ALG

I have ordered copies of the original drawings (I have the drawing numbers) of both the short and long B-24 cowls. I have no idea how long it will take to get them as the source is not exactly known for rocket-like responses. Once I have them I will redraw them as I intend to include them in Vol. II of "Consolidated Mess". When I've redrawn them I'll post them here. Sorry I can't give you more information on a timeline. The joys of research. AlanG

The B-24 series - including the LB-30 - actually utilized three different sizes of propellers. At least some if not all LB-30's used an extremely narrow Curtiss prop, thin enough that it was often referred to as the "needle prop", Model C532D-F22. Numerous problems were encountered with this prop, most likely resulting in its replacement. This was followed on B-24's by a narrow Ham Standard blade, the 11.5 foot diameter model 6353A-18. While this prop was adequate for lower-altitude operations, it proved inadequate for higher altitudes. In the original engine installation of the XB-24B serious cooling difficulties were encountered. It was not possible to cool the engine to normal operating temperatures at normal power at altitudes above 15,000ft. In addition, the carburetor-air temperature was as much as 23F above the allowable limit. Testing resulted in extending the cowl to reduce clearance between the front of the cowl at full-feathered prop setting from 3 inches to roughly 1/2 inch. While this and some internal changes provided sufficient (but just barely so) cooling at an altitude of 25,000 feet, the AAF requested additional tests to obtain satisfactory cooling at both normal and military power at a critical altitude of 35,000 feet. Starting in roughly October, 1942, production B-24's switched to the "wide blade" (Ham Standard 11' 7" blade 6477A-0, frequently referred to as the "paddle blade") installation similar to that then currently being installed on B-17F's. This new installation required additional modifications to the cowl and various internal equipment related to governing the prop. However, with the move to the wide blade a problem was found with the inability to fully feather the prop due to interference from the long cowling. PROP/COWLING INSTALLATION Long Cowling/ Ham Standard Thin Prop B-24D, ending with the D-13-CO production block (41-23969) B-24E-1-FO 42-6976 to 42-7005 B-24E-1-DT 41-28409 to 41-28416 Short Cowling/ Ham Standard Wide Prop B-24D-15-CO 41-23970 and subsequent B-24's B-24E and B-24G aircraft Douglas-built B-24's Being the B-24, there is, of course, a notable exception to the above. Given the low-altitude nature of this work, AAF ASW aircraft (479BG and 480BG IIRC), starting in July, 1943, switched out the short cowl/wide blade to the long cowl/narrow Ham Standard blades, modifications to take place at the Middletown Air Depot. In addition, turbo superchargers and intercoolers were removed. These changes resulted in a gigantic reduction in weight totaling one ton per aircraft. This gave the aircraft improved take off and range performance. How many previously-delivered ASW aircraft were also similarly modified is unknown to me. A good photo will always be your best guide here. I also do not know if Navy PB4Y-1's involved in ASW work had this modification performed. Unfortunately, I cannot immediately find the actual lengths of the long and short cowl. When/if I do I shall post them here. Submitted for your consideration, AlanG

Some things of which to be aware when kit bashing to an early PB4Y-2: The first 77 aircraft, while having the overall extended fuselage of the PB4Y-2, had the cockpit/nose section of the B-24-type seen beginning with the B-24J-75-CO. This included the Consolidated A-6B nose turret and appropriate fairing. The Emerson nose turret was never to my knowledge used on the PB4Y-2. Although I don't do "blue" - i.e. Navy - I believe that once the ERCO bow turret was used the window configuration beneath the turret platform changed at least once. Check pictures if you're doing on of these. The top turrets were standard rounded dome Martin A-3Cs with no aerodynamic fairing at the back of the turret as seen on later PB4Y-2 top turrets. AlanG

I'm working on a project involving mid-to-late WWII U.S. jet designs and need the above. Can anyone help me out? Alan Griffith

FYI, that photo is TOTALLY mislabeled. The 479BG NEVER EVER EVER flew PB4Y-2s. They flew B-24's - an Army Air Corps plane. The 479th and the 480th were disbanded in 1943, and that - I believe - before the PB4Y-2 even became operational. In any event, the caption is absolutely incorrect. AlanG

I seem to have every document about CP39-645, but not the original Type Specifications. Can anyone help? Alan Griffith

Graham, we shall just have to agree to disagree. But that is one of the fun things in research, eh? By the way, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of clandestine is "marked by, held in, or conducted with secrecy". And I believe this certainly fits that definition. Dogsbody, at this point I have no documents indicating with certainty what - if anything - was dropped off or picked up in Montreal OR San Diego. At first blush it would appear that at least some of the women and children brought back to North America ended up in San Diego since they are mentioned in the reports. Certainly not definitive, but a possibility. If the item(s) they were delivering and/or picking up were in Montreal, there would certainly be no reason for the aircraft to proceed to San Diego - a flight distance of an addition 2,467 air miles. Alan Griffith

Graham, the "level of history provided" is exactly the point, especially when combined with other known factors: 1. The aircraft had NO markings, either U.S. nor UK 2. The modification and missions were done on the basis of an oral agreement among Consolidated, the BAC and Lord Burghley 3. General Hap Arnold, the head of the Air Force, had absolutely no idea about this aircraft and its flights and had to have a special inquiry done to determine what was going on 4. Specific mention of the State Department and its interests 5. The aircraft was staging out of Montreal to the UK once it left San Diego on its flights, not out of any U.S. military base where questions might arise 6. The aircraft was known to be a UK aircraft but was being flown by civilian Consolidated crews, thus no paper trail of orders, postings, etc. 7. The fact that though the file in which these documents were found does give the initial inquiry by Arnold himself, the original response by the Western Procurement Division and that this response took ONE DAY to return with the facts gathered - and yet there was nothing in the file from any later date with any further explanation 8. Though future flights are both expected and suggested, there is no further mention of them in any of the documents I've looked at on the LB-30. 9. War itself is inefficient in the grandest sense. Clearly there was a perceived need that was addressed and successfully met. I would say that makes it VERY efficient. Besides, by this point in the war hundreds of B-24D's were being produced and the LB-30's were in many senses excess inventory. Thus, a great number of UK LB-30's were converted for passenger/cargo missions on the basis of a BAC request. If this doesn't smack of at least some clandestine purposes/use, then I certainly don't know what would qualify. As for the color, I was thinking more in terms of British colors/colours than U.S. Even roundel blue or insignia blue would be possibilities. Another strong possibility is USN Medium Blue, which by this time (1942, actually) was a very dark blue, the new shade having been substituted for the old Medium Blue in 1942 to match Deck Blue and not have the aircraft stand out on the carrier decks. Consolidated, as a major manufacturer of Navy aircraft, would have had this paint in stock. Dana Bell will be going into great detail on the USN colors in a future book, so I'm not going to go into much more detail. Alan Griffith

While sorting through and organizing LB-30 documents, etc., for "Consolidated Mess, Vol II: The Glassnoses" I came across a series of communications shown below. I need some help with more info if at all available. Please, since this is serious research, original documents, their date and source are requested. Any "My grandfather worked on an LB-30..." stories are of interest, but will taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Responses with "I have a document..." but no specific reference will be ignored. No offense meant - unless you are one of those guys that likes to portray himself as an "expert" but never backs up a statement with proof. Materiel Command 20 September 1943 H. F. MULLINS, Capt. Air Corps To the Western District Supervisor, Los Angeles, CA Teletype from the Commanding General, Army Air Forces 9-18-43 "Commanding General Materiel Command "Attention: Deputy Chief of Staff "Apparently the Consolidated Company working with the British have established a shuttle plane between San Diego and UK, using an LB-30 which we understand is painted blue but carries neither U.S. nor UK markings. It is known that they have been hauling women and children and making general airline use of this airplane, and it is suggested that the matter be investigated and brought into proper channels, provided authority has not already been issued for such operation. It is understood the airplane belongs to UK, but Consolidated crews are operating the plane. Since the inter-ocean airlines picture is of prime interest to the State Department, it is suggested that this matter be thoroughly checked into and report furnished this office covering authority, contractual arrangement, etc., and any recommendations in connection therewith. "Arnold" "It is desired that your office make an investigation to obtain the information requested in the above quoted teletype and advise this office immediately. "Branshaw - Materiel Command" The following information was forthcoming from the Western Procurement District on September 22, 1943 and forwarded as below: 23 September 1943 James M. Delaney Major, Air Corps Asst. Technical Executive "Consolidated Vultee sales manager Learman made oral agreement with Washington office British Air Commission and Lord Burghley to convert LB-30 to transport type. This airplane has made two trips from Montreal to UK with Consolidated crews. Passenger lists controlled by British Air Commission. It is proposed that this airplane make intermittent trips approximately every two months for the purpose of coordinating maintenance of LB-30's, B-24's and PBY type airplanes. Believe missions have so far been worthwhile for Consolidated Vultee personnel but have no recommendation involving other passengers as this is apparently controlled by British Air Commission. Airplane is owned by UK and is present at San Diego." To date I have found no more information on what appears to be something of a clandestine operation outside the normal chain of command. Does anyone have any additional information on this project? For instance, what aircraft was this (registration)? What color "blue" are we talking about - Sea Blue? PRU Blue? Medium Blue? My suspicion is Sea Blue as it would be effective both over the water and over land due its darkness. Any assistance is appreciated. Alan Griffith

I've spent a bit of time going over Jeff Verswyvel's in-box video review of the this kit over on Hyperscale as well as some additional closeup photos Jeff was kind enough to send my way, and have the following observations. Please note that these comments are based upon what I could determine from photos - not handling the plastic - and thus may be open to further discussion. Turrets While the nose Emerson and tail A6C are correct for "My Akin?" - a Block 185-CO - the nose turret is NOT correct for either "War Goddess", a Block J-105-CO, or for "Going My Way", a Block J-175-CO. Both of these aircraft had the A6C nose turret such as fitted to the tail. The Consolidated J's started mounting the Emerson nose turret beginning with Block J-185-CO. The tail turret may or may not be correct as many B-24's had the shields over the guns on the tail removed since it didn't have the draft problem of the nose. The top turret just looks "wrong". It appears to have to be somewhere between the round dome top of the A3C with the glass sighting panel of the A3D. The A3D had a very distinctive rise of the top going from front to back to accommodate both better headroom and to maintain a very strict +/- 3 degree angle relationship with the later lead-computing gun sight (although this is actually more complicated than I've just stated). The A3D also did not have external metal straps the kit seems to show. Hey! It's the B-24! What did you expect?? "War Goddess" should have the older, rounded dome of the A3C, but both "My Akin ?" and "Going My Way" both mounted the A3D "High Hat". Jeff Verswyvel was kind enough to send me a photo of the turret from the side, but it still looks wrong to me, not appearing to rise high enough in the back for the A3D nor low enough for the A3B/C. Thus, the top turret in the kit may not be correct for anything. Nose glass The box art correctly shows "My Akin ?" having the slightly bulged bombardier observation window addition unique to the 15AF located between the main bombardier sighting glass on the lower front nose and the navigator's observation window. The kit's front fuselage does not have a flashed-over cutout on the inside of the fuselage for this bombardier observation window mounting and I didn't see anything on the clear parts tree that resembled these bulged windows. This would be an excellent opportunity for a vacformed window. I've not taken the time to do a detailed examination of photos of the kit with the above exceptions. It is highly likely there are a number of much smaller errors, but overall it still looks like a magnificent example of the manufacturer's art. Alan Griffith, author "Consolidated Mess, Vol. I"

Greetings! I am indeed working on Volume II of "Consolidated Mess", this to deal with the glassnoses. Nearly every B-24 file in the U.S. National Archives is in the process of being examined and the data gathered. The result is a HUGE amount of data and photos, enough so that there will be a Volume III dealing with the F-7's, C-109's, C-87's, etc. Currently I'm trying to determine whether the experimental aircraft should go into Volume III or into Volume II if they were based on a glassnose and into III otherwise. In the research process I'm finding a huge amount for updating Volume I, but that process is going to have to wait until I get Vol. II done - or close to it if we are going to release Vol II and an updated Vol. I at approximately the same time. If anything, the glassnoses were more complicated than the turret-nosed aircraft. The most direct reason was going from an idea to a prototype to early production to massive changes to make the aircraft combat-worthy in a period of about 2 years. With regard to the kit mod being undertaken in this thread, I can't tell from the photos if the Academy kit has the distinctive "shelf" around the fuselage at the turret base. This and the "S" - and there are, of course, variations on the "S" unique to the M - are the distinctive identifiers of the Ford turret nose. There are additional identifiers such as the shape of the bombardier's glass, the fact that ALL Ford nose-turreted aircraft used the Emerson turret, the late M's "airliner windshield", etc. The "shelf" should be your first concern if it isn't on the kit. I'm thinking that layered strips of sheet plastic would be a good way to create this. A look online at any Ford B-24H on up will show you the shelf. I hope this helps. I'm here to answer any B-24 questions and to help clear up the endless misinformation and misconceptions about the B-24. Respectfully submitted, Alan Griffith, author "Consolidated Mess, Vol. I"

The ORIGINAL "Witchcraft" was B-24H-15-FO 8AF 467BG 790BS sn 42-52534 Q2. The aircraft currently in the markings of Witchcraft is a restored B-24J-85-CF, obtained from the Indian Air Force. LOTS of differences. AlanG

Since there are no insignia on the sides of the pictured aircraft, and to make a minor adjustment for scale, I'd paint the aircraft fuselage Insignia Blue and challenge anyone to tell you you're wrong. AlanG

Steve, AlanG in the US. I, too, have long been a fan of Luft '46. I've built (or started) quite a few aircraft and love the oddness of them. I have a Ju-488V3 mostly ready to paint, and as 488V01 that I'm kit bashing. I wish more of the bombers were available in kit form in 1/72. Such wonderfully odd designs. I assume there is a way to upload pics of completed models here, but I've not yet figured it out. If you're interested in Luft 46 and AAF unknown designs, go to SecretProjects.com.uk, then go to the new aircraft books and check out American Secret Projects entry. Go to about the end and you'll see a lovely color graphic of the cover of this book (which includes a BV-208, as I recall the designation) and some commentary on the various Consolidated tailless bomber designs. AlanG