B25 or B26, which was the better bomber? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Maybe install Fowler flaps, so the wing remain without inclination?

No. As I pointed out earlier, the airfoil choice was not optimal.

- Ivan.

I'd add that so was the wing size - basically, Martin (company) was counting that thick and small wing will beat the thin wing of greater area. Once proven wrong, the wing got bigger (drag went up), and was inclined after that (drag went further up).
Choice/implementation of high-lift devices also left much to be desired, too.

BTW, according to the B-26 manual, the wing incidence went from 3 and half degrees for the B and C versions up to 7 deg at F and G versions.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the B-26 responsible for the term "one a day at Tampa Bay"? A reference to what a pig it was to fly and how many trainees (even experienced pilots) it killed, especially on take off and landing?

I mean "required an unprecedented landing speed of 120 to 135 mph" .. what a disaster, who came up with that nonsense?

.

It was more a matter of training. My father was with the 336th BG at McDill in fall, 1943. Had no problem with the B-26A or B, just remarked that you needed to be conscious of mandatory higher airspeed requirements taking off and landing. he liked the airplane.

When he was CO of the 355th FG he routinely acted as IP for fighter pilots wishing to qualify in the airplane. No accidents for any of them.

As to high airspeed requirements? think of landing an F-105 for comparison..
 
I am not sure whether some aircraft manufacturers in America were just in it for the money and didn't really care very much about the standard of their products or whether they were simply just manufacturing what was agreed between them and their government, I think there was some of both. The B25 was one of those planes where the designers had got everything pretty much right at their first attempt which you could argue left little room to later improve the B25.

The B-25 had some wicked low speed stall issues until they fine tuned the design of nacelles and dihedral.
 
No. As I pointed out earlier, the airfoil choice was not optimal.

- Ivan.

In addition there was little known about laminar flow airfoils in 1938 when the P-38 was in design/prototype stage. NAA took a huge chance on the modified NACA/NAA 45-100 in 1939 several months after the XP-38 first flew.

I'm not sure, even in retrospect what the optimal airfoil is for a P-38. One could start with an assumption of thinner airfoil to delay onset drag rise but Lockheed wanted the higher CL for climb performance and didn't know about transonic issues when the preliminary design was in progress.
 
I'm not sure, even in retrospect what the optimal airfoil is for a P-38. One could start with an assumption of thinner airfoil to delay onset drag rise but Lockheed wanted the higher CL for climb performance and didn't know about transonic issues when the preliminary design was in progress.

As I understand the spec, the P-38 was initially to be an interceptor with a rather ambitious RoC requirement. The thick wing was a means to meet this challenge.
 
Both of these aircraft were excellent aircraft and were available at the start of the US war and, with their crews, performed heroically throughout. Due to its simplicity and better range, I think the B-25 was the most useful. Both aircraft were obsolete as war fighters by the end of the war and were phased out of combat. The B-25, because of its simplicity and ease of flying, soldiered on basically as trainer. The excellent A-20 and much more powerful A-26 led the way to more modern battlefields.

The B-26, always one of my favorites, has, in my opinion, gotten a bum rap. Most of it initial problems were manufacturing and maintenance quality issues, not in basic design. And for the high wing loading/high landing speed issue, the AAF should have left the wing alone and fixed the pilots. The B-26 was a harbinger of the future with better performance and higher wing loading, the newer A-26 had a 13% larger empty weight wing loading than the B-26A/B, the B-29 had 12% greater empty weight wing loading, although it had Flowler flaps (they still needed to be able to make no flap landings!). Approach/landing speeds for the B-26 were probably close to the contemporary P-47 numbers. Interestingly, the Martin proposal for the B-26 reflected performance with different growth engines, max speeds went from 323 mph w/initial engine (it actually did 315 mph), up to 368 mph w/2 stage 2speed R-2800 (392 mph with a turbo R-2800). It even included a turbo R-3350 version with a top speed of 413 mph. If the AAF had trained its pilots to handle the high performance B-26, there would have been no need to expend the money on developing the XB-28, which had a higher wing loading and was only a few miles faster than the proposed B-26 with the same 2 stage 2 speed R-2800. And this very fast plane could have been available much earlier, and therefore more useful, than the XB-28, I would guess. If the aircraft was initially designed with this growth in mind, the upgrade would only require an engine change.

As a footnote, for a long time, EVERY USAF pilot was checked out for competency in the T-38, an aircraft that flew approach around 180 mph touched down at 155 mph. Understanding and handling high wing loaded, fast aircraft does not require unusual or exceptional piloting skills to safely master, but it does require education and training.
 
When Martin added extra wing area, extra weight was asked to be carried, so that the wing loading was as bad as ever.

The 2 stage R-2800 B-26 was the XB-27, the R-3350 version was the initial XB-33. That was changed to a 4 R-2600 design because of the shortage of R-3350s.
 
I can tell you this about the T-38 ... whatever you do, don't let it get slow in the pattern. If you do, it can develop high sink rates that are impossible to stop before intersecting terra firma, even with afterburner. I've flown the simulator and if you get slow in the turn to final, you will not make the runway on that approach. You may make a go-around or may become a lawn dart.

Fly it by the book and you'll do fine. Try seat-of-the-pants and you won't have a good life expectancy.
 
Last edited:
According to the 39 Squadron B26 Marauder Associations website 521 Marauders were supplied to the RAF, total losses were 154 out of which 55 were to enemy action and 99 to accidents etc. Out of the 521 Marauders supplied to the RAF the majority were passed over to the SAAF with the RAF operating only three squadrons itself, the early Marauders operated by the RAF were also the only ones to be used as torpedo bombers.
 
I can tell you this about the T-38 ... whatever you do, don't let it get slow in the pattern. If you do, it can develop high sink rates taht are impossible to stop before intersecting terra firma. I've flown the simulator and if you get slow in the turn to final, you will not make the runway on that approach. You mey make a go-around or may become a lawn dart.

Moral of the story is simple, fly it by the book and you'll do fine.

You are correct. As with all high wing loading aircraft, airspeed is CRITICAL. They load up with drag real fast. With the T-38 you had in your left hand a couple of toy GE engines with afterburners that were always eager to give you an assist. What a great airplane! I look back to my T-38 days with great fondness, forgetting the pain of being in a training situation!

pattle said:
the early Marauders operated by the RAF were also the only ones to be used as torpedo bombers.

The USAAF used four torpedo armed B-26s flying from Midway to attack the Japanese invasion force. It is an impressive story I have already posted but will repeat. Of the four unescorted B-26s, three made it to torpedo range with no success, not surprising due to lack of training and the torpedoes they were using. One B-26 flew down the deck of the Akagi machine gunning all the way. Another one just missed a kamikaze type of attack missing Adm. Nagumo by only a few feet. Two of the four B-26s made it back but were well shot up. According to "Shattered Sword", the Japanese were impressed by the B-26s saying they were "blazing fast" and "difficult to bring down".
 
No. As I pointed out earlier, the airfoil choice was not optimal.

- Ivan.

At least it looks like it with the wing leading edge being sharper than those of most other planes, it just looks sleeker.
So did the Mosquito's wings. That's why I ask.
 
The USAAF used four torpedo armed B-26s flying from Midway to attack the Japanese invasion force. It is an impressive story I have already posted but will repeat. Of the four unescorted B-26s, three made it to torpedo range with no success, not surprising due to lack of training and the torpedoes they were using. One B-26 flew down the deck of the Akagi machine gunning all the way. Another one just missed a kamikaze type of attack missing Adm. Nagumo by only a few feet. Two of the four B-26s made it back but were well shot up. According to "Shattered Sword", the Japanese were impressed by the B-26s saying they were "blazing fast" and "difficult to bring down".[/QUOTE]

Yes you are right, I forgot about that sorry. I don't know if this was the only time they were used in this way by the Americans though, it was a very brave thing that the Marauder crews did on that day but it was almost suicidal and makes me think of the Swordfish attack during the channel dash.
 
When comparing the B 25 to the B 26, it is useful to look at the production numbers of each. We made almost twice as many of the Mitchells and we did the Marauders.
 
I knew a fellow (long ago) who flew on B-25s during the Pacific War. He loved the bird, saying that once they unloaded their bombs and "headed downhill" the Zeros over Rabaul couldn't keep up with them. I don't know exactly how accurate he was in that opinion, but that's what he claimed.
 
At least lookswise the B-26 edges out the B-25 by a mile. Its looks are that of a mean bastard, combining brutishness with yet a sleek appearance. An exciting plane. Of course I've read about its vices..
On the contrary the Mitchell looks like a boxy bore.
 
I have never flown a B-25, but have several rides in ours. In all but one I was right behind the pilot. It operates light since we don't carry bombs or armament. At light weights it is definitely a short-field aircraft and accelerates quite well for a big airplane. John Maloney can get it off the ground with a very short run, but usually just waits for it to fly off. That is impressively short anyway at light weights. Everyone who flies it says it handles very nicely, but you CAN run out of up elevator in the landing flare. When you do (not if, but when), the solution is to add some power to bring the nose up. Optimal solution would be to have more weight in the tail, but anywhere near forward CG means low elevator authority at low speeds without power assist. Even so, it picks up little speed with flaps out and stops short.

Altogether a pleasant aircraft to fly according to all our B-25 guys. We also have an A-26 Invader, but no Maraduer, flying or otherwise, to compare it with directly.
 
A question on the B-26 handling, do we know what the British/Commonwealth pilots thought of it and whether it was considered a handful?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back