Why You Don't Belly Land A B-24!

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:04 pm

Looks sorta like road kill :shock:

TAdan · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:09 pm

Gary's gonna be pissed! :shock:

n5151ts · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:33 pm

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:38 pm

duct tape....... the all american fix it!!

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:54 am

Resembles the way the Lady Be Good ended up. Looks like #4 was feathered.

Oscar Duck · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:13 am

No flaps - maybe crashed on takeoff??

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:37 am

Chris Brame wrote:

Resembles the way the Lady Be Good ended up. Looks like #4 was feathered.

i thought the same thing

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:48 am

Looks like it hit pretty hard, given that three of the four props and reduction gear were taken off, and one of those was feathered.

Punisher05 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:01 am

Geez that's violent...

I'm going to demonstrate my ignorance here, but why would it buckle that badly? Is it because the wing is located higher up than on the B-17, thus moving the stronger parts (spars, etc.) away from the belly?

retroaviation · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:23 am

Well, the B-24 was sort of known for "breaking it's back" whenever it made landings without it's undercarriage...particularly when ditching in the ocean. There are a multitude of reasons for it, but the most vague of details is that they built those airplanes out of "oh-too-thin" aluminum in order to save weight. Some of the skins on the wing flaps are only .016" thick! :shock:

Many of the fuselage skins aren't much better, being a less-than-robust .020".

Now, that is not to say that the entire airplane is built in a "flimsy" manner, but most of it is. You must remember, it was designed to drop off one way passengers, not designed to wreck well.

Gary

gary1954 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:32 am

If you'll look at the Lib, you can see that there is a lack of structure around the bomb bay area, it is her weakest point in the aircraft....at least that is my opinion....gary1954 is not currently equipped with an engineering degree, nor is he a rockest scientist...opinion void where prohibited by law...batteries not included.

Wheels up · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:53 am

It would appear that the power was way back or off as none of the blades (except #2) shows any curling. Plus the props broke the nose case and are immediatly forward of the ship. If they had been under power they likely would have "walked" away toward the starboard wingtip once they were free of case. Instead they just....fell off! Strange. Like it was dropped flat without forward motion.

The real story? Some gnarly crew chief was tired of patching the ol' hulk together and propped it up on some oil drums for a gear swing. When the wheels were tucked away, the drums "conveniently and mysteriously" collapsed with spectacular results!!... "Now maybe they'll send us a NEW one!" :lol:

n5151ts · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:27 pm

tom d. friedman wrote:

Chris Brame wrote:

Resembles the way the Lady Be Good ended up. Looks like #4 was feathered.

i thought the same thing

it is remarkably similar!
http://www.qmfound.com/lady_be_good_1959_3.jpg

Django · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:26 pm

Yikes. Did any of the crew survive?

daveymac82c · **Posted:** Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:12 pm

The B-24 was the first aircraft to excessively use crumple zones, much like cars use today. So, I imagine all of the crew faired alright.

Seriously now, what a mess. I hope everyone was alright. I suppose the main reason behind a crumpled mess like this is the large monocoque construction of the fuselage. enough torsion (from hard landing, belly slide) and it'll start to tear open.

I'm not an engineer, but that's the idea I get from the pictures.

Cheers,

David

Warbird Information Exchange

Why You Don't Belly Land A B-24!

Who is online