Talk:Consolidated B-24 Liberator

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consolidated B-24 Liberator article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Consolidated B-24 Liberator was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 6, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Text and/or other creative content from B-24 Liberators in Australian service was copied or moved into Consolidated B-24 Liberator with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Update Reference to B-24 Preference by General Staff (#4)

It appears that the link to reference #4 ("The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress vs. the Consolidated B-24 Liberator". warfarehistorynetwork.com.) is outdated. It leads to a 404 page. The article has been moved here: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/30/boeing-b-17-flying-fortress-vs-the-consolidated-b-24-liberator/ I'd update it myself, but I'm still accruing edits, and so lack permission to edit this page myself. Also, the source I listed doesn't mention a general staff, and the other source (Birsdall, 1968) is rather vague; I believe it refers to "Famous Aircraft: The B-24 Liberator", Birdsall, 1968. Perhaps include the title to make it easier to find? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect picture reference

Please note, there is an incorrect picture caption on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-24_Liberator

Reference "File information" here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Willow_Run_Factory.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Willow Run Factory.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the Lede

"It serves in every branch of the American armed forces"

Yet the article listing the plane's users only mentions USAAF and Navy. What about the other armed forces? Is there a source for this claim? --84.189.84.17 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying the B-24

I removed the requests for citation, and I moved my original citation to the bottom of the paragraph. Whiz Kids is the entire source of the paragraph. A valid discussion point is that "Tex" Thornton was (not unjustifiably) pissed off, and possibly out to get the B-24s.JHowardGibson (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turbosupercharged?

I have not flown the B24, but I have many hours on DC3/Dakota, which used the P&WR1830 engine - stated to be the same as the Lib. I have not ever seen an 1830 turbosupercharged, and I don't believe that a supercharged engine like the 1830 could sensibly be turbo-ed as well. The 1830 in C47/DC3/Dakota use could be single stage or twin stage supercharged, and in those configurations (and in good order) produced 1200 horsepower. I suspect that an editor with insufficient knowledge has amended the article. I have therefore changed the engine description to read supercharged. Lexysexy (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have reverted my amendment, as I see that the -41 version is said in the P&W R1830 article to have been turbo-ed. I still wonder why an already supercharged engine would have a turo attached. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could explain. Oddly, the 1830 article omits any reference to two speed superchargers.Lexysexy (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The World War II term "turbosupercharged" does not mean having both a separate turbocharger and supercharger; it means having a turbine (turbo) powered supercharger, i.e. what we now call a turbocharger. DesiArcy (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the American turbochargers pumped air into the engine supercharger inlets, for two stages of supercharging. This allowed performance at high altitude. The Germans did not develop two stage superchargers until the very end of the war. The B-17s and B-24s operated at altitudes over 25,000ft. The Germans could out-run the American bombers, but at 30,000ft, they were 50mph slower than the escorting P-47 Thunderbolts. This was very, very bad for the Luftwaffe. JHowardGibson (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under specifications, Frontal Area page preview incorrectly shows Zero-lift drag coefficient page preview

Hovering over Frontal Area under Specifications shows me the page preview for the term "Zero-lift drag coefficient" (which happens to be right above it), instead. I'd edit it myself, but I cannot as I am new. Johnlandrum77 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Production

In the Production section, it states “ Bell Aircraft built the B-24 under license at a factory near Marietta, Georgia, just northwest of Atlanta. Online by mid-1943, the new plant produced hundreds of B-24 Liberator bombers”. Bell Aircraft did not build the B-24, they built the B-29 in 1943. This statement needs to be removed. There was only five production plants in the Liberator Pool. Consolidated in San Diego and Ft. Worth, Ford at Willow Run, North American at Dallas and Douglas Aircraft in Tulsa, OK. Lanemiker (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frontal Area

The given frontal area is less than the area of one of the propellers, a rough approximation of the frontal area would be closer to 100 m^2. The link is also broken 35.2.137.17 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. After tracing to the source it is not the frontal area but a drag area specified by designers for use in drag coefficient formulae. It was added by a now blocked editor in May 2019, this editor was prone to mistakes and also frequently added unsupported parameters to Template:Aircraft specs causing multiple problems. I have removed the entry. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "Tunnel gun" in Armament section.

Reading the article section under "Armament" there is a reference to a "tunnel gun" as an alternative to the lower turret. This is the sentence I am referring to: "The turret proved unsatisfactory and was soon replaced by a tunnel gun, which was itself omitted. "

I was unfamiliar with this term and found this short reference which I think the term should perhaps link to: https://worldwar2database.com/b-24d-liberator-tunnel-machine-gun/

Also that sentence is a bit awkward. Perhaps what was meant was "which was itself later omitted." ChucklesSmith (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The abreviation

Hi there! I am busy translating this article into Afrikaans where it hopefully will become a front page article. I am battling somewhat with some of the abbreviations, especially in the paragraph named Radar/Electronic warfare and PGM deployment. Is BS = Bombardment Squadron? What is RS? Clarification will be appreciated! Regards! Oesjaar (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]