Warbird Information Exchange

Here's a question for you airframe structural guys- the engineers in the crowd:

How similar and how different are the B-24 and the PB4Y-2? Obviously the nose turret, side windows and single vertical tail configuration are significant differences? Structurally, however, what are the similarities/differences between the two in the wing, cockpit, main fuselage, etc? Would major sections be largely interchangeable? Could you take a PB4Y-2 foward fuselage section, mate it to a B-24 rear fuselage section, add a wing section and have a B-24?

Just curious, thought it might be an interesting topic to discuss. Thanks!
Kevin

From what understand after working on the LSFM 4Y-2 and speaking to good friend who was a Flight engineer on PB4Y-2 in the Pacific there are many items that are similar but a few majore differences. Alos note that the PB4Y-1 was a standard B24 in navy markings. It was as a result of the lessons the navy learned flying these that the 4Y-2 was commisioned

The most obvious difference in the 24 and 4y-2 is tail configuration. When flying the 4Y-1 the navy noticed that the airplane would wallow and was not very manuevarble at low altitudes. The single tail was the answer and supposedly made it very stable at the 40 to 100 feet of the deck that the Navy was flying them on a regular basis. (per my friend Bill's stories)
There is also an additional 6 or 8 feet of fuesalage (trying to rember for sure) that was added to allow for a an additionl crew compartment which included radio gear as well as a galley to deal with the long missions. My friend has also told me many stories of eating steak dinners while flying 12 hour missions. The section was added just forward of the wing so it would preclude the idea of a front half / back half combo to make a B24

The other main difference is that the 4Y-2 has a different version of the 1830, which among other things did not have turbo chargers. This was primarily due to the fact that it was always intended for very low altitudes so they didn't need the xtra wait adn maintenance hassle. This also means that the cowlings were completely unique to teh 4Y-2. I believe that almost all of the survivors have had the 2600 upgrade, which even further complicates that cowling and controls issues.

Finally the turrets are different, with the deletion of the bottom turret in the 4Y-2 and the addiotn of a 2nd top turret to protect against attacks from above. It is also interseting to not that the side blister turrets on the 4Y-2 can actually rotate down enought to converge the fire approxiametly 100 ' below the airplane for any strafing of ships that woud be necessary.

It is my understanding that most everything else, including the wing, landing gear, hydraulic systems, fuel systems. and bomb bay mechanisms were identical. I also have been told that hte 4Y-2's started life as B24's that were pulled off the main assembly lines to get the modifiacations

Hopefully my memory is correct but if any has any more info please chime in.

Steve S

great questions!!! i'm curious as to the ditching characteristics between the 2 types. the b-24 was a disaster at ditching in the ocean, & literally broke in half on impact, the crew really had to haul ass to get out before joining davey jones locker. was the privateer any different as to ditching with the different tail configuration & other modifications???

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!