Re: B-26 Marauder not as good as the B-25?

On Feb 22, 3:15 am, "Branek" <barronbra...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why did the US bother manufacturing and training flight crews for the B-26
Marauder when
the B-25 Mitchell was the better plane? SNIP

In the design competition the B-26 actually won over the B-25 though
the B-25 was considered worthy of further development.

The B-26 Marauder was considered a far tougher aircraft more capable
of resisting damage from the heavy FLAK that could be thrown up over
central europe; its attrition rate of 0.6% was one of the lowest of
any combat aircraft; in the same league as the Mosquito. The B-26
was constructed of very thick ***, which had to be pressed and
formed rather than simply wrapped around stringers and spars and then
riveted. This made the aircraft very tough and presumably gave the
crews a measure of shrapnel protection. (The 88 being the B-26's main
adversary)

Clearly the B-25 Mitchell had some advantages that came from its lower
wing loading such as lower landing speeds that made it more suitable
from rougher airfields. Greater prop and ground clearance also
helped.

I don't believe that a higher service ceiling, due to a lower wing
loading, was considered of any value at all. These bombers often
attacked at about 8000ft at which altitude they were much more
accurate than the B-17's and B-24 which had to fly at higher altitudes
due to their greater vulnerability and exposure over longer periods.

If a higher service ceiling was wanted for the B-26 it could have been
achieved by fitting a two stage supercharger (as in the PW R-2800 of
the Corsair) or a turbo supercharger as in the P-47. I believe a
turbo-supercharged version of the CW R-2600 had orignally been slated
for the B-26, this engine which was abandoned would have made the B-26
a 400mph aircraft. (The article in Wings mentions this). I think
from the B-25G onwars the wing span was increased to improve handling
which had deteriorated due to weight growth.


..

On a similar note, if the B-24 Liberator wasn't as good as the B-17 than why
bother manufacturing

The B-24 Liberator had a much longer range and carried more bombs.
If you take statistical approach like the RAF or LeMay did. and
success in terms of tonnage dropped versus crew losses it makes more
sense. The B-24's lower ceiling apparently translated into higher
bombing accuracy as well.


it? Why not just stick w/the better plane?

.

Quantcast