The Single Tail Liberators - Consolidated XB-24K-and-N

[@VaughnA]

There were single tail 'liberators' in production as the PB4Y-2 Privateer naval patrol aircraft. Over 700 built for maritime patrol. My uncle was a navigator on one in the pacific.

[@justme8340]

Yup, my late father in law trained on the PB4Y-2. According to him Some differences on his Privateer from the K models were the fuselage being lengthened by 10 feet between the wing root and cockpit as well as his had no superchargers. He said they rarely flew over 1000 feet. They were rushed through an abbreviated training program that was focused in anti shipping and anti submarine warfare…. And then “The Bomb” was dropped and that was the end of that.

[@donjones4719]

I think Ed mentioned these very briefly, fairly early in the video. I would have liked to hear more, especially about how experience with the PB4Y-2 influenced the decision to modify the main B-24.

[@justme8340]

One story “Dad” had was he was sleeping at the tail gun after a “bender” in Miami the previous night when he was awoken by a commotion on the interphones. His pilot decided to buzz the deck of an aircraft carrier returning from the pacific. The carrier sent up Corsairs after them which fired LIVE rounds at their bomber, not to actually hit them. Just to make a point. His pilot had already done his tours in the pacific. He stated he didn’t care at all if he was court marshaled. He did get a chewing out which I always think of when Brad Pitt says in Inglorious Basterds “I been chewed out before!” Haha.

[@Renshen1957]

​@@donjones4719A Navy PB4Y-2 also participated in the most unique air battle of WW2 in the Pacific, the crew attempted to use it as a fighter to shoot down a long range Japanese patrol aircraft. PB4Y-2s were also used during the Korean War to fly "Firefly" night illumination missions dropping parachute flares to detect North Korean and Chinese seaborne infiltrators. In addition, Privateers were used by the U.S. Navy for signals intelligence (SIGINT) flights off of the coast of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. On 8 April 1950, Soviet La-11 fighters shot down a U.S. Navy PB4Y-2 Privateer (BuNo 59645) over the Baltic Sea, off the coast of Liepāja, Latvia.

[@davidyoung8521]

My stepfather was an aircraft electrician in the USN. He started the war working at the Omaha Martin aircraft factory building B-26 tow target aircraft. He was classified as an essential worker and was exempt from the draft. He helped switch the factory over to B-29 production. He lost his exemption and joined the Navy rather than get drafted. USN sent him to ships power school and then decided that with his aircraft assembly experience and electrical certificate assigned him to the west coast to ground crew support for the PBY4-2.

[@peterearden]

My great uncle (who was ground crew,) rode along as an observer on a 25th mission being flown by a hometown friend of his. It was a B-24. He got shot down. He spent late 43-45 at Stalag 5. What did my cousin and I do for our great uncle on his 85th birthday? Got him a ride in a B-24.

[@robertnervoso771]

Nice way to gift someone!

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

I knew a guy who had been shot down as co-pilot in a B-24 on his 11th mission, got a Silver Star, I think, for getting everybody out safely, and when I asked him what the worst thing was about being a POW, he said "No women" and his wife turned bright red. When a B-24 came around on tour, I bought tickets for him and his wife. The funny angle was they had left the US out of Lincoln Nebraska, and this flight was out of Lincoln California. He had a GREAT time, looked half his age.

[@papadopp3870]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Some time ago, my 10 year-old son and I were able to tour a Lib, a B-24 called “The Dragon and his Tail”- or “…Tale”, I forget. Climb through the passage from bomb bay to cockpit, we were stopped short when we heard a low voice coming from the right-hand seat. We watched an listened for a few minutes to a elderly man flying a mission from 50 years gone by. “1 high, Gene, 1 o’clock. Do you have them Lynch… here they come, here they come. FW at 3 level… Flak, Flak ahead”, in a fairly confident Yank accent. He was a pilot who broached no inter phone shouting. We backed out slowly. We left him to his reverie. Once outside the plane, we met his son who said his father had completed 25 missions as a B-24 co-pilot in ‘43-‘44. Except for his jet ride to the UK, this was the first time he’d been in an aircraft since 1946 as well as the first Liberator he had seen since the war.

[@jimmybond148]

Would love to see a video on the B-32 dominator! It’s reminiscent of the very late B-24s, but it’s even less well known

[@remylopez4821]

The B-32 was built as a backup to the B-29 in case the B-29 had production issues

[@todd4866]

The B-32 was the very last plane to fly a combat mission in WW2 .

[@geoffreyherrick298]

Sadly none exist today. Some were flown directly to the scrapper from the factory!😣

[@RedXlV]

@@remylopez4821 But ironically, it was the B-32 that ran into all sorts of issues.

[@michaelleslie2913]

Always loved the liberator always seemed forgotten but has a place in my heart as the war time mount of Jame Stewart. Also always had the reputation for being heavy on the controls, once saw a wartime cartoon of a Liberator pilot with one arm bigger than the other the other popular joke was the Liberator was the crate they delivered B17s in .

[@itsjohndell]

Gen Stewart flew 47 missions in the Lib, when only volunteers could fly more than 25. He had become a major movie star by 1940 and he dropped it all to join the USAAC. A true Hero and I was privileged to meet him. Literally my Hero.

[@michaelleslie2913]

Thanks for the reply mate nice to know that there are other Jimmy Stewart fans who appreciate his service and talent. You may already have it as a fan but there's a book about his wartime service called Jimmy Stewart bomber pilot which really puts some flesh on the bone regarding his time with Army Air Core and post war with the USAF.

[@Redhand1949]

Maybe I am one of the few people still alive who has actually seen a B-24N. In the 1950s I was a small boy whose father was a USAF pilot. We were on some unfamiliar base, probably in the South or in Oklahoma at one of the Air Force facilities where he did basic multiengine training. (Much of his career he spent flying tanker and weather/reconnaissance B-29 variants. He later graduated to KB-50s and C-141s). Anyway, we were at this airfield, and off in the distance he pointed to a four-engine with a high-tail aircraft and told me that that was a B-24N. We walked over to it to take a closer look. I must confess it looked extremely strange to me. He also said that he had seen some brand-new B-32 Dominators in the Pacific, and after the war, they were simply disposed of by rolling off of a cliff into the ocean. His reaction was that it was an unbelievable waste of money to do this. I know these borrowed memories are somewhat at variance with Ed's narrative about the cancellation of the production contract, but I have no reason to doubt my father's knowledge or recollections.

[@dyer2cycle]

..someone needs to go find where those Dominators were rolled off the cliff and retrieve their remains from the ocean..as far as I know, the only "official" surviving part from a Dominator is either a nose section, or maybe an outer wing panel, somewhere at some museum, I forget..but it's a shame they didn't save at least a couple, it would be nice to see one, even if only restored to static display...

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

My primary flight instructor was in his 90's, passing recently. He flew B-24's in the Pacific war, actually had a couple shot out from underneath him. Flak shell came through the open bomb bay, and blew the top of the plane out. He landed that one. I asked him about the pilot fatigue, and he said he never noticed it. On another note: No soul travelling on a North Atlantic convoy every called the B-24 'ugly'........

[@Farweasel]

Pity my old dad's no longer around to watch this, he'd have loved it having flown Coastal Command Flying Fortresses and later the longer ranged Liberators out of the Azores. He seemed to reckon the Liberator was the more comfortable to be stuck in hour after hour but He always talked about the Forts with greatest affection.

[@papadopp3870]

My dad was a Liberator pilot, and in many conversations with him, he wasn’t very fond of the plane. It was VERY strenuous to fly in formation. He coaxed his stricken bomber from Rumania all the way to western most Bulgaria on two engines, with the final part of the trip on a single engine. He considered himself lucky. His plane endured two engine fires all the while knowing the rule of thumb was this: in the Liberator😅, from the time an engine fire ignited, you had 10 seconds to get it out before it would explode, destroying the wing. His entire crew survived the bailout and imprisonment, a rare accomplishment. He flew Fortresses back home as well as 2-engine Mitchell bombers, which he considered the best, easiest to fly aeroplane of all the American bombers.

[@davidbeattie4294]

The truly amazing story is what Ford and Consolidated did at Willow Run. Admiral Yamamoto really did understand the productive capacity that would be unleashed if Japan attacked the United States.

[@deltavee2]

Yamamoto knew full well what the result would be if the US entered the war. He lived in the U.S. for several years before the war and later when the subject of war with them was brought up by Japanese planners he was said to have said it was a doomed idea "because behind every blade of grass there is a gun." He also advised it was a doomed effort because he said "Attacking the United States will awaken a sleeping giant" referring to their incredibly huge production capacity. Ford's record run of B-24s was the kind of thing he was talking about. Being true to his country and military he carried out his military duties but he had no illusions of what the outcome would be. That long-distance flight of P-38s that took him out in a Betty bomber over an obscure Pacific island Japanese base probably did him a favour. He didn't have to see the abject surrender and the death of the old Japanese military. Good man, wrong army/navy.

[@raypurchase801]

@@deltavee2 What was it he said? Something about "We can raise hell for six months, after which I can promise nothing", something like that. Midway came about seven months into the war. Nuff said.

[@The_ZeroLine]

@@deltavee2That “awaken a sleeping giant” quote is a myth. He may have believed it, but he never said that.

[@deltavee2]

@@The_ZeroLine Proof, please.

[@The_ZeroLine]

@@deltavee2 it’s the reverse you can’t prove a negative. Provide me proof that he said it. You know that line is famous because of a movie, right?

[@justat1149]

The Liberator has always been my favorite WWII era bomber. The fact it’s mostly overlooked in terms of mainstream history, and the fact that it was actually *superior* to the B-17 in most aspects absolutely solidifies my love for Consolidated’s little beast

[@mikeholland1031]

And they built more of them than B-17's too.

[@petesheppard1709]

However, the B-17 was a far better handling aircraft And could take more battle damage than B-24s. Most pilots preferred to fly the Forts.

[@emaheiwa8174]

And the B32 Dominator too! Im tired of the B29, that plane is everywhere and it looks awful

[@shotforshot5983]

Remove the few tonnes of armaments and it does loop-de-loops around the liberator.

[@donjones4719]

@@emaheiwa8174 IIRC the Dominator was ordered as the back-up design if the B-29 failed, or couldn't be produced in large numbers. And the B-29 was a difficult beast to tame during its development, it tried to combine so many recent designs.

[@jackthebassman1]

Absolutely superb work Ed, certainly a new one to me and many others I suspect. Another great post.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Cheers Jack :D

[@damien5748]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters excellent history lesson.👍👍

[@franciscoduarteauthor]

Do not forget the naval cousin, the pb4y Privateer, also quite the relevant aircraft.

[@joeschenk8400]

A video covering the PB4Y Privateer would be great.

[@rich7787]

I had a cousin who flew the B-24, at Ploesti, I think. My dad took me and my sister to the museum at Willow Run. It was kind of a grey day and it was empty. A B-17 was being worked on on the tarmac. A member of the museum was getting married that day and the B-17 was supposed to do a flyover, but engine problems had cropped up. We stuck around hoping they would fix it and we could watch the now much delayed take off. A limo soon showed up and once we saw the bride and groom get out we left. Would have been super cool to see it take off.

[@throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992]

I remember reading an autobiography from an eighth Air Force B17 pilot who stated that he was always relieved to see b-24s join their formation because it meant that the 17s weren't going to "get picked on as bad that day."

[@chriscutress1702]

My uncle flew B24's out of India for the Canadian division of the British Air Force during WW2. He was the last bomber pilot to land at the end of the Japanese portion of the war as he was one of two planes that went on a patrol shortly before the armistice with Japan. The other B24 was shot down by a Japanese convoy that attacked solo and was knocked out of the sky. My uncle's plane arrived about 20 minutes later at a pre-determined rendezvous location and could not make contact with the other plane (because it had already been shot down and had sunk). My uncle and his crew neared the convoy but saw that it was heavily defended and kept out of range. After an extended survey he elected to return to base and broke radio silence to notify a British Fleet of the location, direction and speed of the Japanese convoy and returned to base not knowing what had happened to the other B24. He arrived to a nearly deserted runway as all the crews and personnel were celebrating the end of the war so he had to chalk his own tires after landing. Many months later on his last day in London before shipping home he and his co-pilot dropped into a pub for a few drinks before departure when they heard a familiar sounding laugh in the other room. Upon investigating the laughter he was delighted to see the crew of the B24 that had been shot down by the Japanese convoy and he was told the story of what had transpired. Impatient and not wanting to wait for my uncle's plane the Commander had decided to attack solo and was shot down almost immediately. The crew was able to bail out over the water where they were rescued by the ship leading the Japanese convoy but the commander and his co-pilot died on impact with the water. While they were on deck they told of seeing my uncle's B24 circling and looking for a possible avenue of attack then after what seemed an eternity turning away. A few hours later the British Fleet came into range and fired some surrender volleys at the convoy. One of the airmen was given the radio and informed the fleet that the Japanese convoy had just surrendered to them. He said that they had been well treated by the Japanese and the convoy was escorted into port by the British ships after the airmen had been removed from the Japanese vessel. My uncle was Malcolm (Mac) Tetlock and interestingly there was another Mac Tetlock who was also in India at the time flying fighters. They only met once in the war when they had to exchange letters after their mail was mistakenly misdirected to each other. Many years later my uncle was reading the paper and noticed his name in the obituaries. He contacted the funeral home and discovered that it was the fighter pilot Mac who had passed away and he attended his funeral and met many of the compatriots who flew with him during the war. Sadly about 6 months later it was my uncle's turn to have a memorial in his name and many of the men he met at his namesakes funeral came to pay their respects to a fellow pilot who fought in India during WW2.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

by "Canadian division of the British Air Force" did you mean the Royal Canadian Air Force?

[@seamasrigh2162]

Thank you Ed for a not to the 24's. My uncle was a pilot of B24J's out of Rackheath. For my family, the B24 is the plane that won the war. Though it has been my great privilege to have met B17, B26, P38 and P51 pilots in my youth. Cheers.

[@theeaselrider4032]

I think the B24 was also a large factor in protecting the convoys across the Atlantic. It was the first aircraft that had the range to make a real difference. It's kind of shaped a bit like a flying boat anyway.

[@stuartbuxton4316]

When consolidated designed the liberator, they adapted/ used their successful flying boat for the Base. Hence why the twin tail, and boxey fuselage resembles some of their previous flying boat aircraft.

[@donjones4719]

One could guess a Liberator could ditch more successfully that the B-17. Would take a lot of research to find out, though, and the data would be skewed by the fact B-24s spent a lot more time flying over the water than the -17.

[@tomhaskett5161]

RAF Coastal Command did use B24s to patrol the Atlantic

[@SgtBeltfed]

@@donjones4719 Quite the opposite actually, B-24's had some horrible tendencies when ditching and making belly landings. In water, the bomb bay doors would get punched in, causing the aircraft to flood quicker and possibly break up. On land, they had a habit of breaking into a number of pieces, fore and aft of the wing roots, and the dorsal turret would come down between the pilot and copilot if you hit hard enough. They tested the problems with ditching the B-24 in the James River, right next to the James River Bridge. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqi3oYttg9CbiK8 The reason B-24's were used so much for convoy protection was simply range. B-24's were the only aircraft available in number that when patrolling from bases on both sides of the Atlantic, didn't leave a gap in the middle.

[@donjones4719]

@@SgtBeltfed Interesting, thanks. Yes, I can see how those roll-up bomb bay doors would be easily damaged. The Brits were super happy when the B-24 closed up the mid-Atlantic gap. The fate of the U-boats was sealed from then on.

[@Ob1sdarkside]

I learned more about the B 24 from Stephen Ambrose book The Wild Blue, nice to see a video explaining it's flaws and it's strengths. The book is really good, gives a great insight into the life of the pilots

[@joeschenk8400]

Another great obscure aircraft report. I have always thought the Liberator and the Halifax Mk III were the two best looking heavy bombers of WWII. Thanks for the post.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Group Captain Leonard Cheshire worked out that no earlier Halifaxes came home with a failed or damaged engine, they all went out of control and crashed. The Halifax III got a totally new pair of vertical stabilisers.

[@orwellboy1958]

PB4-Y2 in my model collection. Thanks for covering the actual aircraft.

[@Philistine47]

Excellent discussion of one of the real "coulda, woulda, shoulda" aircraft in US history. Just one thing. The B-24's directional instability in flight, especially at high altitudes, was actually a pretty big deal for the type's service in the 8th USAAF over Europe: it made the tight defensive formations used by B-17s impossible to maintain, thus exposing the Liberators to greater risk from Luftwaffe interceptors.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Nice detail, thanks for adding!

[@suzi_mai]

I wonder if having opposite rotation engines would have helped with stability?

[@Philistine47]

@@suzi_mai AIUI, no. But I don't know if that was because it wouldn't have solved the Liberator's aerodynamic issues, or because left-handed R-1830s just weren't available (and there, too, I don't know if it's just that P&W _weren't_ building them, or if they _couldn't_ - in a quick look at the production variants of several different types of radial engines I didn't see any mentions of left-handed versions of _any_ of them).

[@DavidMartin-ym2te]

The nose turret on the pic at 5:05 is a Consolidated model, or possibly Motor Products, although the latter were usually used in the tail.

[@rickcentore2801]

That was a very interesting video on a little known version of the Liberator. My father was a B-24J flight engineer/top turret gunner in the 492nd Bomb Group. He was shot down on June 20, 1944 and spent the rest of the war as a POW. He loved the B-24 but ironically his last bomber flight was in a B-17. (They were used to fly POWs to Camp Lucky Strike in France after VE Day.)

[@morskojvolk]

Excellent commentary, as always. I would really enjoy a deeper dive into the B-24's story, truly an under represented mainstay of the USAAF.

[@stevesstrings5243]

Great information! Learn something new every day!

[@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND]

I've been waiting 20 years for this video. Thank you.

[@71jvf]

The US Navy flew those as PB4Y-2A. My Dad was aircrew in the late 40's. We found his plane at the Ramona Fire Base being used as a fire tanker in 1988. Same numbers in his flight logs. They flew out of North Island NAS until the early 50's.

[@jesseleblanc989]

The Lone Star Flight Museum in the Houston area is slowly rebuilding the Naval version of the single tail B-24.

[@woodrowsmith3400]

Hmmm...wonder if that is the same one that spent some time in the air museum in Galveston before Ike. If so, I donated a few hours of time scraping crud off one of the engine nacelles with a brass toothbrush and swapping lies ..err, I mean true stories with other volunteers 😮😂

[@Steven-p4j]

I have visited the worksite of a B-24 under full restoration, and although very beautiful, it was surprisingly small by today's standards. The B-17 seemed to unjustly overshadow the reality of the B-24's air campaign, being in many movies and TV shows. It must be a trick of the light? From memory, it held a bigger bomb load, which should be the point with a bomber. Though it does appear more handsome ,though not as distinctive with the traditional rudder, it was also quite the champions of anti-submarine warfare as well, in the North Atlantic, where he had many specially created turrets and features of armour added where needed for the role. It was most effective in this role, of patrol and S&D missions, forcing many subs to sink or dive prematurely leaving crew at sea. I will leave the story telling to you Ed, I don't want to seem to be cutting your lunch. Cheers

[@petesheppard1709]

Forgotten? I had never even heard about it until your excellent video today! Thank you!

[@BigDale]

Great Video! I had known of the B-24's great versatility,and use in various use in both theatres of WWII, I have never seen this single tail version on film before.It seems now that it would have been logical to have produced the 'N'model earlier in the war.

[@edxcal84]

I'm from Detroit Michigan, where Ford built them at Willow Run airport on massive assembly lines. I used to be a member of the Yankee Airforce at Willow Run, they used to have PB4Y Privateer and they still have a lot of documented history on the B-24.

[@stephenbesley3177]

The forgotten front. My old man was in Burma working on B24s. We have been so bombarded by Eigth Airforce movies over the years it's easy to not be aware that the B24 was far more numerous overall and was actually better in many ways.

[@olentangy74]

My uncle was a ball turret gunner on Liberators with the 8th Air Force so I’ll always have a soft spot for it.

[@robertguttman1487]

Among other reasons for the cancellation of this bomber was the fact that Consolidated were also beginning to manufacture the B-32 Dominator, which had been designed to be a back-up program in case the B-29 did not work out. In addition, Consolidated were also developing an even larger and better bomber, the B-36, which entered production after WW-II ended.

[@aaronlopez492]

And the B-24 although not visually an appealing heavy bomber it was certainly a mule "in a ranch full of thoroughbred horses". It did the job. As usual great video.

[@Dave-jd9qn]

Dad ferried B-24s from the Ford plant in Michigan in late '43. There were many quality control issues with the new aircraft.

[@traumgeist]

There is a Privateer at the bottom of a lake in my hometown (The lake is called Lake Washington). Missing a couple engines and in deep water.

[@orcstr8d]

I grew up in Seattle and remember when the Corsair was pulled up off of Kirkland. Don’t know if you seen this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJewe4ytqpqVg5I It’s a 1955 video of old Seattle, but at around the 1 min mark is the Sand Point Naval Base. The photographer- an air crew member, then records the flight aboard a Navy PBJ Privateer. The film quality and footage are awesome!

[@johndonlon1611]

Nice video. It's now easy to see where the B-32 Dominator and, without much of a stretch, the C-130.

[@shauny2285]

One of my Proffessors (in college back in the 70s) was a B24 pilot. He had some interesting stories from his time flying in the ETO.

[@michaelmuntean3178]

My father was a B-24 navigator/loran operator, also a co-pilot in the 714th Sqn, 448th BG in ‘44/45. He always said near the end he flew in a B-24N, but until today I’d never seen one. I always wondered why most references stop with the B-24j Thsnks

[@steby123]

Thank you, so very uniquely informative !!!!

[@Pulsatyr]

A member of my Lodge flew just about every type of aircraft in Navy inventory during the war, as well as several Army types. Toward the end of the war, he was developing aircraft for long range search and patrol duties. He said that the twin ruddered Liberators (and early Privateers) flew like dump trucks, while the single tailed ones were a joy to fly.

[@clydedopheide1033]

Another interesting episode. Please keep them coming!

[@bradrock7731]

When I was a kid in the fifties & sixties, Willow Run & many Detroit area factories still had tall fences, razor wire & guard towers all around the perimeter. Detroit area car dealers used war surplus carbon arc searchlights to draw customers in from miles away back then. Like an every night light show.

[@just_another_Joe]

My uncle was a U.S. Navy yeoman in a PB4Y-2 unit in the Philippines very late in WW2, I think out of Clark. Somewhere in our collection of old family photos is a picture of him in a field camo hut with a PB4Y-2 in the background. Although not a quintessential version of the B-24, the PB4Y-2 with its single tail always caught my attention because of that picture. It’s kind of extra special to me at this moment because my wife and I are currently in the Philippines on vacation for a few weeks, only about an hour away from where he was way back then.

[@shadow1961]

I remember in the 80's regularly seeing a Privateer at the Hibbing (MN) airport at the forest service air tanker base. Aircraft from the war were still a pretty common sight fighting the forest fires back then.

[@monroetoolman]

I think something to do with the B-17 overshadowing the B-24 is due to the number that are still flying. There are still 10 B-17`s flying, while only 2 B-24`s are still airworthy. Which means the 17`s got used in a lot of war movies, and if you go to an airshow in the US, chances are good you`ll see a B-17.

[@Paladin1873]

Liberators were not well loved by their crews. They could not fly as high as a B-17, so had to suffer through more flak. Nor were they as rugged as the B-17. Pilots became fatigued while flying them, as you pointed out. And B-24 bases were further away from London than B-17 bases, so the B-17 crews were visited more often by war correspondents who showered them with praise. Lastly the B-17 (in my opinion) was more romantic and better looking than the B-24.

[@larrydee8859]

Yes you're right; Years ago I heard the same statement from army Air Force veterans, who said that the B 24s, were more vulnerable to being shot t down then the b-17s, because their airframe could not take as much punishment, as the B- 17s.

[@routier1642]

I've flown in both a B-17 and a B-24, in modern times, on consecutive days at Bomber Camp in Califiornia. I'd always been a fan of the B-24 up to that point. My experience there changed my mind. The B-17 was comfortable & well laid out internally, with a lot of stuff tucked away neatly. The B-24 was a mess, with sharp corners of protruding shelves and racks & equipment sticking out everywhere. It was like they'd just started with a big internal space & started bolting things to the walls almost at random. I cut my head open on one such protrusion - it was easy to do! From the outside, it looks bulky and roomy, but the clutter on the inside eats up all the useful space. While the B-17 flew smoothly, like an airliner, the B-24 lurched around quite a bit. It wasn't pleasant. Add to those factors the survival rates & you can understand the crews' attitudes.

[@Paladin1873]

@@routier1642Thanks for the insight. An old friend of mine was a B-24 waist gunner who ended up in Turkey after the Ploesti Raid. He didn't care for the B-24 either.

[@johnjephcote7636]

I made up a kit of a B-24 in the late1950s and I remember being amazed at the wing shape. At the time I could not understand how it gained enough lift just to get off the ground.

[@johndavey72]

Hello Ed. I was aware of the single tail Liberator but not specifically the "N" . Thanks Ed.

[@torg1]

Actually great that you cover the B-24. It’s weird that despite being really well know it’s actually not covered that much. Like you say the 17 is thought of for Europe, and the 29 for the pacific despite the 24 being a major player in both theaters. Might be because of Hollywood which frequently features the 17 and the 29 well, only one aircraft type has dropped a nuke so I get it. Still the 24 is an amazing plane that deserves all the praise

[@Doggeslife]

The roll-up bomb bay doors were another issue with the plane, as they often collapsed when making emergency water landings in the channel or elsewhere. The collapse would be followed by the plane being torn apart and breaking up from the sudden huge increase in drag in the water.

[@stephengardiner9867]

It was interesting that simply giving it a single fin and rudder truly seemed to do amazing things for its looks and, it seems, improved the handling as well. Given an Erco nose turret, an additional dorsal turret, a couple of side turrets very reminiscent (but completely different in operation) to those on the Catalina, a fuselage stretch AND a single fin and rudder, it resulted in the Privateer which looked positively elegant and deadly at the same time. The B-24 wasn't an ugly aircraft by any means but the early versions lacked the "pulchritude" of the B-17, not that it mattered that much when the job was killing the enemy and trying to avoid being killed in return. The B-24 was a more modern design, could carry a heavier payload, had greater range and, surprisingly, had a somewhat higher survival rate for the crews as it turns out. Most of its defensive armament was in power operated turrets (particularly in the late D models, subsequent models and ALL of it in the Privateer) whereas a lot of the same armament in the B-17 was hand held and operated. It was rather like America's aerial T-34. Good, got the job done, was available in stupendous numbers and capable of improvements and upgrades that turned the duckling into the swan. As much as I like the B-17, it was, like the He 111, a mid 1930's design that managed to prove itself in a war it wasn't really originally designed for. Still, all of the aircraft in WWII were mere paperweights without the men (now almost all passed away) who flew, fought and died in them.

[@thomasseverino9351]

Years ago I heard an explanation of why the Liberator played second fiddle to the B-17. It was on a TV documentary either about Andy Rooney or featuring an interview with him. He was famous for being featured on “60 Minutes” but was a war correspondent during WWII and went along on at least one bombing mission over Europe. They simple explanation given was that since the B-17 had extra room on board to carry a war corespondent and the B-24 did not, there was simply more coverage and footage of the B-17’s in combat. I have only heard this the one time, and that was many years ago.

[@uberbeeg]

It's something I noticed in Australian pages around aircraft, it's often the Lancaster which is more discussed. The RAAF only ever had three Lancasters. RAAF crews though served in many RAF Bomber squadrons, but these were RAF Lancasters. The RAAF's main heavy bomber was the B-24, but it seems forgotten.

[@oliversmith9200]

I remember having (big) plastic B-24 toys in the 1960's, and seeing it offered in plastic model kits. (USA)

[@Mishn0]

On the improvement to the field of fire provided by the single tail. I've got a book with a picture taken from the waist position of a Liberator in flight. Stenciled on the inboard lower part of the vertical stabilizer it said: "SHOOT HERE FOR $50 FINE". I don't remember if the caption said, but I expect that it was at a training base, not a combat aircraft. I don't think I'd burden a gunner with worrying about a fine in combat.

[@wbertie2604]

The single tail would have permitted a better field of fire from the tail turret, except it was paired with a tail turret with a much reduced field of fire. The improvement would have been mostly evident for the waist guns.

[@bullthrush]

My dad who was briefly a gunner on B-24s referred to it as "The Twin Tailed Lister Bag". He also said the tail would twist back and forth while in flight.

[@dankingjr.2088]

My Dad flew these as fire tankers in the late 1970s. interesting video.

[@billsmith5109]

There was a polka dot covered one that flew out of Coeur d’Alene in that time period.

[@dankingjr.2088]

@@billsmith5109 Dad has a photo of that somewhere. If i recall it was supposed to look like a loaf of Wonder bread!

[@billsmith5109]

@@dankingjr.2088 It did have a base paint job of white. USFS lead on contract, with partial funding via the BLM.

[@clydecessna737]

The last variant of an obsolete machine is usually the best; but the prototype is often the most alluring: Check the prototypes of the Wellington, Hurricane, B-52, F-4.

[@boston7704]

The last F4E was a remarkably good fighter. Updated versions still fly, and wouldn't embarrass themselves today.

[@BrianHurleyCanada]

Very informative!👍

[@colinmartin2921]

Regarding the twin tail fins - I have a book written by a Canadian Lancaster pilot, who, while taking part in the Nuremberg Raid, which was a disaster due to the clear conditions favouring night fighters, decided that the safest place to be would be up high and took his empty Lanc up as high as it would go - 30,400 feet. He found that at this height the Lancaster 'lurched all over the sky'.

[@RaduB.]

It looks a bit odd with one fin... Never knew it existed. Thanks!

[@crabby7668]

Seen one of the privateers at a US airshow in a navy livery. Also flew in a twin tail liberator from the airport near willow run at another airshow. A lot more room inside than the B17 or Lancaster.

[@Bidimus1]

I have always been a fan of the B-24 it and its crews did things the the B17 could not, the mid atlantic gap comes to mind. Also have always perfered the P47 to the P51 thanks to a nother exelent UTuber more people may know why now (Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles) Ed and Greg are at the top of my list for Aircraft vids.

[@clarkenoble]

Bingo....I consider the B-24 to probably be the most important heavy bomber of the war. Same for the P-47 as a fighter that could take the war to the enemy. We should very thankful we have these two KZbinrs who are dedicated to accurate history. I certainly am tired of many untrue or misleading thing being regurgitated over and over.

[@Farweasel]

@@clarkenoble *More* important the Lancasters or Mossies? Honestly, I don't think you can point to any one aircraft and say 'that was the most important'.

[@clarkenoble]

@@Farweasel Of course you can point to something and say it's the most important. It doesn't mean your correct? Ha! Also, I didn't say it was the most important aircraft. That might be a bit too broad. However, I did mean to say it is the most important "American" heavy bomber, but now that I think about it. Yes, I would say it was THE most important heavy bomber of the war.....my opinion....but bear with me.... Except for a few B-17s at the beginning, the B-24 was the only heavy bomber in the CBI and Pacific until the B-29s finally showed up late. The B-24 was the primary heavy bomber in the North Africa and Mediterranean campaigns. The B-24 was an extremely important weapon for winning what many consider the most important battle of the European campaign, the Battle of the Atlantic. The B-24 was used by both the USAAF and the RAF (1,900 of them supplied to the RAF). The B-17 was a great aircraft. Many swear it's more rugged than the B-24. The Lancaster and Halifax were great heavy bombers. The B-29 is vastly superior in capability than any other heavy bomber of the war. However, the scope of their use can't justify them as being the most important. Basically, if someone were to go back in time and say you will have to win the war with only one heavy bomber, which is it? I'll pick the B-24 everytime. Put another way, if you went back in time and removed one heavy bomber from the equation, you would hinder the Allied war effort more by removing the B-24.

[@Farweasel]

@@clarkenoble For sure that's a more credible position to argue.

[@donjones4719]

@@clarkenoble "winning what many consider the most important battle of the European campaign, the Battle of the Atlantic." Notably, Winston Churchill was one of those many. When writing his history of WW2 he said the worst worry he had in the war was the Battle of the Atlantic.

[@samuelegbert2199]

My uncle Howard was a Navy “White Hat” (enlisted) pilot during WW2. He piloted the PB4Y2. I have a pic of him and his crew. Most of the pictures of Privateers I’ve seen have ball turrets in the nose. His (best I can tell) had a solid glass nose. He passed away in 2005 while I was in Iraq and I never got the chance to talk more with him about his experience during the war. I’d love to find out more about his specific plane and crew.

[@Daver90s]

Is there a tail number in the picture of your uncle’s aircraft? My dad was a tail gunner in WWII on a PB4Y2. PB108 crew 13 Z490.

[@HootOwl513]

A friend of my Dad's was a career Navy Man, and flew photo-recon missions in a stripped-down and camera-ed up PB4Y-1P in the South Pacific. Being an avid modeler, I asked if his plane was camouflaged in the 3-color blue, or the later all-blue paint scheme. Neither, he said, They were ''Shit-Brindle Brown'' -- referirng to the USAAF's standard pattern of Olive Drab uppers and Neutral Gray undersurfaces. His plane also had twin tails. This leads me to believe the aircraft was an Army F7 type, but in Navy inventory. Post War he flew the P2B [B-29] out of NAS China Lake Calif., and worked on the project to develop heat-seaking missiles.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The other single vertical stabilizer B-24 was the PB4Y-2 Privateer. A B-24 derived navy patrol bomber flown 1943-58 by the US Navy & Coast Guard. Having a much longer service life than the original B-24

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Consoladated also designed and built the B 32 dominator a bomber to back up Boing's B 29. The pressurization system never worked but B 32's were worked up and did manage to fly a few combat missions against Japan before the war ended.

[@alfamaize]

If anyone is interested, there's a YB-24N being restored by The Yankee Air Museum located at Willow Run airport in Michigan.

[@Kirktalon]

I live near enough to have visited Willow Run a handful of times. It didn't seem like they were fixing it up and that was a decade or two ago. I'm glad to read that they are giving it some attention. With the scarcity of B-24s it may be as close as they will get which isn't so bad.

[@alfamaize]

@@Kirktalon We were there (for a B17 ride) in July (2022) when they mentioned the restoration of the YB24N.

[@bongodrumzz]

I wish there was a model of this to build, its a bit of a beauty

[@rob5944]

My father who was RAF ground crew often spoke of the Liberator with a degree of affection.

[@h60rsqplt]

Excellent

[@todd4866]

Wow, I guess you still can learn something new every day !!

[@JayHawke84]

The Constolidated/Convair (after 43) Liberator was a decisive aircraft in the Battle of the Atlantic and the basis for the Convair B32 Dominator

[@selfdo]

The empennage of the single-tail Liberator and the Dominator appear to be the same.

[@johnhickman106]

I’m a Yank living in the UK. I was totally unaware of the B-24N or any B-24 single tail model.

[@DavidMartin-ym2te]

Sorry for more contradictions. The B24N ball nose turret was produced by Emerson. The tail guns would have been Southern Aircraft Model 7 lightweight turrets replacing the temporary remotely operated ball mounted tail guns that appear on the aircraft at 6:53.

[@jstoney6471]

Flew on a Fire Bomber PB-4 Naval version back in 1995. Built in 1944.

[@andrewtaylor940]

A great piece. With one slight correction. Regarding the need for more Liberators in the Pacific. In the Pacific you could not compare or combine the role of the B-24's with that of the B-29's. There was a problem. And that problems name was Curtis LeMay. Who owned every B-29 in the Pacific Theater save the Silverplate B-29's of the 509th Composite Squadron. Which he tried to take control of repeatedly, only to be slapped down by Leslie Groves hard. And Curtis had one very rigid policy. B-29's were STRATEGIC Bombers and would never be allowed to be used for Tactical Missions. Such as supporting Invasion Troops. The B-24's were the Army's Heavy Tactical Bombers in the Pacific. Should the invasion of Japan have happened they would have been very busy bombing the beach heads and the Japanese Forces. Duties that LeMay felt were inappropriate for his high altitude wonder planes. Granted he was not entirely wrong. Given the cost per B-29, risking them on low level tactical missions was questionable. Once Okinawa was taken the B-24's had direct access to most of Japan.

[@donaldbest1295]

Wonderful history again. Thanks so much - I'm pretty knowledgeable about WWII aircraft but you always seems to dig up side-stories that are new to me. Cheers from Barrie, Ontario, Canada... and keep up the good work. Is there a way I could send you money for a coffee once in a while?

[@johnnyallred3753]

Nice video!. I would love to hear what the N model B-24 was like to fly and how it compared to the PB4-2 ? 😊

[@ROBERTN-ut2il]

My uncle did a tour with the 8th Air Force as a B-24 Flight Engineer/Top Turret Gunner. After returning to the US, he served in Texas as an instructor. He was down on orders to rejoin the 8th AF on Okinawa in the Summer of 1945, but fate intervened

[@mrjockt]

Another little known aircraft from Consolidated, just like it’s larger brethren the B-32 Dominator.

[@emaheiwa8174]

I would spit on the graves of the ****heads who decided to scrap every single B32

[@Wilett614]

FYI The "Ball " style twin gun turrets on the B24 and Navy PB4Y 2 Were "ERCO" Manufactured ball (Round) Turrets that could be used for ground or surface strafing as well as airborne targets

[@dougtraceyvandevere5593]

The Lone Star Flight museum had a Privateer on display in Galveston.

[@Steven-p4j]

Winnie's modified B-24, shows the relative size by the low slung passenger windows, which appears to suggest a double-decker arrangement, though I am uncertain if the extra headroom was used as such, perhaps for extended range tanks? A guess.

[@c123bthunderpig]

Excellent video, of course I'm prejudice as my father was a Squadron Commander in 24's. The Memphis Belle, probably gained the focal point for the B17. The unusual aspect of The B24 is that if there was a problem with the bomb bay doors you could just drop the bombs through the doors, I believe the 17 could not do this and the bombs had to be carried back to base if the doors failed. You could also bail out easier through the 24 doors. Still it took brave young men and woman to fly either one.

[@nairbvel]

Fun tidbit: The cover of one of the manuals for the B-17 showed a damaged B-24 blocking the runway below; the equivalent manual for the B-24 showed a disabled B-17 in the same spot. Just a little internecene rivalry... LOL.

[@keiranallcott1515]

The consolidated privateer was in service up to the 1950s , it was involved in two early Cold War incidents when privateers were shot down by Soviet fighters. Just another example of how good the b24 ,with some modifications was.

[@dudleylitz7369]

my dad was with the squadron on Guam, August '45

[@mirthenary]

You remind me, I've got a whole wardrobe full of models to do, including 2 B24s, one B24d and one B24j

[@davidhauton7643]

Privateers were a real mongrel of a plane, armed with cannons, rockets and jet assist for take off. Looking at the history they were rather 'experimental'. I wonder if they might be worth a video of their own? Certainly one of my favourites!

[@1joshjosh1]

I knew that the B24 was the most produced but still to think about that 18,000 of these machines produced. how could Germany and Japan ever think they were going to win the war? That's insane amount and that's just one aircraft type.

[@margraveofgadsden8997]

AFAIK, all b-24 tail turrets had a reflector gunsight. The nose turrets certainly did, along with the dorsal and belly turrets. The navy pb4y-1 even had reflector gunsights on the flexible waist guns, though I don’t know if that was navy only, or if some of the later model AAF liberators had them as well.

[@stewpacalypse7104]

I did not know about this variant of the B-24. It makes me wonder how many times I might have seen a photo of a B-24N and without looking too closely assumed it was a B-17.

[@dennismason3740]

Now Ed is just making up historical airplanes. His photoshop skills are amazing.

[@justanotherrandomfilipino9018]

It looks like a stubby B-17. I want one.

[@300guy]

It looks of a Truncated Dominator, was it shorter than a standard Liberator or is it just an optical illusion?

[@drivernjax]

Now, that's interesting. I knew about the PB4Y but I didn't know about the B-24N.

[@jwrappuhn71]

Excellent.