(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/b26c_zps2eff3d7f.jpg) This is a pic of the final version of the B-26.
But it wasn't built by Martin.
It was built by the Glenn L. Martin Company.
ack-ack
Isn't that last pic just a redesignated A-26?
In fact it's the exact same pic in the infobox on Wikipedia's webpage on the A-26.
Yes, the last picture is of the Invader.
ack-ack
That's what Milo was referring to. It's an entirely different plane than the rest of the post.:airplane: Sorry Guys, didn't mean to mis-lead anyone! The last pic is indeed a pic of the final version of the B-26, which was built by Douglas, not by Martin! I can see by the way I posted the pic's how it mislead people! Sorry! :salute
Yup, the Douglas A-26 Invader was redesignated B-26 Invader after the Martin B-26 Marauder was retired. The two aircraft are 100% separate designs.:airplane: Don't recall ever saying that they weren't two different designs! The Martin B-26 Marauder, a twin-engine light bomber, entered U.S. Army Air Forces service in 1941. Over 5,000 were built, and the aircraft were used in all theaters of operations. All Martin B-26s were declared obsolete by the United States Air Force in 1948, but few had survived even until that date as airworthy aircraft. The B-26 designation was transferred to the Douglas A-26 in June 1948 after the Martin bomber was withdrawn from service.
The problem is they're not even related to each other. We JUST had a thread where this same confusion came up.:airplane: Maybe this will clear up why I stated, "final version" of the B-26! The B-26K (A-26A) “Nimrod” was the most effective night attack aircraft used on the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos between June 1966 and November 1969. Flown out of Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai AFB, the success of this WWII vintage attack bomber was extremely embarrassing to the “jets can do everything” USAF leadership. For example, in December 1966 of 3,000 sorties were flown against the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Nimrods flew only 6.5% but accounted for 64% of the 195 trucks killed!
The Douglas B-26 is just a redesignated A-26. It's not the "final version" of the B-26 at all.
Your "This is a pic of the final version of the B-26." picture is of a Douglas B-26 Invader and that implies that the two are related as all of your text is about the completely unrelated Martin B-26 Marauder.:airplane: OK, split a few hairs!! Let me put it this way then, "This is a pic of the final version of the B-26 series of aircraft, produced by both Martin and Douglas aircraft companies!
:airplane: OK, split a few hairs!! Let me put it this way then, "This is a pic of the final version of the B-26 series of aircraft, produced by both Martin and Douglas aircraft companies!
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/BlackB-26CInvader_zpseb8c8058.jpg)
:airplane: OK, split a few hairs!! Let me put it this way then, "This is a pic of the final version of the B-26 series of aircraft, produced by both Martin and Douglas aircraft companies!Once again, you seem to be combining two entirely separate series of aircraft into a single series. The only reason the B-26 Invader was ever called the B-26 instead of just being the A-26 was because the B-26 label was freed up by the retirement of the B-26 Marauder. If it had been called the A-25 instead of the A-26 we'd be having a discussion about the B-25 Mitchell and the B-25 Invader being unrelated.
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/BlackB-26CInvader_zpseb8c8058.jpg)
Once again, you seem to be combining two entirely separate series of aircraft into a single series. The only reason the B-26 Invader was ever called the B-26 instead of just being the A-26 was because the B-26 label was freed up by the retirement of the B-26 Marauder. If it had been called the A-25 instead of the A-26 we'd be having a discussion about the B-25 Mitchell and the B-25 Invader being unrelated.:airplane: This will be my last comment on the B-26! There are a lot of things which connect the two aircraft, starting with engineers who moved from Martin to Douglas, common parts in both aircraft, common engines, common mission profile for both. I am sorry you guys don't see the connection, but I guess that is because you have decided in your own wisdom that these 2 great aircraft are not related. There was no transition training required, from one, the A-26 to the B-26 as normally required by the U.S. Air Force, when moving from one designated aircraft to another, but again, you probably did not that!
This has caused confusion ever since.
:airplane: This will be my last comment on the B-26! There are a lot of things which connect the two aircraft, starting with engineers who moved from Martin to Douglas, common parts in both aircraft, common engines, common mission profile for both. I am sorry you guys don't see the connection, but I guess that is because you have decided in your own wisdom that these 2 great aircraft are not related. There was no transition training required, from one, the A-26 to the B-26 as normally required by the U.S. Air Force, when moving from one designated aircraft to another, but again, you probably did not that!
I appreciate your comments, but you really need to know what you are talking about before attacking someone who has made a post in the interest of educating the young guys in our great game.
There was no transition training required, from one, the A-26 to the B-26 as normally required by the U.S. Air Force, when moving from one designated aircraft to another, but again, you probably did not that!I believe you are getting turned around by the labels again. There was no transition training going from the A-26 Invader to the B-26 Invader because they are the same airplane.
Damn now I find out who Earl is. :confused: I dont take back what I said cause wrong is wrong but I take back the fact I said it. Plus he does! know an awful lot oabout WW2 aircraft.:airplane: Thanks Rich! I went through B-26C training after flight school, 44.5 total hours, then went on to B-29's, RB-29C to be exact. Sorry these guys never, you included, didn't get my point about the "kinship" of the two great aircraft. What ever your opinion of my post, it was great aircraft and had the best RTB record of any war that it was in. The exception to that statement is its use in Vietnam!
The guy is the biggest gentleman in the game.
had the best RTB record of any war that it was in. The exception to that statement is its use in Vietnam!
Damn now I find out who Earl is. :confused: I dont take back what I said cause wrong is wrong but I take back the fact I said it. Plus he does! know an awful lot oabout WW2 aircraft.Yeah, pretty sure Earl is the only one in this discussion who really knows what he is talking about. What a great source of "been there, done that" info! Great stuff Earl! Keep it coming!
The guy is the biggest gentleman in the game.
Yeah, pretty sure Earl is the only one in this discussion who really knows what he is talking about. What a great source of "been there, done that" info! Great stuff Earl! Keep it coming!I respect Earl, but he is 100% wrong in this case. The Martin plane and the Douglas plane are completely separate and independent designs. He, like many others, is being hung up by the reused B-26 moniker.
:airplane: Thanks Rich! I went through B-26C training after flight school, 44.5 total hours, then went on to B-29's, RB-29C to be exact. Sorry these guys never, you included, didn't get my point about the "kinship" of the two great aircraft. What ever your opinion of my post, it was great aircraft and had the best RTB record of any war that it was in. The exception to that statement is its use in Vietnam!
So what you are really saying is that it did not in fact have the best RTB record of any war that it was in......... :D Just messin with ya.... :aok:airplane: I have always felt that the Vietnam "action" was a political war, not one for territory gain or forcing our will on another country! If the politician's had stayed out of the war, countless men and women would not have lost there life in this "action".
I have to agree here, as well.:airplane: :bhead OK guys, I screwed up! I should have said, "a pic of the lastest B-26 or A-26 which were ever built"!
Talking about the development of the B-26, its first combat, the training problems they had, is all about one plane. Then saying "this is the final version" -- it's just wrong. It's not semantics either. It's not misunderstanding. It's totally different planes. I might as well talk about the entire development and deployment of the B-17 then show a pic of a B-29 and say "This is the final version."
It would be the same thing. Totally different airframes, development, deployments, combat histories, etc....
Yup, Havoc and Invader are definitely of a lineage.:airplane: Sorry Charlie, I don't know of any parts from a "Havoc" that would interchange with a B-26, but a lot of parts are inter-changeable with the Marauder and the B-26C, and no I am not going to give you a list of those forty four parts.
:airplane: Sorry Charlie, I don't know of any parts from a "Havoc" that would interchange with a B-26, but a lot of parts are inter-changeable with the Marauder and the B-26C, and no I am not going to give you a list of those forty four parts.Lineage does not mean interchangeable parts. It refers to design team and company applying the lessons learned to the next aircraft designed for the same role. For example, the DH Hornet shares lineage with the DH Mosquito, but is a completely different aircraft.
So, Earl, what was the best and worst thing in your experience flying the A/B/wiki-26 Marauder/Nimrod/etc back in the day. How were they to maintain, reliability, etc? What did pilots like best about it? I've heard stories of the "26" being able to out run a Mustang in certain circumstances. Every had a chance to race a Pony in the "26"? :salute:airplane: The 26C was a very good "pilots" aircraft! Very forgiving, easy to fly and if you put the nose down, would accelerate quickly to 380 to 425 IAS. It was a little heavy on the controls and the use of trim was a must to fly it correctly. I don't know about the 26C outrunning a Mustang, but could probably give it a good race. Because of the large vertical stabilizer, it handled very good on one engine and after trimming for single engine flight, other than reduction in airspeed, pretty much flew it like both engines were running. Single engine "go-arounds" at touch down was not to big of a deal, just required a lot of rudder until attaining at least 140 knots IAS. With no ords and 50% fuel or less, it would give you 1,000 or 1200 feet per minute climb on one engine, depending again on what altitude your density altitude was.
:airplane: OK, split a few hairs!! Let me put it this way then, "This is a pic of the final version of the B-26 series of aircraft, produced by both Martin and Douglas aircraft companies!
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/BlackB-26CInvader_zpseb8c8058.jpg)
I just don't agree with youon the two birds being related. ;) :salute:airplane: Never said they were related! Just the A/B-26 series of aircraft!
:airplane: Never said they were related! Just the A/B-26 series of aircraft!The word "series" strongly implies that they are related. In fact so strongly that I cannot understand the reasoning of using the word if they are not related.
Earl, what was the SE service ceiling? Demonstrated max cross wind limit? :salute:airplane: Gosh, I only had 44.5 hours in the thing, but best I can remember after 59 years, I think it was 14,300 feet on single engine, or there abouts and the x-wind component was 45 degrees at 30 knots. It had a big rudder and you could really horse the thing around if need be. I always got a kick out of the comments of ATC operators in control towers when I would go somewhere new to shoot a couple of landings and I would request a 360 degree overhead approach. Standard reply was "what kind of aircraft did you say you were? Enter over the runway at 225 knots IAS, set up a 60 degree bank, bleed speed off to 200, pop 20 degrees flaps, MP to 15 inches, close cowl flaps all the way to not cool engines to quickly, bleed speed off to 145 knots on downwind and base, pop 10 more degrees of flaps, gear down on base, bleed speed off to 125 knots on final, apply full down flaps,bleeed speed to 100 approaching end of runway, 90 over the fence and touch-town, apply brankes, open cowl flaps all the way, taxi to terminal building, shut down and eat a cheeseburger and coke, then do it all over again, Woohoo!
:airplane: Gosh, I only had 44.5 hours in the thing, but best I can remember after 59 years, I think it was 14,300 feet on single engine, or there abouts and the x-wind component was 45 degrees at 30 knots. It had a big rudder and you could really horse the thing around if need be. I always got a kick out of the comments of ATC operators in control towers when I would go somewhere new to shoot a couple of landings and I would request a 360 degree overhead approach. Standard reply was "what kind of aircraft did you say you were? Enter over the runway at 225 knots IAS, set up a 60 degree bank, bleed speed off to 200, pop 20 degrees flaps, MP to 15 inches, close cowl flaps all the way to not cool engines to quickly, bleed speed off to 145 knots on downwind and base, pop 10 more degrees of flaps, gear down on base, bleed speed off to 125 knots on final, apply full down flaps,bleeed speed to 100 approaching end of runway, 90 over the fence and touch-town, apply brankes, open cowl flaps all the way, taxi to terminal building, shut down and eat a cheeseburger and coke, then do it all over again, Woohoo!Wow, sounds like great fun topped off with a cheese burger! Have you ever had the world famous Tinker Burger?
Wow, sounds like great fun topped off with a chees burger! Have you ever had the world famous Tinker Burger?:airplane: Can't say that I did, but had a bunch of "Tiki Hut" grilled cheese sandwiches!
Earl, in a cockpit photo from somewhere earlier, there is a tall vertical handle to right of center. What is it? :salute:airplane: Some of the B-26B's were built or modified to a TA-23A, a target tug-gunnery trainer. I suspect what u are referring to is the target release prior to landing of some of the early models. Some had the tail cone removed and a electrical powered wrench was used to extend and retract the target!. I never had the occasion to do any of that stuff, just old trucks and tanks at Avon Park. The U.S. Navy had some of those produced, the JM-1.
What did the towed target look like? How long was the cable?:airplane: That is the emergency hydrolic pump handle. A "star" valve is in the cockpit floor, just behind the thottle ped to select flaps or landing gear function.
Here's a cockpit photo withe the red handle that I asked about. Is it the same thing you mentioned?(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/e4d655edc6e4f600995a9580b21db28d_zps6e716c1c.jpg)
:airplane: That is the emergency hydrolic pump handle. A "star" valve is in the cockpit floor, just behind the thottle ped to select flaps or landing gear function.OK, thanks Earl! How was the handle to operate? How many strokes to get landing gear or flaps down to the desired position?
OK, thanks Earl! How was the handle to operate? How many strokes to get landing gear or flaps down to the desired position?:airplane: That has been almost 60 years ago, but for some reason, I want to say 10 or 12 for gear, as I remember, the gear would free fall, but not lock, so the emergency function was to finish the "A" knuckle past neutral so that the down lock would engage. The flaps were a lot more, because they didn't free fall, can't remember how many but was a lot. Gosh, wish I could remember that kind of stuff, questions bring back a lot of memories.
:airplane: That has been almost 60 years ago, but for some reason, I want to say 10 or 12 for gear, as I remember, the gear would free fall, but not lock, so the emergency function was to finish the "A" knuckle past neutral so that the down lock would engage. The flaps were a lot more, because they didn't free fall, can't remember how many but was a lot. Gosh, wish I could remember that kind of stuff, questions bring back a lot of memories.By the way, Earl, great memory of details for almost 60 years ago. :aok
The 26 series of aircraft have had a distinct mark on aviation in a number of ways! It had a "laminar flow" wing, was the test bed for the first use by the Navy or Air force, can't remember which, of the use of the Martin-Baker ejection seat, direct involvement in the "Bay Of Pigs" fasco, flew in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Congo thing and one company, On Mark engineering modified a number of these great aircraft into executive transports. One of the companies which modified these, actually had a "pressurized model.
Hey Earl, recognize this tail number by chance?:airplane: Gosh no! Wish my memory was that good. Just looking at it, it appears to be one of the 26C level bombers, most all with the glass nose had a bomb sight.
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/44bfd2bb45233ed0b8d96717d12f504c_zpse647fa9d.jpg)
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/91a207b887832f6a8e13aeb098eda37c_zps553af590.jpg)
It's located in the Pima Air Museum. :salute
:airplane: Gosh no! Wish my memory was that good. Just looking at it, it appears to be one of the 26C level bombers, most all with the glass nose had a bomb sight.
Earl,:airplane: That name rings a bell, but can't put a face or time with it. Do you have more info?
Did you fly with Phil "Duke" Nagy?
:airplane: That name rings a bell, but can't put a face or time with it. Do you have more info?
He flew A-26Ks during Vietnam and was in Iran for a bit.:airplane: Vietnam was after my active duty time.
My father was a Martin B-26B driver in 336BG at McDill Aug-October 1943 but escaped to fighters and went to ETO as P-51 driver. He had a lot of hours in the Douglas A-20, the A-26A and the B-26A and B when the Martin B-26 was retired post WWII. He flew the Douglas B-26 in Korea for one tour with 3rd BG out of Itazuke flying night intruder missions. The Douglas A-26C and B-26C had the glass nose and norden sight.:airplane: To you and your Dad, :salute
He liked all of them, but the B-26A/B/C Invader most of all.
The B-26 Marauder was a medium bomber just like the B-25. Both had pilot/copilot. The Douglas A-20 was a light/attack bomber as was the Douglas A-26 and B-26. Both had single pilot but the Invader had room for a co-pilot or navigator/bombardier next to pilot while the A-20 had room for only one seat.
When he was Group CO of the 355th FG he acted as IP for the fighter pilots that wanted to qualify in the B-26 Marauder or A-20K at Steeple Morden and Gablingen.