Warbird Information Exchange

Please see the photo below... my question is about the s/n. It appears to be 42-22252. However, that number doesn't match up with any A-26 known, at least according to Baugher. It is posed next to B-24-H-10-DT s/n 41-28883, which was c/n 475- about halfway through the DT production run of B-24s. The Douglas Tulsa plant didn't fully shift over to the A-26 until the summer of 1944, when B-24 c/n 952 came off of the lines. So what is the story with this A-26? Is this the prototype with a dummy s/n added by the photo censor for security purposes? Was the phony s/n actually painted on the aircraft?

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

Found this on Baugher's site:

43-22252/22266 Douglas A-26B-5-DT Invader

c/n 18399/18413

& this on uswarplanes.net:

Douglas Tulsa, Oklahoma (DT)

43-22252 / 43-22303 18399 / 18450
43-22305 / 43-22307 18452 / 18454
43-22313 / 43-22345 18460 / 18492
43-22350 / 43-22466 18497 / 18613

I'm willing to bet the first "2" is actually a "3" making 43-22252, the first A-26B built at Tulsa. That sound right? According to accident-report.com, there's a report for this A/C having crashed at Barksdale AAF, LA. I guess you'd have to order the report to get the specifics.



Todd

I followed your same thought process, looked at Baugher's site to get the s/n info. But look below- that's where the problem started for me. I have an original (1940's) print of the picture, so I know that it's not some photoshop creativity.

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

I believe you about the original, but the numbers just don't look right. They seem much sharper & darker then the rest of the image. Where I work, we have an old photo of a MPATI DC-6 that was retouched back in the day to sharpen some of the insignias on the nose. It's an old reprint, and I know it wasn't photoshopped with modern equipment. It's a great old picture, but you can tell something just isn't right. I get the same feeling looking at the photo of the A-26. Even the number on the B-24 seems alittle too clear. The other possiblity is that the serial was just painted incorrectly at the factory. The rest of the serial number is just too close for it not to be 43-22252. Do you have anymore info about the photo itself?

Todd

I'll pull the photo tomorrow out of the file and look at it a little more closely. It came out of a file of photos taken at the Douglas-Tulsa factory during WWII. There are several hundred photos in the files. Most were taken by a group of about three or four photographers who were at Douglas full time. I'll see if there are any other similar photos there. I do know that looking at the other B-24s in the photo, I think that it really is from earlier than most A-26 production. Does anyone know when 41-28883 would have been produced at Tulsa? Most A-26 aircraft didn't hit the combat theater until mid-1944 or later; the 952nd B-24 came off Tulsa's lines in August 1944. 41-28883 is #475. Something here doesn't match up. Your idea about th s/n on the A-26 being too bold is a good idea. I'll see if I can get more info off of the picture directly.

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

The first 2 looks smaller than the rest. I would also seem that it looks like the area under the first 2 looks scratched out and the new 2 put over the area.This is what it looks like to me so take that for what its worth.

_________________
Hang The Expense

I don't have a copy of my book (Douglas A-26 and B-26 Invader) but if I recall correctly, the first A-26 produced at Douglas-Tulsa had an incorrect fiscal year in the serial number. There is a view of this airplane on the line at Tulsa taken from the right side that leaves little doubt that Douglas got the serial number wrong. Go figure.

Forget the s/n for a minuet....anyone else notice the oddball mods to the aircraft? I'll let everyone look closely for a bit before I put forth what mods it appears to have.

Some early "B" models were used in testing the T-13E1 75mm cannon. mounted on the right side of the nose. One could depress the cannon a negative 15 degrees but the standard was fixed straight ahead. Unfortunately the serial number can't be read on the picture that looks the most like the current posting. Somewhere I have more but I'm afraid my collection is not well organized at this time.
At least one had the serial of 41-19588 (XA-26B-DE) which is no real help here.
The T-7 105mm cannon was also tested firing a total of 43 rounds of varying charge pressures.
mike13

_________________
Beware of the use of the word "NEVER" as it can come back to bite you.

Is that how the cockpit hatch opens on most A-26s?

Looks kinda funny.

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

Yeah I thought it opened up to the side.

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

Early ones had the heavy framed cockpit with the hatch opening on the right side as per the photo. The later ones had the bubble canopy that opened from the middle. This change was directly due to AAF complaints about visibility from the cockpit for an attack bomber, especially for the pilot seated on the left side of the cockpit trying to see out the right side of the cockpit (with no right seat installed on the single pilot airplanes). Interesting airplane and one of the prettiest ever built.

Here's an additional picture of the A-26. It sounds like the most reasonable explanation so far is that Douglas just got the s/n wrong. Agreed?

kevin

_________________
FOUND the elusive DT-built B-24! Woo-hoo!!!

That was my conclusion when I researched a caption for the book, and that is also the same photo that was used.

It might also be noted that Douglas also made an error in painting the serial numbers on the three El Segundo produced Invader prototypes. All were marked with Fiscal Year 1942 prefixes instead of the correct Fiscal Year 1941 prefix---example, the XA-26A was marked as "219505" when the actual aircraft serial was 41-19505 and should have been marked as "119505." Not a real big deal but interesting nonetheless. That prototype, by the way, rolled out in July 1942, possibly suggesting that factory workers assumed it was a 1942 contract. Who knows, but the proof is in the photo.