Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:21 am
Alan.L, I will probably install some steps on the inside of the door. I'm still not too happy about having to do the door this way vs. the original, but it's probably for the best since we have to make it easy for people to go through. I'm still tossing different step ideas around in my head. I want them to be as "invisible" as possible when the door is retracted. I'm sure y'all will be the first to see what I come up with when that time comes. 
Shay, I did receive the swivel mount for the tunnel gun, but have not installed it. That will probably be the next little project I'll take on if I ever get this door finished.
henry, this can definitely be a rewarding job. Particularly when the Vets and your peers like what they see. I often tell people that much more than it being rewarding for me, it's an honor to be able to work on these old airplanes and that people actually trust me with 'em.
Gary
Shay, I did receive the swivel mount for the tunnel gun, but have not installed it. That will probably be the next little project I'll take on if I ever get this door finished.
henry, this can definitely be a rewarding job. Particularly when the Vets and your peers like what they see. I often tell people that much more than it being rewarding for me, it's an honor to be able to work on these old airplanes and that people actually trust me with 'em.
Gary
Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:32 am
Gary,
How about swinging that camera around and getting a shot or two of the B-29...please
How about swinging that camera around and getting a shot or two of the B-29...please
Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:57 am
Gary, did you consider removable steps, much like the ones for the C-47????? cant get any easier than that.
Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:27 pm
APG85, Hmmm, B-29 pictures.......I haven't even wanted to look at that thing in a while. 
I may put a few up on a different thread. What is it that you're looking for?
N3NJeff, Good suggestion. I've thought about the removable steps, and that is sort of what we had with the airplane before. The problem is that we have many crew members who don't take pride in the airplanes and just throw stuff around. They've already beat up my brand new floorboards in the B-29, and I just don't want them tearing up this airplane too when I finish it. I know that's kind of a harsh way to put it, as most of our guys and gals do indeed take care of the equipment, but some just don't. I have to make these steps so simple that anyone can work them, without tearing anything up in the process. I'm sure there are folks out there who can tell you that I get just a wee bit grumpy when people treat these airplanes like rental cars.
Gary
I may put a few up on a different thread. What is it that you're looking for?
N3NJeff, Good suggestion. I've thought about the removable steps, and that is sort of what we had with the airplane before. The problem is that we have many crew members who don't take pride in the airplanes and just throw stuff around. They've already beat up my brand new floorboards in the B-29, and I just don't want them tearing up this airplane too when I finish it. I know that's kind of a harsh way to put it, as most of our guys and gals do indeed take care of the equipment, but some just don't. I have to make these steps so simple that anyone can work them, without tearing anything up in the process. I'm sure there are folks out there who can tell you that I get just a wee bit grumpy when people treat these airplanes like rental cars.
Gary
Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:38 pm
retroaviation wrote:APG85, Hmmm, B-29 pictures.......I haven't even wanted to look at that thing in a while.
Gary
Interior of the tail gunners compartment...if you have time. Just curious as to what it looks like on FIFI. A shot or two of the nose is always good as well...
Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:58 pm
Oh brother! I've seen that guy they've got pictured there on the cover of GQ magazine, haven't I?
Gary
I've seen that guy they've got pictured there on the cover of GQ magazine, haven't I?
Gary
Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:23 pm
Just a quick update on Gary's continued work on the B-24. Today he had three helpers, one of whom is, if I got his name right, Jason Fisher, who is a WIXer from Midland - he was stripping paint like mad when I saw him.
Another helper was long-time B-24/29 member Shorty DeWitt but my photo of him didn't turn out due to some lighting and camera operator issues, however when I asked Shorty if I could climb in and where not to step, I loved his answer - "Don't step on anything that looks new!"
Gary continues work on the new crew door as seen here - or perhaps is it a fun house mirror? With Gary, we never know
And the B-24/29 unit leader, Lyn Fyte was out and agreed that Gary needed a good pat on the back for all of his hard work.
I hope to reshoot some new images of the work with better lighting and the flash turned on and post them tomorrow.
Gary is still in need of help and of course, as it is the time to think about tax deductions for the year, every little bit donated to the B-24/29 unit can be used to keep 'em flying. Later.
Randy
Another helper was long-time B-24/29 member Shorty DeWitt but my photo of him didn't turn out due to some lighting and camera operator issues, however when I asked Shorty if I could climb in and where not to step, I loved his answer - "Don't step on anything that looks new!"
Gary continues work on the new crew door as seen here - or perhaps is it a fun house mirror? With Gary, we never know
And the B-24/29 unit leader, Lyn Fyte was out and agreed that Gary needed a good pat on the back for all of his hard work.
I hope to reshoot some new images of the work with better lighting and the flash turned on and post them tomorrow.
Gary is still in need of help and of course, as it is the time to think about tax deductions for the year, every little bit donated to the B-24/29 unit can be used to keep 'em flying. Later.
Randy
Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:11 am
I was reading my latest issue of Air Force Magazine, & came across this in the Letters section. It is responding to an article in a previous issue "The Making Of An Iconic Bomber". I find it interesting that Diamond Lill is getting some good attention. Gary, keep up the good work. We appreceiate your labor & dedication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter reads as follows;
Much of the article confirmed what I know about the B-24 and B-17 debate. I fly the Commemorative Air Force’s B-24 Diamond Lil. Mr. Johnsen’s assertion that there is only one flying B-24 in the world is incorrect. I believe Mr. Johnsen is referring to the only flying B-24 as the one flown by the Collings Foundation, currently named Witchcraft. That “only one flying B-24” misconception is incorrect and those of us who maintain and fly Lil are working to undo the common belief that Lil is an LB-30 and not a B-24. Lil was built as a B-24A, paid for by the British Air Commission (BAC), and signed for as an LB-30 in May 1941. When delivered, she had bomb bays and gun positions in the nose, both waists, an upper gunner, tunnel gunner, and tail gunner. She had no turrets. She still has B-24A data plates on her engine oil tanks. Had she been delivered to the Army, her serial number would have been 40-2366. The British gave her serial number AM927 and intended her to be a training airframe for RAF Liberator aircrews. She was based at the Trans World Airways training center, “Eagles Nest,” in Albuquerque, N.M. In July 1941, with TWA pilots at the controls, AM927 experienced a landing mishap in Albuquerque when her right brake was either locked or turning slowly. The tire blew out, she departed the right side of the runway, the right main landing gear and nose gear collapsed, and her days as a bomber were over. The British wanted the airframe repaired and AM927 Lil became the prototype airframe for the C-87 Liberator Express.
The B-24 line started with the XB-24. The Army wanted certain modifications, and that airframe was redesignated XB-24B. Consolidated produced seven YB-24 preproduction airplanes. Six went to Britain as the LB-30A. The seventh went to the Army as 40-702. The B-24A production run would have been 38 airframes. The first block of 20 B-24As were delivered to the British due to France no longer being in a position to take delivery of them when the first B-24A rolled off the production line in May 1941. Had France not been defeated by Germany, the French would have owned Lil. Lil was the 18th airframe of that first block of 20, called LB-30B, the Liberator I. Of that block of 20, two went to BOAC, one was crashed nine days after delivery, and the other 16 airframes were converted to submarine hunters and assigned to 120 Squadron in Coastal Command. Lil’s sister airplane two numbers behind her, AM929, was credited with five U-boats sunk before she was crashed in Canada in the later stages of the war. The Army took delivery of nine B-24As; one, 40-2371, was destroyed at Pearl Harbor on 7 December. The last block of nine B-24As rolled off the line as B-24Cs.
After AM927’s landing mishap, the BAC and Consolidated had an agreement that Consolidated would operate the aircraft in the US delivering parts and personnel. We have pictures of Lil when she still had the B-24A short nose, B-24 greenhouse canopy, and round engine nacelles. We have another picture of Lil, circa late 1945, with an extended nose and the current two-piece windscreen you see when you view the airplane. When the war concluded in Europe, the BAC gave the airplane back to Consolidated. Consolidated worked to get AM927 on the civil register. Lil received civil certification as NL 24927 on 1 April 1947. I can’t be certain, but I believe the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) that can be found on the FAA’s website TCL-6-3, 21 February 1947, is the one from when Lil was being put on the civil register.
Those of us who love, fly, and maintain Diamond Lil realize she is a very unique airplane. No other aircraft has a history like hers—she is the only B-24A that survived the war, either flying or in a museum. The misconception that she is an LB-30 and not a B-24 is one that has been entrenched for all her life. We are working to restore her bomb bays and gun positions, return her to the B-24A she once was, and end that misconception forever. On paper she is an LB-30. Even Witchcraft is as there is no B-24 TCDS. Diamond Lil is very much a B-24 and the older one of the two left flying in the world.
Maj. Robert Prater,
ANG
Will Rogers ANGB, Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lest We Forget.
Robbie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter reads as follows;
Much of the article confirmed what I know about the B-24 and B-17 debate. I fly the Commemorative Air Force’s B-24 Diamond Lil. Mr. Johnsen’s assertion that there is only one flying B-24 in the world is incorrect. I believe Mr. Johnsen is referring to the only flying B-24 as the one flown by the Collings Foundation, currently named Witchcraft. That “only one flying B-24” misconception is incorrect and those of us who maintain and fly Lil are working to undo the common belief that Lil is an LB-30 and not a B-24. Lil was built as a B-24A, paid for by the British Air Commission (BAC), and signed for as an LB-30 in May 1941. When delivered, she had bomb bays and gun positions in the nose, both waists, an upper gunner, tunnel gunner, and tail gunner. She had no turrets. She still has B-24A data plates on her engine oil tanks. Had she been delivered to the Army, her serial number would have been 40-2366. The British gave her serial number AM927 and intended her to be a training airframe for RAF Liberator aircrews. She was based at the Trans World Airways training center, “Eagles Nest,” in Albuquerque, N.M. In July 1941, with TWA pilots at the controls, AM927 experienced a landing mishap in Albuquerque when her right brake was either locked or turning slowly. The tire blew out, she departed the right side of the runway, the right main landing gear and nose gear collapsed, and her days as a bomber were over. The British wanted the airframe repaired and AM927 Lil became the prototype airframe for the C-87 Liberator Express.
The B-24 line started with the XB-24. The Army wanted certain modifications, and that airframe was redesignated XB-24B. Consolidated produced seven YB-24 preproduction airplanes. Six went to Britain as the LB-30A. The seventh went to the Army as 40-702. The B-24A production run would have been 38 airframes. The first block of 20 B-24As were delivered to the British due to France no longer being in a position to take delivery of them when the first B-24A rolled off the production line in May 1941. Had France not been defeated by Germany, the French would have owned Lil. Lil was the 18th airframe of that first block of 20, called LB-30B, the Liberator I. Of that block of 20, two went to BOAC, one was crashed nine days after delivery, and the other 16 airframes were converted to submarine hunters and assigned to 120 Squadron in Coastal Command. Lil’s sister airplane two numbers behind her, AM929, was credited with five U-boats sunk before she was crashed in Canada in the later stages of the war. The Army took delivery of nine B-24As; one, 40-2371, was destroyed at Pearl Harbor on 7 December. The last block of nine B-24As rolled off the line as B-24Cs.
After AM927’s landing mishap, the BAC and Consolidated had an agreement that Consolidated would operate the aircraft in the US delivering parts and personnel. We have pictures of Lil when she still had the B-24A short nose, B-24 greenhouse canopy, and round engine nacelles. We have another picture of Lil, circa late 1945, with an extended nose and the current two-piece windscreen you see when you view the airplane. When the war concluded in Europe, the BAC gave the airplane back to Consolidated. Consolidated worked to get AM927 on the civil register. Lil received civil certification as NL 24927 on 1 April 1947. I can’t be certain, but I believe the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) that can be found on the FAA’s website TCL-6-3, 21 February 1947, is the one from when Lil was being put on the civil register.
Those of us who love, fly, and maintain Diamond Lil realize she is a very unique airplane. No other aircraft has a history like hers—she is the only B-24A that survived the war, either flying or in a museum. The misconception that she is an LB-30 and not a B-24 is one that has been entrenched for all her life. We are working to restore her bomb bays and gun positions, return her to the B-24A she once was, and end that misconception forever. On paper she is an LB-30. Even Witchcraft is as there is no B-24 TCDS. Diamond Lil is very much a B-24 and the older one of the two left flying in the world.
Maj. Robert Prater,
ANG
Will Rogers ANGB, Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lest We Forget.
Robbie
Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:42 am
Thanks for that post Robbie. Bob Prater is one of our pilots for AM927 and is one of several folks in our Squadron who does a wonderful job of helping me out in finding old drawings and history of our aircraft. What he wrote in the letter are the facts. I frequently get frustrated when I hear people tell me they thought the Collins Foundation operated the world's only flying B-24, but I try to keep it friendly and not get too wound around the axle about it. They are only trying to compete in the Warbird world, just like we are. Hopefully though, with the real facts out there, we can start working with them, rather than them working against us. Personally, I don't care about the different personalities and who's group is better than the other, I just like seeing these cool old airplanes in the air. I think it would be great to see both B-24's in the same flight someday soon.
Gary
Gary
Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:04 am
Interesting, though not especially important, existential question: When does a B-24 become a B-24? When it is assigned a serial number? Or only when it enters USAAC/AAF service? It is ultimately a matter of opinion/judgment, not fact. But not an especially important one. Personally, I favor the latter view and, even knowing all of the facts, will continue to consider Lil an LB-30. So what? It's a lot more rare than a B-24.
Many warbird operators stretch a little to emphasize the rarity or uniqueness of their aircraft. In many cases it is a matter of definition. Some would say that there is only one airworthy Zero; others would say three or four. And so on and so on. So don't be too hard on the Collings folks. I remember when the Tallichet B-24 was sort of airworthy, their claim was that they had the only "completely restored flying B-24" or some such thing because Tallichet's (and I guess Lil) have never been "restored" in the sense of having every rivet replaced. I'm inclined to cut warbird operators a little slack in their promotion. The CAF certainly has not been above pushing the truth now and then in promoting its aircraft. I certainly don't see any point in squabbling when the aircraft are ultra-rare by any definition and everybody's in this game together.
August
Many warbird operators stretch a little to emphasize the rarity or uniqueness of their aircraft. In many cases it is a matter of definition. Some would say that there is only one airworthy Zero; others would say three or four. And so on and so on. So don't be too hard on the Collings folks. I remember when the Tallichet B-24 was sort of airworthy, their claim was that they had the only "completely restored flying B-24" or some such thing because Tallichet's (and I guess Lil) have never been "restored" in the sense of having every rivet replaced. I'm inclined to cut warbird operators a little slack in their promotion. The CAF certainly has not been above pushing the truth now and then in promoting its aircraft. I certainly don't see any point in squabbling when the aircraft are ultra-rare by any definition and everybody's in this game together.
August
Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:30 am
I agree with you August. I was just trying to pass along my point of view. You make good points, and I think you're especially right when you say there is no need for squabbling over this sort of thing. I just want to see them ALL flying.
Gary
Gary
Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:03 pm
Bob Prater wrote: We have pictures of Lil when she still had the B-24A short nose, B-24 greenhouse canopy, and round engine nacelles.
Gary
Do you think that when you have a free minute that you could post the pictures of AM927 in her unaltered original state?
Thanks
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:04 pm
Well, as you saw from Randy's earlier post, forward progress was happening this past weekend. The volunteers were doing some of the dirty, but much needed work and didn't complain once about it. Shorty DeWitt was able to get the inside of the airplane all lit up with a string of lights, and you gotta know is hugely helpful when working in the dark confines of a big 'ol bomber. Daniel Collier was one of my two main helpers that I had with the FIFI project and was here yesterday and today working. It's awesome to have him here helping with the sheet metal work. He has already finished the relocation of the radio operator's floor that I had previously started!
As for me, I am still plugging away on that stinkin' door. I know Randy posted a photo or two of it yesterday, but here's how the process has gone so far since the last update.......
I started raising the door to where the bottom of the left waist gunner's position will be by making the internal structure...........
The next thing was to make the outside skin for the door. I used .063" thickness aluminum (2024T3) for this. It's going to make the door heavy, but I will need the strength if folks are going to be walking on it.
The only real "custom" thing I've had to do to this skin was to make the cutout for the door handle and lock........
To make the holes in the skin, I just back drilled the holes from the structure. Most of these were located in such a way that I was unable to use a "standard" drill on this. I had to use what's called a "pancake drill." You can probably see why here.......
And here is the door with it's new height and new outer skin. Believe it or not, the latches and hinges still work the way they should. It's better to be lucky than good I reckon.......
I'll zap y'all another update later,
Gary
As for me, I am still plugging away on that stinkin' door. I know Randy posted a photo or two of it yesterday, but here's how the process has gone so far since the last update.......
I started raising the door to where the bottom of the left waist gunner's position will be by making the internal structure...........
The next thing was to make the outside skin for the door. I used .063" thickness aluminum (2024T3) for this. It's going to make the door heavy, but I will need the strength if folks are going to be walking on it.
The only real "custom" thing I've had to do to this skin was to make the cutout for the door handle and lock........
To make the holes in the skin, I just back drilled the holes from the structure. Most of these were located in such a way that I was unable to use a "standard" drill on this. I had to use what's called a "pancake drill." You can probably see why here.......
And here is the door with it's new height and new outer skin. Believe it or not, the latches and hinges still work the way they should. It's better to be lucky than good I reckon.......
I'll zap y'all another update later,
Gary
Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:06 pm
Shay wrote:
Gary
Do you think that when you have a free minute that you could post the pictures of AM927 in her unaltered original state?
Thanks
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
I'll see what I can do on that, Shay. I may get either Bob Prater or Don Obrieter (our Squadron's maintenance officer) to post them.
Gary