The Mysterious B-24N Nose

[ChrisAldridge]

The other night I found a new website of B-24N photos. Two caught my attention with the typical common canopy installed. What is more unusual are the skin and window pattern of Stations 0.1 to 0.3, not found on the known photos of the XB-24N and YB-24Ns. If indeed the XB-24N is a converted existing J model, it is possible the changes made during the M model were made after XB-24N was created. After the changes, the XB-24N was then upgraded to the new canopy and bombardier side windows. Expect, I tried to compare rivets and dents of the photos I have of the XB-24N nose. The lettering of the fire extinguisher door does not seem to match in the photos.

The question is what aircraft could this really be?

[gemmer]

I believe that the first two photos are of the B-24G that was modified with the experimental Emerson
ball nose turret prior to the XB-24N.

[Russ Matthews]

Another mystery to me is that while the plane in the last two photos has the single tail arrangement of a PB4Y, the number stenciled there (448753) cannot possibly be a USN Bu No. And a quick check of online sources shows that USAAF serial number 44-8753 was supposedly assigned to a Vega built B-17.

Does anybody know what's going on here?

[Randy Wilson]

I would suggest that the correct serial number is 44-48753 and it is the XB-24N according to Baugher in the link below. Hope that helps. Randy

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b24_23.html

[Russ Matthews]

Thanks, Randy .. that explains it. You learn something new every day. I never realized until now that there was a plan to adopt the single tail for Liberators as well as Privateers.

[ChrisAldridge]

Thank you, the B-24G aircraft story seems to fit the photos better than the Ford conversation. I'm aware of a select details to identify B-24-FO models. I do wonder who had the idea first of the Emerson 128.

A nice 3/4 view artist's drawing of the Ford XB-24N can be found here, mind the B-24K label.
http://fordimages.com/perl/options.pl?imageID=69395

[Ryewit]

I would suggest that the top two images are the B-24G-15-NT 42-78399 with the experimental fit of the turret. Note the paired cheek windows.

The bottom two are probably the XB-24N or one of the seven pre-production prototypes.

[JohnB]

If the ETO war had lasted longer, I wonder if the single tail B-24 would have been used in quantity and the B-24 As a whole, be better remembered today?

[ChrisAldridge]

I would suggest that the top two images are the B-24G-15-NT 42-78399 with the experimental fit of the turret. Note the paired cheek windows.

The bottom two are probably the XB-24N or one of the seven pre-production prototypes.

Thank you for the matching plane and serial number.
http://www.americanairmuseum.com/aircraft/19079



Last year, I found a photo of the reclamation of XB-24N, 44-48753.


I'll update the display project very soon. We are a few weeks away from finishing the structure.

[Chris Brame]

Just realized there's a MacDill B-17G trainer in the background of the first photo:

42-102474, MacDill field code M Q4. May be the first known image of this one to turn up - thanks Chris!

[ACResearcher]

To answer the questions about the B-24G test aircraft and subsequent B-24Ns, I highly recommend you try to find someone with a copy of my book, "Consolidated Mess, Vol I". I believe it is Appendix VII that goes into a great deal of detail about the development of the single-tail B-24s. Until you can find one I'll share a bit of info here on armament of the single-tail aircraft. The other responders are quite correct about the B-24G test aircraft photos vs those of the B-24N, the big giveaway being the setup of the windows behind the turret on the fairing and fuselage.

I was going to go into some detail here on the single tail development, including some new information I've come up with for Volume II, but that would have taken the discussion away from the nose turrets so I decided not to.

I WILL tell you this, however - the AAF never intended to build a single-tail B-24. In fact, the tests were supposed to be secret and were for the PB4Y-2 single tail configuration. However, word quickly spread how much better the single tail was than the twin and thus HQ was inundated with questions about "When are we going to get the single-tail B-24s'?" The AAF spent a considerable amount of time planning for the production of the B-24K, but that never came to be, obviously. The N was to be the eventual single tail wonderbird, also containing a number of other improvements such as the ball nose turret. This turret was also seriously considered for the B-24, B-32 and the B-17. The B-32 received a nose ball turret, but it was the A-17 replacing the Emerson 128. This was because it was felt the A-17 could be modified for the .60caliber machine gun much more easily than the 128. This gun was one of Arnold's pet projects but it never succeeded.

Like the modified G test aircraft, the XB-24N had three windows in the fairing directly behind the nose turret (not counting the bombardier's bottom window), where the YB-24N and production aircraft only had two larger windows. The modified G also had two more observation windows behind these on the fuselage side, but the B-24N used the large single "bay window" type similar to that of the Ford B-24Ms. My research indicates that the B-24N was to be an entirely Ford-built (and designed) aircraft.

The B-24N tail gun on the prototype was a Bell turret similar to that on the Cheyene tail on the B-17. However, the production aircraft received the A6C/SAC-7 tail turret as it provided substantially greater fields of horizontal and vertical fire and greater visibility.

I hope this is of interest.

Alan Griffith

PS There is a link somewhere above to a cutaway drawing at Ford Images labeled the 1945 B-24K. I believe that to be mislabeled and should be the B-24N. I've called and talked to Ford Images and will also be contacting the Ford Archives and Henry Ford Museum to see if it is mislabeled or an extraordinarily-rare cutaway of the proposed B-24K. I seriously doubt the latter as there are too many details on the drawing that scream "N!".

[ChrisAldridge]

I'm going to have breakdown this very insightful post.

To answer the questions about the B-24G test aircraft and subsequent B-24Ns, I highly recommend you try to find someone with a copy of my book, "Consolidated Mess, Vol I". I believe it is Appendix VII that goes into a great deal of detail about the development of the single-tail B-24s. Until you can find one I'll share a bit of info here on armament of the single-tail aircraft. The other responders are quite correct about the B-24G test aircraft photos vs those of the B-24N, the big giveaway being the setup of the windows behind the turret on the fairing and fuselage.

I'll try and find a copy in the future.

I was going to go into some detail here on the single tail development, including some new information I've come up with for Volume II, but that would have taken the discussion away from the nose turrets so I decided not to.

I WILL tell you this, however - the AAF never intended to build a single-tail B-24. In fact, the tests were supposed to be secret and were for the PB4Y-2 single tail configuration. However, word quickly spread how much better the single tail was than the twin and thus HQ was inundated with questions about "When are we going to get the single-tail B-24s'?" The AAF spent a considerable amount of time planning for the production of the B-24K, but that never came to be, obviously. The N was to be the eventual single tail wonderbird, also containing a number of other improvements such as the ball nose turret. This turret was also seriously considered for the B-24, B-32 and the B-17. The B-32 received a nose ball turret, but it was the A-17 replacing the Emerson 128. This was because it was felt the A-17 could be modified for the .60caliber machine gun much more easily than the 128. This gun was one of Arnold's pet projects but it never succeeded.

The story of the single tail development and the B-24ST, B-24K alphabet soup is a book by itself. I've read the stories and found conflicting information. I do hope to find the true story in the future. I know the drawings exist for the YB-24N / B-24N production, Consolidated B-24K, and the PB4Y-2. I have not been able to find any engineering information of the XB-24N, sad.

Like the modified G test aircraft, the XB-24N had three windows in the fairing directly behind the nose turret (not counting the bombardier's bottom window), where the YB-24N and production aircraft only had two larger windows. The modified G also had two more observation windows behind these on the fuselage side, but the B-24N used the large single "bay window" type similar to that of the Ford B-24Ms. My research indicates that the B-24N was to be an entirely Ford-built (and designed) aircraft.

The fairing windows of the ball turret mount frame has jarred my memory of the difference, between the XB-24N and the YB-24N / B-24N production aircraft.
The large "bay window" is the same assembly used on the YB-24N / B-24N production, as from the B-24M. - GK32B19430.

Consider this thought. The XB-24N and both turret experiments may have started before the design changes were finalized with the M model. I do not know the timelines of these developments yet. It could be possible the XB-24N nose configuration was created before the M model was realized. I think the L may have had the large window configuration, but I can't recall off hand. Eventually, the YB-24N / B-24N production aircraft carried over the large bay window and canopy from the M model.

What if the XB-24N had the same side window configuration as the G model aircraft above? And Ford modified it after the design changes were created for the M model, and the canopy as well. The question is what came first chronological with the design? It would be nice to find out.

The B-24N tail gun on the prototype was a Bell turret similar to that on the Cheyene tail on the B-17. However, the production aircraft received the A6C/SAC-7 tail turret as it provided substantially greater fields of horizontal and vertical fire and greater visibility.

I hope this is of interest.

Alan Griffith

Correct as with my findings. The M/N were also going to have the A6-D model as well.

Speaking of the B-24 tail turret. I can't find any drawings from the Motor Products Corporation - A-6A, A-6B, etc. I'm not aware if the Southern Aircraft Corporation made any of the early turrets, but I do have most of their drawings. Ford did make their own drawing set from the Consolidated drawings of the A6-A, before it was decided to have MPC manufacture the turrets. I wonder if MPC had their contract terminated before the war ended and Southern became the primarily contractor.

With the Cheyene modification, the sheet metal stamping attaching the gun mount to the aircraft bulkhead was sourced from another aircraft. I'm not aware what aircraft it came from, judging from a few rare photos recently seen myself.

PS There is a link somewhere above to a cutaway drawing at Ford Images labeled the 1945 B-24K. I believe that to be mislabeled and should be the B-24N. I've called and talked to Ford Images and will also be contacting the Ford Archives and Henry Ford Museum to see if it is mislabeled or an extraordinarily-rare cutaway of the proposed B-24K. I seriously doubt the latter as there are too many details on the drawing that scream "N!".

I also have found the mislabeled cutaway drawing as well. If you look at the tail number, it is the XB-24N.

In the future I'll made a single tail thread. Covering the engineering analysis of the B-24K, B-24N, PB4Y-2 designs. When I have time to look over the drawings.

Thank you for the information and for a long post to ponder over.

[gemmer]

To answer the questions about the B-24G test aircraft and subsequent B-24Ns, I highly recommend you try to find someone with a copy of my book, "Consolidated Mess, Vol I". I believe it is Appendix VII that goes into a great deal of detail about the development of the single-tail B-24s. Until you can find one I'll share a bit of info here on armament of the single-tail aircraft. The other responders are quite correct about the B-24G test aircraft photos vs those of the B-24N, the big giveaway being the setup of the windows behind the turret on the fairing and fuselage.

I was going to go into some detail here on the single tail development, including some new information I've come up with for Volume II, but that would have taken the discussion away from the nose turrets so I decided not to.

I WILL tell you this, however - the AAF never intended to build a single-tail B-24. In fact, the tests were supposed to be secret and were for the PB4Y-2 single tail configuration. However, word quickly spread how much better the single tail was than the twin and thus HQ was inundated with questions about "When are we going to get the single-tail B-24s'?" The AAF spent a considerable amount of time planning for the production of the B-24K, but that never came to be, obviously. The N was to be the eventual single tail wonderbird, also containing a number of other improvements such as the ball nose turret. This turret was also seriously considered for the B-24, B-32 and the B-17. The B-32 received a nose ball turret, but it was the A-17 replacing the Emerson 128. This was because it was felt the A-17 could be modified for the .60caliber machine gun much more easily than the 128. This gun was one of Arnold's pet projects but it never succeeded.

Like the modified G test aircraft, the XB-24N had three windows in the fairing directly behind the nose turret (not counting the bombardier's bottom window), where the YB-24N and production aircraft only had two larger windows. The modified G also had two more observation windows behind these on the fuselage side, but the B-24N used the large single "bay window" type similar to that of the Ford B-24Ms. My research indicates that the B-24N was to be an entirely Ford-built (and designed) aircraft.

The B-24N tail gun on the prototype was a Bell turret similar to that on the Cheyene tail on the B-17. However, the production aircraft received the A6C/SAC-7 tail turret as it provided substantially greater fields of horizontal and vertical fire and greater visibility.

I hope this is of interest.

Alan Griffith

PS There is a link somewhere above to a cutaway drawing at Ford Images labeled the 1945 B-24K. I believe that to be mislabeled and should be the B-24N. I've called and talked to Ford Images and will also be contacting the Ford Archives and Henry Ford Museum to see if it is mislabeled or an extraordinarily-rare cutaway of the proposed B-24K. I seriously doubt the latter as there are too many details on the drawing that scream "N!".

Alan,

PLEASE! PLEASE! WE NEED VOLUME 2-GLASS NOSE B-24S.

[ACResearcher]

gemmer, believe me, NO ONE wants me to get done with Volume II on the Glassnoses more than I - with the possible exception of my publisher.

When I set out to gather materials for the book I never would have believed how complicated it was; enough so that I've gone from one more volume to as many as three. The path from the original XB-24 to finally having a combat-worthy bomber is byzantine in its complexity, made even more so by the fact that it was mostly done after we were suddenly at war and had no real idea what was needed in a modern combat aircraft that could fulfill the need of flying hundreds of miles unescorted and back. This involved near-constant changes in all aspects of the aircraft from horizontal tails that kept falling off to leaking fuel tanks to completely inadequate nose protection to being a total deathtrap when ditching. Old, cherished theories of "the bombers will always get through" had to be modified in a hurry and at great cost.

As things stand now I'm looking at at least two more volumes and perhaps a third. Since I had no idea how popular Volume I would be I had done little research beyond the nose turreted aircraft prior to publication. So it has been a game of massive catch-up - with literally thousands of pages of documents to be found, copied, sorted and finally understood how each fit with the others.

But rest assured that it WILL be coming.

Thanks for the interest.

AlanG

[Chris Brame]

Chris, or anyone else - where was the side view photo of the B-24G taken? MacDill or ?