davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Yes, I noticed that also, yet it has a well accepted reputation for being fast. Tis a puzzlement.
B-26: any improvement over B-25?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Maybe the difference is at sea level or near to it? The Lockheed Ventura had a Good reputation in the Pacific and was supposed to get around 300mph down low. (with small propellers 
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
The B26 recieved its bad rep during training of new crews , Gen Doolittle said the blame had to be placed on bad maintainence and poor training of the aircrew. the training base in Tampa had a saying of "One a Day in Tampa Bay" in ref to the crashes that occured there on the B26
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The problems do not seem unusual. Nose wheel collapse due to improper balance on early units and some poor heat treatment a bit later, electrical propeller problems due to maintenance draining batteries, and engine failure due to fuel additives affecting rubber. I think the real bad rep was just the crews were not adequately trained for high wing load, fast landing aircraft.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'd like to know more references for these "maintenance" problems. Everything I've seen about B-26 accidents center around aircrew operation and training. Things like improper balance and poor heat treatment of parts center around engineering and manufacturing problems. Fuel additives are added at the direction of maintenance officers. Ground crews draining batteries could happen on any aircraft even in todays world. I think the situation with the B-26 was a matter of aircrew training especially on twin engine aircraft.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Maybe the difference is at sea level or near to it? The Lockheed Ventura had a Good reputation in the Pacific and was supposed to get around 300mph down low. (with small propellers
This would certainly be a problem for the Zero which was quite slow a sea level. Some test show 277 mph at SL, 299 mph at 5k, for the -11, and 292 mph at SL for the later -21.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I agree with your statement. This was the intention of my post, it must have come across flawed.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I'd say that's the answer.
B17 and B24 heavy bomber produced concurrently.
B25 and B26 medium bomber produced concurrently.
A20 light bomber. The U.S. Army Air Corps didn't really believe in light bombers. Hence only one model.
P39 and P40 fighter produced concurrently.
P-38, P-47 and P-51 long range fighter aircraft produced concurrently during 1943 to 1945.
Even the B29 super heavy bomber program was backed up by the B32 bomber program.
B17 and B24 heavy bomber produced concurrently.
B25 and B26 medium bomber produced concurrently.
A20 light bomber. The U.S. Army Air Corps didn't really believe in light bombers. Hence only one model.
P39 and P40 fighter produced concurrently.
P-38, P-47 and P-51 long range fighter aircraft produced concurrently during 1943 to 1945.
Even the B29 super heavy bomber program was backed up by the B32 bomber program.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
letter dated 8 sept 42 by Doolitle to Director of Military Requirements
para 1 item c
``At a time when maintainence should be superior it is poor this due largely to the rush of preparing these aircraft for overseas.
The air safety board endorsed Doolittles report
and this is from that
``....the accidents were due to three major causes
1) Inexpeirence of pilots
2)Inesperience of maintainence mechanics
3)Overloading beyond the weight when bomber is a twin engine aircraft could fly on one engine`
These quotes are ftom the book
The Martin B26 Bomber by j.k. Havenor
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
As another point, what is the real savings in having one standard model if you are building these things by the thousands in brand new factories?
The scale the USAAF operated on was enormous. They built 400 fewer B-25s than the Germans built Do 17s, Do 217s and He 111 put together.
9,984 B-25s is just about equal to ALL the twin engined planes used By the Japanese army. around a dozen different types. The US could afford (and not just money) to use more than one type of aircraft in a single category without messing up production or supply too much.
The scale the USAAF operated on was enormous. They built 400 fewer B-25s than the Germans built Do 17s, Do 217s and He 111 put together.
9,984 B-25s is just about equal to ALL the twin engined planes used By the Japanese army. around a dozen different types. The US could afford (and not just money) to use more than one type of aircraft in a single category without messing up production or supply too much.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B26 had its production stopped in the war due to a redesign of the wing for safety. This incidentally, made it the safest combat aircraft of the war.
The B26's in the PTO never achieved much, as compared to the B25. And some B26 units in the MTO were replaced by B25's.
As such, I believe the B25 to be superior. The AAF believed in the B25 and not the other.
Heres an interesting document from WW2 that indicates the general unhappiness with the B26 during the early part of the war.
http://www.b-26mhs.org/archives/reports/b26_project_outline.pdf
The B26's in the PTO never achieved much, as compared to the B25. And some B26 units in the MTO were replaced by B25's.
As such, I believe the B25 to be superior. The AAF believed in the B25 and not the other.
Heres an interesting document from WW2 that indicates the general unhappiness with the B26 during the early part of the war.
http://www.b-26mhs.org/archives/reports/b26_project_outline.pdf
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
As posted earlier, problems with the B-26 did not seem systemic, but rather most in procedures and training. Primary problem with this aircraft was not necessarily safety of the design but the lack of adequate training of the crew. High wing loading was regarded as a problem from the start and considered inadequate, creating an inherent distrust in the aircraft. This attitude would quickly disappear in less than ten years. The B-47, flying about eight years after the B-26, had twice the wing loading of the B-26.
The additional range of the B-25 was a significant advantage in the PTO.
It appears that the AAF was losing interest in the medium bomber as a concept, not just the B-26, with the higher performing A-20/26s gaining favoritism. After the war the B-25 seems quickly to have gone into training programs and didn't seem to participate in the Korean war, unlike the A-26. During WWII however, both aircraft proved to be potent weapons.
Again, nothing here to indicated significant problems with the aircraft other than processes and procedures, and maintenance and crew training.
I recall reading that the decision to keep B-26s in the European theater was based on the British bases with hard runways. The B-26 had less clearance between prop tip and ground than the B-25 so the B-25 could operate out of less than perfect field conditions.
Maintenance on British airfields was better too. Of course when the 9th AF moved to the continent things got a little rustic.
I wish I could find it but I read years ago that a German fighter pilot in an interview said that they were "afraid" of the B-26s. I know that very early on the Germans had a captured B-26 that crashed on an Island off of Holland. the plane was on a ferry flight and had all the manuals and the Norden sight too. It was some time before the Germans could fly it because they couldn't get undamaged props. During that time they examinations showed how tecnologically advanced it was.
Maybe the Germans just didn't want to fly so low as to be in their own flak.
Maintenance on British airfields was better too. Of course when the 9th AF moved to the continent things got a little rustic.
I wish I could find it but I read years ago that a German fighter pilot in an interview said that they were "afraid" of the B-26s. I know that very early on the Germans had a captured B-26 that crashed on an Island off of Holland. the plane was on a ferry flight and had all the manuals and the Norden sight too. It was some time before the Germans could fly it because they couldn't get undamaged props. During that time they examinations showed how tecnologically advanced it was.
Maybe the Germans just didn't want to fly so low as to be in their own flak.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
I would have never believed the speeds being nearly the same on these two aircraft. I think maybe the telling difference is the twin tails of the Mitchell giving the pilot better control, especially with 1 engine out.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
The Army Air Corps actually did have more than 1 light (attack) bomber, just one dual engine model. The Army operated the A-24 (their version of the Douglas Dauntless), the A-25 shrike(the Army's Curtiss Helldiver), and The A-31 Vultee Vengeance (over 1,000 produced). Of course,the Army also operated the A-36 Mustang/Apache.
drgondog
Major
Before my father "escaped" into Mustangs, he was an a/c in 478BS/336BG which was training to take the B-26 to the ETO. They were at McDill during the "one a day in Tampa Bay" period. He liked the airplane but said you had to fly it on landing all the way down and keep up the speed ~ 130+kts over the fence. When the war was over in Eurpoe he was IP for the many fighter pilots that wanted T/E time and there were two B-26's and one A-26 and one A-20K at Steeple Morden, then Gablingen.
A lot of his flight time when he was at the Pentagon was B-25/T-33 out of Andrews AFB. He said the B-25 really didn't have any vices but thought he may have preferred the B-26 Marauder in combat in ETO. He also flew A-26s in Korea and loved it the most by far.
From a combat perspective the 8th BC had four medium bomb groups before all went to 9th in October 1943 - all B-26B's. They hit marshalling yards, airfields, rail repair/fabrication shops, ports, POL depots, bridges and some industrial centers. It was believed to be tougher and faster with same bomb load.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
The early short-wing B-26B's top speed was 305 MPH.
You can disregard the B-25 and B-25A. Neither of these were used in combat. The only B-25Bs that saw action were the ones launched from the Hornet. The first Mitchells to go into action were B-25Cs, which attacked the Japanese base at Gasmata, New Britain, on 6 April, 1942. Coincidently, that was the first day of action for the B-26, which due to their longer range were able to bomb Rabaul.
What, the B-26 had longer range? Yep. The early B-25Cs had only 670 US gallons internal. The B-26 had 962 US gallons internal, plus provisions for a 250 gallon bomb bay tank. Even with the thirstier R-2800, the B-26 had longer legs, and could carry more bombs.
Eventually, the B-25C/D had additional tanks added in the wings, provisions for bomb bay tanks, and external hardpoints for bombs, one thing that could not be added to the B-26 wing. This gave the later B-25s the edge in range. This coupled with the better short field performance of the B-25 made it the best choice for the Pacific. One thing that soured the Pacific commanders on the B-26 was that it could not use the short island runways, limiting its operating options. The commanders wanted B-26s at Guadalcanal as soon as the airfield was captured, but it wasn't until November that the first B-26Bs could use the field.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I have never seen a picture of a B25 carrying external bombs or tanks.
What made the B25 perfect for Pacific operations was its ability to act as a strafer. Something the B26 could not do.
