Talk:Consolidated B-24 Liberator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

40-702

This plane's existence as the YB-24 has wrongly been deleted in the Variants section with only the six RAF TRANSPORTS remaining. The correct image for the YB-24 is still not at the article. 40-702 can be found at pic 3 , B24bestweb.com . The imaged of an early B-24D remains misidentifed as a YB-24 at the article which reverted several edits , even in the face of explicted citations and explanations here at Talk.

C-87

ref: Blue, A ; The B-24 Liberator ( bib. previously supplied) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.70.52 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC) No amount of personal attacks will change the fact the Fort Worth modified dozens of San Diego built FY 41 s/n B-24D into C-87 during 1942. It will not change the fact the resurrected crash airframe was 42-40355 and prototyped not the C-87 but a cargo version with a forward fuselage stretch(Pinocchio). Moreover, it does not change the correct meaning to the 1943 as that when CF began indigenous manufacture ( in lieu of conversion) of the C-87. The gross distortion of history goes beyond a lack of knowledge of the Liberator to a mindset that ignores the great need for air transportation in 1940 -1942.

more on RB/TB-24L

ref= Famous Airplanes of the World; No. 54, 1995 9; Bunrindo Co., Ltd., Japan. See page 26. RB-24L two converted (44-49630*); one of two redesignated TB-24L (*44-49646). TB-24L, 194 + 1 ex-RB-24L. The use R type prefix is unclear. I have never seen it used in the AAF to mean radar. I have seen SB (search) and , rarerly, PB for Pathfinder/BTO. need citation for artice reference to radar. 44-49630 might possibly have had radar directed tail guns ( that trial I have seen in photographs buut not as an RB-24L) An RB-24L normally indicated a second line a/c Restricted from use its primary mission role of bombing. Atricle RB-24L needs citation.

There were E series based CFC TRAINERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

B-24J final assembly

These camouflaged CONVAIR B-24J with hydraulic A-6B turrets were never built at Willow Run. Ford used Emerson electric A-15 on there B-24 thru the M series and dropped paint at H-25 when the high, twin airspeed pitots were still in use. Note those are not present in the photo. Moreover, Ford final assembly did not use a canted line. Fort Worth did but had parallel lines without pillar girders between them. By deduction, this is San Diego or a Mod center building. Caption and source are incorrect. Caption needs to be changed and reference downgraded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:A5D7:707:8BED:928E:5D51 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Davis wing design optimization

Two different contributor gave explanations of the pros and cons of the wing design and how it imparted many advantagious design qualities such as speed, range and low landing speeds (the Davis wing accomodated the Fowler flap) but hampered formation flying. It was design optimization trading off a few disadvantages for better overall performance. The request for clarification is outdated and should be removed.

deletions

Who decided and how that the TB-24L CFC TRAINER DID NOT EXISTING IN SUPPORT OF THE B-29 program? Ditto the Sperry spherical equipped B-32 gunnery trainer; and the dozen or so the imputs I made? There where NO citations requests made. Just arbitrary deletions! Those deletionss are counter to wiki protocols. Who is in charge here? The deletions are not a empirical exercise to maintain quality. The actions are those of a malicious soul on a path of rampant removal. I will not futher contribue here until this indivdual is banned. That comes down to something very simple: one disgrutled man chooses what the world may see or not see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Development

I question the claim that Rueben Fleet was offered a contract to build B-17s in 1938. At that point in history, the Army had only contracted for 13 B-17s due to cost considerations. GHQ Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Frank Andrews wanted 98 but Secretary of War Craig and Air Corps Chief Maj. Gen. Oscar Westover restricted the order to 13 and instead ordered Douglas B-18s. It wasn't until after President Roosevelt ordered an increase in aircraft production in early 1939 that additional B-17s were ordered. There was also confusion in the original regarding Project A. Any student of aviation history would know that Project A was an Air Corps requirement from the early 1930s for a long-range bomber. The B-17 was a four-engine bomber but was not built as a result of Project A - it was developed under a requirement for a medium bomber - but the B-24 was. Project A was ultimately filled with the development of the Consolidated B-36 six-engine bomber (increased to ten with the addition of four jet engines.)SamMcGowan (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A. Blue, The B-24 Liberator, pg. 12: latter 1938. Title incorrect in bibliographical footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B006:4A3F:C144:7DAC:D5C4:FDF2 (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DAB page

Why is it that i get a B-24 liberator when i search for a normal political liberator??? and how do you create new pages? CrazyLucifer 08:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What you're look for is a dictionary defintion. Also, I have fixed that problem. Liberator is now a disambiguation. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:44, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Ball turret size

It would be most helpful if the article included the diameter of the ball turret (especially the inside diameter). I can't find this information anywhere! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Was the Ball turret manned or remotely controlled? Drutt (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Ball turret it was the same model used in the B-17, so would have been manned. Drutt (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

the retractable version had a different designation I m recalling it as A-13 however this is easy to find in a search. there exists an article BALL TURRET. at B-17 TALK see in B-24 location & appox size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02D:B3B:6559:C28A:84FA:A60 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm%7Caccessdate=2006-04-22
  • In A-6 Intruder on Sat Jun 3 22:43:46 2006, 404 Not found
  • In A-6 Intruder on Tue Jun 6 23:30:02 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
  • In B-24 Liberator on Tue Jun 13 22:52:48 2006, 404 Not found

---

maru (talk) contribs 02:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

vis-a-vis B-17

I think it would be interesting to add a section to either the B-24 or -17 page comparing the two, especially as this is something that is often a subject of debate in certain circles. I think the same sort of thing should then be done for B-26 vs. 25. 64.12.116.67 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm preparing a short article comparing bombloads and ranges for the B-17, B-24, and Avro Lancaster. Edweirdo 16:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See article User:Edweirdo/Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads.--Edweirdo 17:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bomb Loads actually carried

In my readings of published combat reports in books and on the web, I searched for the maximum bombloads carried various distances by B-24's. This is what I found for B-24's flown by US Air Forces(distances are a round trip, and are straight lines "as crow flies". Actual distances flown are often greater):

Previous account of Max Bombload: 9,000lbs, B-24H, March 8, 1945, 8th Air Force, 467th Bomb Group, Rackheath to Dillenburg, 745 miles RT. Note: I no longer believe this account. This would have been an extraordinary event with the crews speculating whether their planes could get off the ground with a bombload 80% larger than the usual 4000-5000lb load. Also, it is contradicted by the mission detail reported in Roger A. Freeman's War Diary. I think the author of the account made a mistake in the number of bombs or their size.

Current Max Bombload: 8,000lbs, B-24H, November 5, 1944, 8th Airforce, 467th Bomb Group, Rackheath to Karlsruhe, 875 miles round trip.

Dresden: 6,000lbs, B-24H, January 16, 1945, 8th Airforce, 467th Bomb Group, Rackheath to Dresden, 1,175 miles RT.

Gdynia: 5,000lbs, B-24H, October 8, 1944, 8th Air Force, 467th Bomb Group, Rackheath to Gdynia (now Gdansk, Poland), 1,530 miles RT.

Ploesti: 4,000lbs, B-24D, August 1, 1943, 9th Air Force, Bengazi to Ploesti, 2,080 miles RT.

Max Distance: 2,700lbs, B-24D, August 30, 1944, 13th and 5th Air Forces, Numfoor (an island near Biak, New Guinea) to Balikpapan (Borneo), 2,480 miles RT.

The RAF (231 Group, 159 Squadron, CBI theater) under a Commander named J. Blackburn, flew lightened Mk VI B-24's out of Salbani, India carrying huge bomb loads "Consolidated B-24 Liberator", by Martin W. Bowman, Crowood Press, 1998 pp. 135-138.ISBN 1 86126143 8: Rangoon: 12,000lbs, 1,430 miles RT. Bankok: 8,000lbs, 2,135 miles RT. Penang Harbor: 4,400lbs, 2,950 miles RT. Edweirdo 16:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Davis wing's habit of flexing at high altitudes." Is this what the engineers call flutter? Flutter is different from normal flexing. --Gbleem 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The wing flexed--i.e. oscillated up and down (like a bird's). So did the B-52's.--Buckboard 09:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Flutter and flexure are two different animals. Flexure or bending is the displacement from an unloaded position. Flutter is harmonic motion in a flow field, which exacerbates said motion, often with disasterous results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

B-24: Regarding the specifications for this aircraft ( and others) For clarity, It should be noted that the B-24 cruising speed was rated at 150-160 mph at sea level, such airspeed being indicated on the instrument panel. Pilots in World War II generally used this figure whether at sea level or high altitude (if it was possible to maintain that airspeed). Each crew was supplied with the U.S. Army Air Corps TYPE E-6B AERIAL DEAD RECKONING COMPUTER, which was a hand held mechanical device where the indicated air speed was entered upon an affixed wheel which was then turned to the present altitude and outdide temperature. The resulting figure was the true air speed.The difference in indcated and true airspeed is due to altitude and outside air tempeature as explained elsewhere in Wikipedia. Categories: Aircraft instruments | Aviation stubs Article

History of B-24 Survivor 'Diamond Lil'

The original poster had stated that Diamond Lil had been a former USAAF aircraft and then another user has recently changed it to a former RAF aircraft.

In truth, the now owned and operated Confederate Air Force aircraft was indeed the 25th B-24 ever made of over 18,000 B-24s (and variants) ever built. And was the 18th of 20 LB-30s made for delivery to the United Kingdom, however, in 1941 when it was being delivered to Canada, it had an accident and was rebuilt as a Consolidated company aircraft and flew for Consolidated throughout World War II.

Eventually the aircraft was sold to the Contintental Can Company and 10 years later it was sold again to Mexico's national oil company until CAF bought it in 1967.

http://www.cafb29b24.org/lilhist.html

--Signaleer 20:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The story behind AM927 is long and convoluted - AM927 was ordered by the USAAC as a B-24A but all aircraft from this contract was assigned (by direct purchase) to the RAF as Liberator B.I - so yes technically it could be said it was a former USAAC (not USAAF aircraft) but only being the one to initiate the contract to buildDavegnz (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Failure

I'm failing the GA, because I found the entire introductory section far too short and rather disorganized. Why would one compare it to the P-51, a plane that didn't even exist yet? Surely there are other examples of quickly-designed aircraft (that's rhetorical, there are lots). The rest of the article is something of a grab bag. There's lots of good information, but I just don't think it reads well enough to be GA in its current form. Maury 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

This article is completely devoid of in-line references. There definitely need to be more to achieve GA status. I noticed that there were books listed here, so all one would need to do is page through those books and find the appropriate pages for each paragraph. Jolb 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was No consensus to merge. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Agree with merge, however we don't need all the survivors details brought over. This stuff isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Akradecki 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- My primary reason for opposing the merge is that the amount of detail in the Liberator I article would be difficult if not impossible to incorporate into the main body of the B-24 article. As well, the reason for the Liberator I article in the first place was because the main article was becoming too large- survivors is also separated from the main article. My final reason for opposing the move to merge is that the Liberator I article at present stands on its own but if it was to be merged, a great deal of "culling" would have to take place which is already the source of some contention in this forum and on the WK Aircraft discussion pages. IMHO Bzuk 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I think there should be a subection on the Liberatior I as a modification of iof the B-24. As akradecki states above, the survivor information should be stripped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - A great deal of the "culling" would be of the non-notable items, which are a majority of the entries. Some of the notable actions could be included in the text as part of the historical narrative. - BillCJ 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - I agree with what Bzuk has to say in reference to this merger. Not only does it clutter the article since it is rather lengthy, there is sufficient information to create a separate Wiki article if a person viewing the website feels that they want to investigate. There are no other encylopedias where it lists survivors both in paper or online, it is out of place and deserves it's own section. -Signaleer 07:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Bzuk and Signaleer - articles about main aircraft of WWII are lenghty and cluttered, we should clean it by creating new "subarticles". Piotr Mikołajski 09:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - if it is merged it will then be segregated out as a "list" and detailed history may be lost. This article seems to be written as a RAF version, not a US version. Modify the title with "GR" The history on each a/c is excellant. Good Referencing, needs more. Lets not disturb a gooooood article!!! -LanceBarber 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - however with the caveat that the the fine detail of the individual airframes be curtailed or summarized - at encylopedia level of detail the exact delivery date for each aircraft is no longer relevant. The article should be used as a basis for all Liberators in British service. GraemeLeggett 08:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Support - I support the merger because the Liberator I was simply a step in the evolution of the aircraft. Beyond initial development, the B-24A deserves no more, or less, detail than the B-24C, D, H, J, L or M. The history of each tail number is interesting to us Liberator fans, but seems excessive for this format.--Boomerbear89 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose For the same reason given by Piotr. I agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but I feel a merge will mean the article will get lost 194.78.167.120 09:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Deckchair 09:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to the length of time that has now transpired and the fact that the interested parties (editors) are not in agreement on the merging of the two articles, can we "agree to disagree" and consider the merge proposal now a moot point? IMHO Bzuk 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

The count is 6 opposed - 3 support, 2 to 1 ratio; it would appear that this merger is not going to happen. -Signaleer 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BQ-8?

Reading the List of military aircraft of the United States , I found at the section Controllable bomb 1942-1945 the reference to BQ-8, an B-24 Liberator variant. I cannot find any reference in this article. --Francisco Valverde 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems from that list that the B-17 Flying Fortress was also assigned code CQ-4 when used for "Target Control" (what target?), but that article also makes no mention of it. Drutt (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably aerial gunnery targets. - BillCJ (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added BQ-8 to variants, they were remote-controlled (unmanned) flying bombs. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Create new main article B-24 Liberator variants proposal

Is the main article too large? Discssion. LanceBarber 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's too long. Just my opinion. - BillCJ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the Willow Run assembly line is actuall that of B-24J-CO at CONVAIR, San Diego CA about January, 1944. Neither the configuration of the assembly line nor the planes on it match Willow Run. Willow Run never built this type B-24J, but alter version; and the final assembly line ran with the planes in-line, nose to tail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.163.60 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I believe that all the details on each variant could be better depicted (including photos/drawings of each one) in a spceific wiki-article dedicated to the sub-variants of this prolific design. The main article could just ennumerate the variants without further details, so integrity is maintained and any reader not willing to drill-down into detail couls still have an overview of which variants this aircraft had. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To better illustrate my comment, please refer to the article on the B-17 "Flying Fortress" (specifically, the one on its variants: B-17 Flying Fortress variants), as well as the category "Lists of aircraft variants" (which today includes: B-17, B-29, B-36, Hurricane & Spitfire). DPdH (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support & merge Consolidated Liberator I. The detailed info is worth keeping, & this solution avoids "clutter" in the main article, as well as the long lists of variants (P-51 & P-39 come to mind), as well as offering the opportunity to expand on the variants. Trekphiler (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest merging the Preproduction B-24 variants list too, but I'd be accused of "vandalizing" again. I still don't quite understand why we allow such detailed articles on aircraft that are individually non-notable (meaning the are no sources proving their notability, just proving they existed) - this is something that would be fine on that new site, Planespotting, but is not appropriate here. Just because someone created a page without considering what WP actually is and does is no reason to perpetuate its existance. So if creating a variants page will get rid of all the other B-24 spin-off pages, then I'm all for it. - BillCJ (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on moving them to Planespotting, so don't worry. =] Trekphiler (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

• Note: Discussion moved from Talk:Preproduction B-24.

I suggest that this article be merged back into the main B-24 article. I see no need to have an entirely seperate article on the development and design process of this aircraft when it could easily be chopped down a little and slotted into the appropriate sections in B-24 Liberator. Any objections? Tx17777 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. - BillCJ 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - "If it is merged it will then be segregated out as a "list" and detailed history may be lost. This article seems to be written as a RAF version, not a US version. Modify the title with "GR" The history on each a/c is excellant. Good Referencing, needs more. Lets not disturb a gooooood article!" ... as I said in May. LanceBarber (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur - There is good information on the history of the preproduction aircraft that deserves an article on its own. As an alternative, maybe this article could be converted to a "list", without losing the details that would not be merged into the main B-24 article. Would that be acceptable to all? Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Still think the pre-production article has to much detail on non-notable aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur - I'm assuming most of that would be eliminated during the merge process (per "chopped down a little" in the nom), esp if I do the merging. - BillCJ (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The B-24 Liberator article is long enough - need to start seperating out different sections before you start losing information - plus this discussions was settled six months ago - leave these articles aloneDavegnz (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur Agree, article was lengthy and if a viewer wants to know more indepth knowledge it should be in it's own separate article. -Signaleer (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Soviet B-24A

I have a reference that says a single B-24A served in the USSR. That doesn't seem like enough of a basis for listing that country here as a Liberator operator. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Memories of Liberator Village

I deleted a mention of a book by Maurice G. Lambert, "Memories of Liberator Village". As far as I can tell, the book has a very limited publication presence, perhaps only in the Fort Worth, TX area. I haven't read it, so I don't know what parts of it could be used here. I took the book out because it wasn't used as a reference for any kind of improvements to this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the book's own author was inserting mention of it. :/ Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Post

Robert Post (journalist) says that he was killed in a B-17 not a B-24. Which is correct? Drutt (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02D:B3B:6559:C28A:84FA:A60 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Carpetbagger

I found some discrepencies regarding the Operation Carpetbagger section. Please see http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1502 I believe there is sufficient information to create a separate article about the operation since there are over 2,300 hits on Google and enough sources to properly document it. -Signaleer (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Performance Characteristics

The performance characteristics of this A/C are conspicuously absent. Can anyone elucidate? Thanx! LorenzoB (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Inline cites

Following comments at WT:AIR I've been having a bash at ironing out some wrinkles and in the process started to add some cite tags, both to entire unreferenced paragraphs and to statements within a para, assuming in good faith that existing end-of-paragraph ref points cover the preceding info in its entirety. However, after a while of doing this I came to realise that there are great chunks of unreferenced material despite there being a very comprehensive bibliography present, and was loath to add many more tags. Hopefully those who added the information and listed their sources will sally forth and do some inline citing. Another point is that some of the lead stuff doesn't appear in the main body of text – not difficult to rectify, but it would need citing. --Red Sunset 15:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Change to intro: I switched

"Nevertheless, popular opinion among aircrews and general's staffs tended to favor the B-17's rugged qualities above all other considerations in the European Theater.[3]"

To ...

"Nevertheless, popular opinion among aircrews and general's staffs tended to favor the B-24's rugged qualities above all other considerations in the European Theater.[3]"

The way it read, I'm pretty sure the author meant to say that despite advantages the B-17 had in handling, the B-24 was preferable to the military because it was more durable that the B-17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.38.133 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to intro:

EXISTING

The Consolidated B-24 Liberator is an American heavy bomber, designed by Consolidated Aircraft of San Diego, California. It was known within the company as the Model 32, and some initial models were laid down as export models designated as various LB-30s, in the Land Bomber design category. The B-24 was used in World War II by every branch of the American armed forces.

PROPOSED:

...and some initial production was built as export versions designated as various LB-30 (Land Bombers). Each of the US Armed Services flew the Liberator and many benevolent governments acquired the Model 32 by purchase or Lend Lease.

REASON; Remove redundant and excess verbage; switch to active voice; use terminology of contemporary reports.

In several offical histories, Doolittle is named as the General officer who preferred the '17*. From a total perspect, the B-24 held advantage in those areas of concern to planners. With the same crew, it could deliver more tons on target, farther and with equal survivability within statistical margins. The truest measure of the preference is in the procurement numbers. Were the B-17 the perferred system, thepool production would have reflected the presence. * and force compositions in the brief strategic period of the12 th AF and later periods of the 8th reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an unsubstatiated statement, nonattributable & anecdotally in nature. Unless it can be suppoted by statistics* it should be removed: The B-24 was notorious among American crews for its tendency to catch fire. (* The statistics on AAF heavy bomber losses show no significant margin of difference to support such a statement nor a ver others in the article. ref AAF Statistical Summary; See also Davies. SPAATZ. The tendency to catch fire may have been a legitimate concern in the C-109 for different resons. See Aluminum Trail.

I switched:

"Nevertheless, popular opinion among aircrews and general's staffs tended to favor the B-17's rugged qualities above all other considerations in the European Theater.[3]"

To ...

"Nevertheless, popular opinion among aircrews and general's staffs tended to favor the B-24's rugged qualities above all other considerations in the European Theater.[3]"

The way it read, I'm pretty sure the author meant to say that despite advantages the B-17 had in handling, the B-24 was preferable to the military because it was more durable that the B-17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.38.133 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I switched it back - the B-17 had a reputation as being much more durable than the B-24.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the Liberator's bad points were that it had "an alarming tendency to catch fire after superficial combat damage" or words to that effect, and that when belly landed in case of being unable to lower the undercarriage the Liberator invariably broke its back at the bomb bay. This was a structural weak point and usually resulted in the aircraft being a complete write-off (i.e., beyond economical repair). Other problems where that many Liberators were improperly rigged when received by the operators, due to being left to stand in the outside in the hot sun for a considerable time, prior to delivery. The heat distorted the airframes and when the length of the control cables was adjusted during the final rigging, the airframe had expanded slightly compared to the 'cold' dimensions. When flown to more temperate climes unless the aircraft were re-rigged, the controls became loose and sloppy making precise and formation flying difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.66.92 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IIARC, one other and perhaps more important problem was that the Davis wing aerofoil was very sensitive to being flown with the correct longitudinal trim, i.e., angle of attack, and being flown slightly nose-down or nose-high caused substantially increased drag and hence increased fuel consumption. This in conjunction with the 'sloppy controls' mentioned above made it difficult and tiring for inexperienced pilots to get the maximum range out of the aeroplane, as they needed to re-trim and adjust the aircraft's flying attitude frequently as fuel/ammunition was consumed. So flying with the aeroplane correctly trimmed on a long-range mission was essential, as flying even slightly too nose-high or nose-down might mean you ran short of fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In summary the designed optmizations of range, speed etc imparted by the Davis wing also contributed to some manhandling reqired for formation flying. so is the long-winded paragraph above enough to negate the "citation needed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02D:B3B:6559:C28A:84FA:A60 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Add some weasel words please

ferrets were more RCM in role and there is now a section on radar. It could be expanded. That the 20 RS was redesignated from CMS when its role expanded does not mean the ferrets are appropriately an F-7 topic. It was electronic warfare not photographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Under the F-7A program, please mention the Ferret Aircraft

http://mysite.verizon.net/yenrav/20cms/aircraft.htm

Or add a section that can be linked from Wild Weasel. Hcobb (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The SEA Conflict RCM Wild Weasle program is only distantly related.

Clarification needed

"By 1945, Ford made 70% of all B-24s in two nine-hour shifts." "At Willow Run, Ford produced half of 18,000 total B-24s." Is this a discrepancy or did Ford make 20% at other plants? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Close

PreviewingTalk:Consolidated B-24 Liberator

SaveSummary:By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use and agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL license.

Clarification needed

"By 1945, Ford made 70% of all B-24s in two nine-hour shifts." "At Willow Run, Ford produced half of 18,000 total B-24s." Is this a discrepancy or did Ford make 20% at other plants? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement applies to the L & M series only. However, by stating it as 1945, the L series was already completed or nearly so. Therefore it refers primarily to the M series split between CO and Ford.Ford manufactured B-24 subassemblies for its own assembly line, for Douglas Tulsa, and prior to June,1944 much of Fort Worth's final assembly line. Collectively these are known as Type III B-24 and the crated and trucked subassemblies were known as knock down assemblies (KD). All series E and H were Type III B-24. Ford shipped some KD B-24J. The last of the Type III J series were assemblied only in Michigan. The L & M were of Type I (CO) and Type III. Willow Run assemblied all the Type III B-24L & M series, i.e., there were no shipped knock downs. The N series was exclusively Ford built.

Flak

I did it and i am confident it would be easily understood, that 1-the loss report talks about 19,000 ft 2- Flak 30 gun (see the article) can reach only 2,2 km (7,500 ft) as effective ceiling 3-bending a wing of a heavy bomber is not in the realm of possibility of any 2 cm a.a. gun. 4- The report talks only about 'flak', not 20 mm flak guns, and there is no chance that a 2 cm flak gun can reach an high-altitude bomber. This was, likely, the result of a 8,8 cm Flak (Flak 36?) gun, that had all the power and the range to reach that target and destroy it. I am a bit surprised to find inside a such important (and over-controlled) anglo-saxon aviation article, raw errors like this, apparently written by someone that has no clue about air war in the II WW, or a deliberate vandalism. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Formation assembly

B-24D-30-CO assembly ship First Sergeant, 458th Bomb Group

In February 1944, the 2nd Division authorized the use of war-weary aircraft specially fitted to aid assembly of individual group formations. Known as Assembly or Formation Ships, they were equipped with signal lighting, provision for quantity discharge of pyrotechnics, and featured distinctive individual paint schemes of psychedelic colors in stripes, checkers, or polka dots to enable easy recognition by their flock of bombers. The aircraft used in the first allocation were B-24Ds retired by the 44th, 93rd and 389th Groups. Arrangements for signal lighting varied from group to group, but generally consisted of white flashing lamps on both sides of the fuselage arranged to form the identification letter of the group. All armament and armor was removed, and in some cases the tail turret. In the B-24Hs used for this purpose, the nose turret was removed and replaced by a "carpetbagger" type nose. Following incidents when flare guns were accidentally discharged inside the rear fuselage, some Formation Ships had pyrotechnic guns fixed through the fuselage sides. As these aircraft normally returned to base once a formation had been established, a skeleton crew of two pilots, navigator, radio operator and one or two flare discharge men were carried. In some groups an observer officer flew in the tail position to monitor the formation. These aircraft became known as Judas Goats.

Someone may be interested in the reasoning behind such aircraft: USAAC doctrine was for missions by their bombers to be flown in tight formations, the combined guns of the aircraft providing mutual defence. The drawback to this was that before setting out to the target the various aircraft all had to be assembled into their own particular formation. Unfortunately it is not possible for all the bombers to take off simultaneously so the bombers that take off first have to 'mark time' waiting for the others and so use more fuel than the ones that take off last. Once in the air the bombers then have to find the aircraft of their own individual squadrons so that they can form-up on them, and all this takes time, and uses fuel. The longer it takes to form-up the combat boxes (formation) the less fuel the bombers have remaining. The USAAC found that in trying to mount a raid using more than about 300 aircraft the bombers took so long and used so much fuel in getting into their proper formations that the bombers that had taken off first started to eat in to their fuel reserves - extra fuel needed in case of diversion because of damage, fog-bound home airfields, etc. The 'Judas Goats' were an attempt to speed up the assembly of formations, as much time and fuel was wasted in aircraft formating on other aircraft that turned out be from the wrong squadron - they then had to 'mill around' finding the correct aircraft, using up even more fuel. This might be repeated several times by each aircraft before the bomber found its correct companions. The gaudily-painted Liberators were intended to make this process easier, each squadron/Group having their own different paint scheme, e..g polka dots for one, stripes for another, each squadron's aircraft being directed to fly towards their own particular 'colour design' Assembly Ship.

IIRC, the concept was not a success and the formating problem is the reason why the USAAC very rarely sent more than around 300 bombers against a target while the Luftwaffe was able to defend it - any more than that and they would get 'aborts' (aircraft landing without flying the mission) due to low fuel. Above this number the mission planners couldn't rely on all the bombers having the fuel to get to the target and back.

RAF Bomber Command on the other hand flew its bombers individually, later in a quite loose bomber stream, each aircraft making its own way to the target, so the differing fuel reserve states problem didn't arise. They were therefore able to send out bombers in any number, the crews only being required to be over the target at a particular time - Time Over Target - individual aircraft being able to speed up/shorten route, slow down/lengthen route as necessary. That's why the RAF were able to mount 1000 Bomber Raids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Both this article and the one on Judas Goat use the term "psychedelic" to describe the color scheme, but the article on Psychedelic states that the term wsn't invented until 1957, making the usage here an anacronism. Unless there's a very good reason to leave it that way (in both places) I'd suggest changing it to something more appropriate for the era.JDZeff (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that a more contemporary term be used to describe the color scheme. "Dazzle" was used to describe some similar camoflage schemes, but since the intent with this color scheme wasn't camoflage, I'm hesistant to suggest its use here. --Yaush (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notable crew error?

This article lists actor Russell Johnson (Gilligan's Island) as a B-24 crewman. However his Wiki says he was a bombadier in B-25 Mitchells. Someone needs to double-check to see which is correct and reconcile the two. Sector001 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

not accurate?

The statement at the begin of article, that there was only one exit on a b-24, may not be accurate. ifyou google bailing out of a b-24, you'll get links to all kinds of info, that say men exited many other ways. many were necessary at times because the fuel tanks were in the bomb bay and when they caught fire, no one could get to rear of plane that wasn't already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.128.98 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Crew hatch in rear, lower fuselage. Forward crew could use nose gear opening. In ditchings, the was a hatch overhead aft the pilot, before the dorsal turret and another on the ditching deck in later planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Range is Ambiguous

I'm not sure what the ranges for this and other aircraft mean. Are these the maximum transfer ranges [how far they can fly before refueling]? Are these half that [how far they can fly before needing to turn back, if they take off and land at the same airfield]? Are these the effective combat ranges? I think that's about a 3:1 difference, and aircraft articles should try to be clear about what they mean by range. 71.191.233.181 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of Range (aircraft) which explains, the range normally quoted is the maximum distance betwen takeoff to landing. If we have figures for combat ranges they are normally show as a different entry in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Combat range is usually less than half ferry range, because of allowances for combat (which uses more fuel) and the weight of ammunition. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Movie 'Shady Lady'

Hello - I'm not an expert in this field by any means however a new movie called 'Shady Lady' would appear to fit the notability criteria for the 'media appearances' section. Please see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2056694 http://www.metacritic.com/movie/shady-lady

Thank you! Tonzo (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"Not accurate" is correct.

The part where it says that "the only escape hatch was in the rear of the plane" is not correct. I have seen USAAF training material (it's not hard to find) showing the escape routes the crew were expected to take. The men in the nose were expected to escape through the nose gear doors, which were provided with an emergency release for this exact purpose. The crew on the flight deck were expected to escape through the forward bomb bays. The men in the rear fuselage could either escape through the rear bomb bay, or through the hatch located in the floor of the fuselage. There were also numerous other escape routes along the sides and top in case of belly landing or ditching. Crew entered through the hatch and the bomb bays. The only reason that the B-17 had more hatches is because there was a radio compartment between the rear fuselage and the bomb-bay. There is a diagram of B-17 escape routes on this page: http://b17.bigred.free.fr/the_crash.htm There is a diagram of B-24 escape routes towards the bottom of this page: http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~webermd1/Liberator-Info.html (as well as some other very interesting stuff). Judge for yourself.

Note that there's a trojan infestation problem at that website [1] (May 2015). Browser beware! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that part about "one escape hatch" was either making it up, or taking it from a book written by someone who had no idea what they were talking about, and had it in for the B-24. The flight crew on the B-17 was also expected to escape through the bomb bay. In neither case was anyone expected to climb all the way from the front of the plane to the rear just to escape. That is absolutely false. In addition, the only difference between the walkway through the bomb-bay of a B-24 and B-17 was that the B-24's was twice as long. This makes it sound as if it walking over a narrow catwalk was something that only B-24 crewmen had to deal with. It wasn't. I also know that there was frequently only one side gunner carried; the radio operator was expected to man the second gun in case of attack. The rest of the time, one gunner covered both sides. That changes the total crew number. This fact is also mentioned in that page about the B-24 I linked too. I think someone should change that part about the escape hatches, because it's a lie and makes the B-24 look worse than it was. It's been that way for a long time and it bothers me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Escape route" >= "Escape hatch" Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

missions and targets

Listing exact missions would be nice. "Thousands of B-24s, flying from bases in England, dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs on German military and industrial targets. " What about civilian targets? In Germany mainly civilian targets were bombed. Were the B-24 involved? --41.150.103.242 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the article, AAF doctrine was daylight, percision bombing. Weather often limited those operations and , in the case of the B-24 units operating in NW Europe, begining January 1944, the AAF USED BOMB THROUGHT OVERCAST (BTO) techniques. The Combined Bomber Offensive pushed for transportation as a high priority target. The USSTAF resisted until BTO. Because rail marshalling yard gave good radar response, the AAF bombed urban centers aiming on transportation radar images on days which did not permit the visual bombing of oil, aircraft and other industries on its priority list. This arrangement satisfied CBO and allowed the AAF to theoretically remain within their doctrine. The day/night, CBO directed bombing of Dresden was the only major "morale" bombing by the AAF of an urban area. See Davis, Spaatz and numerous other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B006:4A3F:C144:7DAC:D5C4:FDF2 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "civilian targets", and you make no breakdown in which were hit by the US and which were by the RAF, which carried much bigger bombloads. It doesn't say that the B-24 didn't drop bombs on civilians. It just says that they dropped hundreds of thousands of tons on military and industrial targets, which is perfectly factual. That said, no, the US never officially targeted civilians (in Europe, in any case). They targeted industrial and military installations. If the bombs happened to kill thousands on the ground due to poor accuracy, so be it. You drop several thousand bombs from a formation a half mile wide at a factory in a densely populated city, inevitably most of the bombs are going to fall all around the factory in an area (at least) half mile wide by a mile long. But with the limited accuracy available, and from 25,000ft, that was the only way to (hopefully) hit the factory as well. If they really had just wanted to kill civilians, then they wouldn't have bothered flying during daylight at all. Speaking of which, even the RAF never "targeted civilians". They weren't barbarians! =O They merely "de-housed workers" by targeting residential areas to destroy their living quarters. Unfortunately, and regrettably, the civilians...er, "workers" were frequently still inside the houses when they bombed them. But they would never intentionally "target civilians", like the Evil Hun did to London. Obviously!.45Colt 03:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Azon the only precision-guided Allied munition?

It's a bit of a nit, and maybe a matter of semantics, but the Bat antiship missile had terminal radar guidance (albeit it didn't work very well) and saw some limited operational use. Likewise, the TDR assault drone had remote television guidance and saw some very limited operational use. The claim that Azon was the only guided weapon system used in the war probably is too strong. --Yaush (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

AZON AZmuith ONly. which brings into question the whole comparison to Precision munitions. An early radio guided system would be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B006:4A3F:C144:7DAC:D5C4:FDF2 (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

general outline and cohesion

Let's talk about the general condition of the article. Here is an extract:

Introduction to service, 1941–42

The United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) took delivery of its first B-24As in mid-1941. Over the next three years, B-24 squadrons deployed to all theaters of the war: African, European, China-Burma-India, the Anti-submarine Campaign, the Southwest Pacific Theater and the Pacific Theater=

in scholarly writing a heading sets the scope of a section. in the example here, that would be introduction into service during 1941 and 1942 yet the paragraph immediately jumps into a three year period. this type of lack of cohesion is throughout the article. I introduced several new subheading to improve the structure and align like ideas.

Another general guideline in this type writing is to address the six interrogatives. Those are: who; what; where; when; how and how much. The article make liberal use of the passive voice as a crutch to avoid establishinh the who as well as other of the basic elements. Bill is correct that what I added contained typo. what he omitted his he deleted my changes in real time, as fast as I made them, here and at the B-25 article. Under those conditions, errors will occur. As for poor writing, I would argue that I was better that what was there. S for factual content, then improvements were significant.

Let's talk about some of the recent changes that are taking place== This comment strikes me as needing clarification: "The detailed accounts have issues arising from outdated references and misinterpretaions <sic> of contract data." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The changes are all unreferenced, and are frequently extremely poorly written so that the meaning of the changes is unclear. This sort of mass addition of poorly written, unsourced information, often removing cited information is disruptive.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Now the same editor (I presume, with just another anon identity) has moved on to the North American B-25 Mitchell article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The DESIGN section is another example of article's lack of organization and lack of a cohesive storyline. It follows prototype and service. In most cases, design (& Construction) are in advance of the prototype testing and service trials. Recommend moving DESIGN earlier in the article. This may allow improvments in other sections were design discussion hang inappropriately. Another poster suggested covering general construction too. Recommend relocated section be DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION. Again, misplaced topics, like the Davis wing design, can be then relocated appropriately.

Better yet, unlock the article . Bill Zuk opinions notwithstanding, no vandalism occurred in the recent edits and the few error were induced by his continually interference with the editing. Perhabs Bzuk should be resricted from making deletions based on his disruptive behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B006:4A3F:C144:7DAC:D5C4:FDF2 (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

organization of design and development

With the article unlocked, I ve given some attention to the outline and cohesiveness of the article. The paragraphs on the design innovation and the properties of the Davis wing are intermingled and need storting and consolidation by topic.

Comparisions to the B-17, if appropriate at all here, needs to follow the description of the Model 32 design. It is counterintutive to begin comparisons until the design is established in the article.

In summary, the order, cohesiveness, chronology, logic, objectivity and adhesion to headings all need attention. It is impossible to make these edits and maintain the current order of referenced footnotes.

Solution needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:A763:CFB1:D008:56E5:135C (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Secondary role as an ASW platform, not merely maritime patrol

I have added and linked ASW and maritime patrol to the types infobox as its secondary and tertiary usage. I noticed my original edit had been reverted. The type was extensively used as an offensive ASW hunter killer as well as VLR maritime patrol. The difference is subtle but the ASW link gives added context to its vital offensive role in the Battle of the Atlantic. I believe this to be a reasonable addition to the Lib's infobox. Thoughts welcomed. Irondome (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

the design optimizations are found Iin the preceeding sentences. a further explanation would necessitate an engineering discussion of the tradeoffs of the high aspect ratio wing. that is not the place and the artile does touch on it. the out of context phrase is the one regarding catching fire. that is unsubstainiated as being any greater than in similar planes. in fact one of the welcome improvements in the B-17G was the addition of fire extinguishing systems for the engines.

There is a missing "of" in the opening section. Just a grammatical edit. It should read: "However, it was also more difficult to fly in formation at higher altitude because OF the design optimizations." Ssrunner (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added clarification tag to that sentence also, as the explanation as to why it was is missing Irondome (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced changes

I have rolled back the article to remove the unreferenced and sometimes badly structured changes, can users please discuss or at least provide reliable sources for any changes that need to be done, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just protected this article to provide time to settle this content dispute. From briefly reviewing the IP editor's changes, many of them appear to have merit. However, references are needed (please see WP:PROVEIT), and care should be taken with existing references. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you nick. as a reminder, the protocols require milborne one to request a citation to which the rule give the option to reply were on the talk page. by reverting the article without affording me the opportunity to explain by changes, moreover, not even challenging properly, I believe milborne one has clearly been distructive and violated good order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

why anonymous?

precicesly to keep the openly malicous and vendictive behaviors of people like milborneone from reaching my personal media. In light of his behaviors, the most detectable explanation for he wanted to know my personal information was sabotage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Username and privacy. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

nick d , I hve had an account for years. you obviously ignored my explanation.

Protected edit request on 19 May 2015

Line 24, lede. replace "Among its many advanced radar capabilities, was the operationally deployment of the United States' first forerunner to precision-guided munitions during the war, the 1,000 lb. Azon guided bomb". which is completely nonsensical and inaccurate in terms of radar usage and is a horrible piece of prose, to simply, "among its varied uses, it was deployed as the carrier for the 1,000 lb Azon guided bomb"

Irondome (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Y corrected as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Or simply: among its varied uses the B-24 deployed the Azon system.

Or , ...radio guided Azon System.

(the detail are in the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B001:F56:70D2:24B1:BC19:4566 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

AAFAC

The proper spelling of Antisubmarine Command can be found in Maurer;...Units, @ the 25th & 26 Wings in that section. Those making retrograding edits should have checked this widely known and revered official source before taking feckless actions repeatly to vandalize the B-24 article. The book is on line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has been corrected per Army Air Forces Antisubmarine Command, but please use Template:Edit protected to request any further changes, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

YB-24

Here is a photograph of the YB-24 in profile

http://www.b24bestweb.com/702-3.htm

A profile, side view PHOTOGRAPH of the only YB-24 is in A. Blue, The B-24 Liberator on page 21. note the short nose, cabin windows above the wing, and the upswept shallow rear fuselage. I have, several times, corrected the photo caption of the longer nose, deep rear fuselage with the later FY RCN visible to the B-24D series and enumerated the differentiating characteristics. no one challanged the change yet iy has, several times, been reresponsibly reverted to the preposterious YB-24 caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.b24bestweb.com/702-3.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not clear from the unsigned text what the user is on about about if it refers to this image why do all the sources including the USAF Museum [2] say it is one of YB-24s. An image of it as G-AGCD http://www.air-britain.com/libsample.pdf look very similar. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

see kinzey Detail in scale pg 9. caption is wrong regarding the Six D that got the funds and serials. The six YB went to RAF AS TRANSPORT. milborne one just can t identify a YB from a D regardless of the id points and RCN having been enumerated. the museum fact sheets are not of consistent quality. the LB-30 ( plain) which was CY '41 production introduced the long nose. See Lib I and II or LB-30A & B for EARLIER short nose versions like the YB, XB, AND CONVERTED XB-24B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This extensive series of changes by our IP6 friend is characterized by having no referencing. Facts on Wikipedia must be verifiable, so this kind of adjustment or expansion requires a citation to published sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The change is and was fully document here. the above remark notwithstanding. The intent of the remark is therefore questionable.

RAAF use

the main body of article addresses RAAF use in relation to the USAAF. Seven combat squadrons are mentioned. in the Operations section, 10 units are mentioned for the RAAF compared to thre RCAF SQUADRONS. The RCAF operations are not of significance to be covered in the main body yet the RCAF WAS LISTED AS A SECONDARY PRIME USER. I ve mentioned this disparity before. the list is now consistent with the article and should not be reverted yet again without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:A763:CFB1:D008:56E5:135C (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Model 31 flying boat

There is a paragraph on the Model 31 and Davis which is mostly redundant and in any event too far into the design that needs to pair and incorporated with early discussion of the Model 31 contributions and the Davis wing. because the misplaced paragraph contains several references it has been left in place but the error is now glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:A763:CFB1:D008:56E5:135C (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

C-87 length of service

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/dbmat.asp?theAT=C-87&Submit3=Go

This sampling of missing air crew report index entries quickly proves the C-87 was not withdrawn from service during WWII. Moreover it continued in production at least well into 1944. several sentences on the C-87 n the article are suspect or even spurious and have been tagged.

That website probably isn't a reliable source, and reference which directly states that the C-87 remained in service is needed to support such a claim, not your interpretation of some website. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

you probable are not familar with the AAF missing air crew reports. These are official AAF recrords and a standard research tool over the past 35 years, although older references did not consult the records in many instances. I will again emphasis that many of the existing ref. notes in the article are from extremely poor sources. I have the official MACR index on USAF microfilm. The online source is more convenient a reference and in most case reliable ( of the 10,000s records). Feel free to cite the the official source for the a/c s/n lost in June 1945.

More to the point, no citation exists for the claim Iin the article. And I have many more ways to demonstrate it is entirely baseless. The burden of proof remains with the statements originator.

I was trying to preempt a lot of frivolous exchanges.

another good sources is the book Aluminium Trail. it is well research and well regarded. The USAF history of the ATC MAY ALSO BE USEFUL.

Lastly, the C-54 was in use before April 43 when the article claims the C_87 originated and the two statement taken together creates a null set.

as to the correct information on the C-87 thru C-87C & At-22 in edited in, I m sure you didn t check the facts. if it was deleted withoutt a citation tag, you vandalised the article.

1st sent.: IS vs WAS

Some articles use 'is'; others, 'was.' 'Was' is correct. It has not been a bomber in over many decades. That some are extant does not impact the sentence. The sentence is about the bomber.

To the IP editor

I see that you've added a whole heap of material without sources despite being warned that this would not be accepted following repeated requests that you provide sources. I have semi-protected the article, as well as the others you're targeting. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

sir, please refresh yourself on wiki editing protocol and the use of citation needed tags. Despite several reminders, you still insist on acting one personal preference in lieu of Wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B001:F56:70D2:24B1:BC19:4566 (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nose gear

The Douglas DB-7, NAA NA-40 & NA-40B each were American bombers which flew with tricycle nose gear arragements prior to late Dec 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B018:6A5F:B25E:122C:D609:A553 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wing foil characteristics

the trade offs of the Davis wing ( design optimization) is now explained substantially as: The B-24 was more difficult to fly in formation because...it had poor formation flying chatacteristic. excellent example of circular logic. when you construct run on sentences it is diffult fot some writters to remember what the purpose of the sentence was, as happened in this case.

The design features of the Davis wing which imparted these attributes (a, b, and c in the proceeding sentince) also compromised x & y, however the design optimizations produced a bomber very capable of its very long range, heavy load operational role. This was the product the AAF used to equip the majority of its heavy bomb groups world wide.

What were x & y? was it high wing loading (in thinner air?) ? and sluggish control responses at formation speeds ??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 

catching fire?

The issue is not if a B-24 would catch fir from b/d or not. The issue is was more prone to and the answer is no.

Battle loss rates for the '17 & '24 do not differ enough to exhibit a statistical margin of variance accordiing to official source and the AAF statistical summary. the impression in the article is anecdotal, not factual.  I have mentioned this several times. Yet it remains.  who checked that Statistical Summary and found evidence supporting the claim?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 

bomb bay doors

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia
Revert change is false. the doors did not roll into the fuselage but rather remained outside the plane. thus the doors rolled ONTO to the fuselage vice into. please reinstate the correcting edit " onto." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1st Provisional bomb group

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

ref HALPRO /9th AF SECTION The detachment was under the command of Brereton and left from India, not China. The detachment title had been corrected to Brereton and should read as such again. He became the Commander, AAFME soon the Ninth Air Force, thus Iit was Brereton's Nith AirForce as edit had and might again read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

redundant/ incorrect para.

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

The parargraph beginning with the sentence about the first American bomber with tricycle gear is redundant of earlier Model 31 cover. moreover the Jan 1939 DB-7/A-20 was an earlier American bomber with tricycle gear as was the competeting NA-40/40B. Recommend deleting the parargraph in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

C-109

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

Reinstated the deleted edit. it was an extensive rewrite correcting multiple errors and omissions. The two ATC Wings mentioned in the edit did inititally operate the C-109 in its primary role. (Notice the current article does not state a who.) Thus the ATC was primary, not after the fact as the article states. The glass nose remained (see pictures). The turrets were removed and opening faired above the glass nose. The IX TCC 314 TCG/32TCSQ operated the C-109. ( See RCL "U" pictured). ref Maurer,..Squadrons , 32TCS and B24bestweb #'ed C-109 tankers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

TIDALWAVE

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

Consistent with othe articles a heading was added at the Tidalwave coverage obsured in the 44Bg coverage. the heading was deleted without discussion and for no apparent reason. it complied in all aspects. the heading allow the subject to appear in the article outline/contents. it was reader friendly and should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

B-24A/LB-30B

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia
variant coverage toal was corrected to read (Total: 29; 20 LB-30B; 9 B-24A) it has incorrectly reverted to 29 LB-30B.) The confusion may be because 9 of US s/n were completely cancelled and not differed to C or D orders. See Blue, Appendices and early orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

deleted without resolution

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia
This page is non functional. A functional B-24 talk page complying with the citation needed tag instuction needs to be functional. milborneone vandalism notwithstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

restore discussions

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia
Please restore open discssion and / or unlock article so edit policy can be re-engaged.

B-24C

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia
Coverage conflicts with XB-24B coverage on introduction of oval cowls and should have conflicting sentence (s) removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)