_________________
www.spiritof44.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:04 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5230
Location: Eastern Washington
daviemax wrote:
In any case, the minimal use of the B-24 by the post-war air force is a major reason why so few B-24 airframes remain in existence. It is ironic that the B-24 - often lauded for its versatility - was discarded in favor of the B-17 - which became the post-war "maid of all work."



Presumably because of the better/nicer flying characteristics...and reputation...of the B-17.

The B-24 was a very good tool, it did it's job well and some were very fond of it, but I've yet to hear any praise of it when it comes to flying quality.
Even the The Wild Blue about the 15th AF B-24 units by Ambrose didn't have much good to say about it.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:07 am
Posts: 282
Location: Grosse Pointe, Michigan
JohnB wrote:
daviemax wrote:
In any case, the minimal use of the B-24 by the post-war air force is a major reason why so few B-24 airframes remain in existence. It is ironic that the B-24 - often lauded for its versatility - was discarded in favor of the B-17 - which became the post-war "maid of all work."



Presumably because of the better/nicer flying characteristics...and reputation...of the B-17.

The B-24 was a very good tool, it did it's job well and some were very fond of it, but I've yet to hear any praise of it when it comes to flying quality.
Even the The Wild Blue about the 15th AF B-24 units by Ambrose didn't have much good to say about it.


Clearly flying qualities of the B-17 were a factor; also its reputation for ruggedness and tractability. But presumably sober and objective management decisions were made in sorting out which aircraft to keep in the post-war inventory and which to discard. The USAF obviously chose the B-17; also the Navy and Coast Guard - not just for PB-1s but also the Navy used several B-17s for test, training, and cargo/personnel transport. In the latter case, it is puzzling why the Navy would find this usage necessary when it had large numbers of PB4Y-1s remaining at the time. One factor is sheer availability at an individual time and place. The immediate postwar world was chaotic with the rapid wind-down of forces and associated personnel movements. It is very difficult to sort out the true motivations of individual decisions relating to aircraft usage, scrapping, and deployment in the late 1945 - 1946 time-frame. Some 5,000 B-24s were cancelled with VJ day while B-17 production had already been completed in July '45. So the decision-makers continued to see value in the B-24 right up to the end of the war - but then dropped it immediately when peace came. Therefore it is possible to conclude that the B-24 had qualities that were valued while the war continued to be fought but a different set of values were applied to peace-time applications. In this scenario the B-17 was preferred.

_________________
Daviemax
Researcher of Post-War B-17 History
Maintains database of B-17s used from 46- on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:38 am
Posts: 385
Location: Adelaide
Interesting thread

B-24 parts seem to be more available, at least to me here in Australia where we operated them and not the B-17.
The Werribee example is of the highest example and the team down there have many left overs which could be used in other projects.
Then there are a number of wrecks in Northern Australia which could still offer up even more parts and sections.
I've recently sold all my parts to a group who are chasing the LBG but there are still so many other B-24 wrecks around the world that
could easily provide the basis of a good resto to fly. Even a couple around with good centre section - main spars, although they may still
need work. I work suggest if anyone was serious then a call to the Werribee group would render some very interesting results.

_________________
Peter
ESAD (E-Science and Digitalisation)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:18 am
Posts: 656
Location: Berkshire, UK
I would have thought, that it was more that once hostilities were over, the USAF had the B-29, and therefore just didn't need the -24, but, the old -17 was perhaps a better platform for all the 2nd line duties required.

Fortunately, the Indians made a fine job of salvaging 40-odd dumped RAF -24's and operated them until the late 60's, that meant we have about twice the number extant we'd otherwise have had.

I can remember when the RAFM example arrived in the UK from it's ferry flight flight from India back in the early 70's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:38 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:51 pm
Posts: 1185
Location: Chandler, AZ
My take on it has always been that the B-24 was a better pure bomber, but not a versatile enough airframe for all of the adaptations that were made with B-17s.
The B-17 was designed when no one was 100% certain what the role of a heavy bomber was going to be. The original brief was more what we would now call a maritime strike aircraft -demonstrated ably, and to the USN's chagrin, with the interception of the Rex. Roughly five years of exercise and operation led to the spec for the B-24.

The Privateer, I think, lasted longer in USCG and firebomber service because it was already optimized for low level operation and thus required less modification than the B-24

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 9:41 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1117
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Has the opportunity ever been taken to get all four flyable Privateers and the two flyable Liberators in the air together at an airshow? That'd be good.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:55 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am
Posts: 3321
I think there's only the one Privateer (the Arizona one) flyable now Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:57 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 1911
Location: Pacific Northwest USA, via North Florida
In the never-ending B-17 v/s B-24 debate, I've always gone with the two (now no longer with us) pilots I knew who'd flown both in WW2. Both said that they felt that the Lib was capable ot enduring more punishment than a B-17, but that the B-17 was a far easier and more stable plane to fly and a platform to bomb from.

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Clifford Bossie, Google [Bot] and 106 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group