![Marc Liebman](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 128
- 225 060
Marc Liebman
United States
Приєднався 25 січ 2017
Marc Liebman is an experienced pilot and writer whose career as a Naval Officer and Naval Aviator, business executive, consultant and entrepreneur helped him fulfill his dream of becoming a novelist. He has five books in print with more coming. In the novels, Marc created stories with rich, interesting characters and puts them the proper historical and operational context. His books are memorable, exciting and fun to read.
A leader, Liebman shares his rich experience as an executive who enjoyed success in big companies and small businesses. He has worked in Europe, Africa, and Asia and shares hard-earned lessons on leadership, sales and business development. Others may want to hear about his military experience and career that took him all over the globe. Or, he can talk about the process of writing a novel and the trials and tribulations of getting published.
A leader, Liebman shares his rich experience as an executive who enjoyed success in big companies and small businesses. He has worked in Europe, Africa, and Asia and shares hard-earned lessons on leadership, sales and business development. Others may want to hear about his military experience and career that took him all over the globe. Or, he can talk about the process of writing a novel and the trials and tribulations of getting published.
B26 Issues
When the Martin B-26 Marauder first entered service, the Army Air Corps had a new design, but like others, it had issues. Propeller control issues and engine problems led to many fatal crashes. The Marauder earned a reputation as being hard to fly and a raft of uncomplimentary nicknames such as The Widow Maker and the Flying Prostitute.
However, once the problems with the propellers and engines were solved and the pilots learned how to fly the B-26, it became a very effective medium bomber that could take a lot of punishment and bring its crew home. By 1944, the B-26 had a lower accident rate than the B-25. It also had the lowest loss rate/mission of any bomber flown in World War II. This presentation is the story of the problems, what the fixes were and what types of missions the plane flew.
#B26Marauder #WWII #militaryhistory #aviationhistory #aircraft #history #aviation #militaryaviation #militaryaviationhistory
However, once the problems with the propellers and engines were solved and the pilots learned how to fly the B-26, it became a very effective medium bomber that could take a lot of punishment and bring its crew home. By 1944, the B-26 had a lower accident rate than the B-25. It also had the lowest loss rate/mission of any bomber flown in World War II. This presentation is the story of the problems, what the fixes were and what types of missions the plane flew.
#B26Marauder #WWII #militaryhistory #aviationhistory #aircraft #history #aviation #militaryaviation #militaryaviationhistory
Переглядів: 4 878
Відео
Overview of Dauntless vs Val vs Stuka
Переглядів 635 місяців тому
Overview of Dauntless vs Val vs Stuka
Overview of Dauntless vs Val vs Stuka
Переглядів 1765 місяців тому
Overview of Dauntless vs Val vs Stuka
Overview of Dauntless vs. Val vs. Stuka
Переглядів 33 тис.6 місяців тому
Overview of Dauntless vs. Val vs. Stuka
Naval Lessons of the American Revolution
Переглядів 20810 місяців тому
Naval Lessons of the American Revolution
Intro to the novel Death of a Lady v1 03052023
Переглядів 155Рік тому
Intro to the novel Death of a Lady v1 03052023
Why Helicopters are hard to fly v1 11272022
Переглядів 4,8 тис.Рік тому
Why Helicopters are hard to fly v1 11272022
Coding and Writing a Novel The Process is the Same
Переглядів 602 роки тому
Coding and Writing a Novel The Process is the Same
Why Helicopters are Diffferent and Difficult to fly 01172022
Переглядів 2252 роки тому
Why Helicopters are Diffferent and Difficult to fly 01172022
Always thought dude in the back seat facing the tail got the funnest ride.
I dunno about that. Don't think I'd want to be riding backwards in an airplane plunging down at 12,000 ft/minute not knowing if the guy in the front was about to get target fixation..And, on the pull-out, the guy in the back pulled at least half a g more than the pilot.
Great info
Read some where in the `70s that B-26s usually flew between 12 to 15k ft which was the designed height for the Norton Bombsight and where very accurate at those levels whereas the 17s & 24s were much higher and for some reason those bombsights were off at those heights.
Altitudes on level bombing varied due to wind the weather and the actual target. Some were as low as 8000 and some in the mid-teens. the preference was 8 - 12 so they didn't have to wear oxygen masks!
You memtioned that your dad flew to the Caribbean, did he come to Jamaica🇯🇲? I live there. The US had a army air field on this island call Vernam Field which had an advance training squadron call 36th Air Ways Detatchment 1944-45. During one training mission B-26 (#41-35096) crashed during training taking all 6 unboard. It was witness by residents of Rocky Point who were the first to respond.
When the 34th BS/17 BG went to North Africa, they left from what is now Barksdale AFB. The 34th lead the way with each squadron following about a day behind. Next stop was what is now Homestead AFB, then Ramy AFB in Puerto Rico. From there, it was on to British Guyana then Natal, Brazil. Next leg was to Ascension Island, then to Dakar, Casablanca and then on to Telegram in Algeria. Took them about 10 days. that's probably more detail than you wanted, but they only lost one plane that slid off the runway in Brazil when they had a prop problem.
Are Vx and Vy reversed on the chart?
you mention the jill was a replacement for the val. i thought the jill was a torpedo plane and replace the Nate. i thought the Susie was the Val replacement.
Actually, the D4Y or Judy was the replacement for the Val. My bad....
@@marcliebman3847 no big deal not trying to prove any point just wondering.
The other nickname was “The Baltimore Whore.” Very well done, subbed.
Some years ago I read a book that featured pilots flying Hudsons in the early days of the Pacific War. They encountered the B26 and the experienced guys were envious of the B26's performance. Being experienced they were not intimidated by the erformance and characteristics, knowing the B26 would be far better to fly in combat than Hudsons.
I approve this message!
FWIW, chart at 11:20 would make a better point if production figures were included. 1942, 58 B-26 accidents of, say, 100 aircraft produced and flying versus 39 B-25 accidents of, say, 250 aircraft produced provides a more illuminative comparison and completely different conclusions. B-25 production (9816) was nearly twice B-26 production, so roughly same number of accidents DOES mean the B-26 was much more prone to accidents. General Doolittle nearly had wings himself, so his demonstration could of led to novice pilots to think, 'Yes, Doolittle can handle the B-26, but what of us mere mortals?'
Thank you. Good story. I have subscribed. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
VX is best angle VY best rate.
G R E G has a 1 hr in-depth pres on Martin Murderer
12:45 statement "That the plane was much more controllable" ...posts a few question marks. If the power is higher, the power on one engine is higher, right? So the moment around the Z axis is higher. Using the same tailplane as lesser powered models, not placed in the slipstream as the B26, the Vmin control on 1 engine is also higher, you simply need more stagnation pressure (=wind) to counter the higher moment around z axis. The only thing is the faster acceleration brings you faster throught the lift-off speed to the minimum 1 engine control speed. That is death trap speed range. Placing the vertical tail in the active slipstream, so using 2 verticals, helps to lower the 1 engine minimum control speed.
Great presentation. I became fascinated with the Marauders, age 11 when I learned my dad’s brother flew them with the 386th BG, 555th BS, late 1944, until the group converted to A-26s. I spent many hours with him just prior to his passing in 2015, trying to get more details about those experiences. It seems by his time in France and later Belgium, the biggest threat to missions he flew during the Battle of the Bulge against railroad bridges and troop concentrations was from flak. He only flew 5 combat missions in B-26Bs, which I have researched each of, before the conversion to the A-26, and flew those until 1955 in the reserves after Korea. Subscribed.
In future videos please leave the full screen charts up at least 20 seconds. Thanks!
Nice video. A couple of points. I believe the Curtis C-46 may have been the first production AC to use electric propellers. B-25 accidents were fewer, but more B-25s were built, so the their accident rate was lower. In the “techniques” table it should list “lb/hp not hp/lb. Well done nonetheless, very informative.
This plane was put into service without prototypes. Doolittle said how to fix it. Martin listened the rest is history.
Many of the early planes designed in the 1late 1930s and 1940 were rushed into production without a thorough test program. The B-26 was just one of many. However, even today, where we test and test and simulate and simulate, we still produce airplanes like V-22.
❤❤❤❤❤ but not surprisingly they still some 'bugs'. The carb air inlet was not made of strong enough rubber so it collapsed at while they were at Tampa Bay. They would restart the engines instead of using the 'putput' so the internal battery's were drained . The props were electric unlike everyone else's Hamilton standard hydralics so no battery power the prop went into flat pitch. Not good! My uncle Joe Burton 320th 444th flew the short winged A model. They actually had 3 prototype '26s over in north Africa that were used to fly to gilbralter to get the booze. They would haul ass!!!!! The first pilots were the cream of the crop. Great video
@@user-ih1mo8vv7o In his tour in the 34 BS, 17thBG, he felt mostly A models and then later, as the A's were replaced, B's and C's. In the early days, the A's had to throttle back to so the B's and then C's could keep up. Also, the A's cruised fast enough so that the fishers, early on the P-40s, couldn't fly at their long range cruise power settings, reducing their range.
From you and others I get the impression that World War II multi-engine training was not very good. In fact inadequate. Could you comment?
It's a great question. I wouldn't use the word inadequate. The word I would use was "uniformed." Understand, we were moving from bombers like the B-10, B-18, B-23 which were relatively easy, comparatively speaking, to fly on one engine compared to the B-25 and B-26.. Second, our knowledge of the flying characteristics of a high performance twin was in if not its infancy, we were just becoming toddlers. As I said in the video, go read the flight manuals of the A-20, B-25, B-26 that were first put out and go read the ones for a light twin such as a Piper Navajo or Seneca. There's no comparison in the instructions and information on flying single engine. The whole concept of V speeds hadn't been created. A lot of what was learned was through trial and error. Next, the ME trainers of the day - the AT-11 and the UC-78 - gave you the basics but were relatively easy, comparatively speaking, to fly. Again, the lack of info on how to fly ME airplanes and handle emergencies was a huge problem. Much of what was known was through trial and error. While there were procedures, the details and nuances were just being learned. The USAAF was sending recently graduated pilots right from flight school to bomber squadrons without any ME training. That was dumb, but they needed pilots, particularly in Europe where B-17s were being shot down at alarming rates. That's a whole different issue. Last point. Every military pilot who earns his wings makes a significant jump when he gets to his first squadron. This has been true ever since the beginning. This is one of the two reasons why the Navy and the USAAF went to the Replacement Air Group (RAG in the Navy) and Operational Training Unit (OTU) concept early in the war. This helped pilots go from the T-6 to the F4F, F6F, F4U, P-47, P-51, even the P-38. We still do this today. In the Navy, you earn your wings in a T-45 and then jump to the F/A-18 or the F-35. In the AF, its the T-38 and then the F-15, F-16, F-35. Huge jump in performance. We can do it because we now have cockpit procedures trainers, simulators, software training programs, etc.
_Subscribed!_ ´Nuff said.
I think the table shown at 11:22 has an error on B26. By 1944, B26 has 249 accidents. Adding 71 accidents in 1945, the cumulative for B26 should be 320, not 270.
Hi, I see your point, however, I pulled this chart from p.499 of William Wolfe's very comprehensive book called The Martin B-26 Marauder published by Schiffer Publishing in 2014. Given the amount of research and detail in his book, I'll go with Wolfe's chart. However, I am planning another video called The Death of the B-26 and I'll bring this up. Look for it this fall.
@@marcliebman3847 Thank you for replying my question. I understand the reason of not changing the table now. However, in this case, the data in the table appears to show that B26 consistently had more crashes than B25. That was what had confused me. Again, I would like to thank you for making these wonderful videos. I learned a lot from them.
How much AVGAS was needed to let a student pilot fly his 150 hour of training syllabus. One huundred litres per an hour or above? Japan at that time couldn`t produce aviation grade gasoline
It wasn't avgas or cost. One was the trainers themselves. The AT-11 and the UC-78 didn't. have near the performance of the B-26. And, comparatively speaking they were not as much of a handful single-engine as the B-26.
Sorry, I was thinking about a different question. So, your question is difficult to answer becasue it depends on power setting, altitude, weight of the airplane, etc. However, here's a rule of thumb. The Corsair burned around 40 gallons per hour at cruise. Multiply that by 150 and you get about 6,000 gallons. In training pilots, he IJN faced many problems besides fuel, from 1943 on. One, its training syllabus was, in many ways barbaric and it took much longer than needed to turn a novice into a designated pilot. Two, it had a problem with materials. Japan had to import everything needed to build an airplane. Once the U.S. submarine campaign began to take effect, it affected Japan's ability to build airplanes. POL was one of the most critical because it restricted flight time. Three, once the pilot was designated, he was sent to the front. There was little or not transition training from the trainer aircraft to the model he would fly in combat. Nor were pilots brought back from the front to share their experience. In the IJN, you went to a unit and stayed there until you were killed or incapacitated. All these are why the skill level of the IJN pilots declined from after Guadalcanal to the end of the war. Fuel certainly had a major impact, but there were other causal factors.
"One A Day In Tampa Bay" had a heroic career, culminating with 'Flak Bait' being enshrined at Air and Space....
The 34th BS, 17th BG's Coughin' Coffin was the first U.S. bomber to survive 100 missions. It was flown back to the U.S. in late 1943 and was destroyed in 1944 in a landing accident. Flak Bait is another B-26 that via luck, good design and crew skills managed to survive as many missions as it did.
Captain Leibman, Thank you for your and your family's service and thank you for a superb video on the B-26. You have a very happy new subscriber! Blessings....
In 1942 Glenn L. Martin was called to testify before the "Truman Committee". Senator Harry S. Truman asked him why there were so many accidents with the B-26. Glenn L. Martin answered "The wings are too short". Truman then asked why the wings were not lengthened, to which Martin replied "The plans were too close to completion, and his company already had the contract. Truman then said tersely "In that case, the contract will be cancelled". The wings were extended by 6 feet.
And the tail surfaces were as well.
That's why it was called the Baltimore Whore because it had no visible means of support. 😂
10:00 -- the nickname "Boston Prostitute" and "Flying Prostitute" had nothing to do with flyability, they referred to the small wings. The plane had "no visible means of support."
The nicknames referring to the world's oldest profession came from the shape of its fuselage. there are others that are not fit for public consumption, all referring to the shape of the fuselage and the wings.
Didn't the RN Air Service fly the RN version of the F4U off of it's CVs?
Yes. When the RN's larger carriers joined the war in the Pacific, they all had Corsairs.
@@marcliebman3847: What about when they were in the med or the Atlantic? What did they have for fighter planes?
@@jameshanlon5689 Initially, the RN had Wildcats. Then, they re-equipped with Hellcats up through 1944 and the invasion of Southern France.As the RN carriers shifted to the Pacific, they switched to Corsairs.
Good presentation. Reference 11:26 , there were twice as many B-25s in service compared to B-26s. That gives B-26 a higher probability of accident. despite lower total numbers lost.
True. to some degree. This is why we - at least the U.S. Navy - looks at accident rates per 100,000 flying hours. It makes comparisons like this easier. There is no doubt that the B-26 was a "hot" airplane and in some parts of the flight envelope, the margin for error was very slim. I can give you a long list of airplanes that had that description starting with the F7U Cutlass the navy flew in the 50s. It was dangerous around the boat. Or the P-39 which would spin flat and one couldn't get out because the slipstream kept the door closed. And the list goes on. .
When learning to fly the Marauder He heard many wonderful things But all he could see was the engines Oh, where in the hell are the wings? Now Curtiss causes our troubles That prop is a murder machine When they both run away on take-off Nothing is left to be seen Roaring off down the runway In his mind was a horrible doubt As the co-pilot jerked all the wheels up Both lousy engines cut out Now the pilot of a Marauder Is a man with plenty of guts But after he's flown a few missions He's either shot down or he's nuts When you go out on a mission And a 109 fires on a pass Roll back your seat and start jumping To hell with the crew, save your ass! Though the heavies are very big boxcars Compared to Marauders, they're toys The B-26 is the airplane That separates the men from the boys The Lib is an overgrown junkpile Known as the worst of them all They scatter their bombs with abandon And don't give a damn where they fall When the Mitchells go in on a target They bomb to the Jerry's delight And after they miss their objective The Marauders will do the job right I lived through my sixty first mission But when I got back to the base The wheels folded up on the runway Marauder all over the place A Marauder is just like a woman She'll trick you and keep you in doubt But you can't go on living forever And I'd rather die in one than out Oh, why did I join the Air Corps? For mother, dear mother knew best Here I lie beneath the wreckage Marauder all over my chest!
This is so cool. there was a folk singer whose name escapes me who recorded all these songs. I used to have a 33LP on which to play them but it, along with all my others and my stereo system that I built from a kit went in the trash many moons ago.
PBM vs P5M.
PBM and P5M are two different airplanes. The P5M was developed from the PBM. They look alike, but are different airplanes.
@@marcliebman3847 Concur. My point is that it was the PBM that was in development in the late 30s, not the P5M which was a post war aircraft. I have a couple of flights in the P5M before I went to flight training.
@@bobharrison7693 When I signed up on the dotted line to flying the Navy, there were two planes I wanted to fly the most. Once was the A-1 and the other was the P5M. Unfortunately, by 1968 when I entered flight training, the pipelines to those planes were closed....
@@marcliebman3847 I much enjoy your work and am going to check out your books. There was one cadet in my pre-flight class (01-64) who was in the last class to go through VT-30, the A-1 advanced squadron. I would have loved to fly the A-1 but wasn't sure I could get A-1s and didn't want to fly "Stoofs." In retrospect I would have loved to fly the P5M.
@@bobharrison7693 After I finished CQ, I had the grades to get into the jet pipeline but the navy sent 25 of us to Ellyson to fly helos. I had a choice, either fly heels or DOR. Quitting wasn't an option so I became a helicopter pilot.
Excellent presentation, Marc! My father was a training base commander at Avon Park Army Airfield in Florida during WW2. Training bases were used to prepare entire units before their being shipped overseas. Essentially all aircraft related personnel in a unit were trained as a whole - aircrew, mechanics. etc. The training base commander was in charge of the physical base, including all base support personnel - think laundry, grounds keeping, building maintenance, kitchen personnel, public relations, human resources, training personnel, and so on. This also included recovery of wrecked aircraft and their crew members, and dealing with collateral damage issues. There were two main types of aircraft at the base - P-51s and B-26s. One story he related to me was a very unfortunate accident that involved the collision of two B-26s over the runway, with both aircraft coming to rest in a massive pile of burning fuel and wreckage. While there were elements of said wreckage that were identifiable as organic matter, there was no way, with the forensics of the time, that any positive identifications could be made; even the dog tags were of no help. The decision was made (that's how Dad put it - I believe the decision was his) to divide the 'pile' of organic matter into the appropriate number of parts, put each into a sealed coffin and send them to the airmen's homes with explicit instructions that the coffins should remain sealed. You can see where this is going - at least one well connected family unsealed their son's coffin and was aghast to find a blackened pile of debris reeking of gasoline. Such aspects of war the public was rarely exposed to. This was just one of the events that led to the Truman Commission. The Army brass decided to send Dad to Washington to testify before the commission, which made sense since Dad was a young, handsome, well spoken Notre Dame graduate whose family was very well connected in upstate Pennsylvania politics. In addition Dad had absolutely no interest in remaining in the Army Air Corp after the war, so he had nothing to lose. In the end all agreed that the entire tragic event was a 'necessitude of war'.
Brings back memories of building model aircraft. My friend Jeff built the monogram b-26 flak bait and mine was the monogram b-25. Of course it led to hours of arguments about which was better. Thanks for a much more informative analysis!
Great video! I have never heard about the RAF torpedo bombing; everything I have previously seen indicated the Brits didn't like the plane. Another unit I have not seen much on was the 22d Bomb Group that flew out of Port Moresby in 1942. Regarding accidents, it was my understanding that new pilots were jumping from low-powered trainers straight into Marauders, and trained to 'fly by feel'. This meant that green pilots were often fatally far behind the airplane during take-offs and landings. As the concept of 'flying the numbers' took hold, problems were reduced.
FYI, Gen. Kenny did not like the B-26 and therefore there were only a few groups in the 5th AF. Most of the B-26s were in the ETO. The primary ME trainers for the AF were the UC-78 and the AT-10. these provided the basics of ME flying and yes, the B-25/B-26 were a step up in performance, but by the time the pilots got their wings, they had 250+ total hours including ME time. AF and USN students now go from the T38/T-45 to the F-16/F-15/F/A-18/F-35 which is a huge step forward so it was no different then as it is now. Back to V speeds and basic ME training/flying techniques. In WW2, the flight envelopes weren't well documented in the POHs. V speeds were unknown so in the manuals of the B-26 (I have copies of all of them), there is little guidance other than get to 140mph on takeoff and you need 160mph to fly the airplane single engine. The concept of dead foot = dead engine wasn't taught until much later. My point is the the accident rate was as much a failure of knowledge and technique, not of the airplane. The RAF was much more successful at dropping torpedos from the B-26 than the USAAF was. They flew mostly out of Egypt and North Africa and attacked German/Italian transports in Greece and the Adriatic. Besides Midway, the 34th Bomb squadron flew a couple of missions with U.S. Navy torpedos and stopped. Reason was that they had to be dropped below 120mph. No one in his right mind was going to get that low and slow in a B-26! Hope this helps.
@@marcliebman3847 Thanks for a really informative reply! B-25s and A-20s were indeed better suited for the primitive conditions of SWPAC, so it's understandable that they were withdrawn or simply not replaced. No, the Marauders were not at fault for the training crashes; thanks for describing the problems more succinctly than I could! I still remember how, as a student pilot, trying to 'feel' approaches in a Cessna 152. Recognizing that 'Pitch + Power=Performance' was a bit of a struggle.
Awesome video, thank you.
Do you mean to tell me the Navy's report said that the Navy plane was the better one? Say it ain't so!
Actually, I have two comparison tests. One by the Navy and one by the U.S.A.A.F. Both say that in the knife fight, the Corsair outperforms the Mustang. Having said that, tactics, how the fight begins and the pilot's experience play bigger roles that just the airfares themselves. Yes, the Corsair has the advantage, but can the pilot make most use of its attributes.
FW190D could win a battle against the corsair
Winning a dogfight depends on a lot more than just the two airplanes engaged. The winner is often decided by how the fight starts and who has the advantage, e.g. if I were in a Spitfire I and snuck up below and behind you in an FW-190D and got off an accurate burst, fight's over. Second deciding factor is the experience level of the pilot. If I were fighting Richard Bong, I'd most likely lose. My point is that how the engagement starts, tactics, experience, the ability of the pilot to fly the airplane into the extreme ends of the fight envelope AND Still maintain control often decides who wins or who loses a dogfight. The last element is the plane itself. In this example, the Corsair is the better performer in almost every portion of the flight envelop. However, the performance edge doesn't guarantee than the Corsair pilot will prevail over the FW-190D pilot becasue it all comes back to how the fight starts, the Corsair pilot's experience vs. the FW-190D pilot's experience and the tactics they employ. What the better performing plane does is give its pilot an edge. If he or now she, can exploit those advantages, then the chances of becoming victorious increase dramatically.
🏆
The funny thing is,- test pilots in a country always finds his usual and well known planes "better". The Spitfire, praised for it's handling, was tested by German test pilots,- they found its handling poor and a "one-trick" pony. It probably show more about the importance of "knowing your tools". Of course, the one you're used to is "better". The one tried without proper training and instructions will always be inferior.
You make a good point in that there are bias in all test pilot. Note that training and experience as a test pilot tends to force the bias out of the evaluator. Time pressures, number of flights in the airplane and other factors tend to color the eval. A lot depends on how the engagement starts, so if I sneak up behind you in a Brewster Buffalo and fire an accurate burst into the belly of your airplane, no matter what airplane you are flying, you may be going down. Also the model number means a lot. Overall perfjoamcne of Spitfire IX or a later mark vs. a Me-109E or G favors the Spit.
Excellent
The F4U had a range of over 1000 miles the P51 had a range with 2 external drop tanks of 1650 and under 1000 with out, The F4U could also increase its range with drop tanks but only 150 gallon tanks giving it over 1300 mile range. Rate of climb the F4u could climb 4,360 Ft per minute the P-51 3,200 ft per minute. The F4U was more robust and could absorb a lot more damage than the P51. The F4U also could out turn the P-51 ( 700' to 770' no flaps 529' to 630' with flaps ). The F4U also had a higher top speed ( 446 to 440 ) but the P-51 had a higher cruising speed by a lot because of how slippery it was ( 362 for the P-51 and only 215 for the F4U ). The Stall speed for the F4U was 89 MPH and 100 for the P-51 so again the F4U wins, Dive Speed the F4U was 550mph and the P-51 was 505mph. The service ceiling was only 400 feet different with the Mustang winning ( 41,900 vs 41,500 ) The F4U could carry 4000 pounds of armament to the 2,000 of the P-51. So why does the P-51 get all the love? Because it was such a BEAUTIFUL plane, thats what it came down to. Put these planes in equally talented pilots hands and the F4U is superior. Faster rate of climb faster turn speed more protection for the pilot and heavier payload and this isn't even talking about how much better the F4U could absorb damage. What ever the Mustang could do the F4U could do better other than cruising speed basically. I love the F4U and think it's a beautiful plane but no where close to the beauty that was the P-51. The P-51 was just so majestic, but the F4U was a all around better fighter.
A suggestion, Marc: Turn the phone horizontal whn using it for a video. Look is much more professional and the graphics display much better.
Eric Brown the greatest test pilot ever, summed it up this way a Mixture of the Good the Mediocre and the Bad but succeeded in spite of itself .This is what he said of the P51 finest escort fighter of the war.
Very well done , thank you!
I am wondering if all pilots in navy squadrons in WW2 had equal training in navigation? In my father's cruise book Carrier Air Group 2, in the list of pilots of his squadron VB 86 he is the only one whose duty is listed as "navigation". There are 35 pilots listed with such duties as: logs, communications, oxygen, gunnery, among many others. Ironically, since they were flying the SB2C Helldiver, there is no " bombing" duty listed. The boat was CV18 Wasp. So l wonder if he had unique qualifications?
First, all Naval Aviators learned how to use the plotting board during pilot training. then, when they were assigned to squadrons, there was more overwater training. Second, the navigation officer back in those days was responsible for maintaining the squadron's supply of charts (maps to the Army and Air Force). So, when a squadron deployed, the navigation officer was responsible to ensure that the squadron had the proper charts for where the carrier was headed. Charts of targets were of vital importance and in many cases, they had to be created because they didn't exist. These "target maps" were often created by the photo interpreters would use imagery to create charts. It was the navigation officer's responsibility to work with the intel folks to create what was needed.
Thanks for this response. I may have one of these photo created maps. 8 inches by 8 inches. Minutes of degrees only in tens indicated on the grid. Shoreline, rivers, only bays and cities named. Noted in pencil: March 18 1945 USS Wasp. Attack Kanoya airfield. Then pencil lines indicating the route in and out with a spiral offshore (assembly ?) Then into Kanoya. The next day Wasp and Franklin were both hit almost simultaneously in the same manner (dive bomber) and within sight of each other. Everyone knows the Franklin story but whenever the Wasp story is told most say it was a kamikaze. Wasp was later attacked by kamikazes but never hit by one.. Anyway l digress. It is a very cool map maybe even flown in on the attack by my dad.
Love both aircraft, but the important would be the actual pilot. Sakai held off 12 Hellcats in an old Zero with only one eye. Great pilots can do some outstanding things with what ever they flew.
Pilot skill is critical, but so are tactics and how the how the dogfight begins is as welll. And, then, how well can the pilot fly the airplane to the extremes of his plane's performance envelope.
isn't the Ta152 really just basically an FW 190D ?
Yes and no. To create the TA-152, Kurt Tank started with the FW-190D-9 and then changed the engine, wing design, added a pressurized cockpit, increased the armament. So, it is about as close to an FW-190D-9 as the F/A-18E/Fs are to the F/A-18 C/Ds.
Hi, Marc. Have you read "A Tent On Corsica" by Martin Quigley? I read it many years ago and probably still have it stashed somewhere. A good read about Maurader guys as I remember. Ed - the ex- H-3 tweet from San Diego here.
In actual combat, the Corsair shot down the Mustang. It was in 1969, Honduras / El Salvador war.
Fascinating information. I love military history, but I am not a pilot, so your description of flying a mission was VERY informative!
Always happy to see a new post by you and more so this one in that the B-26 is my favorite plane of the conflict.