Doolittle Raid B-25B Questions?

[rwdfresno]

Ryan, thanks for posting the takeoff photo - what's the source? I've never seen one from the catwalk like that - most Raid photos are the same-ole ones. Very nice. Surprising to see what looks like sun coming through the clouds - the films and books always made it seem like a more foul day.

Although similar in angle, it's easy to see the photographer is off to the side and not several feet ahead of the ship!

I'm not sure Ryan S's source for the photo however, I have the same photo from the National Archives. As you mention while it is similar in angel this picture is taken on the forward, port cat walk and the "30 Seconds" image is taken from a perspective beyond the bow of the aircraft carrier. The USS Hornet CV-8 had a very small area of the bow that protruded beyond the flight deck but still would not facilitate this perspective.

Ryan

[rwdfresno]

Information concerning B-25B # 40-2347:

According to Joe Baugher,

The fuselage of B-25B # 40-2347 was recovered in 1966 by Ed Maloney.

In 1989, the fuselage was reported to be in storage at Aero Trader, Chino, CA.

Good Luck with your research.

TonyM.

Thank you. I actually am fairly familiar with 40-2347 from a post-war perspective but I the area that I'd like to know more about is the military operational history.

Ryan

[RyanShort1]

Ryan, thanks for posting the takeoff photo - what's the source? I've never seen one from the catwalk like that - most Raid photos are the same-ole ones. Very nice. Surprising to see what looks like sun coming through the clouds - the films and books always made it seem like a more foul day.

Although similar in angle, it's easy to see the photographer is off to the side and not several feet ahead of the ship!

Source is the National Archives.

Ryan

[RyanShort1]

Looking at the B-25s on the Raiders Website, it is apparent that in the photos of the B-25Bs parked on the deck, that there was a mix of gray painted belly surfaces which are pretty much staight line, and some that were solid OD

I'm going to disagree with that one - but won't post a full rebuttal of that until I can accompany it with a photo post (probably tomorrow evening or Monday).

Ryan

[RyanShort1]

Ryan S. I appreciate your responses. These are my thoughts.

Answer to Q1: I definitely agree with that assesment.
Answer to Q2: I'd be interested to hear the story regarding why this was done. I wonder if the thought was better camouflage or to obscure the identifiable squadron markings.
Answer to Q3: This I am still curious about as I do not see 100% photographic evidence of this. Perhaps the over-painting of the cowlings has obscured this but in many picture it looks as if the bottoms of the aircraft were hastily painted OD as you can see some faint lines. John Shaw had a real issue with this when he painted his Doolittle painting. I recall a couple of conversations with Raiders who swore that the undersides were painted OD. In Shaws painting he decided to paint the undersides in such a way that they could be either reflections from the wet deck or actual gray paint.
Answer to Q5: I would be very interested to one day assemble a complete list of aircraft that were modified.

Ryan

Ok, so we're done with #1!

#2 - I'm not sure why, and I can't remember the source, but I am pretty sure I heard someone say that it was done. AND, I think there's decent evidence to support it.
#3 - I think that when I post a few more photos later (see above for when that might be) you'll agree that the undersides were Neutral Gray - or at least a faded version of it.
#4 - We know of at least one other aircraft that had artwork on the nose that doesn't have a widely-circulated "still" of it - that's from a movie capture (if you want to beat me to posting it here, do a search on the afore-mentioned forum on "Avenger")
#5 - It's obvious to me that there is still room for more research to be done regarding the circumstances of the Raid.

As far as eyewitnesses are concerned - I would refer you to the expert opinion of Pearl Harbor researcher David Aiken regarding the matter. I take as much information as I can get from original sources, including people, but there are plenty of times when we have a photograph and someone's memories don't agree with the photograph. If I can verify the photograph - especially if it matches with earlier written documentation, then I'll tend to go with that.

Ryan

[gary1954]

Looking at the B-25s on the Raiders Website, it is apparent that in the photos of the B-25Bs parked on the deck, that there was a mix of gray painted belly surfaces which are pretty much staight line, and some that were solid OD

I'm going to disagree with that one - but won't post a full rebuttal of that until I can accompany it with a photo post (probably tomorrow evening or Monday).

Ryan

Doolittle's aircraft definitely had the gray paint on the underside of the aircraft no doubt, as the crash photo taken by his engineer/gunner clearly indicates that the belly side of the Mitchell was in fact gray, so this is not debateable

Let us look at these, since they appear to have been taken aboard ship

In this one, there does not appear to be any declination line in the paint scheme, and appears to be solid OD though the photo is not exceptional, and could very well have the gray declination line.


Here you can easily see the gray declination line in the paint scheme on the port nacelle and the belly of the empennage


Here there does not appear to be any declination line in the paint scheme and appears to be solid OD


Here you can easily see the gray declination line in the paint scheme on the belly of the empennage


Then again, I am probably way off base, as there were specifications as to how the aircraft were to be painted per-order/specifications...During this period, it was generally acknowledged that the specs could not be changed without authorization from the commander. There are "regulations" which are superceded by Commmanders Policy, Which could be over-ridden by Supplental Letter.

Last edited by gary1954 on Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

[TonyM]

Information concerning B-25B # 40-2347:

According to Joe Baugher,

The fuselage of B-25B # 40-2347 was recovered in 1966 by Ed Maloney.

In 1989, the fuselage was reported to be in storage at Aero Trader, Chino, CA.

Good Luck with your research.

TonyM.

Thank you. I actually am fairly familiar with 40-2347 from a post-war perspective but I the area that I'd like to know more about is the military operational history.

Ryan

Ryan,

I think a researcher could probably be able to figure out exactly which B-25B airplanes were used by and left behind by Doolittle's group by studying the Aircraft History Card microfilm for B-25B and the 17BG Unit History microfilm at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB. The aircraft history cards for B-25B can be used to see where the airplanes that were left behind were sent after April 1942 and when they went off inventory. The unit history might shed light on the operational or stateside history of the airplanes left behind. I have possession of several never before published photos of two of the airplanes used in the training but did not go on the raid. I think that the answers to your questions are out there.

Good Luck with your research.

TonyM.

[rwdfresno]

Tony,

Can you share with us the serial numbers of the aircraft in your pictures?

thank you,
Ryan

Ryan,

I think a researcher could probably be able to figure out exactly which B-25B airplanes were used by and left behind by Doolittle's group by studying the Aircraft History Card microfilm for B-25B and the 17BG Unit History microfilm at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB. The aircraft history cards for B-25B can be used to see where the airplanes that were left behind were sent after April 1942 and when they went off inventory. The unit history might shed light on the operational or stateside history of the airplanes left behind. I have possession of several never before published photos of two of the airplanes used in the training but did not go on the raid. I think that the answers to your questions are out there.

Good Luck with your research.

TonyM.

[rwdfresno]

#2 - I'm not sure why, and I can't remember the source, but I am pretty sure I heard someone say that it was done. AND, I think there's decent evidence to support it.

I'd definitely say that photographic evidence shows that the aircraft had paint work done between training at Eglin and the photographs of the Hornet underway for the mission. The prop hubs similarly seem to all be painted while on the Hornet but not while in training. It is a pure guess but my thoguhts are that all of the paint work done could likely be the reason that some of the aircraft seem to have much of the gray covered or oversprayed with OD. As is the case with most of the paint work done hastily by 18 year old aircraft mechanics, it was not perfect.

Ryan

[TonyM]

Don't have the serial numbers for those two B-25s right at my fingertips;
I am not near my pile of folders.

Stand by.

TonyM.

[RyanShort1]

I'd definitely say that photographic evidence shows that the aircraft had paint work done between training at Eglin and the photographs of the Hornet underway for the mission. The prop hubs similarly seem to all be painted while on the Hornet but not while in training. It is a pure guess but my thoguhts are that all of the paint work done could likely be the reason that some of the aircraft seem to have much of the gray covered or oversprayed with OD. As is the case with most of the paint work done hastily by 18 year old aircraft mechanics, it was not perfect.

Ryan

Where do you see evidence of gray being oversprayed with OD??? If you're talking about scallops on the sides of the aircraft - it wasn't done on B-25s until the early C models.

Ryan

[Ken]

Not sure the point Gary is trying to make, but in the 2 photos beneath (IIRC) the Hari-Carrier, one shows the gray/OD line and the other says that appears all OD. Problem is - it should be the same bird, given the way the tail is hanging out off the fan tail ... Farrow's #16.

My uneducated guess is that any colored cowl rings were overpainted and that all a/c were still the standard OD over grey, with Standard insigina and US ARMY under the wings. Looks like none of the prop tips were yellow. At the risk of starting off on a tangent - was that a mod?

Ken

[RyanShort1]

Truth is that the shadows really mess with the appearance of the paint in the photos. Ken is right. Those two photos are both of Farrow's #16 - which absolutely had the gray undersides. Sure, the one picture is pretty dark, and if we just had that to go on, you might be ok in assuming that they had OD wrap around the fuselage.
Here's proof it had the gray undersides: The following is from one of the film clips I've seen (couldn't resist getting the DVD out and snatching some stills).

Also note that even in this single video clip, there are a few different "shades" based on the lighting and shadows - one still looks like a dark underside on the wing, while another shows it clearly to be gray. Also, if you look closely, you'll see that the aircraft ahead also has gray under the nacelles.
I personally believe that ALL of the aircraft were in this basic paint scheme, with some variations (I'll try to get to that later) based on the unit they were previously in, whether or not the aircraft was part of the War Maneuvers, and any individual markings. If you study the photos closely, these birds were in pretty "worn" condition on the exterior. The one universal exception seems to be the cowling rings at the front, which uniformly appear to have been repainted. Considering how worn the rest of the engine and wing skins appear, they look to me like they got a fresh coat after the long cross-country to Alameda. Remember that aircraft leading edges are the first place you'll see abrasions, etc... so for them to look fresh fits with the theory that all of the 17th BG cowling colors were painted out.

Ryan

[rwdfresno]

Not sure the point Gary is trying to make, but in the 2 photos beneath (IIRC) the Hari-Carrier, one shows the gray/OD line and the other says that appears all OD. Problem is - it should be the same bird, given the way the tail is hanging out off the fan tail ... Farrow's #16.

My uneducated guess is that any colored cowl rings were overpainted and that all a/c were still the standard OD over grey, with Standard insigina and US ARMY under the wings. Looks like none of the prop tips were yellow. At the risk of starting off on a tangent - was that a mod?

Ken

The question stemmed from my original question if all of the B-25Bs on the raid had gray undersurfaces. The reason I asked is because in some of the photos the gray undersurfaces don't seem to stick out as strongly as they do in Eglin Field film. This could be for various reasons including just poor lighting in the pictures. In some cases it is quite obvious and others not so much. The other reason is that this was something that wasn't remembered the same by every Doolittle Raider. As I mentioned above when john Shaw was interviewing Raiders for his painting "The Hornet's Nest" it was a question of debate regarding the fact that all B-25Bs on the mission had gray under surfaces and if the aircraft had colored cowling rings. My feeling is that they did all have the gray under surfaces.

I think the evidence does show that the squadron markings were all painted over and I thought perhaps in this process since it was likely hastily done it could account for some of the some of the gray under surfaces not appearing as promiently as it does in earlier photographs of the aircraft. It also appears that hte props were either replaced or repainted between Eglin and hornet.

My other curiocity (and strictly for curiouscity sake) is why and when they were painted. Ryan S said he thought it was at Alameda or onboard Hornet. If it was done post McClellan where the final modifcations were done that would lead me to beleive it was a last minute decision to do so. I'm also curious what those final modifications were. The fuel tank mods were done in Minniapolis. You hear much about the carbuerator modifcations that were done and some say that there was some animocity towads the Navy mechanics at Alemeda due to it being bleeived that the carb mods may have contributed to less range than expected but others say it was likley that the modifications were done at McClellan. This a good example of why I like to see as much evidence as possible since people's memories always seem to vary, especally since these stories have been told and retold over such a long period of time.

Ryan

Last edited by rwdfresno on Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[RyanShort1]

My other curiocity (and strictly for curiouscity sake) is why and when they were painted. Ryan S said he thought it was at Alameda or onboard Hornet.

I think it was sometime before the ships went on board the Hornet - don't know exactly when - could've been before Alameda as well. I'm having a hard time finding one of my books that might help...

Ryan