One a day in Tampa Bay.............. rumour or fact?
Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:31 am
Hi Guys,
I posted this topic earlier this morning but it never showed up, so here it is again:
I once read that during training missions in Florida in WWII that the number of crashes was very high. There were B-26 crashes mentione and about a decade ago an engine and prop from a P-43 Lancer were recovered there.
It had the saying during those days: One a day in Tampa Bay.
Is there any substance in this?
Cheers
Cees
I posted this topic earlier this morning but it never showed up, so here it is again:
I once read that during training missions in Florida in WWII that the number of crashes was very high. There were B-26 crashes mentione and about a decade ago an engine and prop from a P-43 Lancer were recovered there.
It had the saying during those days: One a day in Tampa Bay.
Is there any substance in this?
Cheers
Cees
Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:52 pm
Cees,
I was involved in the recovery of the Lancer engine and prop. This was located about 7 miles off shore, in the Gulf of Mexico, not in Tampa Bay. It is a shame that the rest of the plane was cut apart by another person to simply obtain souvenirs, and others wanting to maintain a good spear fishing site supposedly drug the remains elsewhere. This was nearly 20 years ago. As far as the B-26s go, yes they lost many in the Bay. In one month they did lose 20 (hence, "one a day in Tampa Bay"). The major problem as I understood, was blamed on the Curtiss electric prop maintenance and operation. I don't think any made controlled water landings so those that remain are probably scattered wrecks.
Lex
I was involved in the recovery of the Lancer engine and prop. This was located about 7 miles off shore, in the Gulf of Mexico, not in Tampa Bay. It is a shame that the rest of the plane was cut apart by another person to simply obtain souvenirs, and others wanting to maintain a good spear fishing site supposedly drug the remains elsewhere. This was nearly 20 years ago. As far as the B-26s go, yes they lost many in the Bay. In one month they did lose 20 (hence, "one a day in Tampa Bay"). The major problem as I understood, was blamed on the Curtiss electric prop maintenance and operation. I don't think any made controlled water landings so those that remain are probably scattered wrecks.
Lex
Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:03 pm
Thanks for the reply guys,
I hope the investigation happening as Rob says turns up with something. After all, looking is knowing.
Cheers
Cees
I hope the investigation happening as Rob says turns up with something. After all, looking is knowing.
Cheers
Cees
Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:51 pm
Hey Folks:
My grandpa was one of them. He was involved in a B-29 crash in Tampa Bay in 1945. The USAAF usually had the crash remains removed out of the bay.
Chris
My grandpa was one of them. He was involved in a B-29 crash in Tampa Bay in 1945. The USAAF usually had the crash remains removed out of the bay.
Chris
I have a dog in this fight....
Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:40 pm
The "one a day" is a gross exaggeration, as was the other unflattering appelations hung on an underappreciated aircraft (WidowMaker, Flying Prostitute, Baltimore Whore, etc etc).
As Rob said there were less than 50 crashes total in Tampa in B-26's. ( I think, I have copies of the records so will have to look).
The main reasons for the spate of Marauder wrecks were: improper operation and maintenance, (which resulted from) and poor training procedures.
As noted, the Curtiss Electric props were an issue. They went into flat pitch, which caused an engine overspeed immediately. This usually happened at the most critical time, on the takeoff roll, when the pilot was right around the "single engine safety speed". This happened because the Curtiss prop used a stepper motor to hold the blades in postion. If electrical power was removed from the motor, it would not be able to hold the blades in position against the torque and gyroscopic loads imposed at takeoff power. Pilots had not been trained to use the "putt putt" APU to start, taxi, and run-up the B-26, and would use battery power for these regimes. Unfortunately, at the low engine RPMs, the generators could not keep up with the electrical loads being consumed, and runaway props happened as the ships batterys went flat.
The Curtiss props were, and still are in my opinion a very GOOD prop. However, the maintenance needs are much higher than on Hydromatic props. Things such as keeping brush blocks and contacter rings free of corrosion and the attendant voltage drops/high resistance were very critical to keeping Curtiss props in good operating order.
The other major issue, and again this is rooted in training, was the high wing loading of the Marauder. The high wing loading made for a fast bomber with good capacity, but the tradeoff is highly increased landing speeds. Marauders came over the fence at 150-165, and as I recall dirty stall is around 125 (Have to go read my manuals again to be sure). So, the approach speed was higher than the cruise of some of the trainers these guys had been flying right before getting into the Marauder.
A good friend who flew Flak-Bait (Sherm Best) told me this: The Marauder was a great plane, brought him and many friends home safely with damage that was unbeliveably bad (which would have doomed a Mitchell), but she was utterly unforgiving of a lack of skill, or attention to details. It's also germane to note that there was never a "prototype" as such. The USAAC bought the Marauder right off the drawing boards, and they and Glenn L. Martin Co upgraded as necessary on the production line.
Jimmy Doolittle did much to keep the Marauder flying, as many might know. Truman had set up an investigative committee three times about the Marauder's alleged problems. Again, this was a "Hot-Rod" plane, and was very very different from anything these airmen had flown in past. Interestingly, I was privileged to know a WASP who had over 1,000 hours ferrying Marauders from Middle River MD all over the country. She loved them, and never had any issues with the planes. Really blew some male pilots minds when this "Killer plane" would land, and a lil slip of a *girl* would wave at them from the left seat!
At the end of the war the Marauder had the lowest loss record in the entire ETO, less than 1/2 of one percent. Sadly though, her reputation as a killer doomed her, and she was stricken from the inventory, and as a final insult, in 1948 when the USAF dropped the "attack" designation, the Douglas Invader b]A-26[/b] was given the Marauder's designation. Hence, my somewhat testy reply to people "Douglas made the A-26, MARTIN made the B-26, and I don't care WHAT the USAF had to say about it!"
As you might suspect from my sig line, I have a slight interest in this plane. Sorry for the lengthy reply... It's still a little sad that of over 5500 built, there are only 7 left (only one of which is anything close to airworthiness, Hi Kermit!!), plus about a dozen wrecks known.
As Rob said there were less than 50 crashes total in Tampa in B-26's. ( I think, I have copies of the records so will have to look).
The main reasons for the spate of Marauder wrecks were: improper operation and maintenance, (which resulted from) and poor training procedures.
As noted, the Curtiss Electric props were an issue. They went into flat pitch, which caused an engine overspeed immediately. This usually happened at the most critical time, on the takeoff roll, when the pilot was right around the "single engine safety speed". This happened because the Curtiss prop used a stepper motor to hold the blades in postion. If electrical power was removed from the motor, it would not be able to hold the blades in position against the torque and gyroscopic loads imposed at takeoff power. Pilots had not been trained to use the "putt putt" APU to start, taxi, and run-up the B-26, and would use battery power for these regimes. Unfortunately, at the low engine RPMs, the generators could not keep up with the electrical loads being consumed, and runaway props happened as the ships batterys went flat.
The Curtiss props were, and still are in my opinion a very GOOD prop. However, the maintenance needs are much higher than on Hydromatic props. Things such as keeping brush blocks and contacter rings free of corrosion and the attendant voltage drops/high resistance were very critical to keeping Curtiss props in good operating order.
The other major issue, and again this is rooted in training, was the high wing loading of the Marauder. The high wing loading made for a fast bomber with good capacity, but the tradeoff is highly increased landing speeds. Marauders came over the fence at 150-165, and as I recall dirty stall is around 125 (Have to go read my manuals again to be sure). So, the approach speed was higher than the cruise of some of the trainers these guys had been flying right before getting into the Marauder.
A good friend who flew Flak-Bait (Sherm Best) told me this: The Marauder was a great plane, brought him and many friends home safely with damage that was unbeliveably bad (which would have doomed a Mitchell), but she was utterly unforgiving of a lack of skill, or attention to details. It's also germane to note that there was never a "prototype" as such. The USAAC bought the Marauder right off the drawing boards, and they and Glenn L. Martin Co upgraded as necessary on the production line.
Jimmy Doolittle did much to keep the Marauder flying, as many might know. Truman had set up an investigative committee three times about the Marauder's alleged problems. Again, this was a "Hot-Rod" plane, and was very very different from anything these airmen had flown in past. Interestingly, I was privileged to know a WASP who had over 1,000 hours ferrying Marauders from Middle River MD all over the country. She loved them, and never had any issues with the planes. Really blew some male pilots minds when this "Killer plane" would land, and a lil slip of a *girl* would wave at them from the left seat!
At the end of the war the Marauder had the lowest loss record in the entire ETO, less than 1/2 of one percent. Sadly though, her reputation as a killer doomed her, and she was stricken from the inventory, and as a final insult, in 1948 when the USAF dropped the "attack" designation, the Douglas Invader b]A-26[/b] was given the Marauder's designation. Hence, my somewhat testy reply to people "Douglas made the A-26, MARTIN made the B-26, and I don't care WHAT the USAF had to say about it!"
As you might suspect from my sig line, I have a slight interest in this plane.
Sorry for the lengthy reply... It's still a little sad that of over 5500 built, there are only 7 left (only one of which is anything close to airworthiness, Hi Kermit!!), plus about a dozen wrecks known.
What Jason Said
Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:02 pm
For a stump runnin' southern insurgent, he shore is smart! Jason, you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge of that airplane....!
But, there was a prototype! And I have film to prove it (or at least Stan Piet has it)!
Of course, the B26 was maligned by many, but as Jason said it wound up with an unbeatable record.
It was fast, too fast for people who had just graduated from multi training (or were grandfathered in due to early war regulations). Later in the war, when they realized that better task oriented multi engine training was needed, the accidents went away (they were plentiful with other aircraft as well). I have the original 1941 multi engine training task book and it is not nearly as thorough as the modern multi check ride performance standards.
Jimmy Doolittle was asked to go to Middle River and give his professional evaluation of the plane. He took a factory fresh one up, shut down one engine, and stunned everybody with a performance at 5000 feet that wound up with a loop!
The B26 production during 1941 and 1942 was chronically short of Curtiss Electrics. There were not a lot of spares for them and the first few runs of B26's had to have their props removed and shuttled back to Middle River for re-fitting. One mechanic I talked to said that the props were only allowed to be touched by factory reps and there were VERY few of those around. Like all of the equipment delivered in 1941 and 1942, everybody wanted to get in it and "test drive" it without much oversight, and this combination was probably the biggest reason for the accidents.
There was a congressional hearing on the B26, led by then Senator Harry S. Truman. While it eventually found that the plane was sound, Truman was EXTREMELY pissed when Martin end ran him directly to the White House to appeal for the salvation of the program. If the program had been cancelled, I doubt Martin would have been around after WWII, as they made their biggest money off the 187 and B26 contracts. I think Truman's animosity had more to do with the ultimate demise of all the airframes at the end of WWII than classing them as "obsolete." I think the USAAF, which was already politicking for an independent air force, was looking in their political future.
Hey Jason, I just wanted to let you know that I was caressing all those Maytag parts I have laying on the hangar floor this afternoon, along with the Kingman recovery top cowl... Thought you'd want to know that!
But, there was a prototype! And I have film to prove it (or at least Stan Piet has it)!
Of course, the B26 was maligned by many, but as Jason said it wound up with an unbeatable record.
It was fast, too fast for people who had just graduated from multi training (or were grandfathered in due to early war regulations). Later in the war, when they realized that better task oriented multi engine training was needed, the accidents went away (they were plentiful with other aircraft as well). I have the original 1941 multi engine training task book and it is not nearly as thorough as the modern multi check ride performance standards.
Jimmy Doolittle was asked to go to Middle River and give his professional evaluation of the plane. He took a factory fresh one up, shut down one engine, and stunned everybody with a performance at 5000 feet that wound up with a loop!
The B26 production during 1941 and 1942 was chronically short of Curtiss Electrics. There were not a lot of spares for them and the first few runs of B26's had to have their props removed and shuttled back to Middle River for re-fitting. One mechanic I talked to said that the props were only allowed to be touched by factory reps and there were VERY few of those around. Like all of the equipment delivered in 1941 and 1942, everybody wanted to get in it and "test drive" it without much oversight, and this combination was probably the biggest reason for the accidents.
There was a congressional hearing on the B26, led by then Senator Harry S. Truman. While it eventually found that the plane was sound, Truman was EXTREMELY pissed when Martin end ran him directly to the White House to appeal for the salvation of the program. If the program had been cancelled, I doubt Martin would have been around after WWII, as they made their biggest money off the 187 and B26 contracts. I think Truman's animosity had more to do with the ultimate demise of all the airframes at the end of WWII than classing them as "obsolete." I think the USAAF, which was already politicking for an independent air force, was looking in their political future.
Hey Jason, I just wanted to let you know that I was caressing all those Maytag parts I have laying on the hangar floor this afternoon, along with the Kingman recovery top cowl... Thought you'd want to know that!