Martin B-26 Marauder. Unsafe At Any Speed?
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 2024
- This is a discussion about the Marauder's speed, safety record, design considerations, and combat history. I go into a lot of detail on multi-engine flying in WW2.
Please support this channel: / gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
My parents - yes, both of them - flew the B26 during the war. It was fast and complicated so it took more training than other models.
Not too many women flew the B-26 Marauder. However some did, I actually have a picture of some of them in this video. Let us know if one of them is your mom.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles "not many women flew B-26" that's why we can pinpoint who that person is, where he lives and his social security number 😂
Could have been a WASP flying the planes from the factory to the ships
Perhaps it's a two dad family? Either way a cool tidbit!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Frame 46:10, she is on the far left. Based at Harlingen TX, towed targets over the Gulf of Mexico for B 24 gunners.
My grandfather was a tail gunner in a RAF B26, he got wounded by cannon shell fragments and had to crawl back over the bomb bay before they crash landed it. Spent a year in hospital. He always spoke very highly of the aircraft, but even more highly of the Canadian pilot that got them down.
Thanks for the great story. God bless the memory of your granddad. The Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis were some tough cookies. Many brave and admirable stories out there supporting that. Cheers from the SE USA.
Thank you for this. My Dad Flew in the B-26 as a bombardier, nose Gunner, Navigator. Flying many missions over occupied Europe before during and after D-Day. ( 9th Air Force 344th) He loved that plane, that he felt never got its due.
Thanks for your comment. I think your dad was right. The B-26 just doesn't get the recognition it deserved.
It's just what's called "survivor's bias". Any plane that made it to the end is the most fantastic plane eveeer. The reality is the B-26 had an absolutely terrible reputation and it was retired as quickly as possible.
Respect to your father.
@@k9killer221 did you not watch the video?
@@k9killer221the B26 was a fantastic aircraft that had a rough start
Glad to see you back Greg. It's always a pleasure.
Thanks Will. It's good to be back.
A man who went to my church years ago was a tail gunner in one of these, his was shot down by flak, he was captured and put in a camp and survived the war, broke his hip on touchdown in his chute, he had some cool stories. I also know a family who had a dad or grandfather who was a bombardier in a B-26. It frustrates me that IL-2 doesn't have it, it's easily my favorite medium bomber of WWII.
Come to the darkside, war thunder has a couple variants of it. Fun plane.
@@kiwidiesel NGL it's fucking dogshit in war thunder. In game it's very slow and like most bombers is just a free kill for any fighter that gets within 5 miles of it.
War Thunder just added it for what it's worth. I do Sim VR in both games so I'm looking forward to taking it out.
@@kyle857 The update that added the b-26 came out just over a year ago......
@@harrymack3565 all American bombers are nerfed to almost uselessness in WT. They had to Nerf and up tier them many times for"game play" because fighters whined for years. Back when a B25 could pull more than 2g before snapping the wings they were fun.
"Unsafe at any speed"
I see your love of muscle cars shining through there, Greg!
Merlin gets it.
nader is coming for those b-26s next watch out
Damn Corvajrs...... Ralph got it
Um,, a Corvair isn’t a muscle car…
Unless you stuff an LS init.
@@michaelgarrow3239 go look up Ralph Nader and the Corvair.
My Father. Lawrence M. McNally.
Flew 153 Missions in the E.T.O.'s
454 Bomb Group, White Tails.
By wars end his plane "Patty's Pig" cruised without the 6,000 lb's could easily cruise around 350 mph. In a full power dive it could easily get past 400 mph. He did it. More than once in practice. His crew would survive without a scratch,flying from
from May 1943 to May 1945.
The plane would shake and rattle like a huricane, but in a pinch you could make that a reality. He reached 475 mph when his crew said no more of that kind
if practice. In fact in any event he never had to.
His biggest worry was always the
88 flak battery at 10,000-15,000 feet
in the most deadly range and effectiveness. His most remarkable skill
during the war, was his "flak evasion" tactics in leading raids. Luck in guessing Left or Right turns in s 3-5 minute delay in response to German flak salvos. And, last second left or right turns over bombing targets. Depending on the state of the formations over targets.
Either scattered or tight.
Most of the time with bombs or not German fighters had ONLY one pass at any B26 formation or individual planes.
Living in Paris after the war my parents ( mother Anerican born German) would entertain lots of high ranking diplomatic and military WWII veterans from both German and British, American vets. And, Many Luftwaffe pilots and German flak battery operators. Borh of which operated at full force in defence over Germany. From the beginning to wars end. The Folkerwolfe and Messerschmit pilots and flak guys said that individually and in formation the
Martin B-26 was the most feared by far.
One pass, fast and Twelve 50 caliber guns. My Father never let me forget.
By wars end my Father had the most powrful WASP 2800 B-26 variant with a total of
12 -50 caliber guns.
Two in the nose,
4 in the belly my Father controlled,
two in the waist,
two in the tail and
two on the top.
There were two recessed kill engine buttons dirctley overhead in a center console. These,
Left and Right buttons would instantly
Kill or fearher either engine. Many pilots wore very thin leather glives with two finger tips cut off. This was critical so that fat fingers wouldnt stop getting your finger tips in the hole of the button. This was the critical and instinctive life saving manouver ( many failed, learning)
when a propeller ( flatened) or engine blew on a critical take off speed and/or weight problem.
Father was there on the beach when a
"One a day in Tampa Bay" was happening
literally right in front of him.He often said, like a Garand rifle, the B -26 was a life saver. His life and mine.
Thanks for sharing, very cool.
My grandfather primarily worked on Marauders during the war, he used to get fired up when people thought he meant the A-26 vs the Marauder. He spoke fondly of one that survived the war, nicknamed 'Vagabomber.' Wish he had lived a bit longer so I could have recorded his stories.
"Vaginabomber"?..did they really name a plane that?....
@@dyer2cycle Vagabomber, yes. A play on Vagabond.
My father was a B-26 pilot and flew >60 combat missions in N. Africa and Italy. He loved that plane and said people were scared of it and too timid to fly it.
The B-26 was supposed to go 400 mph.
The Utah Beach thing
The ENTIRE, VMC thing.
The relative cost of US bombers.
And more.
ALL of this stuff was new to me - and I have casually studied, WW2 aircraft for decades.
Thank you for this great video.
☮
I always thought the B-26 LOOKED like it should be able to go 400mph...sleekest looking bomber of the war(the skinny-fuselage German bombers notwithstanding)...
My father was an instructor pilot in Martin B-26 Marauders when he was stationed at Loredo Army Air Field in Loredo, Texas in 1944. The B-26 was considered a real hot rod for its time. It was a tricky plane to land due to its high wing loading. The tech manual says you can land a B-26 Marauder at 126 mph indicated airspeed, but in actuality B-26 crews rarely if ever landed at that slow of speed. My father usually landed a Marauder at 142 mph indicated airspeed during touch down. You had to put the plane into a shallow dive then flair it at just the right moment to land a B-26 Marauder correctly. If you flair too high or too low, the outcome will usually end up being disastrous. Teaching a new greenhorn pilot how to fly a Marauder was very dangerous as I'm sure you can imagine. Of all the planes my father taught in, the Marauders were the most demanding and unforgiving. The Marauders had vicious stall characteristics due to the high wing loading and they took longer for the plane to recover from a stall. The fact that these planes were ordered right off the drawing board with no prototypes ever built or tested and they went right into combat boggles the mind, but thats exactly what happened. After the war, its amazing how fast the B-26 Marauders were scrapped and melted down into aluminum ingots, which is why so few examples survive today.
Thanks Jim.
"one a day in Tampa bay!"
Like the B-47 the performance jump needed hard lessons in training.
Dad flew 50 B-26 missions out of Corsica, Sardinia…over Italy and Munich.
Crash landed after flak damage on a British 20:09 Spitfire field in Italy. Went off the end of the runway at over 100 MPH. Flipped over on its back. Brits cut them out with one crew with broken arm…all survived. Last mission, his tail gunner hit and damaged a ME262 over Munich. Rarely spoke of his wartime experience until his early 90’s.
Worth every minute of the wait. A fair, even-handed appraisal with plenty of technical detail. Everything we've come to expect and appreciate. Thank you. Welcome back!
This is indeed a great channel, even if aeroplanes aren't exactly my speciality, to say the least... I keep watching every time, because it's well explained and easy to understand, even to my newbie ears. I walk away having learned a lot every single time 🙂
Another absolute banger, Greg! The accident rate comparison to modern day craft was jaw dropping. But also made me realize that really, we can have flying cars as soon as we accept a flying car accident rate equal to a terrestrial car accident rate.
Nope, just make a 4/5 seater small and light enough to include its own parachute landing system. Problem solved.
@@rosiehawtrey ~distressed Paul Bertorelli noises~
@@rosiehawtrey I don’t think a parachute system is something you want to rely on if you have the same sorts of accidents as you have with cars (distraction, negligence, sleep deprivation, plain old bad driving habits) since damage to the parachute system could easily occur in an accident, and even if it doesn’t, a car sized object packed full of high energy density batteries or (less likely) fuel falling from the sky, presumably already badly damaged, is going to be hazardous as hell, parachute or no. And that’s not even getting into how dangerous deliberate misuse or simple negligence could be, someone getting distracted and hitting a building is way, way more dangerous with an aircraft.
@@evanwickstrom5698 you are so right! I think there is NO WAY flying cars would be allowed without fully automated “pilot” systems. Imagining most of my acquaintances flying in 3 dimensional urban traffic gives me panic attacks.
I think you overestimate the lack of stupidity in any given population of Homo sapiens. Once AI is doing everything for us, maybe. But when that happens, we’ll probably have many many other problems that will make flying cars a lower priority.
I am hugely disappointed, nonetheless. I grew up on the assumption that a cure for cancer and flying cars were a matter of years away. Well, it’s been over half a century and… bugger all. Ok, cancer is a bit less deadly than it was, which is great.
I've never understood why the B-26 isn't more popular. It was fast, powerful, deadly, and it looked like a shark with wings. Whether or not it was the best medium bomber is arguable, but IMO it was absolutely the coolest. I mean, just look at it!
YEAH, Martin Murderer ...judge the rest
Any plane that gets a reputation of killing it's own aircrew is going to be unpopular. Helldiver, Barracuda, F7 Cutlass, etc....
@@treyhelms5282 It actually had the lowest attrition rate of any bomber of WW2. 0.6% which is the same as the Mosquito. The accident rate got down to a problem with ground technicians discharging the aircraft battery during test procedures leaving the electric propellors to feather due to lack of power on takeoff and crew training. If there is an engine failure on takeoff it must be immediately recognised, the failed engine feather etc.
@@williamzk9083 There were many problems with the B26, which is why it was a bad aircraft. The lower loss rate has everything to do with the fall of the Luftwaffe, and that the B26 was given easier missions. When the B26 encountered heavy opposition, it was slaughtered. Not to mention the high accident rate.
It's telling that the servicemen preferred the B-25 and the A20.
@@treyhelms5282 the B26 problems were quickly fixed. The increased wing area to cure what was essentially a training problem cut 40 mph of the speed rendering it more vulnerable to interception. All bombers without escorts were slaughtered it was only a matter of how quickly it would take.
The B-25 also flew in the Mediterranean theater, but not in Northern Europe except for one RAF squadron. It was the B-26 that flew out of Great Britain.
A WW2 B26 pilot I knew told me a few interesting things about his experience with this plane in combat.
1. He said it was not a bad airplane as long as it was flown by the numbers. Obviously in combat things are not always optimal especially due to battle damage resulting in a rather unforgiving aircraft.
2. He told me the German antiaircraft fire was very accurate below 20K feet and as you observed this plane could not really haul a bomb load above that altitude.
3. German fighter aircraft would attack from directly in front. The closing speed is quite high and the fighters would roll inverted while firing and doing a split S timing the maneuver so it could fire at the B26's belly as the fighter pulled vertical. Pretty exciting stuff for all involved.
4. He told me there was an emergency power setting that resulted in the pilot pushing the throttles all the way forward breaking safety wires on the quadrants. When the aircraft returned after a mission one of the first things checked by the ground crew was the safety wires and if they were broken the engines would have to be changed. He said he was responsible for so many engine changes that the ground crews would ask him who's side he was on?
I would have broken those wires too whenever needed. The engines don't do you any good if you don't have a plane and crew to use them.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Sadly the WW2 pilot who told me some of his experiences is no longer with us. I told him that his exploits should be put into a book, but he was a rather humble guy and it was only after a few private conversations and questions from myself that he would open up a bit. His experiences should have been somehow recorded but sadly like many others are now lost.
My grandfather was chief test pilot at the Martin Company when this aircraft came out. He can be seen in the film, "Bomber" right here on CZcams. He's the guy in the khakis with the clip-board climbing into and flying the B-26 at the Martin Company's HQ in Baltimore. Roland "Deacon" Sansbury.
That's really cool.
Friend of mine was b-26 squadron CO, he loved the A and B models, but when they increased the wing for the C, he said they ruined an amazing aircraft.
The aircraft speed dropped dramatically making it much easier to intercept. It was a congressional over reaction I believe.
My grandfather flew 40+ combat missions in a B-26, though he flew a bit later in the war in 1944 (one of the later models with the longer wing). He described it as a somewhat challenging plane to fly, and particularly difficult to land. It was also clear from his memoirs on the subject that accidents were very common. But he loved the performance in the air and he loved the plane. Though he didn't talk much about his war experiences, he never hesitated to talk about the B-26.
Thank you for covering the Marauder. It's always skipped over for the other B26
Thats because the "other" b26 is better lol
@@kiwidiesel As you'd expect from a plane that debuted at the end of WW2 versus one designed before the US entered the war, with all the experience of operating the original B-26 plus more going into the design and testing. It's a bit like pointing out that a 1946 Chevrolet was a better car than a 1936 Ford.
Or that the F-15E Strike Eagle is a better strike fighter than the F-4E Phantom. No kidding. It's a later, more advanced design that builds on the experience gained from the previous type.
@@kiwidiesel yeah the 320th bomb group of the 12th AAF beg to differ.
another excellent video - I never built an Airfix model of it, probably because it was just not known the way the B-17 or B-25 were. But she's a lovely shape - straight from the wind tunnel. Really interesting to learn about the successes and failures of D-Day, even in The Longest Day the bombers are only seen at the beginning but then just disappear.
I always thought that the Marauders looked like spaceships and were well ahead of their time. She has to be one of the best looking bombers of the war in my opinion. Thanks for another incredibly insightful look at these great machine Greg!
Oooo people don’t talk about the Marauder enough. Maybe we’ll get a video on the Invaders. Great video as always Greg
Considering there were no prototypes, its early issues were understandable. Added to the fact it was matched up with engines that were not initially designed for further helps to explain some of the short comings. Nonetheless, as stated, it ended up with up with a very good combat record. The B26 Flak Bait still exists and will one day be reassembled and displayed complete.
Another excellent video Greg. Thankyou for your efforts.
Another outstanding video! I too, always felt the B-26 never received any credit for its outstanding service. It is one of my favorite aircraft of all time, it's good to finally see someone recognize it for what it was. Thank you!!
I have read that a commander of a B-26 unit was asked if he was having a problem with his B-26's. His reply was yes, I have a problem getting enough of them. The B-26 after finishing its bomb run could put its nose down and bit and run away from pursuit. I agree Greg, there has to be a balance between effective and dangerous.
Thank you for the informative discussion. Certainly, Martin was well aware of the compromises in their airframe. As you mentioned, the Truman Commission looked at the B-26, here is a quote from Wikipedia. "In 1942, Glenn Martin was called before the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, or Truman Committee, which was investigating defense contracting abuses. Senator Harry Truman, the committee chairman, asked Martin why the B-26 had troubles. Martin responded that the wings were too short. Truman asked why the wings weren't changed. When Martin said the plans were too far along and besides, his company already had the contract, Truman's response was quick and to the point: In that case, the contract would be canceled. Martin said corrections to the wings would be made.[11] (By February 1943, the newest model, the B-26B-10, had an additional 6 feet (1.8 m) of wingspan, plus uprated engines, more armor and larger guns.)[12]" Once the wings were made longer, the plane became slower than the earlier variants.
My grandfather was in a b26 during the war, in the FFL. That's why this plane has always been one of my favorites, thank you for this video.
Always thought it was one of the prettiest and sleekest planes of the war. Thanks
As a lifelong aviation guy I always learn a lot from your videos
Knocked it out of the park, Greg. Nice work!
I love listening to your videos while playing DCS!
A very good discussion about minimum control speed! For my multi engine rating, I flew the Grumman GA-7 Cougar. With 160 hp engines, it was not a good performer on one engine. So, I know what 50 ft/min climb means!
Whoa, Magnar is here! I watch his channel, very good stuff.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles, you are a great source of knowledge and inspiration.
Really enjoyed learning more about the B26. I've always been partial to the B25. But my uncle was a tail gunner in a B25.
I had a ride in the right seat in a new model on MO Airguard B-26 on family day. It was quite a ride including about a 5000 ft wing sideslip. Thanks for your work.
At 27:30 you state that the worst thing could happen was the loss of an engine at takeoff. In Jimmy Doolittle's book: "I could never be so lucky again", he says he used to go to these training squadrons that were afraid to fly the B20A and takeoff, raise the landing gear, shut down one engine, feather that prop and do turns into the dead engine, mild acrobatics, then land the plane on one engine and the training crews went nuts and were ready to continue training.
I'd like to thank you for all the incredible information you've presented on this channel. What an incredible archive of well presented, accessible information about WW2 aviation you've created!
Thank you! I sat in Kermit Week’s B-26 on Wednesday during a Private tour. It had a feel that was very modern compared to a B-25, 24 or 17. Sort of like comparing a Beech 18 to an Aerostar. The instruments weren’t anything special but the shape of the airframe, props, and cowlings gave the impression of performance.
As they always say, "If you value your life, never fly the "A" model of anything"
I love that quote
Imagine the beta version of terrain following radar auto-flight in fog or at night😮
F-22 pilots...
@@sneekiboi136 "A" is clearly the grade, not the model, lol.
Hang out long enough, and the war will be over. Go ask your Commander if you can wait for the 2nd generation. 😂
If you value your wallet, reliability, and your sanity, never buy the "A" model of any new vehicle, either, or the "A" model of any new technology on them...
I’ve been watching your videos for a little while now, and absolutely love them. One grandfather was an aircraft mechanic in California during the war, and the other was a spot light operator stationed on an island in the pacific (I’m not sure which island) and built and flew model planes when i was young.
Listening to you is incredibly soothing to me and makes me feel a closer connection to them both. I cannot express the gratitude i have for your effort and quality of content. Thank you
Just yesterday I was thinking I needed to check and see if I had missed a video. Thanks for the B-26!
Greg another excellent video. When talking about the B-26’s safety record one thing you do not mention is the experience level of the aircrews. In general these were very young, low hour pilots. Their learning curves were still going straight up not only through their training period but right on through their operational flying as well. This, of course, was true for nearly all pilots and aircrew during The War. Nearly 15,000 USAAF personnel were killed in the Continental US from 1940-1945.
It does make you appreciate the invention of simulators. If they had modern flight simulators, they would have been able to train a lot safer.
Hi Tom, I didn't cover that because it was more or less a constant across all types and even all Air Forces. That is until of course the average experience of Axis pilots went way down. Yes, experience counts, especially in flying. I'm strongly against reducing the 1500 hour rule. Had they had a 1500 hour requirement in B-26s and simulators, accidents would have been way way down.
My Mom’s cousin was one of them. He crashed during training.
I think that the loss figures for training amounted to thirty thousand!
@@mongolike513 thanks for your reply. Between 1941 and 1945 the Army Air Force suffered approximately 15,500 fatalities in 6,350 fatal accidents with the lose of slightly more than 7,100 aircraft. These extensive losses occurred just within the continental United States. While primarily training related accidents, some can be attributed to such things as testing, maintenance checks, operational and administrative flying. This number does not include similar losses to Naval/Marine/Coast Guard Aviation. These numbers were arrived at through examination of the AAF Statistical Digest published in December 1945. So your point is correct, aviation in the early 1940’s was dangerous business even when no one was shooting at you.
Great to see a video from you again, Greg. Insight like this is a treasure. Thank you
An excellent video as always, thanks Greg!
The part about what a pilot faces when flying on one engine reminded me of an even more under recognized WW2 US bomber with a reputation as a problematic aircraft, the Lockheed Ventura, which I hope one day you'll do a video on.
Cheers
Great video Greg! Thank you so much. I can tell you put a lot of work into this one. The audio sounded a lot better as well.
That was a fantastic educational jaunt through, not only the B-26, but multi-engine basics in general. Excellent work! Thank you, Greg!
Man, your videos are perfect for that late night chill out. So relaxing while being interesting!
My first big twin, the HS748, had an empty single engine climb speed of 92kts, not 93kts, not 91kts. It was 92kts, no more, no less. 93kts descended, 91kts started to get close to VMC and things started getting exciting.
Thanks it’s great to read, that’s really interesting.
Was Vyse and Vxse taken to be equal and practically the exact same indicated airspeed for nearly all (weights and) altitudes and air densities? …… and did the R R Dart run at a single speed nearly all the time? It must have been one of the very first successful turboprop engines.
The HS748 wing looked exceptionally efficient, the aspect ratio was so much higher than on something like a Lockheed Electra. I wonder does Vx and Vy separate more with faster planes?
The improved late 1980s BAE Advanced Turboprop transport with modern engines would have a totally new C.O.A. and (presumably thicker) flight manual/s. Did you ever fly in one?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 lots to unpack here 😂
Okay, so I need to qualify this by saying it’s been a long time since I’ve had much to do with light twins, I fly heavy twins these days. Light twins use different terms from big airplanes. In big airplane land we use Vr, V1, and V2 as the important speeds. Vr is rotation speed. V1 is the go speed, if you reach V1, you continue with the take off no matter how much runway is left (this is an important point if you ever want to read the Concorde accident report).
VYSE is V2 I believe ->92kts when empty, or single engine safety speed in big airplanes, they don’t use a blue line because it’s so variable with weight ->the higher the weight, the higher V2 is. You write the speed on a card and display it, or simply display the airplane card like the Hawker had. You also use a speed bug for this speed. You also brief this speed. This is an important speed 😂. You never want to be below this speed, and if you are, you can’t pitch up until you reach it. In the Hawker the airplane is so gutless that it won’t even reach 92kts empty unless the wheels are in the well, and the flaps are 30 degrees or less (approach flaps, landing flaps was 52.5 degrees and rather an exciting configuration when in the missed, so we didn’t use it unless landing assured). So the short of it is lack of auto feather was a NO GO item, and in the single engine missed approach, the calls were “Max power,” “Flaps up one notch,” “Gear up,” “HP,” “LP,” “Feather.” All while pitching for 92kts, and confirming the levers that the PNF was operating. The HP (firewall), and LP (fuel tank), were high pressure and low pressure fuel cocks, the British love to have all sorts of cocks in the airplane. It makes me curious about his statement that the B26 would crash below V2, in the airplanes I’ve flown you must pitch down until it’s at V2, but that doesn’t mean crashing is automatic, you may be able to squeak some speed out of it and clean it up before impact…. I should state I’ve never flown an airplane that had such a large range between rotation, VMC, and V2, and this is a 30,000lbs class airplane with pistons so it’s probably gutless af. 🤷♂️ I do understand the bit about the runway being too short though, if you’re taking off and you don’t reach V1 before the airplane starts flying and you have an engine failure, you’ll have to set it back down for sure until you reach V1, or you bring it to a stop ->if the runway isn’t long enough for this, there is nothing you can do. But given I don’t have his patreon, I can’t read the AFM myself. Usually it’s kind of a moot point though, V1 on the planes I’ve flown is usually about the same as Vr, which means if you can pull that airplane off the ground, you’re at V1 and it’s gonna fly, again, I can’t check the book in this case. You ride V2 until clear of obstacles, and then you lower the nose, clean up the airplane, and pitch for a higher climb speed.
Vr, V1, and V2 are all dependent specifically dependent upon weight. But here are some more variables for V1 www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-pilot/what-is-v1-speed-for-a-commercial-aircraft/
The idea here is that if you’ve got a longer runway, you have a higher V1 speed, which means you can reject after you’ve covered a longer distance on the runway (later on the take off roll), in addition it means you’re at a higher speed for rotation which is inherently safer if you lose an engine.
VXSE wasn’t used, in fact I’m not sure I’ve seen that speed listed for any of the big airplanes I’ve flown ->maybe we just called it something else, not sure. Now I haven’t flown many different types of big airplanes, but the ones I have flown are fucking gutless, and pitching to a slower speed than V2 wouldn’t be a good idea I feel. I just don’t see where this speed would be super important, I should qualify that statement by saying I do fly in the mountains, we pitch for V2 out of necessity. Depending upon which source you read and who wrote it, you might hear this is V2. It’s completely irrelevant whether this is in fact V2 or if VYSE is, because v2 is the published speed, and that’s the one you’re using to meet performance criteria.
The Dart is direct drive, it’s an oddity for sure, but built to be very robust. The Dart had a single lever to control power and prop pitch (fancy). It’s an outdated theory of how to produce a turbo prop engine. Basically the aim was to size the compressor to the turbine wheel, which means you’ll always temp the turbine out before you over torque it. They clearly liked this for safety as meat headed pilots couldn’t jam the power lever forward to break the gearbox. In a modern turbo prop like a PT6, the compressor is vastly oversized compared to the turbine wheel ->you lose a bit of fuel efficiency, but as altitude increases you can spin the compressor faster to maintain max torque without temping the engine out (up to a point). Whereas a direct drive engine never truly produces max torque, it’s almost always a variable (they say water meth gave you max torque with the dart at any air temp but I seriously doubt that claim). I honestly can’t remember what N1 was doing in the dart. I’m not sure if it was running 100% all the time, it was a long time ago. I threw a compressor blade once with the dart, it exited the cowling and no one noticed for a week, the engine temp was high for the amount of power it was producing, but within normal limits, so maintenance didn’t check it until the weekly was due. So the direct drive was clearly better at taking damage than a PT6, but the PT6 ducting prevented FOD from entering in the first place so that’s kind of a negative for the dart lol.
Here is a good pic of the panel:
abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1199606
Greg might be better to ask about Vx and Vy’s relationship to aircraft performance. I can tell you the huge wing of the Hawker was specifically built for short field performance, and it had great handling qualities in the stall and low airspeeds (pussy cat).
I never flew the ATP. I’ll be honest though, the HS748 wasn’t built for modern operations. The HS748 was designed for extreme robustness, things like fuel economy, payload, and passenger comfort suffered because of this. They wanted the Hawker to have military sales that never materialized, so the extra weight of the multi spar wing impacted performance and the civilian market didn’t have a need to take battle damage for example. So by the time the ATP came out and we already had the Dash 8, Saab, and soon to be ATR, the old hawker design couldn’t compete.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_ATP
@@drewski5730 A super read Drewski, thanks for your time and I’ll go over it again a few times for the enjoyment. Going to a strange airport with a short runway must have been less than welcome with pages of sequential performance graphs to grind through and cross check on the day, no electronic flight bags to help out. Your big reply is really appreciated, thanks.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 honestly I never went through all the spaghetti graphs for a runway with the Hawker, I didn’t have to. I have gone through spaghetti charts with the ATR many times. In modern operations the company will take a runway, plug it into the spaghetti charts (runway length, width, gradient, altitude, etc), and build a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet will have a page for each runway. And each runway and airport that the company goes to will have its own spreadsheet, and they’ll throw all of them into a book (or if you’re using an electronic flight bag, a pdf document or database). Each spreadsheet will have columns and rows with the other missing variables like temperature, altimeter setting, snow/ice/standing water, and the corresponding column and row will have a weight value (max take off weight under those conditions), and speed values for Vr, V1, and V2 ->these are the values you write on the cards and bug on the airspeed indicator.
So for example if I wanted to use runway 26L in Vancouver for take off (or landing), I would look up the spreadsheet for runway 26L in YVR in the book/binder (or electronic database pdf). Then I would plug in my temperature, wind speed, altimeter, runway conditions etc and just look up the values.
The company can build all these charts manually by plugging each runway and airport combination into a spaghetti chart, and plotting the results and transferring to manually built spreadsheet. The manually built spreadsheet will then get added to an actual binder, or scanned into database. So you can use the old school spaghetti charts to build an electronic database if you’re a real keener. Or companies like ATR have programs called flight operations software (FOS), where dispatch can plug those numbers in themselves and then print or email them out to a flight crew, you get the same spreadsheet, it’s just electronically produced this way and no one has to plot points on a spaghetti graph. As a pilot there is an app you can use on the iPad if your company is fancy where you just plug in your environmental factors and it tells you your speeds and weights; or just have a pdf document electronically saved on the iPad you can manually sift through.
So as you can see the runway spreadsheets that may have been plotted in the 80’s are still relevant and used today, and are more are less still built the same way in some circumstances.
If you’ve got any more questions fire away. ;)
Edit: here is the new ATR flight operations software pamphlet.
www.atr-aircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/brochure_fos_sps_2017_138-1.pdf
Ahhh the 46500# dog whistle. Used it in many 3000' strips, wat limited performance. Hp/lp/feather.
I love the ad for nyloc nuts. I guess that was an innovation at the time.
Oh looking forward to watching this whole video. Already I am learning some good stuff about this underrated bomber.
Greg- Your audience is much more educated than most. The comments are as good as the videos.
Thanks, I feel the same way.
Ahhhhh it's like a dream to see you just uploaded a new video recently. Can't wait to see it later after dinner with coffee and some cigarettes.
Have to say that I didn't know much about this aircraft before watching this video. There's just so many airplanes in WWII that got overshadowed by the more "glamorous" ones. I'd really like to see you do a video about the B-25. The variant with the 75mm cannon is fascinating and would like to learn about it's origins and use throughout the war.
I learn with every presentation. As always, my favorite aviation channel on CZcams.
A more mature CFI I knew flew the B-26 in Europe and the Pacific. I remember him saying that he preferred the short wing. He called them ‘honest’ airplanes; as in ‘they would honestly kill you if you flew them wrong.’
I love these videos because it seems you are on a constant crusade to vindicate the planes that were considered the “other” plane when speaking about plane classes. The B-26, P-47 and P-38, the F4U. I loved these planes as a kid and it always felt like they never are given the respect they deserved
Thanks for this look at the awesome B-26. My dad was a B-26 Bombardier in the 553rd Bomb Sq, 386th Bomb Group, 9AF. He was shot down over the Channel 2weeks before D-Day on his 73rd mission and spent the remainder of the war as a German POW.
Respect to your father.
Thanks Greg....I was worried about you not posting for a bit. Hope you and yours are well....looking forward to this one ! Still....best content on CZcams ! Tips from a Shipsright with Louis is still in second place, not meant as an affront to him by any means...just honest, genuinely good content. Thank you again kind Sir.
@Chris Yes, he discussed it on his Patreon posts.
@Chris why had he quit flying? Illness or injury or something? Or new aircraft assignment perhaps?
Hey Greg, good to see another fascinating video
Great video. I'm going to have to watch it a couple more times to soak up all the detail. Small note: "Mild" & "Bitter" are the two main varieties of beer you used to get in British pubs.
Mild was a few pence cheaper, it was …. rough.
I always liked the bitter
Mixing 2 1/2 pints of different beers to make 1 pint used to a common thing over this side of the pond. I used to drink Light and Bitter (a half of Bitter mixed with a bottle of Light Ale) at one time. I don't think it is a thing so much anymore, certainly down here in the south of England.
The Popular Mechanics issue had an interesting headline on the front cover. "How much oil is left?" Its a May 1944 issue, Vol. 81 No. 5. The article is an interesting read. Fascinating to see how technical discussions of practical issues were handled in the past versus the hyperventilating pessimism pumped out today.
That's where the saying "One a day in Tampa Bay." started.
I love the Marauder song from WWII. "Oh where in the hell are the wings?...."
Been looking forward too seeing this! Welcome back Greg its always a pleasure to listen to a well researched and nuanced discussion of WWII aviation!
Your philosophical discussion at the end raises a major point and underscores a major flaw in most modern analysis of engineering and performance of things from past eras. Evaluations can only have meaning when done against other contemporary items/usage/attitudes….and in the case of the rapid change in technology during WWII, a matter of a year or two is a big difference. Thank you for a job well done.
Have to say, after reading about the B-26 for decades, this is the first time I have ever heard that anyone considered it slow. Everything I have ever read called it fast or ‘hot’. The slow thing must be an internet thing. Great video as usual.
I see that 287mph speed listed all the time, and I get questions specifically about why it was slow.
Thank you sir, i am from Brasil and I do mechanical engineering, my college is focused on marine engineering because it is located on the coast, i love aeronautic engineering and your videos teach me a lot, thank you again!
Thanks for your kind words.
What a great channel ! I've learned so much already & just found it a week ago .It would take so long to track down this much info just trying to research this subject on my own. AGAIN ....MANY THANKS ! WILL BECOME A PATRION .The way you present the info is second to none .
Thanks Joeseph.
Superb video and narrative, untroubled by goofy "drama music". This is why I am a subscriber.
I always thought the B-26 was much maligned and never given credit for it's combat success, thanks for the information supporting this view. An example of the bad press was an old WW2 era cartoon which shows a B-26 bellied in on the ground. The copilot is telling the pilot "we've reached single engine service ceiling".
The Marauder always reminds me of the Betty.
With American heft
The corpulent "Betty" was meant to do double-duty as a freight/personnel carrier, as was the British "Stirling" bomber.
That was my Father’s comment when I was building the B-26 model in about 1964. He was a USN Corpsman in the early part of the Pacific theater.
Glad to see you back, Greg, and as usual, this is thorough and informative. Aircraft design is always more complicated than the general public (including me) often realizes, and - like every car - every airplane is a series of compromises.
Some time ago I read that Doolittle evaluated the B-25 as having better slow speed handling and selected it for the Tokyo raid. Your expert presentation certainly supports that.
The carrier decks were too short to achieve the speed needed for take-off anyway, so the choice was the B-25. Losing them was also less expensive. But I don't think you would have heard of period Japanese fighters catching a B-26 in a pursuit; one that's down on fuel and can literally go as fast as a Hayabusa at full stride. Closing at that rate is just not worth it, if you can even close.
Some excellent, exquisite points regarding various safety philosophies.
Very nice description of what happens with an engine is lost. Reminds me of my initial MEL and then later when I did my MEL CFI. Except for the CFI I had to teach it while flying it.
Yet another fact filled video that is also entertaining,glad to see you still have it! I’ve loved the B-26 since I built my first kit of one at the age of eight and there is one on my workbench right now waiting for me.
I was surprised to hear *any* talk about the B-26 being considered slow. I thought the whole reason behind its design, and it's claim to fame early on, was cuz it was considered a speed demon for the times. Anyways, nice video. Thanks, Greg.
Perhaps he could have emphasised the indicated airspeeds vs true airspeeds better, if a B-26 was doing 270 mph True Air Speed flat out at say 16,000 ft a FW 190 also at 16,000 feet might only do say 310 mph True Air Speed. The FW 190 might do 380 mph TAS at 22,000 ft but the IAS would be the same as it would be at 16,000 ft. The IAS is what the plane 'feels'.
The FW 190A also had a 2 speed single speed supercharger, it was mediocre at high altitude.
Another great one Greg. Zenoswarbirds and Periscope films both have some 1940's training films on the 26. One of the films even gets into the planes potential CG issues
Yes! New Greg video always makes the day better
Great video, I've always thought these were a great looking plane but never realised they had such a complicated history.
Another superb video! Something I would love to see you discuss in the future are high-performance, late era piston airliners like the Constellation and DC-7C. I would be fascinated to hear you explore the high point of late era piston airliner performance and range, similar to how your excellent videos concerning late era piston 'superprop' fighters explore the peak of post-war piston fighter performance. Given your expertise in piston engines, it would be great to hear you explain some of the technologies used in late piston airliners, such as turbocompound engines in the L-1049 and DC-7C. Wonderful and fascinating video as always.
I did that in my TWA terminal video. Hardly anyone watches it.
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles fantastic, somehow I missed that one.
@Malcolm King WHAT ABOUT the Lufthansa Starliner project from 3 into 1 been goin on for 20 years in Maine. And nth comes out of it. You heard anyhting certain and serious about it recently ???? Lufthansa history dept in soup kitchen line ?... o er
Your breakdown of the low speed flying characteristics was very interesting. A fellow that I know was a Mosquito pilot. He took one up to ten thousand feet and put it into, I think, landing configuration and then chopped the power to one engine. In a split second it flipped inverted and he didn't recover until after reaching three thousand feet! The canopy panel beside him cracked but no other damage seemed to have occurred. I don't think he said if his 'gator was with him!
Mosquito does not have a friendly stall... from a non-pilot DCS flight sim gamer perspective anyway.
Also with a Flaps/Gear down stall speed of 100mph and VMCa of 175mph... even I can do the maths on that and come out at a lot more than 1.2!!
Landing configuration includes the high descent rate and the well reduced applied power for speed control _going downhill._ Maintaining level flight power settings and zero rate of descent before pulling the power on one side to idle with the prop windmilling the engine is begging for trouble. The asymmetric minimum control speed for (low) approach power is much lower than it is for level flight or in a climb.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 He may have been mimickiing an engine loss on take-off. I am trying to remember from ten or so years ago. Sadly, I cannot ask him to clarify it now.
Thanks Greg, glad you are back and well. Awesome content as usual.
As I was watching the video, and glancing at several photo's of the B-26 (from several angles) - there was an aspect to the plane that seemed very reminiscent of the (Post war) Canberra.
Greg, this is the documentary you need to see for the B-26. This is required for your documentary research.
B26 has always been my favorite medium bomber of the war. Good video.
Nice to see you putting more stuff up Greg! I was reminded to check out your stuff again by a comment I saw a while ago by someone who seemed irate at your analysis of the P-47's performance, which I believe he called "revisionist" and flawed. He didn't go into much detail, of course, but he seemed annoyed that you spent so much time talking about engines, which is precisely why I LIKE your content. Take care and keep the good work coming!
Great discussion of Vmc and the perils of single engine flight in piston twins. I fly an H-18 and wouldn't mind one bit never having to practice it single engine.
One of the best channels. Good to have you back my friend
As per usual, another well thought out and produced episode.
I wish you had talked about the rather dramatic incident wherein AAF pilots were in a rebellious, not to say semi-mutinous, state over the perceived lethality of flying the B-26, and Jimmy Doolittle shows up unannounced on the tarmac, having just put on a Bob Hoover-esque flying exhibition with one of their "wdowmakers", and thereby alleviating their fears.
The best ability is availability. Another terrific video Greg.
My uncle flew B-26s in Europe and it saved his and crews life a couple of times. He made it back to base and they wondered how he kept it in the air with one engine out and flak damage. He was eventually shot down and ended up a POW.
I fully agree with you about wanting to have flown in the B26 in 1944. Seeing as how my Grandfather was one of those who came ashore and survived thanks to the B26's outstanding accuracy, I might be a little biased. Seeing as how I might not be alive had he died on the beach.
Thank you for your calm, facts based analysis of WW2 aviation history. Like most American kids enamored with aviation, the P-51 was my favorite fighter growing up. While I still hold it in high esteem, your multipart series on the P-47 made me realize it was every bit as, and maybe even more, important to the war than the P-51.
This meticulous analysis of the B-26 has similarly cleared up some misconceptions I had about this beautiful bird, especially the war emergency design compromises that hampered its performance.
Thanks for all the effort you put into these videos.
Greg converted me as well.
I really enjoyed this great historical documentation. It is important to mention that the loss-rate of a certain type of aircraft depends also on where and how an aircraft is used. The type of missions flown, and being used during the late stage of the war, makes sure the B-29 will always look better than the early birds. Many other writers completely ignore such facts.
For readers interested in the worst B-26 mission, when some 60 German fighters attacked 32 B-26 bombers, check for "The Arhweiler Mission; December 23, 1944. Story by Bob Mynn". A total of 16 aircraft were shot down in a short time around Ahrweiler. It's also known as the "Ahrweiler massacre".
Well done. Am showing it to several multi engine students. This is fun to watch and the explanations of VSE etc., have an immediacy they usually don't. Thanks.Please do the Hornet.
I know one fighter that had bogies, SAAB 37 Viggen. The reason for this was the requirement of being able to land on rather short runways as well as roads (down to 800 x 17 m usable, landing on these with the two seat school version was a favorite when foreign pilots where treated to a flight).
Yes, it's one of the exceptions to the rule, there are a few, and as you point out, there is always some specific reason for it. Off airport action, or extreme weight.
Another wonderful and detailed analysis infused with years of engineering and flight experience.
For some stories about B-26s in combat, I would suggest picking up the book "The Ragged, Rugged Warriors" by Martin Caidin. It has a chapter dedicated to B-26s in action over New Guinea early in the war, as well as a chapter on the B-26 attack at Midway.