PDA

View Full Version : What is so good about the B-26 Marauder?



XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:39 AM
Honestly i dont see so much goodness from this plane i mean it lacks halfway decent defensive armament that the B-25 has plus it was a death trap for flying since it had to land at high speeds?

But if you could choose between flying a B-26 or B-25 into battle what would you choose?

I would opt the B-25

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:39 AM
Honestly i dont see so much goodness from this plane i mean it lacks halfway decent defensive armament that the B-25 has plus it was a death trap for flying since it had to land at high speeds?

But if you could choose between flying a B-26 or B-25 into battle what would you choose?

I would opt the B-25

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:46 AM
B-25.

The MArauder simply loks like sme Hybride plane: B-25 wings, He111 fusselage, ....
The B-25 has a more elegant siluete.

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/aviatia/greceanu%20tudor/1.jpg
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:55 AM
i agree the b24 wasnt to bad on the eyes either. the B-17 is just a thing of beauty. I don't know much about the B-26.
I'll have to research it. but like i said in the other thread the Luftwafft had some ugly bombers.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:55 AM
You have to compare year and model. Both the B-25 and B-26 went thru many A,B,C,D variations.

At first the B-26 had more defensive armament, larger payload, and was faster. Then the B-25 pulled ahead in the C model, then the B-26 got back in front with the D model. It was really a race between North American and Martin.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:07 AM
alright then pick the B-25 or B-26 and whichever model.

Id pick B-25J cuz it was late war so it had improvments over the prior ones and it had some nice versions like one with a 75mm cannon in nose or 13- .50 machine guns. Plus the J could carry the most, i think.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:20 AM
What was so good about?

READ this page and the next /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0941072274/ref=lib_rd_next_7/103-8565277-3299852?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=7#reader-link


It was also the first twin engine bomber to carry more payload of bombs than the B-17 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Message Edited on 09/02/0305:25AM by Heuristic_ALgor

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:27 AM
Thanks for the info,HAL...

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:33 AM
so the b-26 had a few gismos in it. i still back the b-25 100%. even tho the b-26 had the lowest loss rates of all bombers in the US............

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:36 AM
I suggest you buy that book

I have it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

High landing speed was corrected in later versions with a change in the wing incedince angle

<center>http://www.assonetart.com/jsGodsgrace.jpg </center><center>/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The above statue was a gift from France</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:43 AM
Thrawn888 wrote:
- so the b-26 had a few gismos in it. i still back the
- b-25 100%. even tho the b-26 had the lowest loss
- rates of all bombers in the US............

I back 'em both 100%. I love both planes. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The B-25 is definately more recognized but both were awesome birds. I've sat in the cockpit of a B-25 and boy is she a beaut.I love the lay-out of the plane,and to me,has a nice,snug feel. Now,I have to find a B-26..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:37 AM
According to Joe Baughers homepage, Martin put the 26-year old Peyton M. Magruder as Project Engineer for their model 179 who yielded the B-26 Marauder.

Why have I at an age of 34 still not had an assignment for developing a fast twin-engined bomber???

My abilities must be gravely underestimated!

Skarphol


PS. Hannibal was only 26 when he decided to attack Europe with 50.000 soliders and 3000 elephants. I haven't done anything like that yet, either...

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 01:59 PM
interesting lecture

<center>

http://www.goblins.it/immagini/Logo/tdglogo.gif </p>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:16 PM
When the B-26 got its nick "Widow maker" and a couple of other not so complementory nicks, a test pilot(?) - name forgotten - put on a demonstration flight. He flew with only one engine operating.

As bombers, both had an upper turret, tail guns(2), nose guns(2), waist guns(2), nose blister guns(4)


Thrawn888 wrote:
- Honestly i dont see so much goodness from this plane
- i mean it lacks halfway decent defensive armament
- that the B-25 has plus it was a death trap for
- flying since it had to land at high speeds?
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 02:21 PM
Who cares if its good or not.It was there so we need it.
AI only will do just fine.


"Spring chicken to shyte-hawk in one easy lesson"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:31 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- When the B-26 got its nick "Widow maker" and a
- couple of other not so complementory nicks, a test
- pilot(?) - name forgotten - put on a demonstration
- flight. He flew with only one engine operating.

This is once again taken from Joe Baughers excellent pages:

"General Doolittle sent his technical adviser, Captain Vincent W. "Squeak" Burnett, to make a tour of OTU bases to demonstrate how the B-26 could be flown safely. These demonstrations included single-engine operations, slow-flying characteristics, and recoveries from unusual flight attitudes. Capt Burnett made numerous low altitude flights with one engine out, even turning into a dead engine (which aircrews were warned never to do), proving that the Marauder could be safely flown if you knew what you were doing. Martin also sent engineers out into the field to show crews how to avoid problems caused by overloading, by paying proper attention to the plane's center of gravity. "


Skarphol

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:49 PM
The B-26 had one of the highest records for training accidents of any allied AC, (worse than the F4U,IIRC).
It also had the LOWEST rate of combat losses in the war for any AC in it's class.
Rookies hated it, vterans loved it. It brought them home.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:25 PM
It could carry a good load of bombs fairly quickly and get back home afterwards. What more could you ask for? Always been my favorite U.S./British medium bomber.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:29 PM
B-26.

<center>
http://www.americanrecordings.com/slayer/disco_hell.gif


<center>The Gates of Hell lie waiting as you see
There's no price to pay just follow me

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:29 PM
And how can you argue with the original flying prostitute concept the B-26 pioneered.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:10 PM
Heuristic_ALgor wrote:
- I suggest you buy that book
-
- I have it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- High landing speed was corrected in later versions
- with a change in the wing incedince angle
-

Any interior pics in that book?

Thanks!



<img src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>

Eeeeeeeeeee.......

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:12 PM
Icarus999 wrote:
-
- Heuristic_ALgor wrote:
-- I suggest you buy that book
--
-- I have it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
--
-- High landing speed was corrected in later versions
-- with a change in the wing incedince angle
--
-
- Any interior pics in that book?
-
- Thanks!
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>
-
- Eeeeeeeeeee.......


you modelling it?



http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/bender.jpg
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/)

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:15 PM
It would be nice to eventually have an A-26 in the game. That plane was so good it was used all the way from WWII through Vietnam.

And one weapons option on the plane includes 18 (yep, eighteen) forward-firing 50-cal machine guns. Yikes!

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:19 PM
I have some great pics of a B-26 here in Central Florida. The bird belongs to Kermitt Weeks and resides at his museum called Fantasy of Flight. The link is here http://fantasyofflight.com

I'll scrounge some pics and post them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/p47atm.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:20 PM
Suckerpunch11 wrote:
- It would be nice to eventually have an A-26 in the
- game. That plane was so good it was used all the way
- from WWII through Vietnam.
-
- And one weapons option on the plane includes 18
- (yep, eighteen) forward-firing 50-cal machine guns.
- Yikes!


You're making a confusion here, B-26 Marauder were scrapped soon after the war (a legacy of their qualities).
A-26 Invader was kept in service.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 09:19 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You're making a confusion here, B-26 Marauder were
- scrapped soon after the war (a legacy of their
- qualities).
- A-26 Invader was kept in service.

Once agian in mere days your bias pops up into what was a great bomber for the time. They were scrapped shortly after the war because single pilot versions were coming on line and what's the point of flying a medium bomber with the same crew as a heavy (roughly.) It was just a question of the massive cutbacks after the war.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 09:29 PM
FlyingFerris, yup Huckie is trolling./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 09:38 PM
Ju-88.

<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 09:51 PM
It seens to be a good plane and have the lowes rate of loss in combat for any medium bomber of WWII, it was avaible to absorbed alot damage and still return to base...

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:11 PM
Ju188

<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

Mess with the best, die like the rest...

"Never argue with an idiot! They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." (S.U.X Infinity)

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:17 PM
Actually what Huckebein said before was true, but deserves a better explanation. The Douglas A-26 Invader became the B-26B and B-26C in 1948. By that time the Martin B-26 Marauder had been retired. Douglas B-26s (and its predessor the Douglas A-20 Havoc) were used in every major WWII theatre, Korea, French Indochino war, Congo civil war, Cuban revolution, Bay of Pigs invasion, and Vietnam War. They remained in U.S. service until 1972, and in foreign service even longer.

A-26s had the lowest loss rate for U.S. bombers despite being used primarily in dangerous low level attacks. It gets my vote as the best bomber of WWII. (For the record, the B-26s used in the Bay in Pigs were completely outclassed by Castro's jetfighters and were slaughtered.)

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:26 PM
xenios wrote:
- Actually what Huckebein said before was true, but
- deserves a better explanation. The Douglas A-26
- Invader became the B-26B and B-26C in 1948. By that
- time the Martin B-26 Marauder had been retired.
- Douglas B-26s (and its predessor the Douglas A-20
- Havoc) were used in every major WWII theatre, Korea,
- French Indochino war, Congo civil war, Cuban
- revolution, Bay of Pigs invasion, and Vietnam War.
- They remained in U.S. service until 1972, and in
- foreign service even longer.
-
- A-26s had the lowest loss rate for U.S. bombers
- despite being used primarily in dangerous low level
- attacks. It gets my vote as the best bomber of WWII.
- (For the record, the B-26s used in the Bay in Pigs
- were completely outclassed by Castro's jetfighters
- and were slaughtered.)
-
-

I think the A-26 would better qualify as a dedicated attack aircraft than a bomber (I know, fuzzy distinctions in WWII).

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:33 PM
I think a 2% loss rate, in medium and low altitude bombing missions about sums up what was so great about the B-26. It's real problem was that the landing gear it used was a poor design, not really strong enough to handle such a heavy high speed aircraft. Changing the wing did help, by reducing the landing speed, but what really needed to happen was a serious redesign of the undercarrage, but there simply wasn't enough time to do so.

As for "One A-Day at Tampa Bay," that aircraft was a "hot" high performance bomber, with nearly the speed, and wingloading of many front line fighters, and very powerful, and somewhat tricky engines, when compaired to the Wright Cyclones and Twin wasps most US bombers of the time were using. Pilots expected fighters to be tricky, but bombers were supposed to be easy to fly aircraft, that "washout" fighter pilots were assigned to. The B-26 required every bit as much attention as a high performance fighter to fly, and neither the trainers, nor the trainies were ready for that.

The same thing happened when any airforce transfered from lower performance aircraft to significantly more powerful planes. Pilots and instructors never seem to be ready for the extra power, or complexity those planes entail.

However, if I were properly trained in high performance twins, I would take the B-26 over the B-25 nearly every time.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:34 PM
Skarphol wrote:
-
- This is once again taken from Joe Baughers excellent
- pages:
-

What is the root address for JBaugher's aircraft listings, by the way? I've been able to find the pages for individual aircraft, but I've never found the overall index.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:35 PM
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:39 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/
-

Thank you!

All the aircraft descriptions are based on the http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1

~jbaugher1 doesn't actually go anywhere. I'd missed the fighter listings the last time I visited ~jbaugher so I hadn't realised that was the index link.

Many thanks.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:50 PM
It was a decent medium bomber, but had a difficult take off and landing and it was slow: 450km/h on late war series. Not that B-25 was faster. But late series of Ju-88 did 600km/h+ with ease and were still capable of dive bombing. They were very hard to intercept.

B-26 looks very good though. I'd very much like to fly it if someone models it. Zeno Warbirds have a nice training video on it.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/02/0304:51PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:08 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You're making a confusion here, B-26 Marauder were
- scrapped soon after the war (a legacy of their
- qualities).

Or that they simpoly weren't needed anymore.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:25 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:
-
- I think the A-26 would better qualify as a dedicated
- attack aircraft than a bomber (I know, fuzzy
- distinctions in WWII).

The distinctions are indeed fuzzy, especially since the Air Force categorized the Invader first as an attack plane, then a bomber, then an attack plane again. Like the Mosquito and Ju88, the Invader was very versatile. There were many variants, including solid nose nightfighters. But the A-26C was clearly a medium bomber--glazed nose, bombardier, 4000 lbs. internal bombbays, an extra 2000 lbs externally. A little less than half of WWII Invaders were A-26Cs.



Message Edited on 09/02/0305:28PM by xenios

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:43 AM
Well, if we can confidently call the A-26 a bomber, then that's my hands down favorite, and that's despite that horrible movie with Richard Dreyfuss in it.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 03:35 AM
I'll take the B-26 any day . . . and not just because it brought my Uncle home from 55 combat missions in one piece . . . its speed, payload, and survivability made it ideal for tactical bombing in the ETO.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/030903-Early_Morning_Scrub_sm.jpg
Capt Ralph W. Miller, 1st Pathfinder Squadron (Provisional)

http://www.members.cox.net/corsette/Images/TwoGunsSignature.jpg

Message Edited on 09/02/0307:36PM by TwoGuns_4thFG

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 03:40 AM
TwoGuns_4thFG wrote:
- I'll take the B-26 any day . . . and not just
- because it brought my Uncle home from 55 combat
- missions in one piece . . . its speed, payload, and
- survivability made it ideal for tactical bombing in
- the ETO.
\

That nose art---is that your aunt?



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:31 PM
bump

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:15 AM
This is slightly OT,but FYI: someone is modelling a flyable A-20. I know it's not a A/B-26,but it's cool nevertheless.

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:04 AM
that is cool i believe b25 is being modelled internal too, b26 i dont think so.....

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 08:15 AM
A long, long time ago HarryVoyager wrote:
- What is the root address for JBaugher's aircraft
- listings, by the way?

I've been away a couple of days, and noticed MiloMorai answered this question in the mean time.
Anyway, the link below is even better, in my opinion.


http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/

Skarphol

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 11:14 PM
Does anyone know if the B-25 or B-26 is being modelled?

If so does they have cockpits and possible gunner stations?

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2003, 11:17 PM
B-25 is being modelled,it might have a cockpit and gunner positions,but I'm not sure. It might only be AI. As far as I know,no one is modelling the 26.

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

Pathfindergal
11-13-2012, 04:19 AM
This is my dad, Ralph Miller, 55 missions in a B26, flying Pathfinder! I know and love the B26 for its foibles and strengths. My Dad loved his airplane, Early Morning Scrub. I think I could fly it from his stories.

woofiedog
11-15-2012, 08:23 PM
Have this info about that aircraft.

B-26G-15-MA Early Morning Scrub, fuselage code IH-X, serial number 44-67875.

Checkout #4891 on the site below.

http://home.fuse.net/vaughan/serial.htm

A story from a pilot of the First Pathfinder Squadron Provisional.

http://www.b-26mhs.org/archives/manuscripts/unsung_heroes.html

Blind bombing aids became available early in 1944 when a number of B-26s were converted to carry the RAF's 'Oboe' equipment and formed into the 1st Pathfinder Squadron (Provisional) on 16 February 1944. The first mission followed on 21 February, when 18 aircraft hit Coxyde airfield in conditions that forced 190 to return without bombing.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_B-26_ETO.html

One more article.

http://www.b26.com/page/1st_pathfinder_squadron.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/1st_Pathfinder_Squadron_-_Provisional_-_Emblem.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/1st_Pathfinder_Squadron_-_Provisional_-_Emblem.png)

Emblem of the 1st Pathfinder Squadron (Provisional)

We happen to have a B-26 in the game... but saddly no aircraft skin or paint scheme for your father's aircraft or unit.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/IL2 Photos/1511201219-08-02.jpg