Talk:Consolidated B-24 Liberator

not into bomb bay

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

The usual B-24 bomb bay doors rolled up onto the the fuselage sides;no Iinto in fuselage as quoted in the article. solution; into (sic) (onto)...or delete reference. I don t think I referece or quote is needed to describe the door system. boost the references count at a better needed location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B122:67F8:E0C2:D605:D761:5A5 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

IP 2600

Just to note that IP 2600 has been blocked from editing and they are not allowed to contribute, as such any contributions can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bomb capacity sloppiness ?

"...could accommodate up to 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg) of ordnance in each of its forward and aft compartments". So it carried 16,000 pounds of bombs ? Rcbutcher (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

8,000 in total, please reword appropriately.

This wasn't used in practice, more like 5,000lb, in order to leave fuel capacity. Most B-24 operations though were far lighter loads, using the range instead of bombing capacity. Tasks like anti-submarine patrol only needed a very light bomb load.

The B-24 did have more useful bomb bays than the B-17 (or He-111) though. They could carry long single weapons which these early "cell" designs just couldn't fit, for dimensions rather than weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought that the B-24 basically had two bomb bays the size of a B-17s bomb-bay, instead of one, and so it still couldn't fit weapons any larger than would fit a B-17, only more of them? There is a structural bulkhead dividing the two bays, so you couldn't fit very long weapons like you could in a Lancaster, with its one big, long, shallow bomb bay. Supposedly that was one of the big "problems" with most US bombers, that they all had deep, short bays with bombs stacked vertically, which couldn't fit more than one or two ranks of 1,00 or 2,000lb bombs. Although it's one of those "problems" that I suspect they make a bigger deal out of today than they ever did back then..45Colt 06:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The limited space in the US bombers was only a 'problem' for the RAF, which is one of the reasons they did not use them over Germany. I don't think the US ever complained about bomb bay capacity, although some of the first generation of post-war US bombers such as IIRC the XB-42, XB-43, and XB-46, were designed to accommodate a 4,000lb HC internally. The B-17 could carry largish bombs externally but the additional drag had an adverse effect on range and speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Prior to WW II the prevailing philosophy amongst most air forces was to saturate a target with lots of smallish bombs, and the bombers designed in this period had bomb bays with racks for numerous small bombs - 'small' by the standards of, say, 1942 and later. This included such types as the He 111, Dornier 17, Vickers Wellington, Handley Page Halifax, Short Stirling, and the B17 and B-24. The Avro Manchester - which later became the Lancaster - was unusual in that it was IIRC originally specified to carry torpedoes, which is why the bomb bay was so long and capacious. This proved fortuitous when it was later discovered by the British that while small bombs did cause damage, unless by a direct hit, they did not do sufficient damage to large heavy industrial machine tools such as lathes, etc. So from around 1942 they then went to using bigger, and bigger, bombs. It was because of this that from around 1943-4 the other RAF heavy bombers were gradually being phased-out in favour of the Lancaster.

This - via the Manchester - had as the main fuselage structural member the roof of the 33-feet long bomb bay, and so the load of ever-increasing bomb weights was carried by a member of already sufficient strength without substantial re-design. This main structural member was what the wing main spars were attached to, and so the weight was directly transferred-to, and carried-by, the wings of the aircraft. The bomb bay itself was also physically large in capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.169 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I like the current version

Not sure if you're supposed to put stuff like this on the talk page, but I just wanted to say I like the current article pretty well. Haven't looked too closely at it yet, but it looks like someone cleaned it up and simplified it a lot, and took out some of the dubious stuff. Thanks..45Colt 06:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015

Please change "B-24s under construction at Ford Motor's Willow Run plant". The photo is not from the Willow Run Plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The photo is probably from the Oklahoma Plant.

108.84.207.155 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: What makes you say that? Cannolis (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Single tail and repeated reversion

How is this a constructive edit?

Nor are these [1] [2] [3] particularly helpful either.

Just to remind a few people, IP editors are allowed to edit. When they're then reverted and requested to add sources, nor should we be surprised if they then go and do exactly what they've been asked for.

It is self-evident that the B-24 had twin tails and the PB4Y-2 had a single tail. Clearly is there some development history here and we should welcome coverage of that. If anyone has issues of the details, then please discuss that, or even expand it with sources yourself. No doubt the great and the good of the aircraft cabal are well-supplied with such sources. There is no excuse for repeated hostile reversion of a GF editor who is moving the article in a positive direction. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit you led with, wondering how it was a constructive edit, was my edit. It was constructive precisely because valid reasoning was offered as to why it was unsuitable. Some of the content may be usable, but it was distinctly non-encyclopedic as written. It was written in such a way that it appears the author is drawing a conclusion. Wikipedia editors can't do that. "It was recognized" - by whom? "Therefore" - drawing a conclusion. Even sourced, the writing style gives the reader the impression of original research. So, yes - my edit was "constructive" and I even hope "helpful" for the original contributor to reword it in such a way that it was, in fact, encyclopedic. Hostile? Really? Scr★pIron^IV 19:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether the IP's edit was correct (i.e. complete and sourced) or not is largely irrelevant. What has been done in response to it is profoundly negative: it denies that they might have an obvious point (sourced or not), it is WP:BITEY, and it makes the article worse rather than better. A far better response would have been to complete this edit, with sources; a better response (if no sources are to hand) would have been to copyedit it to tone down blunt assertions into the basics that are self-evident and can be stated here: Liberators had two fins, Privateers went to a single.

But IP editors (yet again!) just aren't welcome near the aviation project, are they? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

All editors and edits are held (by me) to the same standard, the standard I am still learning to hold myself to. I made one revert, with an explanation, and I'm biting? What is "profoundly negative" is having a reasonable reversion - within policy, and explained in the edit summary - paraded out to the talk page and labeled both unconstructive and unhelpful. That, and the accusatory tone implying that I am not allowing IP editors to edit.

The single and double tail issues are already covered in the article. The EDIT was reverted - not the IP. The content was problematic. That is never irrelevant. Scr★pIron^IV 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty frustrating. I perceive your actions, and those of BilCat and Denniss as being agressive and not in good faith. I made an edit, which bilcat reverted, so I unreverted to make the changes and bilcat instantaneously reverted and had a go at me on my IP's talk page (even though I'm perfectly entitled to reinstate a change). I re-reverted again to add the reference he requested and made some edits to improve it. Then Denniss reverted my change. I reverted again and added two more references. Then you came along ScrapIronIV and reverted for a fourth time. Together you are biting me. As Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers says: We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. I am trying to make a constructive edit, and you are collectively reverting it again and again. Please take heed of the Revert only when necessary policy:

Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

Moreover:

The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism.... In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.

I'll break my contribution down sentence by sentence:

• As early as 1942, it was recognized that the Liberator's handling and stability could be improved by the use of a single vertical fin. - This came from a source. I think the source said the US Army or USAAF recognised this. I chose to leave that out because saying the Army believed it is equally ambiguous. Who in the army realised it? Maybe Consolidated realised it as well? Then who realised it at Consolidated? It is easy to confuse weasel words which use 'vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority yet has no substantial basis' (see here, with the legitimate use of passive language when the identity of the actor or agent is irrelevant.
• The single fin was tested by Ford on the single B-24ST and an experimental XB-24K, and was found to improve handling. - This is a factual statement - Ford produced the B-24ST and XB-24K prototypes with single tails. These had better handling.
• The B-24N was to have been a major production variant featuring a single tail. - Another factual statement. The B-24N had a single tail and was to be produced in scale....
• Over 5000 orders were placed in 1945, but were cancelled due to the end of the war.Another factual statement. 5000 orders were placed. These were cancelled after only 8 aircraft had been built.
• Therefore all liberators were produced with twin oval fins. - A factual statement (although how do we account for the 8 B-24Ns?)
• However, the single fin did appear on the PB4Y Privateer derivative. - Another factual statement.

Indeed, all of these facts are pretty much already located elsewhere on the page, except the first sentence. None of this is original research. I did not synthesise it, nor did I undertake my own analysis to arrive at these facts. It comes from attributed sources.

For the record, I'm an experienced editor who likes to edit anonymously, which I am entitled to do. The way I get treated as an anonomous editor is occasionally pretty appalling. Please, always act with civility and remember that reverting good faith changes is hostile behaviour that pushes valuable editors away from Wikipedia.110.175.158.17 (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet, despite suggestions and a direct explanation of rhy it was considered problematic, you restored it word for word, without any attempt at all to rewrite or rephrase. I do not have the specific sources you cited, except for the Joe Baugher site - a source which does not meet WP:RS. That is a blog and personal website, with no apparent oversight. I would be rewriting it in the dark, summarizing your summary. But, I tried to do it anyway. Just because you saw my (single) reversion as "hostile" does not make it so. Scr★pIron^IV 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, both the twin-tailed B-24, and the B-17 in its early small-finned versions suffered from poor directional stability, i.e., in yaw, especially when on the bombing run. This could lead to poor bombing accuracy with the Norden bomb sight. The problem was solved for the B-17 with the much larger fin and fillet introduced IIRC on the B-17E. A solution to the same problem on the B-24 was the single fin as used on the Privateer but IIRC wartime production pressure meant the single fin was not introduced for the B-24 itself until later and by that time the war had ended and wartime orders for the B-24 had been cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Range and combat range

Range: 2,100 mi (1,800 nautical miles (3,300 kilometres))

I just try to check out the Range because of the bombardment of Ploesti Oil Fields in Autumn 1943, shortly after occupying Sicily (and Malta?) in Operation Husky. This made air raids on the most important German oil source possible, but it was at this stage quite limited. In German Wikipedia I see for B-17 a Range of:

2.897 km mit normaler Beladung, 1.760 km mit maximaler Beladung (first with usual bombs/machine gun ammo etc, second with maximum, and I guess also with maximum fuel, maybe even already drop-tanks? In English Wiki we only have:

Range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km) with 2,700 kg (6,000 lb) bombload (but this is not Combat Range and you can not just take 50/50... because of different flights, flight to the target is much heavier, more fuel, the bombload, while the flight back, was much less fuel consuming since most of the fuel already has been used and the bombs were off, so some tons of weight were no more needed to carry by the 4 x ~1,200 horsepower turboprop,

This info here:

Bombs: Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg) (sounds strange to me, 2000kg and 7800kg?!)

Okay with Overload we can forget in any case, even from Englands most south-eastern point to West-Germany, that is maybe really for less than 250 miles Combat Radius. I think to Ploesti they even flew with less than the "Long range missions" bombs to save fuel to land somehow maybe on soviet territory in the worst case, mission was to damage the oil plants at all costs, so if there would be 400 instead of 200 needed to do it with save fuel, than for sure they did get the planes from the bombing squads which were attacking Germany and Austria etc, the escorts also had a quite short range (no wonder with many caliber .50 guns on the sides, in the nose another gun, and damn much ammo belts (a single round is around 110 metric gram! for these side guns, and of course crew members...), they also started a bit after the bombers because they were much faster and than I think over Albania/Greece or early Bulgaria they had to turn around, and after this the FlaK heavy belts to save Ploesti began, together with some desperate efforts from the Romanians "Airforce" (if you want to call it like that), and some German fighters, while they were using modern fighters since the Oil shortened the war because German Army in 1945 was complete out of fuel... Battle of the Bulge were the last reserves, and even they were so small (and tanks thirsty) that they ran out of fuel since US troops withdrawing learned something and burned their own oil...

Any infos?! Does not have to be THAT detailled ;)

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Steering, cowlings

it says that the use of differential braking and thrust made the B-24 "difficult to handle" on the ground, but this is the same way that all aircraft were steered on the ground back then. This seems like it's picking on the B-24 for something that was common in many other aircraft. Next, it says that it "used cowlings from the PBY Catalina". This is unlikely, except maybe in the early versions. The B-24has very distinctive oval cowlings with oil coolers in the cheeks. I've never seen another aircraft with these cowlings. Perhaps you're referring to the main body of the nacelle, which is different from the cowling. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nose-wheelers are *always* much easier to handle on the ground. Nor do they generally bounce on a heavy landing, unlike tail dragers. Large enough numbers of B-17s were lost due to ground looping to make all future contracts specify tricycle gear. The larger the machine the more dangerous tail dragging becomes. The B-17 had been around for some time before WW2 before it got a mass production contract. The design was left as a tail dragger. The article also claims the C-46 was reliable. This is pure fantasy.The C-46 was notorious for fuel leaks. The complexity of the fuel plumbing gave it the name Curtiss Conundrum. Heavy braking over 40kn caused a tail-over crash. The liberator only had one weakness; it's flimsy bomb bay door design; 4 doors in all. However, the door was designed for bombs to crash straight though if any door jammed, which they often did. The doors were made of flexible link strips that allowed them to slide up and around the fuselage. Bombs were then loaded upwards in vertical racks.220.244.73.170 (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Handling

My understanding of the B-24 is that it was easy to handle in the air, and certainly safer on the ground than tail draggers. It was often flown on 3 engines when returning to conserve fuel. The machine was quite flyable and landable with 2 stopped engines on the same wing. Not many 4s could do that. It had nearly 2X the bomb load of a B-17, but only consumed a little more fuel. It's bang for buck was far superior to the B-17 which is why 18,400 of them were made. The B-17 may have been a bit more nimble but that's because it only carried half the bomb load.220.244.73.170 (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)