Wondering about two Colorado airframes

[george]

Anyone know if the disassembled Lib at the abandoned Fort Collins airport is still there? If so, lets hope it is at least under a roof and out of the weather until possible restoration.

For years , an A-26 Invader was stored in an industrial park in the town of Grand Junction. Has it been restored, or still sitting out in the elements?

[Xrayist]

Can't comment on the Grand Junction A-26, but as of a few years ago the B-24/LB-30 was next to Darrell Skurich's old Vintage Aircraft business behind a pretty high fence. Also behind that fence were several B-17 parts including cowling pieces, rear horizontal stabilizers, and some tires/wheels. I will try and get out to that area this weekend and see if anything has changed.

[rwdfresno]

The B-24 is still there. I just saw it last week.

Last edited by rwdfresno on Thu May 14, 2015 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Obergrafeter]

Speaking of A-26s is the one still sitting rotting away at San Marcos, Tx after being indoors for years in Uvalde and getting kicked out for non payment of storage fees?

[wendovertom]

I know this will come off as heresy but. . . given the right amount of $$ I assume you could rebuild the LB-30 air frame as a B-24H/J/L model couldn't you? The LB-30 is nice but a B-24 variant would have a little more crowd appeal I think. <running for cover>

Tom P.

[ChrisAldridge]

As a person who has studied the Consolidated microfilm drawings, the LB-30 design is too different for any later model conversion.

[JohnB]

As a person who has studied the Consolidated microfilm drawings, the LB-30 design is too different for any later model conversion.

I assume you mean the fuselage is different...and of course the engine installations. The wings should be very close. But if the existing fuselage has damage or issues....and you have to do a major rebuild, why not do it as a 24?


We have B-17s being almost made from scratch...I suspect one day we'll have a nearly new built B-24 as well

[Warbird Kid]

We have B-17s being almost made from scratch...I suspect one day we'll have a nearly new built B-24 as well

I hope with all my might...

[rwdfresno]

I know this will come off as heresy but. . . given the right amount of $$ I assume you could rebuild the LB-30 air frame as a B-24H/J/L model couldn't you? The LB-30 is nice but a B-24 variant would have a little more crowd appeal I think. <running for cover>

Tom P.

The LB-30 is essentially an export designation of the B-24A, maybe technically a YB-24, as far as I understand it. I think restoring to her to her original configuration would be much less complicated as there was significant changes from the B-24A to D model. A B-24A is no less a B-24 variant than a D,H, or J though.

[SaxMan]

That poor LB-30 has been sitting outside of Skurich's shop for at least 17 - 18 years now. It was missing the twin tail. At one point the Whittingtons were trying to sell it for $130,000. Don't know where it stands now. While it had an interesting history as AL557 with the RCAF and BOAC as a transport it was not necessarily a historically significant one. The Smithsonian was aware of this airframe, and even though they don't have any example of a B-24, the most produced American warplane in World War II, they took a pass on this one. I believe they were still hoping for the Newfoundland B-24 before those negotiations went south.

Post war, the plane was used as a cargo hauler for the Morris-Knudsen Company with the registration N92MK. At one point, I had copies of color slides taken shortly after the plane was wrecked in Alaska and pushed to the side of the runway. By today's standards, the damage was relatively minor. However, by 1959 standards it wasn't worth fixing the plane up, so they just pushed it aside and left it there.

Even if the Whittingtons simply donated the airframe, it would take a huge pile of cash and a LOT of work just to get it to a presentable static condition, let alone an airworthy one.

[Triplane102]

O.K, after Tom P. jumped in, I'll do the same ! Isn't Diamond Lil a stretched out LB-30 ?, a B-24A? Either way, She's always looked nothing BUT B-24, so I'm all for anyone getting that LB-30 together $$$ and add turrets & waist guns, a Glass nose to her ! Hey ! This Beggar ain't picky !

[ChrisAldridge]

A good start for any early model B-24 restoration are the first series set of drawings, numbered below 100. Drawing 32B004 is the stringer layout chart for the location of stringers. 32B007 is the platting diagram for the skin. As for Consolidated drawings in general, they lack detail on drawings. On the early drawing series, I have seen one drawing with only two lines representing the rough outline of a beltframe, no stringers shown, nor a cross section defining the shape.

The Structure Assembly drawing 32B001 shows the station layout and the assembly drawing numbers for each station.


The Offset drawing 32B003 is the tabular numbers set for the fuselage shape, defined as the inside skin on a 5 Inch grid system.

[rwdfresno]

O.K, after Tom P. jumped in, I'll do the same ! Isn't Diamond Lil a stretched out LB-30 ?, a B-24A? Either way, She's always looked nothing BUT B-24, so I'm all for anyone getting that LB-30 together $$$ and add turrets & waist guns, a Glass nose to her ! Hey ! This Beggar ain't picky !

Yes, basically. Although she underwent a somewhat significant retrofit into a transport following an incident during a training flight prior to being delivered to the RAF. Of course there were also subsequent modifications by Consolidated and later "back" to B-24A configuration although the bomb bay area still requires significant modification to restore to bomber configuration.

The LB-30 that rests in CO, AL557 AKA N92MK, was also converted from LB-30 configuration to a transport. You can see some pictures of N92MK in better days on this thread http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=210912. It also discusses some of the modifications to a transport.

I assume you mean the fuselage is different...and of course the engine installations. The wings should be very close. But if the existing fuselage has damage or issues....and you have to do a major rebuild, why not do it as a 24?

I may be reading this wrong, but I feel there is some confusion about what an LB-30A is. It isn't a transport designation. It is essentially a bomber designation for an exported version of a B-24A (perhaps YB-24 but I can't clearly delineate between a YB-24 and a B-24A). I think this confusion comes from the fact that many of the LB-30s were converted to transports, including "Diamond Lil." When people hear it was "converted" from LB-30 to B-24A they assume you mean from transport to bomber when the reality is that "Diamond Lil" was born an LB-30 and it had a bomb bay, guns, etc and was sold to the RAF. The fact is, that it basically was converted back to more of an LB-30 config, but "Americanized" as a B-24A. It had an accident that lead to it never making it to the RAF and instead was converted to a transport and used for various purposes by Consolidated. I don't think it was ever re-designated with a transport designation (I could be wrong here please feel free to correct anything I've said).

Of course there were designated cargo/transport, and tanker versions of the B-24, but these were designed from a B-24D spec. In fact the prototype was actually built off of a damaged B-24D much the way that "Diamond Lil" was built off of a damanged B-24A. The transports were designated C-87 for the transport/ cargo (RY in the Navy), C-87A for specially designed VIP transports, and C-109 for those converted to tanker config. Another interesting C-87 spin-off was the AT-22 which was a dedicated flight engineer variant that were converted from C-87s.

[rwdfresno]

jinx

[JohnB]

I may be reading this wrong, but I feel there is some confusion about what an LB-30A is.

I was speaking generally...not specifically about this particular airframe.
My point was simply...if you're extensively rebuilding something, you have the opportunity it rebuild it in any configuration you want.
Rather like some of the fighters out there with mostly new fuselages...if most of it is new metal, why not take the time to add a second seat or dual controls?