Subdeacon Joe Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Thank you, I enjoyed that very much. Bugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 The B26 is not an easy plane to fly. Only twice, and only right hand seat. You also land at a higher then normal speed. Admire pilots that do fly it though. Something about it, never felt comfortable. MT Will add. For a medium bomber the B25 is easier to fly. The B24 is a heavy bomber, comparatively as easy as the B17 to fly, and my second choice. The B25 would be my third in take-offs, landings, and in flight feasibility for the crew. The B26 needed constant vigil in flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Cherokee, SASS#48332 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Great video..Thanks for posting! The bombers I'm familiar with are the B-17, B-24, B-29 and B-25..Didn't know about the 26..It didn't look like it had a lot of armament aboard, although the pilot stated it did..Reminded me of a B-25 with a different tail configuration.. I was on my way to the range last week with a pard of mine who likes to argue..The talk turned to WWII airplanes and I commented about being surprised that when I went through the B-17 at an air show, it seemed bigger than the B-29 Superfortress I had gone through at a previous show, since I had always thought the Superfortress was bigger..He began to argue that I was wrong, the 29 was bigger..He also mentioned a B-27, which I am not sure even existed..Although I could be wrong about that one since I was also unaware of the B-26..I changed the subject, since my pard is not one to ever admit he is ever wrong about anything! So, was there a B-27? and which was bigger? the B-17 or the B-29? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I know there was a B-32 on the boards, referred to as the Dominator. Can't remember specifics, but I believe it was somewhat like a scaled up B-29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 4, 2013 Author Share Posted February 4, 2013 B-17G: Span... 103 ft. 9 in. Length...74 ft. 9 in. Wing Area... 1,420 sq. ft. Gross Weight... 48,726 lbs. Top Speed... 302 mph Cruising Speed... 160 mph Range... 3,750 mi. Service Ceiling... 35,600 ft. Power... (4) 1,200-hp "Cyclone" Armament... (11) machine guns / 16,000 lb. bomb load B-29 Manufacturer: Boeing Designation: B-29 Nickname: Superfortress Type: Bomber Specifications Length: 99' 0" 30.17 M Height: 27' 9" 8.46 M Wingspan: 141' 3" 43.05 M Wingarea: 1739.00 Sq Ft 161.54 Sq M Empty Weight: 69610.0 lbs 31569.0 Kg Gross Weight: 140000 lbs 63492.0 Kg Max Weight: 141100lbs 63990.0 Kg Propulsion No. of Engines: 4 Powerplant: 18 Cylinder Wright Cyclone R-3350-20 Engines, Each with Dual Super Chargers Horsepower: 2200 per Engine Performance Range: 5830 miles 9388.00 Km Cruise Speed: 220.00 mph 354.00 Km/H 191.35 Kt Max Speed: 365.00 Mph 587.00 Km/H 317.30 Kt Ceiling: 31850.0 Ft 9707.40 M Armament Machine Guns: 8 - .50 cal. Remote Controlled Guns with 2 of each in 4 Power Turrets Machine Guns: 2 - .50 cal. in Tail Cannon: 1 - 20 mm. in Tail Bombs: 20,000 lb. Total (10 Tons) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Great video..Thanks for posting! The bombers I'm familiar with are the B-17, B-24, B-29 and B-25..Didn't know about the 26..It didn't look like it had a lot of armament aboard, although the pilot stated it did..Reminded me of a B-25 with a different tail configuration.. I was on my way to the range last week with a pard of mine who likes to argue..The talk turned to WWII airplanes and I commented about being surprised that when I went through the B-17 at an air show, it seemed bigger than the B-29 Superfortress I had gone through at a previous show, since I had always thought the Superfortress was bigger..He began to argue that I was wrong, the 29 was bigger..He also mentioned a B-27, which I am not sure even existed..Although I could be wrong about that one since I was also unaware of the B-26..I changed the subject, since my pard is not one to ever admit he is ever wrong about anything! :lol:/> So, was there a B-27? and which was bigger? the B-17 or the B-29? :unsure:/> First off, the 29 is preasurrized, meant more comfort for the crew and ease of handling controls and firepower. Both had the same crew numbers. The 29 was longer and had more wing span. The weight of an empty 29 was twice that of a B17. Maximun speed was greater as was hours in the air. The 29 could handle a greater payload load. Yes, the B29 was bigger. MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 There's a reason they called the B26 The Widowmaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I have two books on the B26 Marauder Men and Bridge Busters. According to them a large part of the problem with the 26 early on was lack of training. Yes, it was a hot ship and required your undivided attention but in combat in Europe its speed made it the safest bomber to be in. Able to fly at about the same speed as the German fighters they couldn't catch them and if they managed to intercept them they only got one pass. It's loss rate was lower than any other bomber in WW2. Unfortunately, they got such bad press they were phased out and allowed to simply attrit during the war. Pilots were sent to fly other planes but crewmen, both air and ground, were assigned to infantry. There is a comment from one of them that since they had no infantry training they often found themselves diving into ditches when shells were outgoing and standing in the road alone when they were incoming. Regarding the B32 Dominator. There is only one book on it that I am aware of, Dominator The story of the Consolidated B-32 Bomber by Stephen Harding & James I Long. It is about 58 pages. According to it the B-32 was the alternative to the B29. The Army Air Corps liked having two of every type of bomber in production just in case one design didn't work out. For example the B-25 and B-26 medium bombers, the B17 and B-24 Heavy bombers, and the B29 and B 32 Super Heave Bombers. The B32 was not pressurized as that was a new concept and if it proved a major problem in combat they had an alternative traditional design available. One group the 312th bomb group flew B32's in combat in the Pacific its first mission with only two aircraft on 29 May 1945. The B29 was so successful and the B32 came on line so late in the war that it had almost no impact and all were scrapped. There are no surviving examples of the B-32 and the largest part of one still in existence at the time the book was written was part of an instrument panel. Bugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapevine Jimmy SASS #73935 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 When talking about the B 26, my Dad said the saying was "One a day in Tampa Bay". And he also mentioned the term "Widowmaker". Grapevine Jimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Mas SASS #80082 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 My aviation club featured a talk by a Baltimore Whore pilot. With those tiny wings, the B-26 had "No Visible Means of Support". He thought the plane was too hot, especially when the Army Air Force was cranking out pilots with too little experience. But, is was maneuverable and FAST. He grew to appreciate the B-26, but never really trusted a plane that was always trying to kill them. The XB-27 was a proposed development of the B-26, but the design was never finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 My aviation club featured a talk by a Baltimore Whore pilot. With those tiny wings, the B-26 had "No Visible Means of Support". He thought the plane was too hot, especially when the Army Air Force was cranking out pilots with too little experience. But, is was maneuverable and FAST. He grew to appreciate the B-26, but never really trusted a plane that was always trying to kill them. The XB-27 was a proposed development of the B-26, but the design was never finished. Kinda hard to explain, but the B-26 was like going from a car with power steering to one without. It felt heavy, yet maneuverability was there as was speed, very fast. It felt bulky. I just didn't like it, and never went for further flights and try to get signed off for left seat. It also didn't ease into landings, you powered it in. Never missed flying it, and again hats off to those that do and did. MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Mas SASS #80082 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Kinda hard to explain, but the B-26 was like going from a car with power steering to one without. It felt heavy, yet maneuverability was there as was speed, very fast. It felt bulky. I just didn't like it, and never went for further flights and try to get signed off for left seat. It also didn't ease into landings, you powered it in. Never missed flying it, and again hats off to those that do and did. MT MT, I think I remember the pilot saying the 26 had a VERY nasty stall-snap roll-inverted spin characteristic. Is that your recollection? I do remember he always added 15 knots to the landing speed if he wasn't feeling really sharp. 10 if he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 MT, I think I remember the pilot saying the 26 had a VERY nasty stall-snap roll-inverted spin characteristic. Is that your recollection? I do remember he always added 15 knots to the landing speed if he wasn't feeling really sharp. 10 if he was. You got it. It was weird feeling coming in and he was right, add a little extra, even when sharp. MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Just a comparison of landing speed. Final comment. A B17 you can approach at 115-120and land at 90MPH. B25, approach at 110 to 115 and land as low as 80MPH. B26, you approach your landing at 150-160, and can land at 120-135. (stalls at 120, so we always landed at 130-135, and even 140 several times). The B17 and 25 floated into landings, the 26 you had to maneuver and fight to land, constant eye on airspeed, flap position, and alignment to runway, and lower it gently as not to damage the landing gears. MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.