MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII (1 Viewer)

tomo pauk said:

Greg, don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing Martin for a non-installation of a power-opearted turret (whether remotely- or 'directly-' controled) in the early days of the B-26.

Had the costumer (USAAC) been more modest (realistic?) with some requirements, esp. re. crew size/accomodation, had Martin/Marguder installed better Flap system, had the best possible R-2800 got installed, had the, now USAAF managed to restrain themselves from again upping the capability (= weight) - then yes, we'd see the B-26 making 350 mph by 1943. But too many 'if they only did this is' are involved, and B-26 historically went to the ever increasing weight & drag spiral, with engine power increased just a bit, and result was the slow bomber for standards of 1943 and later.
BTW - looking here, the wings were not that thick on the early B-26 - 16.7% at root.

The A-26 was ordered as an attack aircraft, that probably kept the crew size low, and indeed it used newer aerodynamics and other technological advances to it's advantage. The only 'legacy', or low hech items in 1944 were the engines, single stage supercharged R-2800s, B series, in production from late 1941/early 1942.

Click to expand...

But how did the B-26 compare to its competitors (B-25)?

They were pretty close in many regards.

The Problem with 'claiming' that the B-26 Marauder was "stuck" in development and didn't get "improvements" rather overlooks the change in thinking in the Army Air Force. Early B-17 and B-24 operations showed that the high altitude bombing accuracy was more than bit less than expected. Once the Air Corp/Force dropped the high altitude (say 20,000ft and up ) requirement the advantage of "better" R-2800 engines tended to disappear. The two stage engines (mecanical or turbo) needed inter-coolers in order to deliver the rated power at altitudes over 15,000ft. They were heavier, more expensive (both to buy and to maintain) and offered no performance advantage at the lower altitudes the Air Corp/Force no intended to use the medium bombers at.
In addition to large increases in weight the B-26 got more than a little bit dirtier as it aged.

Early B-26 engine Nacelle.

Later Nacelle. Increase in size of the upper scoops was to house sand filters. They were not always fitted but ALL planes could be fitted with them in the field if needed as the room was provided.
Now add the scoops needed for the inter-coolers and drag goes up and speed goes down at the altitudes below 15,000ft and only would show a real advantage near 20,000ft and above.
Other changes. Early tail

Late tail

Much better for defense but it cost speed.
Pulling guns and fairing over openings was not going to get the B-26 going fast enough no matter what engines were stuck in it if you want to carry a worthwhile bomb load over any distance.

The Manual for the early B-26 is on this web site
Martin B-26A B Marauder B-26.bmp

The early ones supposed to hit 323-326mph at a weight of 26, 734lbs. at 14,500ft.
Unfortunately they had an empty weight of 21959lbs which doesn't leave a lot of weight for equipment, crew, fuel, and bombs. Crew was 5 men. Why the gunner only weighed 170lbs compared to the 200lb Pilots, co-pilots and Navigators I have no idea. Guns were a .30 out the nose, two .50s in the turret (with 200rpg) , a .30 out the tunnel and a .50 in the tail ( 5 man crew.....4 weapons stations???). Weight with crew, guns, a mere 465US gallons of fuel and 42.3 gallons of oil total plus a 2086lb bomb load (four 500lb bombs) could bring the weight to 28,400lbs
Filling the wing fuel tanks to 962 gallons could add about 3000lbs and filling the oil tanks could add another 300lbs. Even burning off a couple of hundred gallons of fuel could see a B-26 entering enemy territory at over 2 tons heavier than the weight the Performance numbers were figured for.
A B-26 could burn 45 gallons of fuel just climbing from 15,000ft to 20,000ft. at 32,000lbs.

Adding several hundred pounds of engines and intercoolers plus the additional drag doesn't seem like it is going to do much of anything for the vast majority of missions the B-26 actually flew let alone the intended missions (turbo charged torpedo bomber????)

Adding two pairs of cheek guns also added to the drag, without adding to the engine power, unlike it would've been a case for the intercooled 2-stage R-2800s
The torpedo bombing missions were few and far between, with better 'altitude-performing' engines the B-26 should be able to fly with decent speed at Sl, as well as at 10000 ft, and at 18000 ft. By 1944 the water injection would've been a reasonable oportunity, the A-26 got that after the ww2. Another thing to improve would've been the engine installation itself, with multiple exhaust stacks instead of collector exhaust, while maybe relocating the oil cooler on the wing leading edge.
Cutaway (link) noting how much the accomodation for 2 crew members, between the pilot's cabin and (front) bomb bay adds to the size of the fuselage. Actually, the total volume used for crew accomodation needed 3-4 times the voulme of the bomb bay.
Added size = added weight = lower performance or worse low speed handling.

Uh, Tomo, the artist may have used a bit of artistic license in his drawing. The two guys behind the pilot didn't really have armchairs
NMUSAF - B-26G Radio Operator Station

Part of the problem with the B-26 (and the B-25) was the disconnect between what the Army wanted in 1940-41 and how the planes were actually used 2-4 years later.
The torpedo bomber capability was a very large part of the thinking, unfortuanly the Navy screwed up the torpedo situation leaving the Army planes with few, if any, torpedoes to drop for several years (especially ones that actually worked). But since the Army didn't KNOW when the torpedo situation would be straightened out it was all to likely that the switch to high altitude engines and the deleivery of such planes would coincide with the Navy delivering good torpedoes in quantity

Shortening the fuselage really isn't going to buy you much in speed (compare the speeds of various airliners with extended fuselages)
and it rather ignores where the US Army was coming from and what they expected from their medium bombers.

The Mosquito was a light bomber intended to replace the Fairey Battle and Bristol Blenheim. Both were 3 man bombers with a bomb laod of four 250lbs, That was the design load for the Mosquito and in fact that was the load for the first 10 Mosquito Bombers off the Production line. Mosquito bombers don't go into action until a few weeks before Midway. Cutting one crew man and ditching the rearward firing gun wasn't that big a change.

The American Medium bomber goes back to the B-10 at least

A four man aircraft with 3 flexible guns and a max bomb load of 2260lbs (two 1130lb bombs although a single 2000lb might have been able to be carried externally. A more normal bomb load was 5 five 300lb bombs.)
Went into service in Dec of 1935. replaced by

A six man bomber also with 3 flexible guns. Range in overload condition could be 1200 miles with 4400lbs of bombs, Normal load was 2200lbs. Ferry range could be 2200 miles or more. Note RDF loop above/behind cockpit. The US may have placed more importance on navigation and radio equipment/operation than some European nations. It is longer from Chicago to Los Angles than from London to Moscow. Just flying around the US was hard enough without deploying to the Panama Canal zone or to To Hawaii.
The last 38 B-18A's were completed as B-23s (Wright R02600 engines) with a contract change order from 1938, First was delivered in July of 1939 right in the middle of the initial B-26 design process. The B-23 had a six man crew- pilot, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, camera operator, and tail gunner. Normal range 1400 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs, maximum range 2750 miles.
High speed bombers would not have the range or payload the the US was looking for even if you left out a few gunners and a few guns.

Gawd that is one ugly beast.

Other reasons for the US medium bombers being the size they were include the fact they were intended to be somewhat multi-role to begin with. The B-26 for example being outfitted with a reconnaissance camera in the rear compartment that was aimed through the floor hatch used by the ventral gun on the early version. One of the crew was assigned the "job" of camera operator, whatever that may have entailed (changing film?).
Radios, navigation equipment and cameras all evolved during the war as did the experience in using them. In some cases later equipment became easier to use or longer ranged for the same weight or complexity.
Different Air forces had different requirements for both equipment and the space needed to work the equipment in different types of aircraft.
The US not only had the size of the continental United States to consider but had the overseas possessions of Puerto Rico, several Caribbean Islands, the Panama Canal Zone, The Aleutian Islands, Hawaii and other Pacific islands and the Philippines as well.
Using a B-26 for photo recon over Europe in 1942 would not have been a good idea but for photographing many islands for possible signs of enemy activity the range and communications/navigation ability of a multi-crew aircraft may have been useful.
I have no idea if it was a US Army requirement but the crew on a B-26 can move from the front of the aircraft to the rear going through the bomb-bay. This allows the radioman and/or navigator to help man rear gun stations. On a B-25 it was possible to crawl over the top of the bomb bay

Perhaps the US could have built bombers with smaller fuselages but they would have lost some of the utility and they already had the A-20 and had seen several other prototype attack bombers, by Boeing-Stearman (XA-21), Martin (XA-22/Maryland) and a paper study by Bell so they had a pretty good idea of what was possible and what they wanted in medium bombers and light (attack) bombers.
Perhaps they were wrong but without really knowing all the factors going into the decisions it is hard to say.

Should we put the Ta 152 on the over-rated list?

tomo pauk said:

Should we put the Ta 152 on the over-rated list?

Click to expand...

Yes.

tomo pauk said:

Should we put the Ta 152 on the over-rated list?

Click to expand...

Compared to what? It was a superb design, with early production issues compounded by quality issues due to circumstances.

Off hand I see no other piston engine fighter with a clear performance advantage

Those long wings must have sacrificed something, though.

I think the issue with the Ta-152 is that it didn't really do anything. It certainly had a lot of potential and if the war had continued it would probably have made its mark but in the end it was too little too late.

Ascent said:

I think the issue with the Ta-152 is that it didn't really do anything..

Click to expand...

Exactly, so it can't really be rated.

It's performance was generally comparable with its late war Allied opponents, making it a decent aircraft at least, but that's about all we can say.

Cheers

Steve

drgondog said:

Compared to what? It was a superb design, with early production issues compounded by quality issues due to circumstances.

Off hand I see no other piston engine fighter with a clear performance advantage

Click to expand...

Bill - on what accounts it was a superb design, and how real was it's performance advantage vs. major Allied types of 1945?
How many negative points does it score due to the H-1 having half of it's fuel tankage in non-self-sealing tanks?
How many due to it's low G limit, even on light weight (5G at 4500 kg = no GM-1 nor MW-50 mixtures are carried, half of ammo, fuel only in lower fuselage tanks, obvoiusly no drop tank)?

Venturi said:

Those long wings must have sacrificed something, though.

Click to expand...

Roll rate and G limit.

It was limited by using the "wrong" engine (DB603 was preferred by Herr Tank), by using steel beams for wing mainspars (due to Al shortage), by being overly specialized for a single job (shooting down high alt bombers), and quality and quantity were insufficient too.

It sure would be neat if the last Ta-152 extant was restored, though.

It is elegant looking to be sure, but I think the vanilla Fw-190D was actually a more well rounded design for a fighter aircraft.

It used the right engine, the Jumo 213E being the best piston engine produced & used in Germany in ww2. The 'right' time for theDB 603A/E (sans that abomination of the turbo) was 1944, aboard the Fw 190C.
The 2-stage supercharged DB 603L and 603LA were running a bit late after the Jumo 213E.

Actually the requirement issued by the RLM which should have had a firmer grasp on engine avialability than Kurt Tank was for the installation of the Jumo 213 A "with minimum modifications". Hardly surprising as the DB 603 was still not fully developed at the time.
The possibility of installing other engines, including the DB 603 G was to be retained.

I'm not sure that the wing spar was steel. It maybe that the piece added to extend the wingspan was in early versions, but the entire spar? In the later two part wing versions? I'd like to see the evidence for that.
The fuselage was certainly strengthened with steel rather than light alloy extrusions.

The Ta 152 H may have been a high altitude interceptor, but there were other versions planned.

Cheers

Steve

The Ta 152 was a superb design. Second to none with great performance.

It's only fault was it arriving so late, and being too little too late.

For it's intended purpose I don't see any reason it would not have performed excellently. Of course you still habe to take into account the German fuel situation and quality of pilots at the time.

In the end it is a mute point however. We simply shall never know.

I believe these guys own the last example. A good read.

Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H-0/R11

Venturi said:

I believe these guys own the last example. A good read.

Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H-0/R11

Click to expand...

I wish they would put it on display.

Was just there a few weeks ago. Would have been great to have seen it.