If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: B-24 Liberator
From: Cub Driver Date: 9/1/03 3:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: qc86lvk1k521nbrv0lc2vph2go3r Well, of course everyone thinks the horse he's riding is the best that ever was (unless he thinks it's the worst). But I find it hard to I had it both ways. The Marauder w as both the best and the worst. (sigh) Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Reeve" wrote in message . .. George R. Gonzalez wrote: Ernest K. Gann flew B-24's, or was it the cargo equivalent? Anyway, he had a very strong dislike for the plane. His complaints as I recall them, in no particular order: [gripes snipped] Gann was co-pilot on an LB-30 (cargo version). I recall reading an article he wrote that appeared in Reader's Digest (don't know where it originally appeared) where he talked of almost taking out the Taj Mahal when taking off somewhat overloaded from Accra airport on a hot day, then losing power temporarily on one engine shortly after takeoff. As I recall thwe story, he knew the plane was a bit heavy, sio he told the fueler guy to put 500 gallons total in the tanks. The guy heard this as ADD 500 gallons, which put him waaay overweight. Gann wrote that he could see the whites of the eyes of the guys on the scaffolds repairing the Taj Mahal. Bigger than usual eyeballs, with a B-24 bearing down on you.. You'd think there would be some double-checks for this kind of misunderstanding. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Dave Kearton" writes: "Tex Houston" wrote in message ... | | "Marc Reeve" wrote in message | . .. | | Gann was co-pilot on an LB-30 (cargo version). I recall reading an | article he wrote that appeared in Reader's Digest (don't know where it | originally appeared) where he talked of almost taking out the Taj Mahal | when taking off somewhat overloaded from Accra airport on a hot day, | then losing power temporarily on one engine shortly after takeoff. | | That article was what got me reading his books. | The aircraft Gann flew as a contract pilot for American Airlines during WWII | was designated a C-87. I remember the Readers' Digest story from about 25 years ago. Apparently, it was a load of PSP (perf steel plate) that was calculated as aluminium plate instead of steel plate - which is quite a difference in the W&B sheet. Would have taken quite a bit of 'pucker' factor to clear or avoid the Taj Mahal. A few notes, here. Gann did indeed start out flying right seat in LB-30s, but as the Tansatlantic Ferry Routes expanded, upgraded to Captain (As in Aircraft Commander, he wasn't military). The transatlantic route originally was flown by LB-30s, annd as C-87s were built, they filled in. In "Fate is teh Hunter", gann talks at some point about not having turbosupercharged engines. LB=30s didn't,C-87s did. A fellow who used to run a convenience store acros the street from where I used to live in Manchester, NH, was a C-54 FE, and flew with him a number of times. The story of teh LB-30/C-97s nearly whacking into the Taj Mahal is something I've run into from a number of directions. An aritcle in _Air_Force_Magazine from the 1950s credits to teh adventures of an early LB-30 flown by Army pilots. It could be that the tale was too good to leave out. The PSP/PAP story comes from the Berlin Airlift, in the early days when C-47s were still on line. The airplane was carrying a load of Marston Mat for one of teh runway expansion projects, ond on that particular day, it just didn't want to fly. Examination of the load afterward showed that the cargo was Pierced Steel Plank, rather than Pierced Aluminum Plank. (A very easy error, of you're loading it by bundles - an individual PSP section os pretty light, and they're both painted the same color. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
It entirely depends on the theater. The B-24 was preferred in the PTO and CBI by both "the Brass" and crews because of its better range and payload, and its lower ceiling and somewhat lower vulnerability to damage compared to the B-17 wasn't as important when facing more lightly-armed and lower performance Japanese fighters Well, of course everyone thinks the horse he's riding is the best that ever was (unless he thinks it's the worst). But I find it hard to believe that air crew would value range and payload over the ability to sustain battle damage, whatever the opposition. Plenty of aircraft went down over Rabaul, for example. That Japanese air defenses were less formidable than German would have been made up, in my mind, by the fact that their prison system was more awful. I also tend to discount the opinions of those pilots who swear their type of a/c was the best, when they flew only a single type and are in no position to compare. However, see Eric Bergerud's book on the air war in the SW Pacific ("Fire in The Sky"?). He has quotes from a former B-17 pilot who later flew B-24s, where he says essentially just what I wrote. His first flight in a B-24, as a passenger in a ferry flight IIRR, didn't fill him with confidence. The B-24's wing was a lot less stiff than the B-17's, and he could see it flexing up and down. He decided that he never wanted to fly one if he could avoid it. He then flew combat in the PTO in B-17s, before his unit transitioned to B-24s. He said it was not as easy to fly, but the extra bombload was nice, and the extra range _very_ much appreciated, so much so that he became a convert. There were a few other things he liked about the B-24 compared to the B-17, such as (IIRR) takeoffs and landings on bad airstrips (the trike apparenly made things easier), it was faster, etc. Other pilots make the same points. The cold wasn't as much an issue in the PTO as it was in the ETO, as most missions involved lots of flying at moderate altitudes over water during the approach and return, and there was no need to fly tight formation for as long as was necessary in the ETO. Combat loss rates were quite low regardless of type, while operational losses were probably higher (see appreciation for extra B-24 range/endurance). Guy |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"George R. Gonzalez" wrote:
As I recall thwe story, he knew the plane was a bit heavy, sio he told the fueler guy to put 500 gallons total in the tanks. The guy heard this as ADD 500 gallons, which put him waaay overweight. Gann wrote that he could see the whites of the eyes of the guys on the scaffolds repairing the Taj Mahal. Bigger than usual eyeballs, with a B-24 bearing down on you.. You'd think there would be some double-checks for this kind of misunderstanding. Well, there is...it's called 'The common sense filter'. You get so used to using large numbers and so many of them when flying that it pays to run the results of some critical computations through the 'Common sense filter'. "OK, it's 0100L now, our fuel endurance is 27 hours, our transit time is 9 hours so our PLE time is 0530Z" ... Now does that make sense??. Mind you, they're still happening...remember the Gimli Glider? (btw, I met Bob Pearson about a month ago here) -- -Gord. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|