B-24 versus B-17

During my tour of 50 missions, I flew in 9 different planes, they all flew slightly different.
 
Re: fuel---On a mission to southern France from Tunis, we encountered over 100+mph headwinds, much later called the jet stream, a number of planes turned back before reaching the target, the bombing was a fiasco. I and the rest of the planes landed in Corsica because we knew that we couldn't make it back to base.
 

Ken.
 
The lead squadron aircraft bomb load was a little lighter. The first two bombs out of the bombay were smoke markers to identify the drop area for following aircraft.

Gentlemen,   For a "Thread" that I had thought was in the final stages of rigor mortis (Latin for: DEAD), this has been a most educational experience, one which has brought more and more topics to the fore-front!  (Hopefully, this has not offended anyone who feels that Thread-Integrity must be maintained.)  I thank not only the VETS who "lived" the experience, but also the descendants of these VETS, the Historians, and those in search of a "Legacy."  Having said that, and knowing my penchant for the FO WR Lib, I have a question based on the last two pages:  From what I have read about "gross weight" (full bomb load based on ordanance  for a particular mission) in relation to "rate of climb" and specific altitude based on position within the"block," I did not hear anything specific about "weather conditions" (severe, head winds, ice, tail winds, etc) which certainly would have been significant, at least in my understanding, along with "flak,"  hostile fighters and mechanical problems!   Was this a "non-issue?"  Any takes on this?  Was the 17 superior to the 24?  Or, will this always be an issue?  Just another question. The A/C that brought you home had to be the best!!!    Thank you,  Gentlemen!     Steven  

[image]local://upfiles/11777/F17B4CC402DA484BB2521004745E5017.jpg[/image]

Attached Image(s)

Steve...I will make a comment....the De-icer boots, (those black areas on the leading edges of the wings and tail) were not of much use in combat...as when a section was damaged by flak, it was cut off with a knife along with the corresponding section on the opposite side, and not replaced. This was due to the time contingency...it would take approximately 5-6 hours to remove the damaged section, and replace it.
There just was not enough time to replace a boot when the aircraft had to fly the next day's mission.
 
After one of my missions over Vienna,  when the THIRD outer wing panel main spar had been cut in two by flak, and the ground crew had replaced that damaged ouiter wing panel overnight, the crew chief called both the pilots and myself to one side and threatened us....."If you go over Vienna and get another outer wing panel main spar cut by flak...I am going to line up  the three of you, and shoot you myself"...of course he said it with a grin....but he and his ground crew had changed the outer wing panel overnight and had the aircraft in commision for the next day's mission.  It seemed the ground crews changed as many as FIVE outer wing panels in one night...other ground crews whose aircraft were in commission, would all pitch in and assist.
 
The ground crews were then ,  and are today, the "unsung heroes" of any conflict.
 
As to weather, in the month of January, 1945, only seven missions were flown by the B-17s in Italy due to bad weather conditions.
 
The weather might be lousy at the home base, but , if the weather over the target was good enough to be able to bomb, the missions were on.
 
When on one mission, I had turned the top turret to the forward position , after test firing the guns, where we were flying between two layers of clouds....the gun barrels apparently filled with ice, and when I
dis-assembled the guns after the mission, there was still a three inch slug of ice left in the barrels.
A little voice had told me, "DON'T fire the guns", ..if I had, I probably would not be writing this .
 
Jim :-)

Jim,  Great post!  I've often wondered about the  "de-icer boots" and maintenance on them.  However, what impressed me the most was your comment about the maintenance crews and their dedication, be it servicing the B-24's or the B-17's in the combat theaters.  I've included a section of an article which I wrote for our Plant Newspaper in August of 2005, after having flown in the Collings Foundation "Witchcraft."  Here it is!   Steven
 
On Sunday, August 7, 2005, I had the experience of a lifetime, which not only further satisfied my passion for the history of the Willow Run built B-24 Liberator, but also showed me the meaning and value of “Preventative Maintenance.”  This year’s Willow Run air show featured WWII era bombers, of which one was the meticulously restored B-24J Liberator belonging to the Collings Foundation. It is the only true air-worthy Liberator remaining in the world today.  Although this bomber was not originally built here, the “nose art” motif chosen for this year’s air show season was that of the most famous Willow Run built bomber, Witchcraft. I flew in this historic B-24 in the same air space through which the “greatest generation” took off for combat more than 60 years ago.  This B-24H Liberator was built by Ford at Willow Run in 1942 and eventually assigned to the 8th Air Force, 467th Bomber Group based in England. It was here that the Liberator took on its identity as Witchcraft. It holds the record among all B-24’s built during WWII for the most missions flown, 130, and for never having had an aircrew casualty or an aborted mission!  Over time, it was flown by three different crews. This speaks volumes not only to the skill and “luck” of the airmen in combat, but also to the skill and dedication of the maintenance crews on the ground.  While waiting for my turn to fly in the B-24, I had the privilege to talk with one of the mechanics who serviced the actual plane in 1943. He related several stories, which he could remember, to our group, but two things stood out from his conversation: the importance of preventative maintenance as opposed to reactive (the record of non-aborts proves this), and the ability to have available parts. He smiled when he mentioned the latter because available parts under wartime conditions often meant, in his words, “appropriating parts from less fortunate planes.” He truly took pride in what he did to keep the young airmen safe and in the air.

Steven:

I'll post some photos of the Collings Planes in a new thread called:

Collings Planes @ MAPS Museum

In the All Hands & Canteen Club

http://forum.armyairforces.com/m_130710/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#130723

Ken

I've often wondered about the "de-icer boots" and maintenance on them.

Steven:

Dad's group removed ALL of the de-icer boots from their planes.

Ken

Ken,
Unless I'm terribly wrong, it is my memory that the 381st removed them also.  They were considered a performance negative without any great need for them.  Though we flew in the Winter at high altitudes I don't recall wing icing to ever be a problem.

Ken,
 
So did the 303rdBG.

The 99th BG in Italy removed them as they were damaged, but, did not replace them.
I flew most of my missions on 44-6868 and my crew flew that aircraft on it's first, and many of it's subsequent missions....it flew a total of 28 missions and was sent to Walnut Grove, for eventual scrapping.
 
Jim :-)

Bob, Bill and Jim,   Thanks for the info on the  "de-icing boots!"  Interesting, a manufacturing peer of mine was in my office today looking at B-24 photos, and, knowing very little, asked why "the leading edges of the wing were painted black."  We then got into "maintenance" issues, so, Jim, your comments were most appropriate.
 
Ken,   In reference to the MAPS photos, I am sure that those perusing the sight would be most appreciative of a new thread.  I will be willing to post photos on it from the YAM "Thunder Over Michigan 2005" of which I have many personal photos along with the generic "photo op" ones , not only of the B-24, but also of the eight B-17's.  I have had trouble downloading some of the pics due to size, but am working on it.
Best regards!   Steven

Steven..You have yet to ask how the de-icer boots worked.

The wing deicer boot was composed of 5 tubes....numbering from the top....first in sequence to inflate were 1,3,5, and then 2,4, and the action was repeated....this alternate inflation and deflation caused ice buildup to crack, and the airstream carried away the fragments.  

The empennage or tail surfaces were similar to the wing design and were on the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer (s) dual in the case of the B-24, and on the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizers.

A distributor valve which rotated, gave the proper sequence to the inflation and deflation of the sets of tubes in the deicer boots.

The propellor blades had a narrow strip of grooved rubber which was glued on, on each blade....and then isopropyl alcohol was pumped to the slinger ring...a ring that had a hole above each blade...the centrifugal force of rotation, caused the alcohol to flow down the blade.

The B-17 had a 20 gallon isopropyl alcohol tank with a pump located in the camera pit in the radio room floor with tubing routed to each engine and then to the slinger ring which rotated with the propellor.

The B-24 had to have a similar installation.

Jim :-)

Steven..You have yet to ask how the de-icer boots worked.

 
 
Jim,  Thanks for the info.  To answer, the posted quote, I didn't need to ask that question as I already have a very basic conceptual knowledge of the mechanics (from other applications besides aviation, ie, "slinger" rings, grooves, etc. are part and parcel of transmissions.)  However, your explanation was excellent.  My focus, actually, from your previous post, was on the "maintenance  folks."   Best regards,   Steven

Good article in current issue of Air Classics..
Has Bombardies dairy listed who flew in B-24s with 845BS/498G.
"REBEL GAL" B-24H-20-FO
 
Makes for some intersting reading..
 
Good book to read is by Capt. Paul F. Stevens, USN  retired
who flew B-24s in the Pac with VPB-104
 
LOW LEVEL LIBERATORS  The story of VPB-104
ISBN:1-889553-06-9
 
Terry T.

Steven...Sometimes I post an explanation, not for someone like you, but , for others who do not have a
grasp of things mechanical. I probably irk some who do know beforehand, however, in the main, it still serves a purpose.  This practice has forestalled a lot of questions later.
 
Jim :-)

Jim,   You are absolutely correct in your response. Thanks!  I learn the same way from other posts.  I've attached a photo from FO WR from July of 1944. Good clear photo of Lib with "de-icer boots," and notice the "high hat" top turret.   Steven

[image]local://upfiles/11777/7FF1F366B81A4E81BFB41D75703F2C6E.jpg[/image]

Attached Image(s)

Steven.........you'll probably know this one ; did WR ever use Medium Green 42 ( or the equivalent ANA 612 Medium Green) for their B-24 anti-glare panels ?
The usual colour was Olive Drab 41 ( later ANA 613 Olive Drab ) but comparing the FS numbers ( FS 34087 and 34092 ) there wasn't much difference. When MG42 blotches were added to leading and trailing edges it looked darker because the OD had faded.
 I know they had a distinctive wavy division on camouflaged planes. In your photo you can also see the step on the bottom of the anti-glare, other manufacturer's were straight.                 Thanks   Nick

Good evening, Nick!     To the best of my limited knowledge, and, in the few limited documents remaining that I have checked, I could not find any confirming information for the use of MD42.  Backing into the information, however, of the 30 different colors used, OD41 seems to have been the standard at FO WR. I do have one other piece of evidence to check, but won't get to it until next week.  The last camouflaged A/C (ship #3844, KD-3190).  The first Master Change Ship to be completed as a "clean skin" was KD-3201, completed 12FE44.  95% of the paints used were supplied by an outside, single-sourced supplier to maintain consistency within color batches. You are correct about "follow-up" touch up work, which, for various reasons, was not always a good match.  Also of note, the "front fuselage" section ,when mated to the "center wing" in the assembly process already had the painted "anti-glare panel: in place on the clean-skins.  Next the "notched (stepped) anti-glare panel" was a signature design at FO WR while the other four facilities used the "straight edge," but not necessarily of the same length. Also the under-carriage of the A/C did have the characteristic "wavey paint line of demarcation."  In the first attached photo, one can clearly see the "anti-glare panel" already on the "front fuselage" sub-assembly which has just been attached to the "center wing" from stations 1 thru 7.  Also clearly visible are sub-component parts "riding along on the A/C" to be installed later."  This is a great picture to demonstrate the Ford moving assembly line.       Best Regards!  Steven

Attached Image(s)

Steven,

When I was Prez of the 99th BG reunion in St. Louis many years ago, I dedicated the reunion to the ground crews who kept us flying, they really were the unsung heros of the AAC. Especially in the 15th AF, replacement parts and planes were going to the UK, our guys had to make do with what they had.

Jim,

I don't recall whether the deicer boots were removed from our planes, but they definately were inoperative. I believe that the deicer fluid was ethyelene glycol, which I was told was explosive.

Jules,  I am a 110% supported of maintenance folks and the ground crews as my earlier post had mentioned.  They are "unsung heroes!"

Jim and Ken,  At FO WR the generic specs for anti-icing fluid was basically as follows for the B-24J:  It consisitsof 85% Isopropyl-alcohol and 15% glycerine The fluid is piped from 1000 gallon external tanks to the "gashouse" (final stop for the A/C prior to exiting assembly). It is distibuted by slinger rings to leading edges or "de-icer boots." The 22 gallon tank is located in the bomb bay area of the ship.  The approximate weight is 208 to 210 lbs.   Steven