PB4Y-2 Privateer

[72modeler]

I just found this Privateer photo- one I have never seen before. Does anybody know what the purpose of the cabling/piping that runs over the wings outboard of the engines might be? Only thing I can think of is it might be associated with the Bat glide bomb? Just curious! @Tailspin Turtle Tommy- do you know?

Mike

 

https://bwplanes.tumblr.com/post/151296003979/stukablr-the-blind-bat-b-24d-95-co-liberator

Edited January 20, 2019 by 72modeler
added text

[ALG]

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

[72modeler]

Certainly the photo was miscaptioned, as is frequently the case with many websites. What I was more interested in were the objects on the outer wings- I figured very few would not realize the photo was mislabeled, but I appreciate your pointing it out to the less informed.  Thanks.

Mike

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Just caught this Mike interesting photo ? They are for a Bat bomb in my opinion ? Possibly cable run or strengthening for the wing? 

While researching this i found these. 

A -1 carrying the bat bomb.

And a -4 carrying a bat bomb. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[72modeler]

Dennis,

 

Now there's a Corsair modeling project worthy of your user name! 😜 Looks like the thingies on the Privateer upper wings might be BAT-related after all...sometimes I get lucky with my guesses!

Mike

[Tailspin Turtle]

22 hours ago, 72modeler said:

I just found this Privateer photo- one I have never seen before. Does anybody know what the purpose of the cabling/piping that runs over the wings outboard of the engines might be? Only thing I can think of is it might be associated with the Bat glide bomb? Just curious! @Tailspin Turtle Tommy- do you know?

Mike

 

https://bwplanes.tumblr.com/post/151296003979/stukablr-the-blind-bat-b-24d-95-co-liberator

New to me but I don’t know much about the land-based Navy. However, I do have a PB4Y subject-matter expert on call. I’ll check it with him. It seems possible if not likely that it has something to do with the BAT because of its location but it doesn’t make sense to me yet.

[Tailspin Turtle]

9 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

New to me but I don’t know much about the land-based Navy. However, I do have a PB4Y subject-matter expert on call. I’ll check it with him. It seems possible if not likely that it has something to do with the BAT because of its location but it doesn’t make sense to me yet.

Or I could just look it up in Nick Veronico's excellent PB4Y-2 monograph published by Steve Ginter: "In addition (on PB4Y-2Bs armed with the SWOD Mk 9 Bat bombs), a small fairing was installed on the top of the wing to redirect airflow over the ailerons, thereby preventing airflow interruptions that caused 'aileron snatch.'"

[stevehnz]

I got a bit interested in this, especially after @ALG's very adamant rebuttal of the caption in Mike's photo link. A quick whizz around the googlesphere found this site which seems to clarify the unit which operated the PB4Y-2 in Mike's photo, VPB-109 & has info about the deployment of the Bat bombs. This site has further info about the Bat bomb & robot bombs in general, including Bat bombs carried by PB4Y-2s.

'Nuther site here with copy of the report on Bat bomb deployment. To me the interesting thing is the turret on the front of the PB4Y-2 illustrated with a bat under each wing, that's no Erco turret? Emerson turret a la B-24J? Did later PB4Y-2s have these in place of the Erco turret.

Steve.

Edited January 22, 2019 by stevehnz

[EwenS]

I've had a quick look through Alan C Carey's "Consolidated Vultee PB4Y-2 Privateer" book. He notes that the first 100 (out of an eventual 736/740 total) production Privateers were equipped with the MPC 250-CE1 nose turret before switching to the more "normal" ERCO 250SH-3 turret. The MPC unit was a version of the A-6 tail turret originally designed by Consolidated for the B-24. The Emerson A-15 turret used on B-24s has a flatter front panel and has a more drum like appearance.

 

From a review of the serial numbers this would mean Bu No 59350 to 59449 inclusive (plus the 3 prototypes) should have the MPC turret and everything after that the ERCO unit. So far I've not found a photo of a serial lower than 59460 with the ERCO turret. The 5 I've found below that range from 59383 to 59418 and all have the MPC turret.

 

At least this equipment seems logical. Having looked in the past at the PB4Y-1 version of the Liberator there is a wide variation across the later production as to which aircraft got ERCO or Consolidated/MPC or Emerson nose turrets.

 

Regarding the BAT equipped aircraft I note that many of the photos are of an unidentified BAT carrying aircraft which has a tall mast rising out of the nose similar to that worn by prototype 32086 (which doesn't appear to have the wing fences in the photos I've seen of her). Often it is noted as connected with the BAT bomb. However it does not seem to appear on operational aircraft in VPB109, 123 or 124 that I have seen, until someone produces the photo to prove otherwise!! I've concluded that these were therefore taken Stateside in a development unit.

 

 

[72modeler]

11 hours ago, stevehnz said:

with copy of the report on Bat bomb deployment

Steve,

 

Looks like the BATS sank more rocks than shipping! Wonder if that's where the phrase 'crazy as a bat' originated? I can now sleep tonight knowing what those wing fences were there for- thanks for the links; they were very interesting. Like an idiot, I have the Ginter Privateer monograph and forgot all about it- I have almost every Naval Fighters and Air Force Legends publications in my library....too many references to keep track of! (Now if somebody will release a state-of-the art PB4Y-2 in 1/72 scale, they will have a license to print money, as we like to say across the pond!) Are you listening, Revell of Germany?

Mike

 

BTW, for those who are interested, the ex-fire bomber PB4Y-2 that used to belong to the Lone Star Flight Museum, which they had been working on for several years, was heavily damaged by being immersed in salt water up to the midpoint of the fuselage during the last hurricane; it was deemed too expensive  for them to address this, so they recently  sold the aircraft to the Pima Air Museum, who evidently have cobbled up some correct looking R-1830 engines and cowlings, but no exhausts, to replace the  CW R-2600 engines and cowlings that were fitted when it was converted to a fire bomber. LSFM had converted the nose, cockpit, and tail to its original military fit and had  restored and installed  all of the correct gun turrets including the waist blisters. I used to watch the restoration progress each November when I would visit the museum during their annual  airshow and open house. IIRC, there is no existing Privateer that still has its R-1830 engines and cowlings, although I have read rumors that the fire fighting company that used Privateers kept some of the R-1830 engines and cowlings when they did the R-2600 conversions. Perhaps that's where the Pima Museum got theirs? A shame that a very rare and beautiful airplane that was very close to flying again is now a display only item. The first link below shows the Lone Star restoration in progress and the second one shows what she looks like now at the Pima Museum, as well as some other ex-firebomber examples. Sorry for this discussion diversion!

Mike

 

http://www.onlinehobbyist.com/gallery/photo.php?id=141325

 

http://447.insidetrackmagazine.com/wwii-aircraft/wwii-american-planes/pb4y-2/

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

8 hours ago, EwenS said:

I've had a quick look through Alan C Carey's "Consolidated Vultee PB4Y-2 Privateer" book. He notes that the first 100 (out of an eventual 736/740 total) production Privateers were equipped with the MPC 250-CE1 nose turret before switching to the more "normal" ERCO 250SH-3 turret. The MPC unit was a version of the A-6 tail turret originally designed by Consolidated for the B-24. The Emerson A-15 turret used on B-24s has a flatter front panel and has a more drum like appearance.

 

From a review of the serial numbers this would mean Bu No 59350 to 59449 inclusive (plus the 3 prototypes) should have the MPC turret and everything after that the ERCO unit. So far I've not found a photo of a serial lower than 59460 with the ERCO turret. The 5 I've found below that range from 59383 to 59418 and all have the MPC turret.

 

At least this equipment seems logical. Having looked in the past at the PB4Y-1 version of the Liberator there is a wide variation across the later production as to which aircraft got ERCO or Consolidated/MPC or Emerson nose turrets.

 

Regarding the BAT equipped aircraft I note that many of the photos are of an unidentified BAT carrying aircraft which has a tall mast rising out of the nose similar to that worn by prototype 32086 (which doesn't appear to have the wing fences in the photos I've seen of her). Often it is noted as connected with the BAT bomb. However it does not seem to appear on operational aircraft in VPB109, 123 or 124 that I have seen, until someone produces the photo to prove otherwise!! I've concluded that these were therefore taken Stateside in a development unit.

 

 

On page 151 of Veronico’s PB4Y-2 monograph, there is a picture of a VP-24 P4Y-2B with the fairing and the Bat rack. However, he does note that the fairing appears to have not been required unless it was a Bat that was loaded on that station, e.g. a KDH target or a depth charge could be carried without it.

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

fairing appears to have not been required unless it was a Bat that was loaded on that station,

Maybe because of the airfoil surfaces fitted to the Bat, they caused the aileron snatch, whereas the other stores that had no flying surfaces did not? Thanks for the feedback, Tommy! I would think the F4U-4 Bat carrier that Corsairfoxfouruncle posted would have made a much better delivery vehicle, but I imagine would need to be accompanied by a director aircraft like a PV-1 or PV-2.

Mike

[Tailspin Turtle]

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

Maybe because of the airfoil surfaces fitted to the Bat, they caused the aileron snatch, whereas the other stores that had no flying surfaces did not? Thanks for the feedback, Tommy! I would think the F4U-4 Bat carrier that Corsairfoxfouruncle posted would have made a much better delivery vehicle, but I imagine would need to be accompanied by a director aircraft like a PV-1 or PV-2.

Mike

I’m beginning to wonder about that aileron-snatch explanation, although it seems possible that the wings of the Bat caused a pressure change under the wing that sucked the aileron down or up. However, a wide, not very thick fairing that extends to or even a bit forward of the wing leading edge doesn’t strike me as a fix for that.

[757flyer]

Mike,

 

The former Lone Star Privateer does indeed look good at Pima.  Saw it earlier this year:

 

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9005679

 

Was surprised to see it there (along with a PBY/Canso) because I had missed that LSFM had offloaded them.  When I saw the work underway at Galveston a few years ago, it was looking great.  The prospect of an original configuration Privateer flying again was something to really look forward to...

 

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7922822

 

Mike