B-24...."the flying coffin"?

[whitehall]

Laura Hillenbrand's meticulously researched book "Unbroken" is the story of an American former Olympic runner Louie Zamparini's capture by the Japanese in WW2 and his endurance but it also gives insight to the relatively ignored bomber campaign in the Pacific. Most air crews longed for duty in the B-17 "Flying Fortress", a sleek, nimble fiercely armed and reliable war horse but many ended up in what they called the "flying coffin" B-24 "Consolidated Liberator" dubbed the "constipated lumberer. The blunt nosed B-24 was plagued with problems like leaky fuel lines and fuel gauges that suddenly showed empty at the most inopportune moments. The landing gear had no steering and it was almost comical to see a runway full of planes dodging one another on the ground as they tried to line up for takeoff. The conformation of the plane made it nearly impossible to ditch in the water with the bomb bay doors sticking out. The plane required a lot of strength to fly by pilots and it was described as "sitting on your front porch and flying your house". Yet when Zamporini's B-24 was shot up on a mission with no less than 596 holes the pilot managed to nurse it for five hours back to the base.

 

[Roadrunner]

Laura Hillenbrand's meticulously researched book "Unbroken" is the story of an American former Olympic runner Louie Zamparini's capture by the Japanese in WW2 and his endurance but it also gives insight to the relatively ignored bomber campaign in the Pacific. Most air crews longed for duty in the B-17 "Flying Fortress", a sleek, nimble fiercely armed and reliable war horse but many ended up in what they called the "flying coffin" B-24 "Consolidated Liberator" dubbed the "constipated lumberer. The blunt nosed B-24 was plagued with problems like leaky fuel lines and fuel gauges that suddenly showed empty at the most inopportune moments. The landing gear had no steering and it was almost comical to see a runway full of planes dodging one another on the ground as they tried to line up for takeoff. The conformation of the plane made it nearly impossible to ditch in the water with the bomb bay doors sticking out. The plane required a lot of strength to fly by pilots and it was described as "sitting on your front porch and flying your house". Yet when Zamporini's B-24 was shot up on a mission with no less than 596 holes the pilot managed to nurse it for five hours back to the base.

I'd say the guys in flying coffins were the Ju-87 pilots sent over London in a fuckin' dive bomber.

 

[gipper]

I enjoyed reading the book. Zamparini was one tough dude.

Sadly the futility of war and the terrible suffering incurred by all, but the elites, should clearly inform the people that war should be avoided at all costs. Allowing the elites to take us to war repeatedly, proves how gullible the people are. I fear the people will never learn that war is the health of the STATE!!!

WWIII may be just around the corner.

 

[williepete]

You go to war with what you've got. My father-in-law was in a B-24 outfit in Italy. (451st BG). I go to his bomber group reunions and talk to the surviving crewmen. They have very little bad to say about the aircraft--mostly funny anecdotes like if you use the forward relief tube, you need to warn the tail gunner first so he can rotate his turret 90 degrees. Otherwise, the golden flow runs down the belly of the aircraft and up washes into the turret from the tail's up wash.

They had a terrible reputation for breaking apart when ditching. In some situations, they were hard to bail out of depending on which crew position you manned. The flight engineer who manned the top turret and the waist gunners faired best. The guys in the nose faired worse. I met a guy who was blown out of the nose of his B-24. Had the aircraft not had its nose shredded open, he probably wouldn't have gotten out alive.

The Davis wing wasn't used after the B-24 that I know of. It was chosen against the advice of some of the Consolidated engineers but Cal Tech proved the low speed drag numbers were excellent. Unfortunately, the high speed drag numbers were horrible. Great for takeoffs and landings but when you need long range, not so much.

The young men who took the B-24 to war were fresh out of pilot training. Their bomber was almost the only aircraft they were familiar with outside of trainers. When I ask them what they thought of it, they all shrug and say, "That's all we knew. Didn't have much to compare it to."

 

[whitehall]

As I said Ms Hillenbrand is a nit picking researcher. Her research indicates that there were 52,651 stateside accidents involving the AAF during the war killing about 15,000 personnel. That's 33 accidents and nine men killed per day of the war in non combat accidents. In August 1943, 590 Airmen would die in stateside plane crashes. The problem was that the federal government controlled the production, manufacture and inspection of B-24's. Everybody was in effect a federal employee and the "war effort" was the primary goal. Lives were cheap and nobody dared complain about shoddy design and faulty equipment. The media was absorbed into the "war effort" and any reporter who suggested that shoddy equipment might have been the cause of accidents would have been subject to arrest for treason.

 

[williepete]

^^^^
At the last bomb group reunion we went to last year, one of the speakers was a maintenance sergeant. During training, he lost an entire crew on a B-17 because not just one new engine was bad but all four. It still causes him grief because he was the crew chief on that plane. He broke down during the presentation telling the story. Being war time, there were no repercussions or investigation--just get another plane and crew in the air. Because of the crash, he became fanatical about inspecting the engines and making sure HIS airplanes were fit and safe for HIS crews. He ended up in a B-24 bomb group and became a maintenance supervisor. It took such fanatical dedication to take what they were given from the factories and make them work. Every air crewman who spoke, added their appreciation to the ground crews.

 

[Sunni Man]

Years ago I read an account written by a WWII allied airman.

He stated that sometimes a B-24 would take a few hits from enemy fighter or flak that would seem to be inconsequential. And yet would suddenly turn belly up and head straight for the ground.

Something that you didn't see happen to B-17's which were known for their ability take a severe pounding and still keep flying. .......

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Years ago I read an account written by a WWII allied airman.

He stated that sometimes a B-24 would take a few hits from enemy fighter or flak that would seem to be inconsequential. And yet would suddenly turn belly up and head straight for the ground.

Something that you didn't see happen to B-17's which were known for their ability take a severe pounding and still keep flying. .......

Should make planes out of the same stuff they make children's stuffed animals since those seem to survive crashes mostly intact

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Apologies to the writers of "Red Dwarf" who I just totally ripped off.

 

[whitehall]

Apparently most of the book "unbroken" was gleaned from interviews with Louie Zamparino. It's remarkable that Zamparino survived a tour in B-24's and a crash and imprisonment by the Japanese. According to Zamparino his crew was ordered to search for a downed B-24 but they had lost their plane on a mission. The C.O. ordered them to board a B-24 that was so notorious for it's problems that it was cannibalized for parts. Sure enough it crashed.

 

[jwoodie]

My Dad, a B-17 pilot, used to say that the B-24 was the wrapper that the B-17 came in.

 

[whitehall]

My Dad, a B-17 pilot, used to say that the B-24 was the wrapper that the B-17 came in.

That's good stuff. I wonder if anyone ever did a statistical comparison between B-24 accidents and B-17. It seems the Pacific war got the short end of the stick in both the ground and the air war.

 

[Syriusly]

My Dad, a B-17 pilot, used to say that the B-24 was the wrapper that the B-17 came in.

That's good stuff. I wonder if anyone ever did a statistical comparison between B-24 accidents and B-17. It seems the Pacific war got the short end of the stick in both the ground and the air war.

As I recall- and this is just from memory- the B-24 had a couple of advantages over the B-17:
longer range, bigger bomb load.

In the Pacific range was a big issue.

Often compared with the better-known Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, the B-24 was a more modern design with a higher top speed, greater range, and a heavier bomb load; it was also more difficult to fly, with heavy control forces and poor formation-flying characteristics. Popular opinion among aircrews and general staffs tended to favor the B-17's rugged qualities above all other considerations in the European Theater

 

[whitehall]

My Dad, a B-17 pilot, used to say that the B-24 was the wrapper that the B-17 came in.

That's good stuff. I wonder if anyone ever did a statistical comparison between B-24 accidents and B-17. It seems the Pacific war got the short end of the stick in both the ground and the air war.

As I recall- and this is just from memory- the B-24 had a couple of advantages over the B-17:
longer range, bigger bomb load.

In the Pacific range was a big issue.

Often compared with the better-known Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, the B-24 was a more modern design with a higher top speed, greater range, and a heavier bomb load; it was also more difficult to fly, with heavy control forces and poor formation-flying characteristics. Popular opinion among aircrews and general staffs tended to favor the B-17's rugged qualities above all other considerations in the European Theater

That's the point. The people who were in charge of the design and development of the B-24 sacrificed the safety of the crew for a bigger bomb load and longer range. The interior of the B-24 was so cramped that only a 9 inch wide beam allowed movement from front to rear. The only exit was in the rear of the plane and it was impossible to travel from front to rear while wearing a parachute. The wings were weak and the slab side made an easy target. The B-24 was made by different contractors so parts didn't quite fit in every model and the top speed was overrated depending on which engine was fitted.

 

[Syriusly]

My Dad, a B-17 pilot, used to say that the B-24 was the wrapper that the B-17 came in.

That's good stuff. I wonder if anyone ever did a statistical comparison between B-24 accidents and B-17. It seems the Pacific war got the short end of the stick in both the ground and the air war.

As I recall- and this is just from memory- the B-24 had a couple of advantages over the B-17:
longer range, bigger bomb load.

In the Pacific range was a big issue.

Often compared with the better-known Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, the B-24 was a more modern design with a higher top speed, greater range, and a heavier bomb load; it was also more difficult to fly, with heavy control forces and poor formation-flying characteristics. Popular opinion among aircrews and general staffs tended to favor the B-17's rugged qualities above all other considerations in the European Theater

That's the point. The people who were in charge of the design and development of the B-24 sacrificed the safety of the crew for a bigger bomb load and longer range. The interior of the B-24 was so cramped that only a 9 inch wide beam allowed movement from front to rear. The only exit was in the rear of the plane and it was impossible to travel from front to rear while wearing a parachute. The wings were weak and the slab side made an easy target. The B-24 was made by different contractors so parts didn't quite fit in every model and the top speed was overrated depending on which engine was fitted.

I really have no strong opinion on the B-24- I spoke with one former crewman who was a docent at an air museum- actually had a B-17 on display- but he had nothing bad to say about his experiences on the B-24- though he was a gunner, not a pilot.

I know that there is one B-24 still flying- it tours around the United States.

 

[williepete]

Here's a training film which taught the aircrews various techniques for bringing home a battle damaged B-24. I thought the drag chute idea was very creative: