Warbird Information Exchange

The Australian War Memorial's recent conservation and restoration of several W.W.I aircraft, and Lancaster G for George would be in the same category. Restorations undertaken at the RAF Museum's Conservation Centre at Cosford, such as the restoration of the Supermarine Southampton are of as high a standard. Likewise some of the restorations at le Bourget, particularly by the Memorial Flight, both to fly and for the Musee de l'Air would achieve the standard.

There are many others, and I'd suggest most first world country national collections achieve this. The attention to detail and other points mentioned is 'new' (twenty odd years) in aviation restoration in many places, but is a standard museum practice in other fields, and not 'news' there.

The 'archaeological' recovery of original detail on the Corsair at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton, UK by Dave Morris' team set and continues to offer a new, different benchmark of rediscovering originality.

I'd agree with Warbird1's assessment and points completely, by the way, and the Mikesh book is the primary work on the subject. NASM's work is generally to be recognised as to this standard, with the majority of airframes and artefacts restored or conserved to this standard. Elsewhere, there are museums, the RAF Museum for instance, which have airframes on display that have not been well restored, or were rushed by external contractors - the Bristol Beaufort and Kitthawk for instance. So I'd say the NASM has more original, historically significant aircraft restored or conserved to the highest standard both in numbers and as a proportion of the total numbers than any other collection worldwide.

Happy to be corrected, of course!

However the NASM is in clear dereliction, or failure of the their primary job with Flak Bait, by continuing to allow a significant deterioration of an unrestored and original artefact. It is, unarguably, an inexcusable failure of the primary part of their mandate as a museum.


Agreed. While I find the hyperbole around the Flying Heritage Collection's mandate rather over-the-top, the requirement for restoration is up there. Restorations such as Happy Jack's Go Buggy, by Midwest Aero is of a similar standard, but the discussion of the differences and rationale is a long discussion.

On another tack, this is not the B-26 Marauder to restore to fly, even if that were an option, which thankfully, it isn't. For all the hardcore 'it should fly' brigade, it's telling that of the several airframes available those who can make that happen none are currently airworthy, and we lost several aviation enthusiasts in the crash of the last regularly flown example, an all around tragedy. Certainly I'd like to see a Marauder in the air, but as I'm not in a position to make it happen, I think it a bit of cheek to demand others commit the money and resource for my gratification.

Good discussion.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

So, it would be out of place to send them an email/letter calling attention to such a situation which puts in check their own reputation of standard setters. Especially when the immediate solution seems so simple and cheap. Did anyone write to the NASM curator about this (which I assume is the person responsible)?

By the way, I've noticed there is a reprint of Mikesh book, the info says with some additions, are they worth the money of aquisition (having the first edition already...?). Did anyone hold a copy of it?

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

Yep two enthusiasts...and what gets me is the guys flying Carolyn weren't exactly a couple of screwups- they were the highest time Marauder pilots CURRENT in the airplane, and they still got killed. I know the report said Vernon Thorpe hadn't had a lot of recent time, in it, but he and Walt sure as heck knew what they were doing.

Not just NASM, but Members of Congress as well. Specifically members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior. They're the appropriators who write the Smithsonian's checks.

Website here: http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcomm ... ienv.shtml

This is especially important for those of you who may be in the Districts of Congressmen who sit on that subcommittee:

Chair: Norman D. Dicks (WA)
James P. Moran (VA)
Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)
John W. Olver (MA)
Ed Pastor (AZ)
David E. Price (NC)
David R. Obey (WI), Ex Officio

Michael K. Simpson (ID)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Steven C. LaTourette (OH)
Tom Cole (OK)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio

I have the first edition as well. I don't know anything about the reprints.

BTW, anyone who doesn't have the Mikesh book should get it. It is THE bible on aircraft preservation/restoration.

There's a reason why the plane was called "The Widowmaker" and "One a day in Tampa Bay", etc. Even back then, when the pilots had very high currency and proficiency, they were still crashing them. It just goes to show that some warbirds can kill even the most experienced pilots, given the right or unlucky circumstances.

Wasn't the crash of Carolyn was due to a structural failure or mechanical issue? The pilots can't be blamed for that, no matter how good they were.

SN

Only partially correct. From the following link it says:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the failure of the pilot to maintain minimum airspeed for flight resulting in an inadvertent stall/spin. Factors were the loss of power for undetermined reasons, and the pilot's lack of recent flight experience in the aircraft."


http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20 ... 4484&key=1

Sounds like someone should go back and learn thier history before they spout old stories.
The reason the B-26 had problems was NOT the plane, in fact, it had the lowest loss rate in service of all US bombers. The problem was 2 fold, pilots not following the POH manual, and props that were not very forgiving of low voltages.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

It's easy to offer opinion in hindsight of the Carolyn accident.

Sadly it won't bring back the men or the aircraft.

Best we can do in their memory is learn from the lessons they paid the highest price for.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

HHHmmm, it sounds like somebody needs to take their own advice before they go off spouting half correct information. Yes, the initial problems WERE due to the plane.

First off, I was referring to flying the B-26 stateside in training where they DID have huge problems early on. The plane was an advanced airplane not suitable for novice, inexperienced pilots with poor, undeveloped training. The B-26 was rushed into service only 3 months from the first flight of the prototype. The training curriculum's did not have enough time to evolve and mature to fully train the new pilots coming out of flight school.

Some of the initial problems were that the aircraft had the highest wing loading of any Army Air Corps airplane which resulted in high landing speeds, sometimes approaching 135 mph. Compounding this were C.G. problems which were due to the lack of a dorsal turret on the early models. This caused an aft C.G. issue which aggravated takeoff's and landings, resulting in some nose gear failures. In addition to this, many of the pilots had never flown a nose gear airplane before, because the vast majority of training was accomplished in taildragger PT-,BT- and AT- series aircraft. So it was a strange transition for some.

The prop problem as Matt mentioned was indeed a factor, when many of the early models encountered "runaway prop" due to the low voltage problems because maintenance crews were servicing the turrets and other items off of the internal batteries during maintenance down time. The net result was that some aircraft took off with drained batteries, which affected the props, sometimes causing them to go to flat pitch and overspeeding on takeoff. This gained the B-26 a really ugly reputation with many pilots being "deathly afraid" of losing an engine on takeoff or even flying the plane single engine. For some time, it was thought that the B-26 was incapable of single engine flight. This was later proven not true, when Jimmy Doolittle himself, proved it could be successfully flown.

Most of these issues were eventually mitigated, due to the training and developmental maturity of the B-26 as crews gained experience in it. After these early accidents, "long wing" B-26's were developed to give the Marauder easier, and better slow speed handling characteristics. Also crews were given more advanced training in the AT-9, another advanced aircraft that had a nasty reputation for poor handling characteristics.

After all of these original developmental problems were all sorted out, the B-26 went on to become one of the most successful bombers in the ETO, with the lowest attrition rate of all bombers in Europe. But, that success came at a price, when many pilots lost their lives because of incomplete development of both the B-26 and it's training curriculum and regimen.

it was NOT the plane. Jimmy Doolittle proved that. It was pilot training and pilots not following the POH. They were not taught to follow the POH speeds to the letter, and it bit them too many times.
In case you forgot, Jimmy Doolittle was sent to find out why there were so many crashes and he flew the plane, then showed the other pilots what the plane could do.
Care to explain how the lack of a dorsal turret mounted in the aft portion of the plane, could cause a aft CG ? it seems that would cause a fwd CG problem, that as long as it was in the CG range, is not a problem, and if it was out of fwd CG, it was easily corrected by ballast. I don't recall ever seeing a B-26 without a turret, esp since the turret was designed by Martin, even the first B-26 built had a turret. Kermit's B-26, which it the 103rd B-26 built had a turret.

As far as high landing speeds, it is easy to overcome with training, and unless you have a point of reference, speed is just a number. I am not a wonder pilot, but in a single day I have flown planes that landed at 30mph and others that landed at over 100, as long as you fly the plane at the speeds it was designed to be flown, you will survive, if you don't, you become a statistic.
They did add more wing later, because the plane was getting heavier, but the approach speed was still 140mph, as shown in my 1944 B-26 POH.
again, it was not a plane problem, but a pilot problem

If I remember right, they said another plane was a pilot killer, but there was a guy named Delmar that flew one for many years on the show circuit, and lived. The pilot killer was the Gee Bee, and Jimmy Doolittle flew it as well.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

Gentlemen,
IMHO, you both have points well made, and appreciated.

It's often forgotten that these are aircraft designed to undertake a military task, and that allows design compromises (like a higher than usual landing speed and wing loading) that wouldn't be accepted in a civil environment of the period, or regarded as unpleasant in other operations. For instance, big twins of the W.W.II era have single engine handling that's unpleasant through to dangerous as a rule.

It's easy to underestimate the speed of W.W.II development (from grass fields to concrete runways for instance) and the exceptional demands placed on young men whose total time was listed on Model Ts only a few months earlier. While Matt's right to say they should fly 'by the book' I suggest that Warbird1 is also right that the book was unusual in the demands stated (for the period) and took a while to get sorted and credible.

That is, however, by-the-by. As the thread starter clearly demonstrated, one of the world's foremost museums is in dereliction of protecting for future generations one of the most historic and original bombers of W.W.II. The question is what's to be done about it. If we didn't vapour here, and wrote to those in question, maybe some good could be done. It's everyone's call.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Any high performance airplane can kill anyone who is aboard it, regardless of experience level or currency. The airplane doesn't check the logbook of the people flying her.

All pilots need to heed such occurrences, however tragic, and realize that experience and currency is never a bulletproof vest.

It was a combination of the plane AND training. You can't say it wasn't the plane at all, as that was definitely, positively without doubt, contributory to the accident rates. I'll outline them for you:

1) The plane had the highest wing loading and probably fastest landing speed of any bomber ever made up to that point. The plane was a "hot ship", not forgiving at slow speeds, and not appropriate for novices. This is an example of poor human factors design for the type of pilots that it was developed for. Maybe Doolittle could fly the plane expertly, but Martin didn't develop the plane for pilot's of Doolittle's vast experience. They developed it for the novice, barely rated pilot just out of AT-6 training. The fact that Doolittle showed that the plane could be flown safely, as long as it was flown properly and "by the numbers" went a long way to giving crews confidence to fly it. Any plane in Army Air Corps service at that time had to have a certain "forgiveness factor" or "tolerance" built into the airframe so brand new 2Lt's out of flight school wouldn't kill themselves. The B-26 had a very low tolerance and was very unforgiving. Sounds like a design flaw to me, if nothing else, at least from a human factors perspective. It's not an insurmountable flaw, but it's a flaw none-the-less.

2) The B-26 was rushed into operations before the testing and development phases were complete. Because of this, the initial batch of B-26's were delivered to the Air Corps with no armament. Because the dorsal turret was not yet fully developed by Martin and not installed, this caused a forward CG resulting in several nose gear collapses and resultant crashes. (On my previous reply I should have said forward CG, not aft, sorry for the confusion). IIRC "Carolyn" had this problem with the CAF at least once and had a gear collapse. This altered CG made the B-26 more unstable, particularly during the most critical phases of flight - take off and landing. This is a design flaw that was not discovered until after the investigation of several crashes. They didn't know it was a CG problem until later, hence there was no immediate need for ballast. Once the problem was understood and all of the armaments were installed, all of the CG problems disappeared. The fact that the aircraft CANNOT be flown without a full complement of armament IS indeed a design flaw. It's not an insurmoutable one, but a flaw none-the-less.

3) The B-26 was designed with a more complex electrical system than was used on bombers at the time, upon which many systems had a very heavy dependence upon - including one critical item - the Curtiss-electric props.

The fact that there was no "back up" with a weak battery, which could cause the props to change pitch and cause an aircraft to crash IS a design flaw. The fact that Martin used such a finicky and delicate prop arrangement IS a design flaw.

Having something so critical, like your props, totally dependent upon the strength of your batteries, upon which was drained by many other complex systems, including the turret - IS a design flaw.

Again, these are not insurmountable design flaws, but flaws none-the-less and ones which can kill unless fixed.

4) The design of the B-26 initially had short wings, high wing loading, high landing speeds, and poor single engine performance for the expected experience level of pilots who would fly it. If the "short winged" B-26 was NOT a design flaw, then why did Martin change the wing design and make the wings longer? You say that they redesigned the wings because it was getting heavier. That may be true, but they also redesigned the wing to make it have better performance and easier to handle for less experienced pilots. Obviously, it WAS a design flaw. It wasn't a HUGE one and it wasn't insurmountable to work around, but none-the-less it was a flaw - so much so, that Martin entirely redesigned the wings. If a minor flaw is not a design flaw then they are generally not fixed with major re-engineering of major portions like wings.

I'm not saying that the design of the B-26 was inherently dangerous and the sole reason for all of the crashes early on in the program. The lack of training and incomplete understanding of the flight envelope was probably what contributed the most to this. However, the rushed pre-production work during the testing and evaluation phase did not catch some of the early design flaws of the B-26. Unfortunately, most of these were not rectified until several aircrews paid with their lives. Were the design flaws of the B-26 a contributory factor to the early crashes....yes. Was it the only thing that caused the early crashes....no!