WWII Birds and the Goose

[jake431]

Jake,

If you like B-26s, you'll love this. This is one of my absolute favorite pics:

How awesome is that shot?! I love the bombardier taking a drag on his cigarette.

You can find the entire collection here. It is incredible.

Personal Collection of Capt Joseph Merhar

Indeed I do! That is one awesome pic. I'll browse the rest...Thanks!
-Jake

 

[The Wingnut]

More! B-26s are highly underappreciated. Same bomb load as a B-17, but faster, just as tough, and a harder target to hit.

For some reason Air Corps - and later, Air Force - staff did everything they could to sweep that aircraft and its incredible combat history under the rug, even going so far as to redesignate the Douglas A-26 to B-26.

The Marauder Men just don't get their due!

 

[Mojave Jack]

More! B-26s are highly underappreciated. Same bomb load as a B-17, but faster, just as tough, and a harder target to hit.

For some reason Air Corps - and later, Air Force - staff did everything they could to sweep that aircraft and its incredible combat history under the rug, even going so far as to redesignate the Douglas A-26 to B-26.

The Marauder Men just don't get their due!

Well, there were problems at the outset, but only because the AAC overloaded the plane by continually upping the gross weight without adding any power, plus the green crews were not trained properly for the higher landing speeds. Add to that the poor maintenance by equally green ground crews that caused engine failures, and there is little wonder the Marauder earned nicknames like the "Martin Murderer" and the "B Dash Crash." The fact is, the plane was designed to outrun fighters, not outfight them. At 305 mph it was faster than most fighters of 1939, and in its conceptual form handled like a fighter, too. The AAC just kept adding requirements for guns and armor until the performance suffered to the point of fatalities. It's reputation really was undeserved.

After the Block 10 B-model went into production (and the wing span had been increased by 6 feet and the rudder height increased by 21 inches), the combat crews grew to love their Marauders. By the end of the war it had the lowest loss rate of any other aircraft.

Sorry, enough lecturing! What can I say? It's a beautiful plane, and I can't help but defend it!

 

[Hondo]

Well, there were problems at the outset, but only because the AAC overloaded the plane by continually upping the gross weight without adding any power, plus the green crews were not trained properly for the higher landing speeds. Add to that the poor maintenance by equally green ground crews that caused engine failures, and there is little wonder the Marauder earned nicknames like the "Martin Murderer" and the "B Dash Crash." The fact is, the plane was designed to outrun fighters, not outfight them. At 305 mph it was faster than most fighters of 1939, and in its conceptual form handled like a fighter, too. The AAC just kept adding requirements for guns and armor until the performance suffered to the point of fatalities. It's reputation really was undeserved.

After the Block 10 B-model went into production (and the wing span had been increased by 6 feet and the rudder height increased by 21 inches), the combat crews grew to love their Marauders. By the end of the war it had the lowest loss rate of any other aircraft.

Sorry, enough lecturing! What can I say? It's a beautiful plane, and I can't help but defend it!

OMG Did you say "problems"? History Channel aired an episode on B-26, the trouble with them, the many crashes. Were hard to land; you had to maintain a certain landing speed, this was very interesting plane, do watch for repeats.
Give me the B-17's
Thanks guys for the pictures :cheers1:
Happy Holidays

 

[jake431]

OMG Did you say "problems"? History Channel aired an episode on B-26, the trouble with them, the many crashes. Were hard to land; you had to maintain a certain landing speed, this was very interesting plane, do watch for repeats.
Give me the B-17's
Thanks guys for the pictures :cheers1:
Happy Holidays

You could make a similar argument for a beloved plane though - the Corsair, better known as the "Ensign Eliminator", for it's vicious landing characteristics. During wartime, the AAF needed lots of relatively easy to fly planes to be handled by it's pilots, hence the B-17.

Anyway, a plane being hard to fly is a bad reason to malign it. But the damage was done to the B-26's reputaion before it really had a chance to prove itself, thanks to the exigencies of wartime development. In peacetime, you would have never even seen the plane equipping squadrons until the B-10 blocks were ready - it's development timeframe would have been much different.

-Jake

 

[Absinthe_1900]

The B-26 was a good airframe, training the pilots how to properly handle the aircraft was a problem not just confined to the B-26. (Something not unlike the situations with the Lockheed P-38 that Tony LeVier demonstrated many times.)

 

[Jake]

You could make a similar argument for a beloved plane though - the Corsair, better known as the "Ensign Eliminator", for it's vicious landing characteristics. During wartime, the AAF needed lots of relatively easy to fly planes to be handled by it's pilots, hence the B-17.

Anyway, a plane being hard to fly is a bad reason to malign it. But the damage was done to the B-26's reputaion before it really had a chance to prove itself, thanks to the exigencies of wartime development. In peacetime, you would have never even seen the plane equipping squadrons until the B-10 blocks were ready - it's development timeframe would have been much different.

-Jake

I would think that the B-26 being a nose wheel aircraft and the B-17 a tail wheel craft, that the B-26 would be easier to handle.

 

[Wild Root]

My Grandfather had many a chance to fly test runs with the 8th. He maintained the radio equipment on these bombers and he told me a story regarding the Martin B-26. I had just built a Monogram ?¢‚Ǩ?ìSnap tight?¢‚Ǩ? model of this plane and I took it over to show my Grandfather. He looked at it and laughed. He told me that he remembered sitting behind the pilot on a test run to make sure the radio gear was all working properly. So, the pilot took the plane up to 10,000 or so and they ran their tests. Well, the pilot was smoking a fat stogie and he had a habit of throwing the buts into the Bomb bay (I know, real smart) Well, he was just about to do that when my Grandfather stopped him. He said not to do it because they had a small gas leak coming from #2 and it was running down the wing and then seeping into the Bomb bay thus, creating a pool of gas in the Bomb bay!

The Martin B-26 is a rather sleek little plane! It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a real pity that there is only one flyable original B-26 in the world today that I know of. Great photos you guys! I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m impressed!

=WR=

 

[Hondo]

You could make a similar argument for a beloved plane though - the Corsair, better known as the "Ensign Eliminator", for it's vicious landing characteristics. During wartime, the AAF needed lots of relatively easy to fly planes to be handled by it's pilots, hence the B-17.

Anyway, a plane being hard to fly is a bad reason to malign it. But the damage was done to the B-26's reputaion before it really had a chance to prove itself, thanks to the exigencies of wartime development. In peacetime, you would have never even seen the plane equipping squadrons until the B-10 blocks were ready - it's development timeframe would have been much different.

-Jake

Thanks Jake and good story WildRoot Ummm "Bomb Bay" doors

I hope you guys get to see History Channels airing of The B-26, I wish I could explain more, but many new pilots turned in their wings and wouldn't fly cause of the landing problems, I think they said you needed to maintain 140 mph to land, and it scared the crap out of pilots.
Yeah for reals B-26 reputaion was done.
Thanks again Jake.

 

[Wild Root]

140mph to land??? That's crazy!

=WR=

 

[Hondo]

140mph to land??? That's crazy!

=WR=

Either that or 120, I'm fairly close at landing speed, it surprised me as well
If you get H/C do watch for repeats.

FYI:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b26_1.html

Link to H/C store on B26:

[URL="]http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70709[/URL]

 

[Absinthe_1900]

The main problem was pilot training, the B-26 was not the first, or last, hot aircraft used by the military. (120-140 would have been the approach or over the fence speed) Jimmy Doolittle did a demonstration tour that the B-26 could be flown safely in many configurations, just like Tony LeVier did with the P-38 Lightning.

This type of problem was not all that unusual with the rush to get personnel & aircraft into the air as fast as possible, with the least possible training.

At various times other aircraft such as the P-38, F-4U, P-61, B-29, and even the B-17 were all said to be too hot, or too complicated for effective use at one time,.......opperational use and history of these and a number of other aircraft prove otherwise.


If you want to talk hot, the Lockheed F-104 would make approaches at about 300mph.

 

[jake431]

If you want to talk hot, the Lockheed F-104 would make approaches at about 300mph.

They didn't call it "missile with a man in it" for nothing!

-Jake

 

[The Wingnut]

Rocket with wings added as an afterthought!

Funny to think that the same basic airframe acted as the original basis for the U-2...which has incredibly long wings! Not much of the Starfighter's airframe remains other than the 'cokebottle' shape of the fuselage.

And the big joke among the crews about the B-26 related to the high wing loading. She was called the 'Baltimore Whore'...no visible meas of support! A hot aircraft indeed.

I wasn't aware of a flying example, Root...which one are you thinking of? The C.A.F. lost theirs in an accident in the early '90s.

 

[Wild Root]

That may have been it. Not sure. I just have a photo or two in a Warbirds book. It may be that one. I was unaware of it going down I guess. :cry:

There has to be one out there! I know the CAF lost their HE 111! Now, that's a crying shame!!! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

=WR=

Any info on this one?

 

[Patrick]

WR

That is the early version, with the shorter tail and wingspan. Also the air intakes on the engine nacells were smaller and less pronounced. The earlier style tailgun position also gives it away. I was not aware that any of these early ones were still in existance. It certainly looks flyable, or is it just on static display? The paint job, and insignias certainly looks accurate for the time period.

The one the CAF had and crashed was the later version. Thanks for sharing the photo. An eye opener for me.

P.

 

[falcodriver]

I would think that the B-26 being a nose wheel aircraft and the B-17 a tail wheel craft, that the B-26 would be easier to handle. - Jake

While that attribute is great for takeoff and landings, paved surfaces that is, it was the aircraft's other "vices" that caused problems. But as mentioned, once the crews were properly trained, it proved itself a great aircraft.

 

[Wild Root]

WR

That is the early version, with the shorter tail and wingspan. Also the air intakes on the engine nacells were smaller and less pronounced. The earlier style tailgun position also gives it away. I was not aware that any of these early ones were still in existance. It certainly looks flyable, or is it just on static display? The paint job, and insignias certainly looks accurate for the time period.

The one the CAF had and crashed was the later version. Thanks for sharing the photo. An eye opener for me.

P.

Oh yes, I'm well a wear of this one being an early one! I'm not sure where this was taken but, it couldn't be to long ago!

I'd sure like to find out how many of these are still around that may be getting restored.

Oh, and real men fly tail draggers !

=WR=

 

[Patrick]

Oh yes, I'm well a wear of this one being an early one! I'm not sure where this was taken but, it couldn't be to long ago!

I'd sure like to find out how many of these are still around that may be getting restored.

Oh, and real men fly tail draggers !

=WR=

Yea, the dude in the background tells me the picture is of recent orgin, otherwise it could pass for vintage. While I'm here, I'll share a little more.

The later and final production blocks had their engines canted slightly upwards a few degrees to increase performance. I did a lot of extensive reserch on the Maurader some years back before building a 1/48 scale model of it, so all this info is still imbeded in my mind. Also 50's TV personality George Gobal flew B-26's during WWII. Not in combat, but as an instructor pilot.

Awesome aircraft, one of my all time favorites. Very business like, and could really strike terror to the hearts of the bad guys.

P.

 

[Gray Ghost]

That may have been it. Not sure. I just have a photo or two in a Warbirds book. It may be that one. I was unaware of it going down I guess. :cry:

There has to be one out there! I know the CAF lost their HE 111! Now, that's a crying shame!!! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

=WR=

Any info on this one?

It appears to be the B-26 at Fantasy of Flight in Polk City Florida. That hangar looks familiar. It is owned by Kermit Weeks and he has flown every plane in his collection. My understanding is that it is flyable and it is also in better condition now than when the photo was taken. They also have the tri-motor that was used in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. If you have not been, you need to go. One of the best aviation museums around. The link is: http://www.fantasyofflight.com. Hope this helps out. Also Jimmy Doolittle had looked at using the B-26 for the raid on Japan but the wing span was to long and he decided to use the B-25. My favorite airplanes are the P-38, P-61, B-25 and the B-24. Any plane used by the 13th "Jungle" Air Force. That was my dad's old outfit and the one I portray now.

GG