The real combat history of the P-39 Airacobra in the Pacific (10 Viewers)

[GrauGeist]

Well, we are talking about two different aircraft. The B-26s deployed to the Pacific were early, short wing birds with the R-2800-5 engines.
The B-26Bs and Cs sent to the ETO had the longer wing and more powerful R-2800-43s. They also got heavier and slower.
The pilots that flew in the Pacific loved the B-26, preferred it to the B-25, but the brass was not satisfied with it. Long take-off requirements restricted its availability, and planes often flew light to shorten the take off run. 13th AF B-26Bs rarely carried more than 2000 lbs of bombs because max take off weight was restricted to 36,500 lbs.
Even the early, short wing B-26B was heavier than the B-26, which was a factor in the decision to equip the 19th BS with refurbished "straights" and convert the few B-26Bs in theater to fat cats.
I think the additional weight (extra guns, bigger scoops for tropical dust filters, etc.) added to the short wing B-26Bs sent to North Africa played a role in their poor performance in that theater.
The planes sent to the UK were mostly long wing models and had the luxury of longer runways. Mission lengths were shorter too, compared to the Pacific and MTO. So 4000 lb bomb loads were quite common vs European targets.

Thanks for that info!

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Greg Boeser I'm reading Claringbould's new book on the JAAF in the South Pacific and he mentions one squadron which seems to still be flying B-26 on combat missions around the Solomons and New Guinea in later 1943, I'll go back and find the reference tomorrow and post it.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Well, we are talking about two different aircraft. The B-26s deployed to the Pacific were early, short wing birds with the R-2800-5 engines.
The B-26Bs and Cs sent to the ETO had the longer wing and more powerful R-2800-43s. They also got heavier and slower.
The pilots that flew in the Pacific loved the B-26, preferred it to the B-25, but the brass was not satisfied with it. Long take-off requirements restricted its availability, and planes often flew light to shorten the take off run. 13th AF B-26Bs rarely carried more than 2000 lbs of bombs because max take off weight was restricted to 36,500 lbs.
Even the early, short wing B-26B was heavier than the B-26, which was a factor in the decision to equip the 19th BS with refurbished "straights" and convert the few B-26Bs in theater to fat cats.
I think the additional weight (extra guns, bigger scoops for tropical dust filters, etc.) added to the short wing B-26Bs sent to North Africa played a role in their poor performance in that theater.
The planes sent to the UK were mostly long wing models and had the luxury of longer runways. Mission lengths were shorter too, compared to the Pacific and MTO. So 4000 lb bomb loads were quite common vs European targets.

So are you saying here that there are both short and long-wing versions of the B-26B?

I am not so sure B-26 had a poor record in the MTO from what I've read. They were still using them over Sardinia, Sicily and Italy pretty prominently.

 

[andrewgeorge]

No, not entirely. Most of the biplanes for example (like the Japanese were fighting in China and Manchuria, and the Finns in Russia) had lower wing loadings. As did the Hawk 75 (or roughly identical, apparently, to the Ki-43-I). The I-16 also had a very low wing-loading.

Of course! CR 42s and such as well.

No, not entirely. Most of the biplanes for example (like the Japanese were fighting in China and Manchuria, and the Finns in Russia) had lower wing loadings. As did the Hawk 75 (or roughly identical, apparently, to the Ki-43-I). The I-16 also had a very low wing-loading.

Anyway wing loading is just a function of wing area and weight so when we give you weight and wing area that is essentially your wing loading. Wing shape and engine power have something to do with turn rate as well but a lot of it is just that. The relevant exception here being the Ki-43 with it's additional maneuvering flaps giving it an extra boost in turn rate.



View attachment 896418

The P-40 was also little to a lot (10-50 mph) faster than the F2A (depending on which exact types you are comparing and at what altitude) and had one of the best roll-rates of any fighter in the world, up around 100-130 degrees per second depending on the specific test, the variant, and the speed (P-40s rolled best at higher speed). F2A had a roll rate around 70-80 degrees per second though that would vary a lot depending on weight in the wings (like guns, fuel), speed, and possibly some other factors. P-40 also had a much higher dive speed of 460-480 mph depending on subtype, vs about 360 mph for the F2A (again, depending on the type).

Certainly agree the P-40 was a more capable fighter than the Buffalo—in almost every way, frankly. I was just pointing out that the issues with the Buffalo in the far east had more to do with being underpowered than wing size. The performance of the engines in Southeast Asia in 1941 and 1942 was described by RAF pilots as "pathetic." Not just a design problem, but probably a quality problem.

 

[GrauGeist]

So are you saying here that there are both short and long-wing versions of the B-26B?

I am not so sure B-26 had a poor record in the MTO from what I've read. They were still using them over Sardinia, Sicily and Italy pretty prominently.

The MTO presented similar issues that the SWP had, especially the heat and dust, however, extended runways were much easier to make in the desert than on many of the islands in the PTO.

 

[andrewgeorge]

So are you saying here that there are both short and long-wing versions of the B-26B?

I am not so sure B-26 had a poor record in the MTO from what I've read. They were still using them over Sardinia, Sicily and Italy pretty prominently.

That is correct. B-26Bs switched to the extended wing with the block 10s.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The MTO presented similar issues that the SWP had, especially the heat and dust, however, extended runways were much easier to make in the desert than on many of the islands in the PTO.

I'm just remembering from reading through the operational histories in Shores that you see plenty of B-26 missions going on through 1943, and once they had regular escort they seemed to take quite low losses. This is just a guess but I suspect fewer than the B-24 units were.

 

[Greg Boeser]

So are you saying here that there are both short and long-wing versions of the B-26B?

I am not so sure B-26 had a poor record in the MTO from what I've read. They were still using them over Sardinia, Sicily and Italy pretty prominently.

B-26, B-26A, and B-26B to B-26B-4 were short wing. B-26C-5 and B-26B-10 and up, including B-26F and G, were long wing.
The BGs sent to North Africa (319th, 320th, 17th) were originally equipped with short wing B-26Bs. The long wing B-26Bs and Cs started showing up as replacements in May '43.
The BGs sent to England, arriving later, were nearly all equipped with long wing B-26Bs and Cs. The exception was the 322nd BG, whose first arriving squadrons were still equipped with short wing B-26Bs. Many of these were lost or damaged during it's first two low level missions to Ijmuiden.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Greg Boeser I'm reading Claringbould's new book on the JAAF in the South Pacific and he mentions one squadron which seems to still be flying B-26 on combat missions around the Solomons and New Guinea in later 1943, I'll go back and find the reference tomorrow and post it.

Well, there were two squadrons, 69th and 70th BS, flying early B-26B, initially from Fiji and New Caledonia, also Efate, that operated from Guadalcanal briefly in late '42- early '43. The 70th got stuck in first when it flew in to help against the Tokyo Express run November 14-15. They flew in with torpedoes but traded them for bombs and hit the transports and beaches on the 15th. Flew out the next day as there wasn't enough fuel to operate effectively. Brass probably didn't want to risk them getting shelled at Henderson. They deployed forward again around New Year's and both squadrons flew several missions against Munda, Buin and shipping in the upper Solomons. Cpt John Sharp shot down a Mavis while on a patrol in early February. By late February, both squadrons pulled back to their permanent stations. Shortly thereafter they turned in their Marauders for strafer B-25s.
The 22nd BG in Australia stood down in January '43 and all their remaining B-26s were refurbished and consolidated in the 19th BS, which went back into action in July, while the other squadrons converted to B-25s. They flew missions until January '44, when the B-26 was retired in the Pacific. The entire 22nd BG then converted to B-24s.