Eduard Liberator GR Mk. V/VI Identification Help!

[Gondor44]

Not 100% that this is in the right place so if any Mod feels this is not the place for this posting please feel free to move it.

 

OK, with that out of the way let me explain why I need modelling help..... others would say that I am beyond any other kind of help, but that's another matter 🤪

 

I recently bought the Eduard Liberator GR Mk. V/VI conversion set overtrees and downloaded the relevant PDF instruction sheet, both for the Riders in the Sky 1944 kit. So far so good at this point, and the sprues/trees are really good as you would expect from Eduard.

 

Not wanting to waste anything though and wanting to build a Lancaster B Mk. VII, the fact that there looks as if there might be a Martin 250 turret canopy on the "A" sprue/tree fills me with hope. I want to make sure though as there is nothing worse than thinking you have something right and then finding out that it's wrong

 

In a vain attempt to find out the information from the manufacturer I messaged their support team and was told that they don't have such information. I would think that probably means that the support team don't have the information as someone somewhere had to designe what went onto the sprue/tree in the first place

 

So, with Eduard being the dead end that I was half expecting, I decided to try here and ask the esteemed membership for assistance.

 

To help I am including pictures copied from the Eduard web site as well as layouts from the instruction manual showing in blue the parts that are not used in the Riders in the Sky 1944 kit which the overtrees are part of.

 

First the Overtree sprue/tree A

 

 

 

And then Overtree sprue/tree B

 

 

 

I hope someone can help with this and look forward to any sensible reply

 

Gondor

[Graham Boak]

It looks like a Martin from these views.  I've been looking through Oughton's The Liberator in RAF and Commonwealth Service, and found a few photos of Coastal Liberators without the top turret, although these were predominantly Mk.IIIs.   I'm afraid that I don't which examples come with the kit.

[Chuck1945]

The Hasegawa kit has the Martin 250 upper turret and another is on the 2121 Overtrees so you have a spare. The 'Riders in the Sky" instructions show the kit assembled using the Hasegawa upper turret parts. Another set of the upper turret parts are on the 2121 sprues marked not for use

Edited April 25, 2018 by Chuck1945

[Gondor44]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

It looks like a Martin from these views.  I've been looking through Oughton's The Liberator in RAF and Commonwealth Service, and found a few photos of Coastal Liberators without the top turret, although these were predominantly Mk.IIIs.   I'm afraid that I don't which examples come with the kit.

Thanks for that as it's what I was thinking.

 

1 hour ago, Chuck1945 said:

The Hasegawa kit has the Martin 250 upper turret and another is on the 2121 Overtress so you have a spare. The 'Riders in the Sky" instructions show the kit assembled using the Hasegawa upper turret parts. Another set of the upper turret parts are on the 2121 sprues marked not for use.

That is brilliant and exactly what I was hopeing for although the instructions for the Hasegawa kit which is the base kit for the 'Riders in the Sky' kit says that the turret is an A-3D. However in Appendix C of 'British Aircraft Armament Vol1: RAF Gun Turrets from 1914 to the present day' by R Wallace Clark it says the turret was the Martin 250 so you can understand my confution a bit.

 

Next question is, does anyone know what the other parts shown in the instructions as being blue and not used are?

 

Gondor

Edited April 25, 2018 by Gondor44
aditional data

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Gondor44 said:

Thanks for that as it's what I was thinking.

 

That is brilliant and exactly what I was hopeing for.

 

Next question is, does anyone know what the other parts shown in the instructions as being blue and not used are?

 

Gondor

As Graham and Chuck have already observed, sprue A does have the top to a Martin 250 dorsal turret. The other clear parts on the sprue you asked about appear to be the parts needed to make the different nose and tail turrets fitted to the USAAF and RAF versions, including the Boulton Paul tail turret. The parts you indicated on sprue B also appear to be parts for the different turret types.  IIRC the original tail  turrets fitted on the  Mk V, GR V, and GR VI were removed and the Boulton Paul four-gun turret was substituted.

Mike

[Seahawk]

2 hours ago, Gondor44 said:

Next question is, does anyone know what the other parts shown in the instructions as being blue and not used are?

I was asking similar questions in this thread

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235036522-instructions-for-hasegawa-liberator-iiiv/

 

without coming to any clear conclusions.  I don't have any Hasegawa Liberators but it looks as if Eduard have for no obvious reason duplicated on their overtrees some parts already present in the basic Hasegawa B-24 kit (eg Martin 250CE turret) and that both Hasegawa and Eduard have independently come up with supplementary sprues with parts for an RAF Liberator III/V (eg the Boulton-Paul tail turret).  So, if you have the Hasegawa Lib III/V boxing you won't need the Eduard additional sprues, but you will if you have a bog-standard Hasegawa Lib.  Here's hoping the Eduard parts can similarly be used to tart up Academy B-24s.

 

[Chuck1945]

While not pertinent to some of the RAF Liberators, the Eduard sprues A ans B also have the parts to represent the Consolidated A6A tail turret. This is the turret used on the B-24D. Hasegawa used the Consolidated A6B turret for all their Liberator kits so the Eduard parts are also relevant on any USAAF B-24D. Also the Eduard sprue has the earlier narrow chord props appropriate for B-24Ds, whether in USAAF or RAF service. However, by 1944 or even late '43 many of these earlier aircraft had been refitted with the wider chord props that Hasegawa supplies. A picture, as usual, is your best reference

[EwenS]

9 hours ago, 72modeler said:

As Graham and Chuck have already observed, sprue A does have the top to a Martin 250 dorsal turret. The other clear parts on the sprue you asked about appear to be the parts needed to make the different nose and tail turrets fitted to the USAAF and RAF versions, including the Boulton Paul tail turret. The parts you indicated on sprue B also appear to be parts for the different turret types.  IIRC the original tail  turrets fitted on the  Mk V, GR V, and GR VI were removed and the Boulton Paul four-gun turret was substituted.

Mike

Re the tail turrets.  The Mark III and GRV were generally re-equipped with Boulton & Paul tail turrets for RAF service.  Early GRVI in the BZ and EV serial ranges also got that tail turret. Later GRVI in the EW & K serial ranges retained the US tail turrets they were built with.

There is an exception for a batch of 11 aircraft, serials LV336 - LV346 variously described as Liberator IIIa, IIIb or " Battle of the Atlantic batch", delivered in March & April 1942 as a rush job at the height of the Battle of the Atlantic. These were diverted from USAAF bomber batches and retained their US tail turrets.

As for the mid upper turret, some aircraft had them and some didn't depending on where the aircraft was operating and whether there was a perceived threat from air interception or whether less weight for more range was required. Some aircraft went through modifications to either have them added or removed at different times as happened with Leigh Lights and rocket fittings.

As always the best advice is to try to get a photo of the aircraft you want to model.

 

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, EwenS said:

Re the tail turrets.  The Mark III and GRV were generally re-equipped with Boulton & Paul tail turrets for RAF service.  

I think I've asked this question before without getting an answer but here goes again: does anyone know why this was done?  It seems like a retrograde step: I would have thought that, when the potential air threat was most likely to be cannon-armed Ju 88s, the longer ranged and harder hitting 0.50" would have been a better bet than a quartet of popguns.  It must have been something the RAF cared deeply about if they were prepared to delay getting scarce and desperately needed Liberators out onto the squadrons.  And why just the tail turret?

[72modeler]

14 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

While not pertinent to some of the RAF Liberators, the Eduard sprues A ans B also have the parts to represent the Consolidated A6A tail turret. This is the turret used on the B-24D. Hasegawa used the Consolidated A6B turret for all their Liberator kits so the Eduard parts are also relevant on any USAAF B-24D. Also the Eduard sprue has the earlier narrow chord props appropriate for B-24Ds, whether in USAAF or RAF service. However, by 1944 or even late '43 many of these earlier aircraft had been refitted with the wider chord props that Hasegawa supplies. A picture, as usual, is your best reference

Thanks, Chuck! I meant to comment that the props shown on the sprue shot looked like narrow chord props for the early B-24D and earlier variants, and were not correct for late D's and beyond, but I forgot to include the comment in my post- good eye, sir!

Mike

[72modeler]

4 hours ago, Seahawk said:

I think I've asked this question before without getting an answer but here goes again: does anyone know why this was done?  It seems like a retrograde step: I would have thought that, when the potential air threat was most likely to be cannon-armed Ju 88s, the longer ranged and harder hitting 0.50" would have been a better bet than a quartet of popguns.  It must have been something the RAF cared deeply about if they were prepared to delay getting scarce and desperately needed Liberators out onto the squadrons.  And why just the tail turret?

Great question and observation! I would have thought the same thing, myself. On a similar note, if Lancs had been equipped with a decent belly turret and a .50cal tail turret all along, I wonder how many brave aircrew would have been saved from Luftwaffe night fighters? I know some where fitted with .50cal tail turrets late in the war, but the real need for them had pretty much disappeared by then. Bomber Command aircrew were some very brave young men!

Mike

[EwenS]

38 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Great question and observation! I would have thought the same thing, myself. On a similar note, if Lancs had been equipped with a decent belly turret and a .50cal tail turret all along, I wonder how many brave aircrew would have been saved from Luftwaffe night fighters? I know some where fitted with .50cal tail turrets late in the war, but the real need for them had pretty much disappeared by then. Bomber Command aircrew were some very brave young men!

Mike

It is a good question and it certainly creates a puzzle. From my own reading, I think that the answer lies in the contractual arrangements for the acquisition of aircraft from the USA after 1938. Britain ordered aircraft in the USA to be built to its own specifications. This included the Liberator. The standard tail turret for British 4 engined bombers was the 4*.303 armament so that seems to have been what was specified. And remember that the Liberator was originally ordered as a bomber and was only later switched to the maritime role due to its range.

 

Until the USA passed the Lend Lease legislation in March 1941 aircraft supplied had to be paid for in cash. The problem was many orders had been placed but the aircraft had yet to be built as of March 1941. This was especially the case with the Liberator where the first aircraft were only delivered in March 1941. Many existing contracts were then taken over under the Lend Lease provisions by the USA.

 

At the same time the USA had been ordering the same aircraft to its own specifications.

 

The outbreak of war with Japan saw the USA taking over aircraft from British contracts against the later supply of other aircraft of the same type or other types. In Dec 1941 there were supposed to be 700 British Liberators on order which it was planned to deliver as MkIII, the US equivalent of which was the B-24D. Differences between the British & American versions extended to "internal equipment and systems, instrumentation, wiring and bonding. Externally, the most noticeable changes were in the armament arrangements" - quote from The Liberator in Royal & Commonwealth Service. From the numbers eventually delivered orders were clearly switched from British MkIII to US B-24D.

 

After the juggling around Britain eventualy received 249 Mk III & V and 451 Mk VI against these orders (with many others to follow from Land Lease allocations).  The switch to the Mk VI occurred because the USA, whcih was now paying for the aircraft, switched from producing the B-24D to the B-24J and wanted to standardise the airframe as much as possible.

 

The real puzzle in all of this is why create a British spec that changed the tail and waist mounts to British designs with .303" guns but retain the Martin top turret. Some Liberator IIs got 4 gun Boulton Paul mid upper turrets but not the MkIII.

 

As for the armament of the British "heavies" there is a comment in British Aircraft Armament Vol 1 in the section on the Nash and Thomson FN4 tail turret fitted to Whitleys, Stirlings, Lancasters etc that "The relative short range of the 0.303 calibre guns was not considered critical, as most engagements at night were carried out at short range". There are many stories of german fighters getting very close before being seen by the gunners in the dark against the ground which was in blackout which would support that philosophy. However that ignores the difference in hitting power of the 2 rounds. So it begs the question of the purpose of the gunners - was the intention to shoot the fighter down, warn the pilot to corkscrew, or merely scare the fighter off!!

 

Development of 0.5" equipped turrets began in 1943 with designs from Nash & Thomson (FN82), Boulton & Paul (Type D) and Rose Rice. These only started to become available in mid 1944 just at the time Bomber Command was carrying out more daylight raids and would have proved more useful if the heavy fighter cover had not managed to keep away a severely depleted Luftwaffe.

 

As for the belly turrets, British designs were not very good. I don't however recall reading of many aircrew desperate to have such a mount. For the Americans the ball turret fitted in Fortresses and Liberators was not popular with the gunners. Once better fighter cover became available in 1944 many units began to remove them to save weight. In addition by 1944 the belly turret was competing for space with H2S/H2X radar scanners in both air forces. When the US Navy designed the PB4Y-2 Privateer (out of the Liberator) it opted for waist mounts that could be tilted so that their fields of fire overlapped under the aircraft rather than use another ball turret. So overall just how useful did belly turrets prove to be?

[Graham Boak]

A couple of answers to the gun question - the early Liberators were not being used where Ju88s roamed but out in the deep Atlantic Gap or in more limited numbers as night bombers in the Middle East.  It was not just the tail turret replaced but the dorsal turret too, which had the 4-gun BP Type A.  There would be good reasons for sticking to weapons and turrets readily available in British supply lines and with trained personnel.

 

There was considerable discussion, even decades after the war, whether the gunners themselves preferred four lighter weapons or two heavier ones.  The argument is not so cut-and-dried as is often presented nowadays, and EwenS presents some of that above (whilst I was typing).  Considering some of the more extreme claims from US supporters of the 0.5, it is absolutely amazing that so many enemy aircraft were actually shot down with the poor much-abused 0.303!  However the matter goes back to comparative trials in the 1930s, where it was found that the important damage would be done by hitting vital parts (such as the pilot and engine) and that there was little difference between the 0.303 and the 0.5 in this respect.  (In all fairness, the target aircraft would not be, could not be, those of the later 1940s generation.)  Therefore the multiply-mounted faster-firing weapon was preferred for the immediate future, and longer term development was focussed on the 20mm cannon.  Which turned out to be over-ambitious, the first effective 20mm cannon turret not reaching service until postwar. 

 

However studies continued on 0.5 turrets, long before 1943, but they came out a little too heavy and too big.  One exception was the Rose twin tail turret, but this was only available in small numbers.  The British design information was passed on to the US and data from the BP test turret (Type T?) was considered to have been particularly useful to the design of the excellent Martin 250 turret - though in size the Sperry dorsal turret was nearer!  Despite several attempts, no successful belly turret was devised because of the problems of vision and sighting at night.  The Preston Green cupola (not a turret) was used on the Halifax with a single 0.5 but this was replaced because the H2S radar was considered of greater overall value.  In addition, Coastal Command Halifaxes had a hand-fired 0.5 in the nose, where range was considered more important when attacking U-boats - some Sunderlands had a fixed 4-gun mounting in their noses.

 

There is another contributing factor and that is one of supply, which varied with period.  Pre-Pearl Harbour there was little need seen for heavier defensive armament, because the Bomber Offensive had hardly begun.  After Pearl Harbour the US found itself desperately short of all armaments, including 0.5 machine guns, and a large demand from Britain would have received a very short answer.   By the time supply problems no longer mattered, by say late 1943, they were much more readily available but it would still have taken time to design and develop suitable turrets and get them into production and service - which isn't too far from what actually happened with FN and BP twin tail turrets becoming standard fit by the end of 1944.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Graham Boak

[Seahawk]

24 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

A couple of answers to the gun question - the early Liberators were not being used where Ju88s roamed but out in the deep Atlantic Gap or in more limited numbers as night bombers in the Middle East.  It was not just the tail turret replaced but the dorsal turret too, which had the 4-gun BP Type A.  There would be good reasons for sticking to weapons and turrets readily available in British supply lines and with trained personnel.

Away from my references at the moment but my recollection is that the early Liberators were delivered with no armament, let alone turrets, at all, hence the improvised tail mountings with gunners wielding a couple of tripod mounted Browning .303"s.  So obviously it made sense to fit them out with the standard (and best) British equipment available at the time.

 

But, narrowing the scope again to Coastal Command Liberators, my question relates to why the RAF still felt it worthwhile to replace fully functioning twin 0.50" tail turrets in its later Liberators with ones with 4 0.303"s.  It delays getting the aircraft into service, it means handling 2 calibres of ammunition vice 1 and it runs counter to what happened with late Coastal Halifaxes where the VGO nose gun was replaced with a Browning 0.50" for increased hitting power on the run in.  And, if enemy aircraft will probably not be encountered, what does it matter what defensive armament is fitted?  It's not as if (AFAIK) the Aero turrets had proved unsatisfactory in either USAAF or RAF use.  The only reason I can think of (and this is purest speculation) is that (picking up Graham's rate of fire point) Coastal Command valued being able to spray the decks of a U-Boat just attacked at close range with a hail of lead, however small-calibre, to discourage return fire.  Later in the war, with U-Boats packing 37mm and multiple 20mm cannon, the balance might have swung back toward the longer range of the 0.50".

 

But, whatever the reason, I am surprised not to find it documented.

[Graham Boak]

You are right about the earliest supplied aircraft being unarmed.  However with the slightly later ones (Mk.II and III) there was no question of two kinds of ammunition - the idea was to equip them all with British guns (including a rather interesting semi-remote-controlled twin mg mount in the side positions.  I do wonder if the apparent lack of a dorsal turret on some Mk.IIIs  and Mk.Vs (getting back to the original comment) was as much because of a lack of the BP Type A top turret as the apparent lack of need for a dorsal gunner on certain missions.  Under Lend Lease, of course, you had to take them as they came, and the Liberators are by no means the only example where considerable delays were caused by re-equipment to British standards.

 

I suspect it is documented, but no-one has researched the right records with that particular question in mind.  The interesting question to me is less that it happened, but why and when the policy changed - and here I strongly suspect BP's inability to up production.  In which the Ministry of Aircraft Production will have had a say, as they controlled orders, factory expansion and the movement of skilled manpower (which was always short).  US turrets were retained because there simply weren't enough British ones to meet demand: it seems likely to me.

[EwenS]

Early Liberator history is convoluted to say the least. Ultimately, after all the contractual issues were sorted, the RAF received -

6 LB-30A / YB-24 / Mk.I all delivered unarmed and used as transports so were never rearmed.

19 (20 less one that crashed before delivery) LB-30B / B-24A / Mk.I again all delivered unarmed.  11 of these were armed by Scottish Aviation Ltd at Prestwick as anti submarine aircraft for 120 sqn. The tail mount seems to have been an open position for hand held guns and no mid upper turret was fitted. 10 of the 11 received a belly pack in the forward bomb bay with 4*20mm cannon. The remaining 8 were used as unarmed transports. As 120 was operating far over the Atlantic I can see why it may have been felt that minimal defensive armament would be required.

The above all had the short nose.

86 LB-30 from the French order which had the normal early Liberator nose (if there is such a thing).  These became the Mk.II and most became bombers. Something like 10 according to one source, I've identified 8 serials, went to Coastal Command but I haven't located any photos of them to determine how they were equipped in their early days. Another couple of dozen immediately became unarmed transports with more being converted later.  All these were delivered unarmed and, with the exception of 5 aircraft, were routed to SAL at Prestwick for outfitting for operations. The bombers seem to all have received BP mid upper (over the after bomb bay) and tail turrets. The odd 5 were delivered straight from the USA to the Middle East in Nov / Dec 1941 by USAAF crews for use by 108 sqn. One crashed en route. The photos of these  that exist in RAF service show them lacking mid upper turrets and with a hand held tail position probably because they did not get the SAL modifications.

 

That brings us to the MkIII and Mk.V based on the B-24D which were lend lease deliveries starting in April 1942. It seems that officialdom was also confused about the delivery position and none more so than Ferry Command responsible for delivering the aircraft from Dorval in Canada to Prestwick.

In my last post I referred to there being some 700 on order in Dec 1941 which were ultimately delivered from early 1943 as III/V and later VI. However it seems that Consolidated were working on another batch of 100 for the RAF from Jan 1942, based on the B-24D but equipped to RAF specs and subject to a special lend lease provision. These were produced and routed via modification centres to the RAF starting April 1942 and were in the FK and FL serial ranges. To these were added a further 22 aircraft in the FL serial range from US allocations to make up for some of the earlier LB-30 variants grabbed by the US at the time of Pearl Harbor.

The Liberator in RAF and Commonwealth service has a reference to these 22 machines "retaining only the BP tail turret as a special-to-type modification, with USAAF type beam hatches".

Coupling that with earlier comments in the book, I draw the conclusion that standard fit for these initial 100 Mk.III/V was to be Martin top turret and BP tail with the FN55 side guns (the semi remote mount referred to above). All these to have been fitted either at the factory or the modification centre in the USA. The side guns were then replaced for the next 22 with standard USAAF mounts.  When the next batch appeared in early 1943, with BZ serials, these were to the same spec as the 22.

Once the aircraft arrived in the UK decisions were then made about adding or deleting any equipment as they transitted through SAL depending on the squadrons that they were being sent to.

There is a series of well published photos taken at Aldergove in March 1943 of Liberator III/V of 86 and 120 sqns with BP tail and no mid upper turrets.  Both sqns were at that time ranging far out over the Atlantic where the turret was of little use. Aircraft used by 311 in 1943 for which there is detailed published data  reveal them operating a mix of III/V aircraft some with and some without top turrets in the same FK/FL serial range.

 

In another recent post there is a link to a 59 sqn website which is well worth a read.  The following caught my eye

 

F/L Allen also notes that the 59 Sqn Mk V (full VLR) Liberators had the front and top turrets removed to save weight and also the oxygen systems had been totally removed. This meant that if a crew were forced to fly above 10,000 ft for an extended period of time (due to bad weather, evasive action etc) they risked blackouts and irrational behaviour through lack of oxygen. The lack of front armament was however a major issue for crews, and since the arrival of the Liberator Mk.V's without them (April 1943), there had been continuous complaints by 59 crews and it was decided by those in command that all aircraft would have the front turrets put back on once they had reached there time for routine service overhaul... In June, after an air gunner was seriously wounded during a U-boat attack.. the C/O (W/C Gilchrist) grounded all aircraft until they had their nose turrets re-installed... There were no complaints...

 

For front turrets read 0.5" gun on flexible mount given that we are talking about the Mk.V

 

Coastal Liberators were in a regular state of modification as aircraft of certain sqns rotated aircraft to MUs to have Leigh Lights, rockets etc added or removed according to circumstances surrounding their operations at the time. I feel sure that mid upper turrets probably fell into the same category. Given the short life span of many WW2 aircraft the operational longevity of many of the early Liberators is notable.

 

Turning to the Mk.VI for a moment I've yet to finalise my thoughts but it seems that the GR.VI received BP tail turrets throughout the BZ and EV serial ranges, only changing to the Consolidated turret with the EW range i.e. as late as deliveries in the first few months of 1944. Much later than I had originally thought. I've not looked at the bombers yet.

 

I'm sorry for the length of this post, and for repeating some of the comments from earlier posts, but the Liberator has always been my favourite 4 engined "heavy" and some of the history of it in RAF service has always, and continues to puzzle me.  Having spent the time sorting things out in my own head for my own benefit and drawing various threads together I thought that I would put my research out there for others to enjoy / consider and shoot holes in!!

[Gondor44]

No need to apologise EwanS. The information you have given here is of tremendous assistance to me who as I have very little information on the B-24 in Costal Command, or in fact the RAF.

 

What I intend to do is to produce two Costal Command Liberators, one of them to be a version with the aerofoils on the nose with the rockets and the other with the rockets that were lowered from the bomb bay.

 

What I have to work with is the Italeri B-24D, which is a reboxing of the Minicraft kit, and a Hasegawa B-24J which also has the very front glazing of the D on the clear sprue/tree so perhaps with careful surgery it can have the front modified to take the D nose glazing?

 

Talking about glazing, there appears to be two different versions of the BP tail turret on sprue/tree A, any ideas about the differences?

 

Could someone recommend a reference source for me that I might be able to pick up at Perth tomorrow as I will be visiting the Scottish Nationals. Usually I am there for two days as part of a SIG stand but I am not feeling up to being there for a whole two days this year.

 

Gondor

[Graham Boak]

The reference source for British Libs is James D. Oughton's The Liberator in RAF and Commonwealth Service, published by Air Britain.  ISBN 0-85130-362-5.   I suspect that you will find it difficult to get hold of, and probably very expensive if you do.  However, nothing else comes even close.  To be honest, I can't think of another single source, as opposed to bits scattered about here and there in B-24 or Coastal Command books.

 

No idea about the two different BP turrets, however.  They don't look terribly different in the photo - is there a square central panel missing on one of them?

[EwenS]

Another well worth having is one about 311 Czech squadron which flew the mk.v from 43 to early 45 and then mark 6. There are appendices giving incrdible detail on every aircraft flown. Turrets rockets Leigh light aerials radars and their location. Not to mention general overview and individual aircraft histories of time with 311.

It came out a few years ago and is hard to find and was expensive new. Can't remember full title and not in my library just now but you should find it on amazon

[EwenS]

I'll try again. Stupid train wi first!!!

I posted on here a few months ago about after market kits for both rocket set ups. I think from Eduard. Might be worth a look.

[Gondor44]

Again thank you EwenS. The picture of zz^.P looks like the sort of aircraft I want to model for one equipment fit so I will need to find decals for that and one of the options that Eduard use.

 

Tempted to buy the Warpaint book on the Liberator as that would also expand my knowlage of the aircraft.

 

Maybe I should just buy either of these decal sheets

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/DKD72018

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/REV72003

 

Gondor

[EwenS]

Ah my favourite - a "dumbo" nosed Mk.V.  I assume you mean PP-Z of 311 sqn and not ZZ-P of 220 sqn which would be a Mk.VI.

 

The link to the Czech book I was talking about is here:- http://www.hyperscale.com/2015/reviews/books/japoliberatorbookreviewth_1.htm

It was published back in 2015 and although I got it when first published, and much to my surprise even got a signed copy, I really don't remember paying that much! Anyway for a Lib enthusiast like me it was worth it.

 

Anyway, I've been into the library and more importantly the appendices to the above book and here is what is published about PP-Z BZ751.

 

It came off the San Diego assembly line on 23/3/43 as B-24D-70-CO 42-40548 and first flew 2 days later. It was at the Fort Worth Modification Center between 5/4/43 & 1/5/43. It was delivered to the RAF at Dorval in Canada on 1/5/43 and flew to Prestwick via Goose Bay between 6-12/5/43 (there are some discrepancies in dates of UK arrival in my sources). After modifications at SAL it was issued to 53 sqn as FH-G on 29/5/43 and sank U-535 on 5/7/43. After repairs to damage in that action it was issued to 59 sqn on 17/12/43. It was back to SAL in March 1944 for bomb bay rocket and leigh light instalation prior to issue to 311 sqn on 26/4/44. It was with that sqn until 12/3/45 when it went to 22MU and storage before SOC on 5/2/46. It was under repair at its base at Tain between 20/11/44 and 18/1/45 after a crew communication problem caused it to land with the nose wheel retracted.

 

Its regular armament was 16RP in the rear bomb bay and 4 or 8 250lb Mk.XI depth charges in the forward bomb bay. On 20/2/45 it flew with 4 250lb DC and 2 Mk.24 mines (cover name for the Fido homing torpedo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_mine).

 

It flew 59 sorties with 311sqn the 3rd highest in the sqn, the last being on 28/2/45.

 

Now for the modelling stuff for which this book is unbelievable in its detail.

 

Armament - 0.5" nose gun, Martin top turret. All the artwork on this aircraft shows a BP tail turret and US style waist windows which would be logical but the book is silent on these for this aircraft.

Nose wheel doors - retract inwards.

Pitot tubes - 2 in the upper position on the nose

Bulged cockpit side windows

Navigator window - 1*rectangular vertical both sides & 1*larger rectangular horizontal to port

It had the tunnel gun scanning windows in the aft fuselage and a flare chute.

Engines R1830-43 with wide blades

Yagi nose aerial (ASV MkII) and dumbo nose (ASG-1)

There were whip antennas on the upper fuselage and upper nose. No dipole aerial behind the front wheel. Radioaltimeter antenna. B5 Driftmeter. MarkIII bombsight.

The camouflage you have but the spinners were white and the wing and tail de-icers silver.

 

I hope that this helps and look forward to seeing the finished product(s)

[Chuck1945]

FWIW, I was able to get a new copy of the JaPo book last Fall from Roll Models The website indicates it has been reprinted

Edited April 28, 2018 by Chuck1945

[Gondor44]

1 hour ago, Chuck1945 said:

FWIW, I was able to get a new copy of the JaPo book last Fall from Roll Models The website indicates it has been reprinted

That's quite steep price wise for me at the moment.

 

9 hours ago, EwenS said:

Ah my favourite - a "dumbo" nosed Mk.V.  I assume you mean PP-Z of 311 sqn and not ZZ-P of 220 sqn which would be a Mk.VI.

 

Now for the modelling stuff for which this book is unbelievable in its detail.

 

Armament - 0.5" nose gun, Martin top turret. All the artwork on this aircraft shows a BP tail turret and US style waist windows which would be logical but the book is silent on these for this aircraft.

Nose wheel doors - retract inwards.

Pitot tubes - 2 in the upper position on the nose

Bulged cockpit side windows

Navigator window - 1*rectangular vertical both sides & 1*larger rectangular horizontal to port

It had the tunnel gun scanning windows in the aft fuselage and a flare chute.

Engines R1830-43 with wide blades

Yagi nose aerial (ASV MkII) and dumbo nose (ASG-1)

There were whip antennas on the upper fuselage and upper nose. No dipole aerial behind the front wheel. Radioaltimeter antenna. B5 Driftmeter. MarkIII bombsight.

The camouflage you have but the spinners were white and the wing and tail de-icers silver.

 

I hope that this helps and look forward to seeing the finished product(s)

Actually I am hopeing to build a dumbo nosed Liberator with the nose aerofoils and rockets with the D I have, not sure what to build with the Hasegawa J I have which should be backdatable to a D with kit parts and some ingiuity. I would rather put the bomb bay rockets into the Hasegawa kit as that has the better bomb bay I feel.

 

These build might not get very far very quickly as I usually look at lots of refference material and sort out parts etc then put the whole thing away for ages.

 

Gondor

[Gondor44]

Thinking again,  about what I have and want to build and what I have to build them with, I really just want to show off the two different radar types and the two different mounts for the rockets as well. So PP-Z would be a good choice if there was an aircraft with the other rocket mounting options with the radar where the ball turret would be. A Leigh Light fitted to one of the options, or both, woould be nice too.

 

Double checking the transparancies shows that one of the BP turrets does have a cut out or clear view panel for the gunner

 

Gondor