• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

(OT) B-24 fuel system (OT)

PRB

PRB

Administrator
Staff member
So evidently early model B-24s had a fuel system in which all four engines drew fuel from individual sumps located inside one center tank. All the other tanks fed into this central feed tank. Further, there was insufficient baffling inside this tank such that if you were very low on fuel, and tried to make a tight turn, the “up-wing” engines would soon be staved for fuel and quit. On at least one occasion, this design flaw, and several other contributing factors, resulted in a very bad ending to a long flight. RAF Ferry Command used converted B-24s to transport ferry crews from Europe back to Canada during WW-II. On one such flight, in February 1943, from Prestwick, UK, to Gander, Newfoundland, the ship and crew encountered severe head winds and arrived over Gander very low on fuel. Then Gander turned out to be socked in by weather, but they didn’t have fuel to make their alternate, so they were committed to Gander, which reported 200 foot ceiling, visibility 1 mile. They made for runway 27, which had a radio-range system setup for instrument approaches, but the airport crew turned the lights up on the other runway, 5/23, by mistake, assuming the Liberator would be landing into the wind, which would have been 5/23. So, they didn’t get a visual on runway 27 until they were on top of it and had to go around… Half way around, the “up-wing” engines died. The big Lib went in. One survivor.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
(North Atlantic Cat, by Don McVicar)
 
Interesting read, thanks for posting that. You'd think they would have had separate tanks in case of taking enemy hits to the tank. I guess they improved the fuel system on later models.
 
It’s also interesting from an accident investigation point of view. Of the four main contributing factors, 1) severe headwind, resulting in low fuel over Gander, 2) Bad weather, 3) the mistake with the runway lights, and 4) the B-24’s fuel system, all four had to happen for the accident to occur. Remove any one of these, and they might very well have made it. I don’t know what model of B-24 saw an improvement of this system, or even if they altered it at all. It would be interesting to find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top