Talk:Consolidated B-24 Liberator

message: 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 is outdated.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)
thread_title:  Update Reference to B-24 Preference by General Staff (#4) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: "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)
thread_title:  From the Lede 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flying the B-24 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Turbosupercharged? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Under specifications, Frontal Area page preview incorrectly shows Zero-lift drag coefficient page preview 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Production 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Frontal Area