Kermit's B-24 and B-26

Boeing666 · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:25 pm

Tim Savage wrote:

Boeing666 wrote:

I haven't seen Kermit mention anything about his A-26 for a long time. I am afraid it is on the backburner again. A lot of his projects end up on the backburner unfortunately. Plus he has been busy writing books as of recently.

Kermit's A-26 is under active restoration at Aero Trader with a goal to wrapping up the long restoration. There were a number of folks working on it when I saw it in May.

That is great to know. He just hasn't mentioned anything about it on his FB page, which is surprising. One thing that I can say about Kermit, even if it takes a long time to do his projects the ones that do get completed are superb and award winners. His L-1 is very nice.

Nathan · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:53 pm

Quote:

Who is doing the C variant? and if it is being scratchbuilt it would just be a replica

I wouldn't say that at all. It's a reproduction. Not a replica. There is a dataplate and lots of original parts to go with it. All being built to factory specs. And there is a car restorer making a production run of parts for 3 or 4 different B-17 restorations. In 10 years you will see more B-17s flying

JimH · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:45 pm

JohnTerrell wrote:

"Reproduction" or "new-build" are better terms, I feel, since it is being built to the original design drawings. I always hate the use of the word "replica" when it comes to projects like these, as "replica" would indicate that it is not true to original form (i.e., a different scale, or a diversion from the original aircraft design/specifications). To clarify, a Titan 51 is a replica, and a Flugwerk Fw 190 is a replica, where as I would say the majority of the P-51B/C's flying today are "reproductions" or "new-builds", as are some of the Spitfires emerging over the past several years (hardly any original parts/sheet metal, but all built to original specifications - and now, more often than not, more authentically-accurate than the more originally-produced examples flying).

agreed...drymartini would probably give me an earful as well

...I like using ghost for the dataplate builds

jim

marine air · **Posted:** Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:27 pm

Kermit could write a book, and I wish he would, about the ups and downs of restoration shops, the good guys and bad guys. No doubt at this point he has seen every scenario including getting ripped off by guys he trusted. He's a class act.

wls3 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:01 am

Kermit's B-24 at TICO airshow circa 1996.

phil65 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Tallichet owned and grounded by the FAA in Hartford, Ct. 90's

Phil

menards · **Joined:** Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm **Posts:** 540

JohnTerrell wrote:

menards wrote:

Are u counting the LB-30 as a B-24? Really there is one "true" b-24 that flies, the Collings bird. It does tour extensively and is extremely visible... But reality is if that bird stops touring for whichever reason, b-24s would be hard to come by.

Given the fact that the designation "LB-30B", is only a term applied to the fully armed/combat-ready bomber export versions of the early B-24A's, brimming with machine guns and bomb bays, as the CAF's example was when produced and during initial State-side duties, I consider it a B-24 (it was/can also be referred to as a RAF Liberator I, just as the Collings' example can be referred to as a RAF Liberator V, as it was when in service).

I meant that in the sense that the CAF b-24 is still more like a transport. The Collings bird is more bomber.

JimH · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:46 am

The type rating is CVLB-30 for both aircraft.

Jim

DH82EH · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:26 am

JimH wrote:

JohnTerrell wrote:

"Reproduction" or "new-build" are better terms, I feel, since it is being built to the original design drawings. I always hate the use of the word "replica" when it comes to projects like these, as "replica" would indicate that it is not true to original form (i.e., a different scale, or a diversion from the original aircraft design/specifications). To clarify, a Titan 51 is a replica, and a Flugwerk Fw 190 is a replica, where as I would say the majority of the P-51B/C's flying today are "reproductions" or "new-builds", as are some of the Spitfires emerging over the past several years (hardly any original parts/sheet metal, but all built to original specifications - and now, more often than not, more authentically-accurate than the more originally-produced examples flying).

agreed...drymartini would probably give me an earful as well

...I like using ghost for the dataplate builds

jim

Years ago, a restorer was asked about, what parts of the P-40 wreck that was piled in his yard, would be going in to the finished restoration.
"Well, we'll be able to re-use its shadow" was the tongue in cheek reply :lol:

I am a big fan of restorations regardless of original content. As long as there is transparency of history.

Andy

DH82EH · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2016 5:26 am

JimH wrote:

JohnTerrell wrote:

"Reproduction" or "new-build" are better terms, I feel, since it is being built to the original design drawings. I always hate the use of the word "replica" when it comes to projects like these, as "replica" would indicate that it is not true to original form (i.e., a different scale, or a diversion from the original aircraft design/specifications). To clarify, a Titan 51 is a replica, and a Flugwerk Fw 190 is a replica, where as I would say the majority of the P-51B/C's flying today are "reproductions" or "new-builds", as are some of the Spitfires emerging over the past several years (hardly any original parts/sheet metal, but all built to original specifications - and now, more often than not, more authentically-accurate than the more originally-produced examples flying).

agreed...drymartini would probably give me an earful as well

...I like using ghost for the dataplate builds

jim

Years ago, a restorer was asked about, what parts of the P-40 wreck that was piled in his yard, would be going in to the finished restoration.
"Well, we'll be able to re-use its shadow" was the tongue in cheek reply :lol:

I am a big fan of restorations regardless of original content. As long as there is transparency of history.

Andy

Craig59 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:33 am

menards wrote:

Are u counting the LB-30 as a B-24? Really there is one "true" b-24 that flies, the Collings bird. It does tour extensively and is extremely visible... But reality is if that bird stops touring for whichever reason, b-24s would be hard to come by.

Mind you, I'm not picking on you, I just grow weary of and am taking issue with the propaganda propagated by the Collings Foundation (CF) concerning their B-24 at the expense of the B-24 owned by the CAF.

In April 2006, I was waiting in line with my Dad (a former PBJ driver) at TUS to take a ride aboard the CF B-25 when I overheard one of the CF minions expounding on how their B-24 was the only B-24 flying. When the patron to whom he was speaking asked about the CAF's B-24, the minion rather rudely shut him down with the usual LB-30, blah, blah, blah propaganda.

I couldn't help myself and asked if that were true then wasn't the CF guilty of false advertising by selling us a ride aboard a B-25 when in fact it was a TB-25N?

End of conversation...

Warbird Kid · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:29 pm

TriangleP wrote:

Nathan wrote:

And there is a car restorer making a production run of parts for 3 or 4 different B-17 restorations. In 10 years you will see more B-17s flying

Agreed, it will be a great day seeing more of these B-17s in the air! Ray Moore is doing B-17 re-construction full time at this time. He's earned the respect of the other restoration teams. When he gets the tail section done for Liberty Belle in the near future, he'll probably tell you he's B-17 restorer, but I think many of us already feel that way now.

But no love for the B-24….

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:00 pm

Craig59 wrote:

menards wrote:

Are u counting the LB-30 as a B-24? Really there is one "true" b-24 that flies, the Collings bird. It does tour extensively and is extremely visible... But reality is if that bird stops touring for whichever reason, b-24s would be hard to come by.

Mind you, I'm not picking on you, I just grow weary of and am taking issue with the propaganda propagated by the Collings Foundation (CF) concerning their B-24 at the expense of the B-24 owned by the CAF.

In April 2006, I was waiting in line with my Dad (a former PBJ driver) at TUS to take a ride aboard the CF B-25 when I overheard one of the CF minions expounding on how their B-24 was the only B-24 flying. When the patron to whom he was speaking asked about the CAF's B-24, the minion rather rudely shut him down with the usual LB-30, blah, blah, blah propaganda.

I couldn't help myself and asked if that were true then wasn't the CF guilty of false advertising by selling us a ride aboard a B-25 when in fact it was a TB-25N?

End of conversation...

First - the Collings Foundation has changed all their print to state that Witchcraft is the "The world’s only fully restored and flying consolidated B-24J Liberator..." so they've amended the line, because we've hashed this out multiple times on here and elsewhere and the majority of those who operate the plane support having more Liberators instead of less.

BTW, here's the thing for those who've not gone through the restoration thread. Diamond 'Lil was one of the first 30 Liberators built and one of the first 20 production aircraft - period. It was already under construction when the B-24A production was lend-leased to Britain and assigned S/N 40-2366. When the production was "deferred", the serial number reverted to the USAAF and was later assigned to a B-24D and 'Lil was assigned AM927. I provided Rick with plans of the B-24A from the NASM (thanks to them since they did all the work, I just provided the request) that clearly show things that match on 'Lil that are not LB-30B spec items and would have been removed after construction. Gary had hinted on this during the restoration (which remember was the first full restoration since the accident in 1942, even when Continental Can got her, they only did cosmetic restorations), but the plans made it clear that the airplane was actually modified to LB-30B after or during completion and then when Consolidated got the airplane, there was further work done that returned the airplane to a configuration more indicative of a B-24 than an LB-30/Liberator since that was the most of what they were building and had the most parts for.

So what's the end result? Diamond 'Lil is one of a kind. An early production airplane that doesn't fit any particular mold except one - she's a Liberator. Just as the airplane now called Witchcraft is a Liberator as well. 44-44052 was never delivered to the USAAF. After being accepted, it was delivered to the RAF as KH191, a Liberator VII, 2 months after rolling off the line and going through standard depot transfer/modification. So, which one is a B-24 and which one is a "Liberator"? Both. Plain and simple.

Warbird Information Exchange

Kermit's B-24 and B-26

Who is online