Liberator Express C 87 schemes?

[JWM]

Hi

I am trying to find an interesting scheme for future build of C-87 Liberator Express. For example found this photo:

But serial remains unknow. 

Any help will be welcome

Regards

Jerzy-Wojtek

 

 

[Finn]

Maybe not that particular a/c but some more photos can be seen here:

 

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/c13c3396ad161723.html

 

click the thumbnails under Related images for more.

 

Jari

[tonyot]

There are some nice British and Canadian ones too!;

Below is a wartime RCAF aircraft,....one had brilliant nose art too;

 

A few more ref pics;

 

 

Good luck with the conversion,

                                          Tony

Edited January 8, 2018 by tonyot

[Don149]

Hi Jerzy , I saw one of these birds , at Rome airport back in `54 , it was in natural metal finish with civvy markings .

Not a conversion , I was told it belonged to the President of South Vietnam . Sorry I can`t remember the markings .

                                                                                                                                                                    Don .

.

[72modeler]

...and how about one of these?

Mike

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/aircrafts-2-3/c-87/c-87-42-107268/

[JWM]

Many thanks , Gents! I was also searching in net, some nice set is here:

http://www.cbi-theater.com/life-fireball-express/fireball-express.html#G22

Still not found "that one" - but who knows... Meybe I will some non-special one...

Cheers

J-W

 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Great idea Jerzy ... ive considered it myself a few times. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[Adam Maas]

One of the more interesting schemes is the Rockcliffe Ice Wagon, a converted Liberator C.IX, which was in RCAF service as a de-icing test mule from 1946-1948

It's an RY-3, which was a stretched Liberator Express with PB4Y-2 wings & tail.

The Matchbox PB4Y-2 kit contains all the bits to do the RY-3.
 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Adam Maas

[Junchan]

Milton Reynolds Plane China Expedition

 

Not a military C-87, but it is certainly an attractive markings if you like NMF.

 

Here's a link to more more images from the Life photo archives.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/13935339@N05/sets/72157624733422291/

 

Jun in Tokyo

https://www.flickr.com/photos/horaburo/albums

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Looks like turbos on the engines, so not a real C-87.  Which, come to think of it, neither is the aircraft in the photo in the first posting.  However transport B-24s are easier to model than the re-engined C-87.

[Adam Maas]

38 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Looks like turbos on the engines, so not a real C-87.  Which, come to think of it, neither is the aircraft in the photo in the first posting.  However transport B-24s are easier to model than the re-engined C-87.

Wasn't it only the RY-3 that was sans-Turbos? IIRC the regular C-87's just had a lower boost units due to shortages. The turbosuperchargers were the reason why the C-87 was used on the hump as it gave better high altitude performance than other cargo aircraft.

[janneman36]

43 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Looks like turbos on the engines, so not a real C-87.  Which, come to think of it, neither is the aircraft in the photo in the first posting.  However transport B-24s are easier to model than the re-engined C-87.

Even when they are converted bombers they are considered C-87s and the ones with the round cowlings are actually LB-30s converted to C-87 standard .

To be short the engines didn't dictate the designation on this version..

 

Cheers, Jan

[Adam Maas]

2 minutes ago, janneman36 said:

Even when they are converted bombers they are considered C-87s and the ones with the round cowlings are actually LB-30s converted to C-87 standard .

To be short the engines didn't dictate the designation on this version..

 

Cheers, Jan

The LB-30B's would be the non-turbo units, not the production C-87's. There were only 9 of them to Ferry Command as B-24A's (other 20 went to the RAF and mostly ended up in Coastal Command) vs 281 production C-87's (with B-24D power packages) and 6 C-87A's (with the -45 engine)

[Graham Boak]

Look at the colour photo above of 111674, and the b&w one below it.  Both LB-30Bs?  In the wonderful Fate is the Hunter, Ernest K Gann is quite scathing about the gutless C-87 - nothing like a real Liberator in his opinion.  As for flying the Hump, a great many C-47s did that without turbochargers.

 

To try to clarify this, I've had a look at Putnam's General Dynamics book, but it is extremely vague.  However it does speak of at least some converted B-24s being designated CB-24s.  This wouldn't seem necessary if the C-87 was just that.  They (just about any B-24 transport conversions) may well have been "considered C-87s" but were they really?    Yet the Putnam does include a good photo of an RY-1 (one three out of six C-87As built for VIP use), and this does appear to have turbochargers.   There were five C-87s used as AT-22 trainers but later redesignated TB-24D, which again does suggest turbocharged engines particularly as their role was as flight engineer trainers.

[Adam Maas]

27 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Look at the colour photo above of 111674, and the b&w one below it.  Both LB-30Bs?  In the wonderful Fate is the Hunter, Ernest K Gann is quite scathing about the gutless C-87 - nothing like a real Liberator in his opinion.  As for flying the Hump, a great many C-47s did that without turbochargers.

 

To try to clarify this, I've had a look at Putnam's General Dynamics book, but it is extremely vague.  However it does speak of at least some converted B-24s being designated CB-24s.  This wouldn't seem necessary if the C-87 was just that.  They (just about any B-24 transport conversions) may well have been "considered C-87s" but were they really?    Yet the Putnam does include a good photo of an RY-1 (one three out of six C-87As built for VIP use), and this does appear to have turbochargers.   There were five C-87s used as AT-22 trainers but later redesignated TB-24D, which again does suggest turbocharged engines particularly as their role was as flight engineer trainers.

41-1174 was definitely a C-87-CF by the serial, and definitely has the LB-30 engines in all pictures. Quite frankly, from the images it looks like the C-87's were fitted with whichever power package was handy at the time, I see both standard and LB-30 packages in the images, with seemingly no rhyme or reason by serial. Note that most of the early C-87 production was originally ordered as B-24D's (shown by the fact they're 41- serials for an aircraft whose development started in early 1942), and likely were originally designated as CB-24's. 

Note that the 'gutless' comment does track with the information that the C-87's were fitted with lower-boost turbo-superchargers as well as with LB-30 power packages, so it's not definitive.

No C-87 was converted from LB-30's. There weren't enough LB-30's in US hands for that to happen (the UK got 26, the US got 10 as a YB-24 and 9 B-24A's). 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Adam Maas

[Graham Boak]

However, the lower-boost turbochargers story does not fit with your comment about having the same engine variant as the B-24D, which (at least initially) did have the -43.  The engines would have received a different dash number.  Probably.

 

The reference in the Putnam to CB-24s is to a small and very late batch.  I suspect that the concept of simply using a modifier as a prefix may not have been in use when the production began. 

 

Certainly the USAAC/USAAF were very prolific with their designations for the Douglas transports.  If there really were different variants of C-87s with different engines - particularly as important as turbochargers or not - then I would expect to see differing designations.  As indeed we do with C-87 and C-87A, although this may just have been the interior fit.  I realise that expecting consistency from the US military at this time may be wishful thinking, but we are talking about a lot of aircraft over a number of years.

 

All fairly unsatisfactory a tale: I'll dig out Allan Blue's Liberator volume and see what he says on the subject.  Perhaps some of our American contributors can say more.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Graham Boak

[janneman36]

Hello Adam,

The aircraft you mention 111674 is a version with the oval cowls as the LB30 version has cowl flaps all around the engine!

The oval ones had only cowl flaps on the upper and lower side..they where omitted on the sides of the cowls.

You can see clearly on this pic that this is the case ..

So it is definitly a C87-cf..

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by janneman36

[Adam Maas]

2 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

However, the lower-boost turbochargers story does not fit with your comment about having the same engine variant as the B-24D, which (at least initially) did have the -45.  The engines would have received a different dash number.  Probably.

 

The reference in the Putnam to CB-24s is to a small and very late batch.  I suspect that the concept of simply using a modifier as a prefix may not have been in use when the production began. 

 

Certainly the USAAC/USAAF were very prolific with their designations for the Douglas transports.  If there really were different variants of C-87s with different engines - particularly as important as turbochargers or not - then I would expect to see differing designations.  As indeed we do with C-87 and C-87A, although this may just have been the interior fit.  I realise that expecting consistency from the US military at this time may be wishful thinking, but we are talking about a lot of aircraft over a number of years.

 

All fairly unsatisfactory a tale: I'll dig out Allan Blue's Liberator volume and see what he says on the subject.  Perhaps some of our American contributors can say more.

B-24D had the -43, not the -45 (which was used on at least some C-87's).

And a very small/late batch of CB-24's does make sense, as the C-87's were all B-24D based, a short run based on a later production variant with the C-87 fuselage mods make sense, especially since the same thing was done with PB4Y-2's to produce the RY-3. 

[Adam Maas]

4 minutes ago, janneman36 said:

Hello Adam,

The aircraft you mention 111674 is a version with the oval cowls as the LB30 version has cowl flaps all around the engine!

The oval ones hadonly cowl flaps on the upper and lower side..they where omitted on the sides of the cowls.

You can see clearly on this pic that this is the case ..

So it is definetly a C87-cf

The odd thing is you can't see the cowl intakes which would normally be present. 

So we've got something between a LB-30 power package and a B-24D power package.

[Graham Boak]

Don't blame Adam, I'm the one that mentioned 111674.  I think I can just about see the cowl side intakes, if I squint a bit and cross my fingers.

 

Allan Blue is quite clear that all C-87s had the -43 engine.  Apologies for my earlier typo, now corrected.  He says nothing about any limitation on boost.  He does specifically say that it had the same turbocharger as the bomber, which he surprisingly (to me) says produced a small penalty on speed at the cruising altitude of the C-87.  Which was not Gann's complaint, which was directed at a lack of power on take-off, and can't be explained by the engine fit.  Perhaps he just never flew a B-24 at anything approaching the mass that he flew C-87s.

 

Thanks for the discussion and putting me right.

[janneman36]

.

@adam I think that it is due to the ligthing as it looks to me that the  light comes from the rear!

The cowl flaps are a real tell tale sign.

Those intake lips are a little inwards in real life and you don't notice it when viewed from the front and it is very difficult to see anyway..

I have a C87 at the shelf of doom at the moment converted from a acdemy kit and done a lot of comparisons over the years ..

I have a B-24D in the stash which wil become a LB30 in the end and will be converted using quickboost Catalina nacelles..

Consolidated used these type of cowls on the Cat, the LB30, B24a  and the Coronado..i think this was to ease production and maintenance..

 

@ Graham By the way don't bother about it to much this subject in my eyes was always neglected and it clarifies a lot to the most of us ..

 

Cheers, Jan

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by janneman36
Info added

[JWM]

Gents, thank you for so vigorous discussion. What I ment by C-87 is machine with turbocharged engines like "normal"  B24, so with eliptical cowilings and side intakes, not the early LB 30 with circular cowling .In some way it is a bit easier to find schemes for small numbered LB 30 then for later C 87. It seems to me this way...

BTW - machines with turbocharged engines have two variants of rear of fuselage: a long tail fairing or something like blinded turret. I have not noticed yet why there are two variants of it.

Regards

J-W

 

 

[janneman36]

Maybe the difference between those two can be put on the fact where it was built/converted?

 

And you are right about finding good pics of these aircraft with nice schemes..

Maybe you are familiar with this site?

http://www.b24bestweb.com

 

Cheers and good luck with your build

 

Jan

Edited January 9, 2018 by janneman36

[72modeler]

j,

 

Wow! Great website! Thank you so much for sharing it!

Mike

[Graham Boak]

Alan Blue describes the longer tail fairing as a later production variant.  So it will depend upon the serial.