Author Topic: The B-24 Goes to War  (Read 2710 times)

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
The B-24 Goes to War
« on: December 29, 2013, 09:23:00 AM »
 :airplane: I have always in joyed reading about the different aircraft in WW2, how they were developed and how they did during the war. The b-24 was the most produced bomber by the United States during the war as 18,456 were built with the Ford motor company producing 70% of all produced! Many famous people flew the B-24 and later became famous as movie stars or stock car racing company owner. Jimmie Stewart, Clarke Gable, Sen. Geo McGovern, and "Smokey" Yunick were some of those people. Maybe you know some others. We have one player in this game who flew the 24 for the Collings foundation and also the B-17, his call sign is Columbo. :salute
A restored B-24, not sure if owned by the Collins group!
This is an early model, not sure the variant ID.
The B-24, sometimes called the "Pregnant Cow" was the first American bomber to bomb the European continent. During 1942, as a follow up to the Jimmie Doolittle raid on Japan with B-25's, taking off from an aircraft carrier, high command decided to bomb Japan from Chekiang, China.
A new Air Force, the 10th was formed and headed by "Harry" hurry up Halverson, in June of 1942 and was based at what is now called Wright-Patterson AFB. The plan was to fly the 24's, all 12 of them, to South America, then to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, then to Chekiang. But while the 24's were en route, the Japanese captured Chekiang and they were rerouted to a RAF field at Fayid, Egypt.
One of their first missions was the first raid on the Ploesti oil fields in Romania, which the Allies knew they had to cut off the German Oil supply as quickly as possible. It was decided, since it was a no return trip there and back to land at other bases in the mid East, refuel and then RTB. Takeoff would be at 10:30PM, as day time temps were to high for safe takeoffs during daylight hours. The route of the flight for those 12 crews was across the Mediterranean Sea, through the mountains of Turkey and rejoin 50 miles from the target to attack together. Of the 12 aircraft which hit the target, 4 had to make a forced landing in Turkey and was interned, but later escaped and returned to North Africa, 2 landed in Syria, and 6 landed at Bagdad international airport in Iraq, which was the RTB for all the bombers.
The 10th AF was later absorbed into the 9th Air Force and finished out the war in that command. Many missions were flown against African targets, hitting supply depots which were delivering supplies to the German desert Rat, Rommel, at Tobruk and Tunisia. The B-24 flew more missions against European Targets than any other bomber in the U.S. Air Force.
On this dangerous mission to Romania oil fields, not one crewman was injured or killed, even though they had no fighter escorts, as none were available at that time for the long flight.
Taxiing out for takeoff that morning, the aircraft commanders already knew they were pushing the safety margin to maximum for takeoff as they weighted an estimated weight after taxi, 63,138 lbs, which would require a takeoff roll of 7,245 feet, with only 7500 feet of runway and a 500 foot overrun to work with. As they taxied into position for takeoff, the copilot, Jasper C. Davis,, deceased now, and past President of Davis Industries of Thomasville, Ga., called out the check list:
Intercooler doors- open
Bomb bay doors closed, safeties- on
Deice boots- off
Fuel Mixtures- auto rich
Turbo controls- on
Fuel boost pumps- on
Flaps extended 20 degrees- set
Hyd Pressure- 120PSI- ok
Cowl flaps open 1/3, -checked (note, if cowl flaps open 100%, tail buffeting started at 110 knots)
The B-24 had a "Laminar flow" type of wing and was actually the first of its type, later to make famous on the P-51 Mustang.
  The headquarters of the B-24.
There are many stories about this great aircraft, which you can read about missions of the 15th Air Force over Italy and they give you a great insight into the daily lives of the crew members who flew and fought in this aircraft.
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2013, 10:52:25 AM »
 :salute

The B24 holds a special place in my heart, it has my entire life.  As a little boy I listened to my g'pa tell stories of flying the B24 (and B17, and others).  As with most people in similar situations I wish now I would have asked even more questions when I had the chance.  I find something new in his flight logs every time I read them.

*points to sig line*
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2013, 11:14:04 AM »
The B-24 had a "Davis" wing.  It is always referred to as "efficient".  But from the first hand accounts I have read from pilots, this always translates into poorer low speed performance.  One of the examples of this is "Getting on step".  This term meant climbing above the altitude desired for cruising, then diving back down to that altitude.  Otherwise, the aircraft would fly with a nose high angle of attack as it tried to acquire cruising speed.

The B-24 was developed from a flying boat.  A side by side comparison of the B-24 and the flying boat (I have forgotten which model) showed what a similar fuselage profile they had. 

The nose section of the B-24 was quite cramped.  A hybrid B-24 was actually built with a B-17 nose.  Reportedly the flying characteristics of it were horrible.

Jack Palance, famous for his role as the tough trail guide from City Slickers, was burned extremely bad bailing out of a B-24 that caught fire while he was undergoing flight training.
Mr. Wizard also flew B-24s.
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2013, 05:04:54 PM »
The B-24 had a "Davis" wing.  It is always referred to as "efficient".  But from the first hand accounts I have read from pilots, this always translates into poorer low speed performance.  One of the examples of this is "Getting on step".  This term meant climbing above the altitude desired for cruising, then diving back down to that altitude.  Otherwise, the aircraft would fly with a nose high angle of attack as it tried to acquire cruising speed.

The B-24 was developed from a flying boat.  A side by side comparison of the B-24 and the flying boat (I have forgotten which model) showed what a similar fuselage profile they had. 

The nose section of the B-24 was quite cramped.  A hybrid B-24 was actually built with a B-17 nose.  Reportedly the flying characteristics of it were horrible.

Jack Palance, famous for his role as the tough trail guide from City Slickers, was burned extremely bad bailing out of a B-24 that caught fire while he was undergoing flight training.
Mr. Wizard also flew B-24s.

G'pa actually mentioned that unless the bomber was flying at higher speeds it was not easy to control. That and it took awhile for those higher speeds to be reached.  Perhaps he was relating to the "getting on step" tactic.

Actually, he usually followed up any comments on how the B24 handled with a "the B17 was much easier/nicer to fly".

Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2013, 10:46:38 PM »
The B-24 had a "Davis" wing.  It is always referred to as "efficient".  But from the first hand accounts I have read from pilots, this always translates into poorer low speed performance.  One of the examples of this is "Getting on step".  This term meant climbing above the altitude desired for cruising, then diving back down to that altitude.  Otherwise, the aircraft would fly with a nose high angle of attack as it tried to acquire cruising speed.

The B-24 with those big fowler flaps can fly as slow as the B-17 if needed BUT it isn't nearly as forgiving as the B-17 if you do stall the airplane.  B-17 is pretty normal in the stall, B-24 has a nasty aileron buffet/snatch that is reported to be rather violent.  (I did stalls in the B-17 but only did approach to stall in the B-24 -- momma didn't raise no fool)  Both airplanes stall down around 85ish IAS.  B-24 is also slower to accelerate.  Did a 3 engine missed approach when working up for the check ride, missed initiated at DH of 200' AGL and we flew the length of the 7000' runway before we started to climb.   B-24 is the only airplane I've flown that recommends extending flaps in case of an engine loss, pilot handbook suggests "5-9 degrees" of flap.

While the physics majors will tell you that "getting on step" is a myth I do know that doing as Dave posted and climbing slightly above intended altitude then using a dive to build speed seemed to be the easiest way to get the airplane into cruise mode.  Once in cruise flight if you get heavy handed in pitch you can bleed off 5-10 knots pretty easily and won't get it back without adding power,  or diving a bit, can make it a challenge when flying formation.
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2013, 08:29:58 AM »
The simple explanation is that there are two main types of drag, induced and parasitic. Induced is a by-product of lift creation. As airspeed increases, angle of attack decreases and as does induced drag. Parasitic drag is caused by all the rivets, wheels, struts, etc on the aircraft. This drag increases as airspeed increases. If you take these two types of drag and add them together, you'll find there is a point where there is the least amount of drag. Go faster and you have more drag, go slower and you have more drag.

To maintain a constant airspeed and altitude, the engines really does nothing more than fight against drag. When speed drops below that magical speed of least drag, your angle of attack increases to maintain altitude, and thus to maintain airspeed with the increasing drag, you must increase power. This idea is called being behind the power curve. So if the B-24 is cruising at or close to its speed of least amount of drag (which is typical) and lose speed for any reason, it will struggle to regain that speed without adding power because total drag has increased.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 08:33:19 AM by GScholz »
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2013, 10:42:22 AM »
The simple explanation is…….

"Behind the power curve" is also known as region of reverse command…that mode of flight where you need more power to fly slower. -- Not really what I was referring to in my comment about the B-24.

All airplanes are subject to drag as your post pointed out, but for the airplanes I've flown the B-24 seems to be affected to a greater degree by increases in induced drag.
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline wpeters

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2013, 11:12:23 AM »
Great post ET.  I think I would have rather flown in a B-17 or B-29s.  The 24 was not as we'll protected as the 17 and I think it suffered because of that
LtCondor
          The Damned
Fighter pilots are either high, or in the process of getting high.🙊
The difference between Dweebs and non dweebs... Dweebs have kills

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2013, 12:26:21 PM »
Great post ET.  I think I would have rather flown in a B-17 or B-29s.  The 24 was not as we'll protected as the 17 and I think it suffered because of that

huh?
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2013, 12:39:09 PM »
"Behind the power curve" is also known as region of reverse command…that mode of flight where you need more power to fly slower. -- Not really what I was referring to in my comment about the B-24.

All airplanes are subject to drag as your post pointed out, but for the airplanes I've flown the B-24 seems to be affected to a greater degree by increases in induced drag.

That's common with laminar flow wing designs. They're less effective at higher AoA, but create the same drag. I.e. you'll need more AoA to create the same lift, but incur a bigger drag penalty by doing so. The B-24 would then have a steeper drag curve below the minimum drag speed, and shallower curve above it.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2013, 05:01:54 PM »
That's common with laminar flow wing designs. They're less effective at higher AoA, but create the same drag. I.e. you'll need more AoA to create the same lift, but incur a bigger drag penalty by doing so. The B-24 would then have a steeper drag curve below the minimum drag speed, and shallower curve above it.
:airplane: Not having flown either one of the aircraft in this discussion, 17 and 24, if the wing was so ineffective on the 24, why did it out climb the 17 with same bomb and fuel load? I fly both in this game and if I want to get to altitude faster, I take a 24, if time is no consideration, I take a 17 because of the more effective guns. Maybe its just the modeling.
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2013, 05:20:36 PM »
B-17 has more drag? Would be my guess.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2013, 12:08:32 AM »
:airplane: Not having flown either one of the aircraft in this discussion, 17 and 24, if the wing was so ineffective on the 24, why did it out climb the 17 with same bomb and fuel load? I fly both in this game and if I want to get to altitude faster, I take a 24, if time is no consideration, I take a 17 because of the more effective guns. Maybe its just the modeling.

how are you getting same bomb and fuel load? in b17 and b24?

quick look in game:

b17 with 6000lbs of bombs and 100% fuel (2.5 hrs) = 64854 lbs  
b24 with 6000lbs of bombs and 100% fuel (2.1 hrs) = 63026 lbs
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 12:10:41 AM by kvuo75 »
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2013, 01:50:50 AM »
:airplane: Not having flown either one of the aircraft in this discussion, 17 and 24, if the wing was so ineffective on the 24, why did it out climb the 17 with same bomb and fuel load? I fly both in this game and if I want to get to altitude faster, I take a 24, if time is no consideration, I take a 17 because of the more effective guns. Maybe its just the modeling.

You're dead-on regarding the advantage of the Davis wing design, Earl.  :salute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_wing

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: The B-24 Goes to War
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2013, 09:05:34 AM »


At low AoA a laminar flow wing profile has a better lift/drag ratio than a more conventional WWII wing profile, like that on the La7. This is because of the "brag bucket" effect of the laminar flow wing. However as AoA increases the laminar flow wing quickly starts to fall short of a more conventional wing.




If the B-24 is able to climb while keeping the AoA within the wing's "drag bucket" it will climb more efficient than with a conventional wing. However the margins are tight; if the pilot lose too much speed and have to increase AoA to keep altitude the laminar flow wing will lose effectiveness abruptly.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."