B-24 versus B-17

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.

Jim these are diagrams of the de-icer system as it appeared on the B-24D.

Ken

[image]local://upfiles/9698/2B4C072FFC2147C2B18A4BA5FA94D468.gif[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/9698/A1DEF2433F1D4A329A1F98D3F10E7AD0.gif[/image]

Attached Image(s)

did WR ever use Medium Green 42 ( or the equivalent ANA 612 Medium Green) for their B-24 anti-glare panels ?

Nick:

My father remembers most of the anti-glare panels on the natural metal Liberators he flew as being black. Including the WR planes.

The only ones that he could recall that weren't, were Hs that were still in OD or had their OD stripped leaving only an anti-glare section in front of the cockpit.

Ken

Ken, There may have been flat black on the "anti-glare panel" of some of the FO WR Libs, but the basic color was OD on "clean skins."  I have seen, however, A/C's with the flat black in photos, one of the most famous for us here in Michigan being the B-24J-CO, 44-40429, 5 AAF, 43 BG, 64 BS with the Nose Art: Michigan.  Your father's memory is correct about the H's.  I need to do some more follow-up on the "flat black" at FO WR.  
Also, from where did you take the de-icer schematic for the B-24D which would be the same for the "E?" I would like the source, even though it might be in the stack of books I already have, but can't recall seeing it!  Thanks!   Steven

Steven---Ken  many thanks for your replies. OD41 / ANA 613 was specified for unpainted deliveries to the RAF. It seems that as the OD weathered (especially the earlier mixes) some anti-glare panels were re-painted matt black.
It's interesting that WR mostly used a single-source paint supplier ; as olive drab was a mix of 4 pigments ( blue-orange-green-yellow ) , different sources would and did result in different shades of colour.
OD41 was quite close to RAF Dark Green and could be used as a substitute.     Regards  Nick

Hi Nick and all..
I posted a few examples of recently recovered fragments of 42-341255 Liberty Belle, and they show how that OD paint could have slight variations on its appearance. Again due to weathering, and also due to useage of perhaps British Air Ministry supplied paint, which had a slight difference to its American counter part used on aircraft arriving in the ETO.
Just thought I'd mention it if anyone wanted to see what the stuff actually looked like!!
Regards Ian W

  42-31255 Miss Liberty Belle and her rediscovery 63 years on
 
A scan of three examples of B-17 fraghments which are covered in OD paint.
Ian W

from where did you take the de-icer schematic for the B-24D which would be the same for the "E?"

Steven:

The diagram was from the book: "AD LIB, Flying the B-24 Liberator in WWII" by William Carigan

There was no rhyme or reason why it was in the book. It was next to a poor cutaway of a B-24D or PB4Y showing an early radar unit. I think it was thrown in to the book as filler, since the text isn't very long.

Ken

Ken,  Thanks for the info on the book!   I've found the last several posts  on OD paint and the "anti-glare panels" interesting.  We both have our preference to the B-24, as Site members know, but there is so much to learn about both A/C's, the Lib and the Fort, held together by the common thread of the Vets.  I've always wondered about  the "anti-glare panels" on refreshed Libs and the mis-match of tints within the same spectrum of colors.  These posts have helped.  Best Regards!    Steven

Here is a photo of the tail of Pappy Yokum from the 483rd/99th BG.  This was take from some color movie film taken by the plane's pilot, Lt. Nivens shortly before the plane went from the 483rd to the 99th.  It really shows the color variations of some of the parts from the suppliers to the Boeing plant. 
 
The horizontal and vertical tail sections, the waste gun enclosures and the cheak gun framing all look like they had the same shade of "olive drab", which was darker and greener that that Boeing sprayed on the rest of the plane.
 
Marty

[image]local://upfiles/5199/2AA2AA4C29F04BD7BC521970D165DC1F.jpg[/image]

Attached Image(s)

Marty   that's a most interesting picture; the basic  paintwork has faded so it shows up the fresh OD. The intriguing bits are the vertical tail and rudder; the centre fin was usually painted medium green by the sub-contractors and showed up darker ( the attached is PY--O of the 92BG). On your photo the background to the serial looks like faded olive drab and the whole section and rudder has been re-painted ( same with the tailplane unless it's a replacement.). Normally the fabric surfaces became much lighter.
It also confirms how dark the neutral grey was; NG43 (later ANA 603 Sea Grey) was a match for RAF Ocean Grey and Fleet Air Arm Dark Sea Grey ---both UPPER surface colours.
 
Maybe your Fort has had the old 483rd markings painted out ready for the 99th's. diamond and squadron symbols. Often photos show the new markings were just put over the old. There seemed to be a lot of transfers in the Fifteenth.                Thanks   Nick

Attached Image(s)

Nick and Marty...Dick Drain says this in his Introduction to the 5th Wing Hsitory of Aircraft Assigned :

The  5th Wing was assigned to the 12th AF and assumed operational control of the 97th and 301st BGS on 14 January 1943. four more B-17 Groups followed, and were assigned to the 5th Wing. The 97th and 301st Bomb Groups had deployed from bases in England to support Operation Torch, the invasion by Allied Forces of N. Africa. Although the 97th had deployed from the U.S. with B-17E models, they traded them for B-17F models prior to flying to N. Africa. The 99th Bomb Group deployed from the U.S. and was assigned to the Wing in February 1943. They flew their first mission on 31 March. The 2nd Bomb Group arrived from the U.S. in April 1943 and flew thier first mission on 28 April. Both of these groups were equipped with the B-17F. No B-17E flew any combat with any of the groups assigned to the 5th Wing.

(A note here..there were 8-9 B-17Es, from India,  that flew as one squadron of the 376th BG, (B-24)
until the aircraft were worn out, and then most of the detachment returned to India and the remaining personnel were assigned permanently to the 376th BG (B-24). )

To continue, The 15th AAF was activated on 1 November 1943,and the 5th Wing was assigned to it.
Added... (along with two B-24 BGs, the 98th and 376th).

On 14 November 1943, the 97th and 301st traded all thier B-17Fs without tokio tanks to the 2nd and 99th BGs, for B-17F aircraft equipped with the tokio tanks. In December 1943 all four B-17 BGS moved to new bases in the vicinity of Foggia Italy. In March 1944, the 463rd BG arrived from the U.S., and was assigned to the 5th Wing. This was followed by the deployment of the 483rd BG, in April 1944. The 5th Wing now had six groups of B-17s under it's operational control. On 28 March 1944, the 2nd BG transferred all it's B-17Fs to the other BGs for the B-17G models. The 2nd BG was the first group to be equipped with this model.  The 483rd flew B-17G aircraft overseas, and flew combat familiarization missions with the 99th BG until their base at Sterperone was completed. . Most of their planes were transferred to the 99th in exchange for B-17Fs. A few were transfeered to the 2nd BG. Over 1500 B-17s were assigned to the 5th Wing during ht ewar. Of these 644 were operationsl losses.

In addition, several of the 8th AF B-17s, damaged at Poltova, Russia, during the 8th AAF Shuttle Runs,
were repaired and transfered to the 15th AAF and the 5th Wing.

Jim :-)

Nick,
The photo I posted was taken while the plane was still in the 483rd, shortly after it had been flown by its original crew to Italy.  It was not an older plane that had been sitting under the Italian sun for many months.  This was a virtually brand-new plane, just delivered from the factory a month or so earlier and assigned to the 483rd as one of the group's original planes in January of 1944.  In January and February the plane was based at MacDill Field in Florida.
In March the group moved to Italy, and at the end of the month the plane was re-assigned to the 99th.  The colors on the plane are what was on the plane as delivered.
Marty

It's interesting that WR mostly used a single-source paint supplier ; as olive drab was a mix of 4 pigments ( blue-orange-green-yellow ) , different sources would and did result in different shades of colour.
OD41 was quite close to RAF Dark Green and could be used as a substitute.

ORIGINAL: buckeyeuk


Nick,     I shall address this to your post,  although there is a recent long list of "posters" who should be included.  Let me start a response to the above mentioned quote by citing a fact that we all know (manufacturing side).  Paint adds weight!  At FO WR, camouflage added approximately 90-125 lbs per A/C which roughly equated to 8-12 mph additional drag to a camouflaged A/C as opposed to a "clean skin."  These are "on average" figures.  Once you have a "clean skin" A/C, the additional weight due to insignia, signs, warnings, "anti-glare panels,"  etc.  is difficult to calculate, although it is minimal compared to total camo.   (I am sure that this was comparable at Boeing from what I've read  in the posts and seen in the photos.)  FO WR had a "single source" paint supplier, as previously mentioned, which would make matching camo very difficult regardless of being a 24, 17, or RAF variant, as Nick mentioned.  The paint used on: "refreshed" war-wearies, camo's to "clean skins,"  (leaving "anti-glare panels" intact),  MOD centers (?), touch ups, replacement parts matching paint (Marty's #109 post and photo is a good example) are a few of the many "stories."  Although the mixing of pigments to get a desired effect is a science, I do not believe this was "all that important after the fact" in the war zones.  I have observed a lot of disperity in pictures, and can only speak for FO WR manufacturing/assembly processes, which, in general, seem to have conformed to both AAF and FO standards for their Libs.  I believe that the other Lib Facilities for the Libs, and Boeing had the same processes and standards for their Forts.  What is interesting is that, regardless, whatever brought  the "boys home was the best!"     Steven

Marty, Nick:

Could this be the OD & Spinach with the spinach gone wild?

A'la Memphis Belle etc. The spray is very soft around the edges at the horiz. stab. root and around the serial no. It looks like the waist gun is a retro fit of the three-panel enclosed window. It looks like blotches on the upper fuselage around the upper turret and radio dorsal window Upper forward fuselage.

I know a lot of cheek guns were retro fit at the depot.

Ken

Jim:

A question: I know the Tokyo tanks when used on the B-24 were mounted in the forward bomb bay. How/where did they go in the B-17?

I don't have any reference for that configuration in the B-17.

Ken

Ken...The tokio tanks were installed in the outer wing panels...there were two sets...one was composed of 5 self sealing tanks that supplied the outboard engines, and a set of 4 which supplied the inbd engines...the difference being the gradual thinness of the wing as the wing tip was approached.
Each set gave an additional 270 gals for a total of another 1080...bringing the total fuel to 2780 gals.
 
They were gravity controlled by a hydraulic valve  so that when the lever was actuated, the hydraulic pressure opened the valve....the control valves were located on either the aft end of the bombbay on the left side, at the fwd end of the radio room, or just inside the radio room.
 
The instructions were to wait until the main tanks (425 gals each) were down to approximatley 100 gals before transferring the fuel from the tokio tanks to prevent overflow and siphoning of the tank.
 
The inbd main tanks were slow to fill, as they were split into two tanks..due to positioning, to give space for the landing gear...there was a 1 " line connecting the two inbd main tanks, and the indication that the inbd mains was receiving the fuel had to wait for the 1 " line to transfer enough fuel for the cockpit indicator to register. (The tokio tanks fed into the Feeder tank)
 
The cockpit fuel quantity indicator was on the copilot's panel, and had six positions....N0 1, No 2 Feeder, No 2 main , No 3 Main, No 3 Feeder and No 4 main.  There was no fuel incicator for the tokio tanks.
 
Jim :-)
 
Jim :-)

Ken,
Auxiliary fuel tanks could also be mounted in the left and right had sections of the B-17 bom bay giving the aircraft a greater range with out a bomb load.

Bill...According to my -2 Tech Order, they were 410 gal tanks, and I would guess that the same tank was used in the B-24s.
 
When we ferried the new B-17 to Italy, we carried one bomb bay tank on the left side and the other was filled with K-Rations...also there was a mechanics tool box with special tools ; when I asked about the mechanics tool box, I was told that the special tools wore out, and this was one way of replacing them.
(We were told we could open ONE box of K-Rations for our crew's consumption, but ONLY ONE).
 
When we were routed througn Valley Wales, we still had the bomb bay tank and K-Rations to take on to Italy.
 
Jim :-)

Thanks for the info, Jim.  I did not know their capacity.  We did not carry  auxiliary tanks on our crossing.
 
 
 

Bill, the longest flight we made on the ferry trip was 10 hours and 10 minutes..Valley to Marackech.
 
(As the engineer, it was one of my jobs to record the exact hour and minutes of each flight).
 
Jim :-)