So, juvat, you say she got beaten up a bit, huh?
¡Sí, oh hombre sabio de muchos siglos, viejo sargento de la Fuerza Aérea!
And because of that, she wasn't a favorite of the aircrews.
However, VX did mention another aircraft that had a bit better luck and, in fact, had a record of her own. (One never knows where posting subjects are going to come from, so thanks VX!)
That bomber was named "Mild and Bitter"
According to this source, a statistician in WWII named McNamara (yep, it's him) determined the loss rate of bombers in the ETO was 4%. Doesn't sound like much, but over time... Mathematically that works out to 36% chance of survival. (0.9625=0.36)
The other consideration for 25 for the heavies was mission duration. It was quite easy for a mission to last 15 to 20 hours. 10 of those would be in Flight, the other would be pre and post flight planning and briefings. This left little time for mundane things like eating or sleeping. Burnout was a common problem. Medium bomber missions tended to be shorter, though not necessarily less harrowing, allowing a bit more time to recover.
So. "Mild and Bitter" claim to fame. It was the first B-26 to complete 100 missions. It did so on its original engines. Aircraft engines at the time were not known to last all that long. She flew 449 and 1/2 hours on them. Which is note worthy.
 |
| Source |
However, she also never had a mechanical abort, again, very note worthy.
 |
| Left to right, 1st Lt. L.W. Rice; 2nd Lt. H.R. Harp; Capt. P. Shannon; SSgt. W.J. Bond; Sgt. R.E. Johnson, SSgt. J.K. Brandemihl Source |
But the record she broke that stands out in my book is she never had a crew casualty.
 |
| Source |
It's always nice to come home to the ones you love.
For those interested in Aviation
Not one crew casualty, brings to mind the saying "I'd rather be lucky than good". What do you want to bet there were four-leaf clovers or rabbit's feet involved? Nice links there juvat, recognize the flying jackets the crews had, my dad had the same one hanging in storage for years when I was growing up in the fifties. Thanks for the reading material!
ReplyDeleteHey...Whatever works. And that saying is one I've uttered many (many, many) times myself. Thanks, Nylon.
DeleteNice interesting post, juvat. I always thought th B-26 was a bit of a paradox given its reputation as a widow maker by some and a fine medium bomber by others. Your post certainly reinforces that dichotomy- and the old Chinese idea of yin and yang. I also didn't realize there were more than 5200 built at a cost of only $102, 500 each. (Thanks, Wikipedia). Anyway, thanks for the food for thought, and many thanks to all those pilots and aircrew who flew and maintained the B-26, and to the designers and builders of them as well. All heroes in my book.
ReplyDeleteOne of the other interesting aspects of the B-26 role in ETO was their use as Decoys. Some of the pictures of their Noses will show Ducks painted on them. Those were decoy missions (Sitting Ducks therefore), get the Germans to launch their fighters early and in the wrong piece of sky, then try to slip the main attack in while the fighters were recovering or out of range. Once the fighters committed on the B-26s, they would turn tail and with their faster top speed, further complicate the German intercept.
DeleteGood stuff, neighbor. Was it "a Marauder a day in Biscayne Bay"? Loss rates were high in training with the good fuel going overseas and trainees were getting basically what we use in our cars today. Couple that with high wing loading, scary one engine performance, green pilots and asymmetric thrust. The numbers don't add up well in that mathematical expression... Those guys were real men to ride that mount into combat.
ReplyDeleteYou can tell who had draftsman training by their printing on that last photo. Saganis, Clark, Alphabetski and Napolitano for sure. Taylor.... Butts..... I took a semester of that at Double T high skool meself back in '81.... My writing still shows the influence...
Times have sure changed. Seems we prepare our kids for a fantasy world now, instead of the real world....
Yeah, the initial version of the B-26 had a smaller wingspan. Lift is important when you're flying, more is generally better. Later models increased the wingspan which made it a somewhat safer aircraft. But you're right, losing an engine is never fun (I had two incidents). Loss of available thrust and asymmetric thrust(even on a center line engine) will definitely get your attention. Fortunately, neither of mine occurred on Takeoff and I already had flying speed.
DeleteFantasy world...Roger That!
(Don McCollor)...a whole different experience was engine out performance in a WW2 blimp...somewhere I ran across a story of the joy of the blimp crew getting a heavier-than-air pilot aboard for a ride. On takeoff, the blimp trundles slowly down the runway on a single wheel with elevators holding it down. Then they apply "up" elevators to raise the nose and pop it off the ground with dynamic lift. The trick was to put it in a 45 deg climb - then cut the engines fifty feet over the runway...and watch the HTA pilot turn white as the blimp kept floating serenely upward...
DeleteYes, I can see how that might be disconcerting. :-)
DeleteAh, such a great post. Thanks for the great links, too. Now I'll be able to do some serious "research" during the blizzard tomorrow. If we have electricity and internet...
ReplyDeleteI got a special deal tour of some of the Martin plant areas in Middle River back in the mid-80's. It was mostly a ghost town but the spiritual presence of warplanes, determination, and dedication was so thick you could cut it with a knife. I also limped across the main drag to Martin State Airport to "watch A-10's fly for probably the last time." They were already trying to kill them while the cold war was still going on!
Jimmy Doolittle flew a bunch of engine-out demos at B-26 training bases to show that if you flew it right the Baltimore Whore (short skinny wing, no visible means of support) was a solid, honest ship. This was just after Doolittle returned from his Shangri-La fly-in, walk-out expedition.
Why do I feel like it would be fun to fly and bar crawl with Lieutenant Rice?
Jimmy Doolittle's reputation was well earned. I had a signed copy of his Autobiography, but can't locate it. I really hope it didn't make it into the donation pile a few years ago.
DeleteWhich type was harder for the enemy to attack, air to air?
ReplyDeleteThat's a difficult question WSF. The heavy bombers were significantly slower, but much better armed. The B-26 was 30-40K faster than the B-17, but the B-17 had more guns and more of them. Head on attacks were the tactic of choice for the Germans and the slow speed of the bombers allowed them to make multiple attacks. The faster B-26 had 6 forward facing guns and its faster speed would delay the fighters repositioning for a follow up head on attack. So...I'd give a small head nod to the B-26 for the harder to attack category. YMMV.
DeleteThe real answer? The ones with fighter escort.
DeleteSingle aircraft were pretty much toast whether heavy or medium bombers, if enemy fighters were about.
The higher speeds of the mediums probably made them safer from AAA at high altitude, but often the mediums bombed from lower altitudes than the heavies, which brought them into range of smaller and faster firing guns.
Obviously...However, "Speed is Life" is, was and always will be an Aviation Mantra.
DeleteLooking at that crew photo and the guy on the far left, I must say I'm really slow on the uptake!! I never realized John Belushi flew Marauders in WW2!!!! :)
ReplyDeleteThere IS a lot of Animal House in that photo, isn't there? Stork to Belusi's left, Eric Stratton on the far right.
DeleteThe heavy bombers were the glory hogs of the ETO. Admittedly, they had the bigger, more famous targets, and higher loss rates, but...
ReplyDeleteThe Mediums were assigned, in a lot of their missions, to more tactical-ish missions, bombing rail lines, transport hubs, supply depots, bridges and such. All were wicked dangerous, sometimes even better defended than more 'strategic' targets.
If'n I remember, the B-25 was the safest medium to fly, while the A-20 and B-26 were hot planes to fly. Hot meaning the pilot was closer to the edge of not flying. The B-26 was the most wicked handling one of the three, higher take off and landing speed, that wicked skinny and short wing that was later 'fixed' and such.
Can't imagine having to fly 100 missions in Europe as a bomber.
Great post. Good job, juvat, on digging up the historical stuffs.
I can't imagine 100 missions in a Thud. But, good points, Beans. Thanks.
Delete"Of many centuries..." Okay, I've lived in two centuries physically and probably well over 15 mentally ('tis the historian in me). Anyhoo...
ReplyDeleteGreat post, the B-26 is a special favorite of mine, for those who don't know, The Chant played a role in the Smithsonian's artwork for their upcoming display of Flak Bait, once she's re-assembled. I posted the box art from a Hasegawa kit as the opening photo of this post, someone at the Smithsonian actually stumbled across the blog and contacted me as to where I found the painting. I told them, the Smithsonian contacted Hasegawa who graciously gave their permission for the Smithsonian to use that artwork. The rest, as they say, is history. Cool thing is that the Smithsonian sent me a copy of the artwork (suitable for framing). Anyhoo...
Great post young Skywarrior (said in my evil emperor voice).
Yes...That's exactly what I was thinking when I typed it. No...Really!
DeleteI miss Friday Fly-By by the way.
Thanks Echo Echo!
Yep, that was a special bird. The 'joke' was everything including her fuselage and wings were built on a Wednesday! And an amazing record for the engines, especially how they were used/abused in combat missions.
ReplyDeleteLord knows I was hard on engines. Once in the airspace, there was only two throttle settings. Max AB (for thrust/airspeed...You know "Speed is Life") or Idle (min Heat Signature... a heater will kill you even after the other guy is dead). Then Max AB at the pass. Recycle often. Never had an engine problem in the F-4 (Except for overstressing the engine mounts in a successful attempt to avoid hitting the ground). Had a Bird strike destroy an engine in the AT-38 and a compressor stall that required engine replacement in the Eagle. So, reliability improved somewhat after WWII.
DeleteCompressor stall..... My old physics professor Dr. Sanders told a great story about that. Seems there were a load of data techs looking at manometers that were hooked into various sections of a jet engine at GE. The air intake to the test engine was a room with a glassed in wall, kind of a pressure relief for.... you guessed it, compressor stall or a complete reversal.
DeleteSeems this engine blew out the perspex window over and over, and the changes happened too fast for the manual recording of the gages. He said the project manager took a stick with a rag on it in the intake room, and waved it around until they found the area that started blowing back out to the front instead of sucking in like it was supposed to. He dropped the stick and pounded on the window to shut it off, shut IT OFF!!!
He said the other great issue was gulls dropping mussels onto the piping on the roof and the blade damage from FOD that would happen if their intake guards were missing....
He worked a LOT of .gov contracts in the 40's thru the 60's.....
(I have a vivid memory of the story, facts about it's telling are accurate. The story itself is debatable, amendable and requires a two thirds majority vote... Thanks FFA)
STxAR, My Compressor Stall was just as I was beginning a swooping turning dive on a pair of unsuspecting F-16's. Turning away from the engine that stalled must have disrupted the flow just enough. Loud bang (very loud) and noticeable loss of thrust, plus Betty started bitchin' and lights were all over the cockpit. Knocked off the fight, rolled out of turn and pulled out of the dive and throttled that engine to idle, all in the first nanoinstant. Once that was over, pulled that engine to off and let it settle down a bit as I turned for Misawa and dialed it into the INS. 200NM. Things got back to normal. Tried to restart the engine, but just as it got to idle power, it compressor stalled again, so I shut it off and left it off. As it was December in the North Pacific, I said a quiet thank you to McDonnell Douglas for putting two of them in the jet.
DeleteAs to stories...my motto is "Never let the truth interfere with a good story". Not that it ever has, mind you, just never let it.
That long with the same engines and with no mechanical aborts would be an interesting case study analysis of quality control. If those are so noteworthy and so many others didn't get that far it makes you wonder what was different about those engines than others. Okay, maybe not that interesting, but I'm a little weird like that.
ReplyDeleteGiven that airplanes were flown by different crews, one can probably rule out Aircrew as a quality control factor. Engines are engines, so it's unlikely that the manufacturer did anything out of the ordinary. Which leaves us to the one constant. The Crew Chief. My money is on an extremely talented one that took special care of HIS airplane. Got to know a couple of those in my day. Their airplane always worked. Worth their weight in platinum!
DeleteGot that right!
DeleteSome engines were more reliable than others. The R-2800 Double Wasp found in the P-47, F4U Corsair, and F6F was super reliable. One of the best radials ever. Much less finicky than other radials or that effete Merlin in-line.
DeleteAnd you can't tell me the Jug, Corsair or Hellcat pilots didn't put their engines under tons of stress...
True, but they were reliable pretty much across the fleet. That didn’t seem to be the case with the B-26
DeleteDave, I'm guessing you knew a few also.
Delete