Why are there 2 B-26´s?

[Snake45]

Just don't call an Invader a B-26 within earshot of an old Marauder man...

And don't call one an A-26 around my Dad, who flew them in Korea. (I've got a nice closeup of the data block on his airplane, and it clearly reads "B-26C.")

[careyvan208]

The statement about an Invaded being called a A-26 in the 1960s is not totally correct. At the begining of the 1960s there were designated Ex B-26B, TB-26C, etc. The ones firest deployed to Vietnam B-26B/C, RB-26C/L. The On Mark aircraft were B-26Ks. In 1966 there were redesignated A-26A for political reasons. The few remaining orignal Invaders back in the CONUS were probaly redesignated around the same time.

[Snake45]

The statement about an Invaded being called a A-26 in the 1960s is not totally correct. At the begining of the 1960s there were designated Ex B-26B, TB-26C, etc. The ones firest deployed to Vietnam B-26B/C, RB-26C/L. The On Mark aircraft were B-26Ks. In 1966 there were redesignated A-26A for political reasons. The few remaining orignal Invaders back in the CONUS were probaly redesignated around the same time.

No, I don't think the non-Ks ever got the A redesgination. I think they retained their B monikers. For example, I saw that last Invader still being used by the Guard Bureau (now in the hands of the NASM) in the mid-'70s and it was still being called, I believe, VB-26. (V for "VIP transport.) And I can't recall ever seeing any reference to a Vietnam-era (or post-) "A-26B" or "A-26C," just A-26A.

As for the "political" redesignation to A-26A, that was all pretty silly if you think about it. After all, no one "protested" the F-105s and F-4s based in Thailand that were hauling B-17/B-24-sized bomb loads to Hanoi every day and dropping them on strategic targets. I guess not having "B" in their titles made some kind of difference to somebody.

[JohnB]

Lets go straight to the source: the outfit that bought, designated and used the aircraft...the U.S. Air Force.

From Post World War II Bombers by Marcelle Knaack, Office of Air Force History, 1988...

"The B-26K was redesignated A-26A soon after it reached the theater."* Pg. 476


*The attack category, dropped some 20 years earlier, was re-endorsed in the early 60s when some aircraft were specifically earmarked for the attack role during limited war and counterinsurgency operations.
There is no mention of any other Invader being given the "A" designation.


BTW: the book is a storehouse of facts about each aircraft. There is an overview of each type, and separate section on each model (i.e. B--52E, F, etc.) with dates special testing, , special inspections of new models and mods, IOC dates, overseas deployments, and problems with airframe or systems, modernizations programs, combat use, withdrawls, and number built, yearly acceptance rates, number of aircraft built, cost per flying hour, maintenance cost per FH, , etc, etc.
They also printed one on fighters.
The copies I have are the only ones I've ever seen and I got them from the AFMC history office when I was in the service. You should try to find them if you're planning on doing any writing on postwar USAF aircraft and want to do original research from official source materials instead of just passing on generally accepted information and numbers. It also has specification tables, and while far from a picture book it has some drawings, photos and the occasional bit of factory or USAF artwork.

Last edited by JohnB on Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[JohnB]

As for the "political" redesignation to A-26A, that was all pretty silly if you think about it.

It was done originally at the behest of the Thai government. Later, they relented and allowed B-52s to operate from their bases.
The USAF didn't seem to mind using "B"s in South Vietnam...remember the B-57 was used there very early on and was never redesignated.

[redvanner]

Thanks for all your replies. Now I can see reason behind there being 2 B-26 (or at least some).


Michael

[Snake45]

One more little factoid. In his excellent book Foreign Invaders, Dan Hagedorn says that whether an Invader was considered a B or C model depended on which nose was on it, i.e., a B-26B becomes a B-26C with a glass nose fitted. I disagree with this. My Dad's Korean War B-26 had the 8-gun nose, but the data block on it still says "B-26C." Evidently that's the way it was born, and was always thus to the USAF.

This means that you can't definitively state whether any Invader (such as in a Korean War photo) is a B or C without checking the serial number against something like Joe Baugher's list.

[Randy Wilson]

John and others interested. The book you mention is available used at reasonable price from abebooks.com. Here is a direct link from a search http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Knaack&sts=t&tn=Post+World+War+II+Bombers. Just FYI.

Randy

[quemerford]

One could also ask why there are two F-5s!

Same reason.