Vintage Rear
pub-8348084515547660
 |
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
The B-26 had its share of problems?
The Martin B-26 was pressed into service rather quickly I understand. But Wow! I saw an old vintage training film for new crews for the '26. An engine failure on take off was a BIG problem. Variable pitch props were a problem. Weight distribution was so critical that the absence of the 150 pound rear gunner was a problem. If the right wing tank wasn't emptied before the left one was, that was a problem. Were these issues ever dealt with? Or was this the way the '26 always was?
The B-26 was designed for maximum performance from the git-go, and the USAAF didn't grasp the leap in skill required for the average pilot to handle it. To their credit, they worked with Martin to fix the problems.
The B-26 was an advanced design for its time, and required piloting skills above the average of a rapidly-trained, 200 hour bomber pilot. Once the wing area was increased, which decreased stall speeds, and the Curtiss electric props were improved, IIRC, the B-26 had the best combat safety record of any medium bomber.
API Audio 1608 Console Rear Panel - Vintage King Audio
|
 Vintage Motobecane City Becane mountain bike bicycle commuter suntour Champagne  US $2,250.00
|
| Powered by phpBay Pro |