Tue May 03, 2005 6:23 pm
Randy Haskin wrote:srpatterson wrote:Delete
Awww, Steve...your posts were the best. Don't take your ball and go home.
Just trying not to make Scott's life difficult...
Tue May 03, 2005 6:26 pm
mjanovec wrote:I've also wondered if the B-26 was really as hard to handle as its early reputation made it out to be...or was it simply the case of someone (like Doolittle) needing to point out how to treat her right? I wonder how much the wing modifications had to do with lessening the accidents versus people figuring out how the lady needed to be handled.
I'd especially like to meet someone who's flown the B-25 and the B-26 and get a comparison of the two.
I've met a pilot, down near my house, who flew B-26's in Korea. Next time I see him I'll ask to see what he thought about its difficulty.
Tue May 03, 2005 6:31 pm
srpatterson wrote:Just trying not to make Scott's life difficult...
I have no problem dealing with your opinion...just as long as you're able to deal with mine in return. As long as we act like adults in the process, Scott has nothing to worry about.
I enjoy reading all opinions on the issue, especially those that differ from mine.
No hard feelings on my end...
Tue May 03, 2005 7:05 pm
Cadillac, the gentleman that you know didn't fly Marauders in Korea. He flew A-26 Invaders. By that time, the Marauder had been phased out and under the new USAF the designation of A-26 had been changed to B-26.
The flying qualities of the A-26 Invader are quite a bit different than the B-26 Marauder.
However, I would like to know what squadron he flew with in Korea. I used to help out on a true combat vet A-26 that flew with the 95th BS, 17th BG. It would be interesting to know if he flew with the same squadron and might have time in her.
The flying qualities of the A-26 Invader are quite a bit different than the B-26 Marauder.
However, I would like to know what squadron he flew with in Korea. I used to help out on a true combat vet A-26 that flew with the 95th BS, 17th BG. It would be interesting to know if he flew with the same squadron and might have time in her.
Tue May 03, 2005 8:37 pm
The Martin B-26 was a real handful for any pilot in takeoff regime. The problem they were having was the student pilot's lack of experience with very high power multi engined aircraft. Virtually anything that would go wrong would cause the student to loose his concentration on flying the aircraft and then it would deteriorate into a crash. Once it was shown that it was an aircraft that had to be flown by the numbers and not by the "seat of the pants", aircraft losses went down considerably.
In fact, the one pilot that was able to convince the instructors and student pilots that it was a numbers airplane was a WASP. She took off and had an engine failure at something like 100 feet AGL. It took her a considerable distance over Tampa Bay to get enough airspeed so that she could gain enough altitude to come back over the field at pattern altitude and execute a standard landing. Blew all the flight crews minds when this little wispy, tiny WASP popped out of the aircraft and then proceded to let the ground crew know all she had found wrong on the flight besides a failed engine....Talk about an ego killer!
In fact, the one pilot that was able to convince the instructors and student pilots that it was a numbers airplane was a WASP. She took off and had an engine failure at something like 100 feet AGL. It took her a considerable distance over Tampa Bay to get enough airspeed so that she could gain enough altitude to come back over the field at pattern altitude and execute a standard landing. Blew all the flight crews minds when this little wispy, tiny WASP popped out of the aircraft and then proceded to let the ground crew know all she had found wrong on the flight besides a failed engine....Talk about an ego killer!
Tue May 03, 2005 10:42 pm
Rick,
Thanks for the correction. I must have just got my "26's" crossed up.
I'll talk to him next time I see him and ask who he flew with.
Cvair,
Great story about the WASP by the way!
Thanks for the correction. I must have just got my "26's" crossed up.
I'll talk to him next time I see him and ask who he flew with.
Cvair,
Great story about the WASP by the way!
Tue May 03, 2005 11:10 pm
hello Folks:
My grandpop flew B-26s out of Kimpo during the Korean war on night photo missions. THeir motto was "Alone Unarmed and Unafraid"
My grandpop flew B-26s out of Kimpo during the Korean war on night photo missions. THeir motto was "Alone Unarmed and Unafraid"
Wed May 04, 2005 12:40 am
mjanovec posted a most eloquent & gentlemanly reply, & in the right spirit of what this site is supposed to be about!!! way to go!!! regards, tom
Wed May 04, 2005 9:40 am
Randy,
No I doubt that Tibbetts experience in small planes extended beyond his training days. He does have 1000's of hours in B-17s and B-29s (much of it combat or test pilot time). NO DISRESPECT MEANT - he did a job (commanding the 509th in total secrecy) that few others could have - But, Tibbetts does have a very high opinion of himself and that is no secret.
Tom P.
No I doubt that Tibbetts experience in small planes extended beyond his training days. He does have 1000's of hours in B-17s and B-29s (much of it combat or test pilot time). NO DISRESPECT MEANT - he did a job (commanding the 509th in total secrecy) that few others could have - But, Tibbetts does have a very high opinion of himself and that is no secret.
Tom P.
Hardest?
Wed May 04, 2005 3:30 pm
Yeah, Tom I've heard that too...but I've seen many fighter jocks with the
same...ummm..errr..display of humble-tude. Off subject..I've wondered
how much being Patton's Stinson 108 L-bird pilot helped Tibbits career?
I'm not attempting to detract from Tibbets' obvious skills and efforts..
In reference to part of the subject at hand..Something I don't recall being
mentioned, is if the single-manned aircraft driver suffers some sort of
casualty, i.e. hit by weapons fire or dining on bad clams...he has no
back-up option(s) as most mult-crew aircraft do. When the "gray matter
computer" is damaged yer options dwindle.
Sorry to see Steve felt the need delete his posts...they were very
informative, as usual. It is a pet-peeve of his... a simple, "oops, mjanovic
sorry pet-peeve" would have sufficed.
same...ummm..errr..display of humble-tude. Off subject..I've wondered
how much being Patton's Stinson 108 L-bird pilot helped Tibbits career?
I'm not attempting to detract from Tibbets' obvious skills and efforts..
In reference to part of the subject at hand..Something I don't recall being
mentioned, is if the single-manned aircraft driver suffers some sort of
casualty, i.e. hit by weapons fire or dining on bad clams...he has no
back-up option(s) as most mult-crew aircraft do. When the "gray matter
computer" is damaged yer options dwindle.
Sorry to see Steve felt the need delete his posts...they were very
informative, as usual. It is a pet-peeve of his... a simple, "oops, mjanovic
sorry pet-peeve" would have sufficed.
Thu May 05, 2005 12:41 am
CV is correct. If I may expand on his comments a wee bit:
The Martin Model 179 (B-26 Marauder) was a hot-rod airplane, due to the high (for the day) wing loading. Basically, stall speed dirty on the Marauder was higher than the cruise speed of the trainers! One thing that REALLY helped was the development of trainers like the Curtiss AT-9 "Jeep", which exhibited some of the same flying characteristics of the B-26.
Also, the Curtiss Electric props were VERY exacting units, which required a high degree of maintenance relative to regular ole Ham Standard hydromatic props. One really bad habit that got lots of students hurt was NOT running the "putt-putt" while starting and taxying. This flattened the batteries enough that the props went into flat pitch (because the stepper motor couldn't hold the props in full High RPM at full power with low system voltage) shortly after liftoff. This usually caused either an engine failure due to overspeed, or a stall/spin .
You have to remember that the B-26 was THE high-tech bomber for its day, and was bought "off the proposal", without a prototype being flight-tested by the military before the build contract was let. The factors that affected the B-26's unjust poor reputation were:
1) Lack of knowledge of Curtiss Electric prop idiosyncracies
2) Lack of proper training in highly wing loaded airplanes, and the attendant higher speeds
3) The USAAC overloading the airplanes
4) "fear of the new"
Once the USAAC worked out the training bugaboos, the B-26 went on to enjoy the LOWEST loss rate of any Allied airplane, less than 1/2 of 1%.
Ask a Marauder Man, they are ALL fiercely and justifiably proud of a great airplane....
The Martin Model 179 (B-26 Marauder) was a hot-rod airplane, due to the high (for the day) wing loading. Basically, stall speed dirty on the Marauder was higher than the cruise speed of the trainers! One thing that REALLY helped was the development of trainers like the Curtiss AT-9 "Jeep", which exhibited some of the same flying characteristics of the B-26.
Also, the Curtiss Electric props were VERY exacting units, which required a high degree of maintenance relative to regular ole Ham Standard hydromatic props. One really bad habit that got lots of students hurt was NOT running the "putt-putt" while starting and taxying. This flattened the batteries enough that the props went into flat pitch (because the stepper motor couldn't hold the props in full High RPM at full power with low system voltage) shortly after liftoff. This usually caused either an engine failure due to overspeed, or a stall/spin .
You have to remember that the B-26 was THE high-tech bomber for its day, and was bought "off the proposal", without a prototype being flight-tested by the military before the build contract was let. The factors that affected the B-26's unjust poor reputation were:
1) Lack of knowledge of Curtiss Electric prop idiosyncracies
2) Lack of proper training in highly wing loaded airplanes, and the attendant higher speeds
3) The USAAC overloading the airplanes
4) "fear of the new"
Once the USAAC worked out the training bugaboos, the B-26 went on to enjoy the LOWEST loss rate of any Allied airplane, less than 1/2 of 1%.
Ask a Marauder Man, they are ALL fiercely and justifiably proud of a great airplane....
cvairwerks wrote:The Martin B-26 was a real handful for any pilot in takeoff regime. The problem they were having was the student pilot's lack of experience with very high power multi engined aircraft. Virtually anything that would go wrong would cause the student to loose his concentration on flying the aircraft and then it would deteriorate into a crash. Once it was shown that it was an aircraft that had to be flown by the numbers and not by the "seat of the pants", aircraft losses went down considerably.
In fact, the one pilot that was able to convince the instructors and student pilots that it was a numbers airplane was a WASP. She took off and had an engine failure at something like 100 feet AGL. It took her a considerable distance over Tampa Bay to get enough airspeed so that she could gain enough altitude to come back over the field at pattern altitude and execute a standard landing. Blew all the flight crews minds when this little wispy, tiny WASP popped out of the aircraft and then proceded to let the ground crew know all she had found wrong on the flight besides a failed engine....Talk about an ego killer!
easiest
Thu May 05, 2005 8:43 am
Remember in comparing multi-engine to singles especially in talking B-25/B-26 that the B-26B and many of the G &H B-25s were single pilot has was the A-20 of course. I knew a retired judge here in town that flew single pilot B-26s in the 323rd BG and flew his across the Atlantic to England and then did most of his combat tour with no co-pilot.
Thu May 05, 2005 10:29 am
Hey Guys I'm back,
The reason I put the Duck on the list was because of a conversation I had with the late William R. "Bill" Ross. Prior to his death in a twin Bonanza, he had retrieved. owned, flew and traded a lot of aircraft. Some that I knew of; P-40E he bought while at Yale and later traded to the NASM, the F3F that later crashed in 1973, The MK9 Spitfire that he sold to Don Plumb, A P-38 named "Vergeltunswaffe Teufel" , mustangs, wildcats, a hellcat, several Widgeons and Gooses, Staggerwing, N3N, UC-78, Howard NH-1, and on and on.
He told me the duck was the hardest he'd flown for these reasons; Blind in the cockpit, no forward visibility because of the radial, can't see the wheels at all, can't see the runway because of the lower wings, etc. Then he said that the landing gear design, also used on the F3F, F4f, Widgeon, and Goose was very narrow, and squirrelly, it has a nonsteerable hard tailwheel working against you.
Last, he pointed out all that freaking' surface area from the fuselage down to the mainfloat. Not your friend in a crosswind! He said crosswind landings on pavement could be very harrowing! He said you kept the throttle up all the way to the runway, which you can't see, until you feel something make contact.
All this said, the Duck seems to have a decent civil safety record.
The reason I put the Duck on the list was because of a conversation I had with the late William R. "Bill" Ross. Prior to his death in a twin Bonanza, he had retrieved. owned, flew and traded a lot of aircraft. Some that I knew of; P-40E he bought while at Yale and later traded to the NASM, the F3F that later crashed in 1973, The MK9 Spitfire that he sold to Don Plumb, A P-38 named "Vergeltunswaffe Teufel" , mustangs, wildcats, a hellcat, several Widgeons and Gooses, Staggerwing, N3N, UC-78, Howard NH-1, and on and on.
He told me the duck was the hardest he'd flown for these reasons; Blind in the cockpit, no forward visibility because of the radial, can't see the wheels at all, can't see the runway because of the lower wings, etc. Then he said that the landing gear design, also used on the F3F, F4f, Widgeon, and Goose was very narrow, and squirrelly, it has a nonsteerable hard tailwheel working against you.
Last, he pointed out all that freaking' surface area from the fuselage down to the mainfloat. Not your friend in a crosswind! He said crosswind landings on pavement could be very harrowing! He said you kept the throttle up all the way to the runway, which you can't see, until you feel something make contact.
All this said, the Duck seems to have a decent civil safety record.