In defence of the Martin B-26 Marauder, it was always a hot rod, that required a higher level of skill from the pilot to fly. It did not have "bad flying characteristics" - it had flying characteristics consistent with being a very high performance aircraft, built to go as fast as possible. It was not designed to be the general purpose aircraft the Douglas A-26 was. It was heavy for its size, powerful, as slippery as an eel, and had high wing loading, consistent with its purpose of high speed. As a result,it was very unforgiving of low performance pilots. It needed to be flown at very precise speeds, particularly on landing where it had to be flown at at least 150 mph or 130 knots on short landing approach, and gently flared onto the runway at 120 mph / 104 knots - which is a much higher speed than most pilots were used to on other aircraft As the design was trying for the highest level of performance possible at the edge of the technology of the time, it was unforgiving of inexperience, ineptitude, incapacity or stupidity. The cost of the high speed was higher stalling speeds that go with it. Which is why when you put inexperienced pilots in it, do not train them sufficiently, or treat it with the respect that it needed - those inexperienced pilots did not live to become old pilots. With that being said - when those training problems were fixed, and some refinement of the early aircraft took place with slightly bigger wings, a slight change in the angle of attack of the wing, and bigger tail surfaces, the Marauder had the lowest loss rates of any US Bomber in WW2, and it fought in most of the theatres of war. In other words, if you were competent and respected the high performance nature of the beast - you had a better chance than any other bomber pilot or crew member flying other US aircraft of the time, to come home alive. The one in the National Air & 'Space Museum in Virginia is called "Flak Bait" - and this aircraft survived 207 operational missions over Europe, more than any other American aircraft during World War II. Personally, the fact that it brought you home alive the most, and that so many were made, brings home to me at least, that this was an excellent aircraft that simply required skill and respect to get the best out of it.
I agree 100% with your assessment of the Marauder. It had a lower casualty rate and a better combat safety record (especially with the bigger wing) than other bombers. There was little aerodynamically wrong with it. My understanding is that its early problems including its poor safety record were mostly due to 1) it being a "hot" airplane as you say with the highest wing loading and fastest approach speed ever for a bomber, 2) unproven early-version R-2800 B engines with many lingering teething problems, 3) inexperienced trainees at the controls, and in many cases, less experienced instructors in the airplane due to 4) the panicked urgency of war. This is a recipe for disaster when an engine quit on takeoff--a regular occurrence in early training (you know, "One a Day in Tampa Bay"). This caused the crews and squadrons to be skeptical about the airplane and otherwise be afraid of it. Jimmy Doolittle began to put their fears at rest when he did whirlwind demonstration tours with the plane, doing engine-out takeoffs, slow flight, and aerobatics--at low level. Nonetheless, despite an excellent combat record, the plane was rapidly retired after the war in favor of the similar, more forgiving Douglas A/B-26. This was mainly due to the higher risk associated with attaining consistently high pilot proficiencies with the Martin (everybody who flew it had to be far better than average), as well as type redundancy. Thanks for your excellent comments and for watching! J.A. Reed
No it was not a HOT ROD. Marauder's top speed was 287. An A-26 was faster... WAY FASTER, at over 355. The reason the Marauder was called the "Widow Maker" was because of its higher landing speed because of the high wing loading. The higher landing speed caused many experienced pilots to crash it on take offs and mainly landings. Anyway, the A-26 was conceived to replace the Marauder and the B-25, for which the Invader was better than both. Period.
@@AeroDinosaur "the plane was rapidly retired after the war in favor of the similar, more forgiving Douglas A/B-26." The reason was more than just forgiving, the A-26 was faster than the Marauder.. WAY FASTER. And it had a heavier firepower with its internal wing guns, and optional wing gun pod attachments and multipurpose interchangeable nose guns with 6 or 8 50 caliber machine guns and also ability to carry 37mm and 75mm cannons, could carry a heavier bombload and had better self defenses, plus its speed, at 355mph. No Marauder could carry that much at 287mph. The Invader was just better all around.
@@ILSRWY4 Respectfully, the Martin B-26 was a 1939 design, starting deliveries in 1941. The Douglas A-26 started development in 1942, and only started being delivered in numbers in 1943-early 1944. That might not sound like a lot, however in war time the pace of development in between was enormous. Which makes your comparison between the two unrealistic, and taken out of context of the times in which these aircraft flew. The A-26 did its best service later in Korea, and surprisingly, in Vietnam, which is reflective of it being a later generation aircraft than its Martin predecessor. The Martin B-26 was a hot rod for 1941, but not so much in 1945,
At KRFD is an A-26 (former Vietnam survivor) owned by Courtesy Aircraft im a ferry pilot for them. I can say I e never flown the A-26 as there is not many left Airworthy however, other warbirds I have and at 52 this is a bucketlist of mine someday
Very detailed and informative video. In 1969 I was in the U.S. Air Force stationed at Takhli RTAFB. One night, a fellow airman and I were walking back to our shop and as we rounded a revetment one of these aircraft was parked on our ramp. Being an aviation nut I immediately recognized what it was. It must have just landed because the exhaust stacks were making the distinctive "tink tink" sound as they cooled down. The eight, .50s in the nose was an impressive sight. All these years I thought what I saw was an A-26, but now I don't know. I never did find out why it was at Takhli. It may have diverted from NKP due to a mechanical or weather. We had a CIA (excuse me I meant to say Air America) installation at one end of the field and aircraft associated with their mission usually parked on their ramp. I looked for it the following night, but it was gone. Before entering the USAF I worked at an airport and had the opportunity to tour an On Mark Marketeer, the executive conversion owned by the Magnolia Mobile Home Company. Very cool for the time.
Thanks for watching and your positive comments. I had heard of the A-26's occasionally diverting over to Takhli for various reasons--I understand the A26/B26K also provided a lot of air cover for CIA ground operations in Laos and the rest of SEA, so it looks like you were in the middle of it. I agree with you--all the On Mark conversions, both civil and military, were pretty cool!
@Kraals BADLANDS (1973) FILM by Malick on the late 50s Charlie Starkweather psycho killings in SD, there is the scene in the and @ an airport where the perp played by Martin Scheen is transported to his trial/execution in a corporate, leather-clad civilian executive Invader. IMNSHOAO (=in my not so humble of an opinion), 2 much of a luxury 4 such a citizen ; a box/ox car w no seats and not even a hole in the floor shouda been sufficient enuff - Soviet Zibirija style . . .a great period film w music kinda Springsteen s NEBRASKA style though not of the Ry Cooder Paris,Tx mode .... "Welcome" to NATO (betw cholera & plague ...) 🇫🇮
Was at NKP airbase in Thailand when they were doing their Thing! Flew the A-1 69-70. Boo On You! Sandy's were initially 602 SOS FIREFLY's at NKP prior to Hobos and Zorros!
I'm always glad to hear from those who were there, and certainly glad you survived it! One of my favorite authors is Richard S. Drury who released his book "My Secret War" in the late 1970's. He flew A-1's out of NKP during the same 69-70 time period you did. Also, I apologize about leaving out the FIREFLY's. Incomplete research on my part.
I'm planning an A-1 Skyraider video for this channel and I would like to see if you'd be interested in a short phone interview sharing your A-1 flying experiences in '69-'70 out of NKP, to be featured in the documentary. If you are so interested please contact me at j.reed3930@sbcglobal.net -- otherwise no problem if not.
Really great video. I have always been a fan of the A/B-26 since I first saw them as a young boy when they were employed by the 183 TAC RECO Sqd of the MS ANG in 1953 at KHKS. It was real hot rod then. You mentioned that Special Kay had, at one time, been converted, or was to be converted into a fire bomber by someone in Georgia. In the early ‘70’s while a pilot for the Mississippi Forestry Commission, I had a trip to Macon, Ga., where our counterpart, the Georgia Forestry Commission people had a maintenance hangar for their large fleet of aircraft. I seem recall they used several TBM/F Avengers in a fire fighting role. As we taxied up, there were a couple B-26K’s that I was told they were going to use as fire bombers. I remember wondering if there was a way that I could wangle my way into that outfit and fly one of these wonderful beasts. However, my aviation career took a different turn and I never saw these airplanes again. Could one of these have been the ship that later became Special K? If so, a small world! Thanks again for a wonderful video.
Glad you enjoyed! Yes it is a small world on the B-26K's you saw in Macon. Probably a 100% chance that one of them you saw wound up being "Special Kay". Luckily, you didn't land your dream job of flying one, you probably wouldn't have ever been able to pay the rent. Thanks again for the complement!
yes Aircraft 679 and 640 we're both there in Macon Georgia, A/C-640 is now at Ellsworth Air force museum, also neither A/C were converted into Air Tankers.
@@robstuessy1292 I remember seeing those two at Macon in the early 70s. My parents would take me to visit the airport when we visited my sister when she and her husband were at Warner Robins. If I recall correctly there was a B-17 there at the time being operated by a company out of Dothan Alabama…….I always wondered what happened to those aircraft.
I worked on Kay when she was owned by Lynch Air Tankers. I was fortunate enough to get a couple rides in her in the right seat. The sound difference you mention has nothing to do with the engines. An R2800 sounds the same, regardless of the dash number. The sound difference you hear is the prop. The K model has those HUGE paddle blades that make a really different sound. Those engines and props were removed from an old Martin that sits at the Billings MT airport. Special Kay is a truly beautiful plane, hope she flys for many years to come!!
Bill, sorry I missed your comment of 5 months ago on Special Kay. Thanks for your explanation on the engine sound differences. It must have been a lot of fun riding in the right seat!
Thank you AD for this great video. The A/B 26 Invader is a favorite of mine. It's said that the airplane likes to go fast and one would certainly think so. That laminar flow airfoil (see P-51 Mustang) makes for a fast airplane.
A PRETTY LETHAL PRETTY LITTLE BIRD .. Thx 4 the detailed details. Been alwayzz a top fav of mine ...F7F being the other. A very nice Starliner on yr shelf. Metallic ? O er n naut 🇫🇮
Although I built most of my models, the Starliner was a one-piece diecast model--the only way you can get one. I also agree with you on the F7F-a great plane! Thanks for watching--J.A. Reed
Great times, Nkp 70' & 71' 56th sps K9. I got an autographed copy of " My secret war" a truly great book. Although we never knew each other we were both there at the same time. Some great time at the "Fanny".
I'm glad you were able to find us and thanks for watching. Reaching military folks like you who were actually there is the most important thing to us. Also, "My Secret War" is one of my "top 5"--I've owned a hardbound copy since 1980--Drury is one of the greatest. Thanks for your service and THANKS AGAIN!
Yes, at Pima Air Museum. I took extensive photos of it when it was still parked on desert sand there in 1987. Thought that was the last one I would ever see, much less fly! Thanks for checking us out!
Thanks for all your comments and info! Yes, Kermit Weeks had one restored at Chino. Steve Hinton test-flew it and both canopy doors opened during the test flight--just like you said they would. A problem with the early A/B-26s. Got it back down OK.
Great video! One of my favorite WWII era aircraft. I'd heard they'd been used in this role, but had never seen one like this. I'd love to see a video on the C-123. My dad flew them in the 50's. His unit picked them up at the factory, and flew them back to New Jersey, and then on to France.
B-26 is one of my favorites too! I'd certainly like to do a video on the C-123 too, but need to contact the 1-2 organizations who fly one so I can get some footage. I think I'll do that! Thanks for watching.
Another great video , as usual. You have an impressive collection of models and replicas as well. You build all those? Maybe you should do a video showcasing all your models some time? Just a quick overview of each one in the display.. a few words on each and a close up. Just a thought. Thanks fo all the time you put into this.
Amazing--you've just read my mind. Next year I'm going to start doing a big series showcasing the model replicas (10-15 videos--but I'm not making the series title public yet--you'll find out when I start advertising it in my upcoming videos later this year). I built all the replicas and have around 100 to feature. Each video will focus on a particular engine size with discussion (such as starting with a video or two on the 1,200 hp R-1830, talk, then for example showing the C-47/DC-3 and B-24 replicas representing planes powered by that engine and discussing all the other airframes it powered--then follow with actual footage of some of them in action. We would do follow-on videos on each more powerful engine category and panning the relevant aircraft models, and always try to put in as much real operational footage as possible. I may build some kind of "set" to serve as a backdrop for the replicas. Hearing from a loyal viewer like you makes me think that this concept just might work!
Kenneth Arrowsmith: Thanks much for your comments. It's always good to hear from 609th crews who were there. I wasn't at NKP (only 13 years old then) so I have to get most of my information from published (and other second hand sources) which are not always accurate as you know. They say -- perhaps incorrectly as you point out -- that the bomb bay was not utilized that much. I'll be sure to reference your comments and correction in the description section for this video.
@@AeroDinosaur I do not know what the bombs were called but they were small and several on each rack. I will see if I can find out what they were. Also the tip tanks were to be empty when landing.
@@AeroDinosaur Here is what the loaders told me. When we carried napalm on the wings we loaded frag clusters in the bomb bay. There were six 20 pound frags per rack. They could time it so that when the napalm ignited the six frag bombs exploded in the napalm. Other times we loaded two M32 thermite bombs (often called "funny bombs") and six of the M1A4 clustered. The funny bombs looked like a pale blue trash-can with fins on it. Funny bombs were the best truck convoy killers because it was an air burst bomb and spread little thermite bombs over a large area.
@@arrowsmith63 Thanks for following up and for the good info. I wish I knew you at the time I was making this documentary--would have wanted to do an interview with you which would have added a lot of credibility. This week I will incorporate your info with the written description of the video.
I worked at On Mark Aviation, Van Nuys as a young A&P mechanic in...1968?The B-26s sat out back and we had a gorgeous executive Douglas DC-7C in the hangar for extensive work. This was just before the upsetter, Bill Lear came along and everything changed.If you remember, Cessna even developed and flew the Model 620, 4-engine executive transport airplane...only made one and it got scrapped. Hard to even find good pictures of it now. Scrapping it was stupid.As to the editing, I'd really suggest more attention to sound editing. At times, the music almost overwhelms the voice. Nice video. I enjoyed it and I did hit "Like". =PC=
Thanks for your comment of 4 months ago, I overlooked it and just now saw it--sorry about that! I certainly agree with you on the music track in a few spots--I thought I had the sound track levels correct on those segments but obviously did not--and still I cringe about it. Glad you enjoyed the video anyway, and good to hear from someone who worked at On Mark! I don't remember Cessna's 4 engine 620, I'll look it up.
I know, we've gotten plenty of complaints about that--the original video had the sound mixed better, don't know why that music got so loud after uploading. We have since dropped the music overlap with narration, and most of the music altogether.
Just so you know, Special K (and your little model for that matter) is not a B-26K. It is an A-26A. How? Because of the paint scheme they have it painted in. The SEA scheme. Med. Green/dark green/tan. Those aircraft would not be painted that sheme until they were deployed to Thailand and when they were redisgnated A-26A. B-26K were painted a solid dark green over light grayish/white. A-26A were painted in SEA scheme like you see Special K painted in.
Thanks for this information. That was brought to our attention years ago by the president of the museum that operates the plane (Greatest Generation/Vintage Flying Museum). The CIA Congo operations retained the original B-26K designation. Because of Thai objections to "B" = "bombers" operating in their country, the designation was changed to A-26A for SEA operations, which is also the appropriate designation for our "little model" as you say.
The WWII B26 (called the B26 Marauder) was built by Martin, the later A26 (Invader) was built by Douglas, and was an evolution of the Douglas A20 Havoc. This video is of the Douglas A26. It is NOT a B26.
The B-26 was indeed prone to accidents, as its high power, high wing loading and high approach speeds necessitated lots of training and an absolute requirement to "fly by the numbers". It apparently also had some prop overspeed issues, and earned the dreaded "Widowmaker" reputation. However, its high speed and toughness also gave it one of the lowest combat loss ratios among all WWII aircraft. I guess you just had to survive the training...!
MY DAD FLEW IN THE B-26 ARMY AIR CORPS. BUT THIS IS A A-26 AND YOUR THING SAYS B-26K. THE B-26 HAD A MORE ROUNDED BODY AND STUBEY WINGS, THIS ARE TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNS, SORRY, I KNOW IT GETS CONFUSING MY DAD ALWAYS SHOOK HIS HEAD WHEN SOMEONE WOULD CALL AN A-26 A B-26. HE ALWAYS TOLD ME THE B-26 WAS A FLYING COFFIN OR A WIDOW MAKER. BUT HE WAS PROUD OF BEING A PART OF IT WHILE MY UNCLE FLEW B-24's
Thanks for checking us out and sharing about your dad. In WWII the USAAF had the Martin B-26 ("B'" for "Bomber) with the stubby wings you mention which had a bad safety record, especially for trainees. When Douglas introduced the subject twin-engine attack plane of similar size during WWII (and safer to fly) it was designated by the USAAF as the A-26 ("A" for "Attack). Because of its poor safety record, the Army retired all its Martin B-26s immediately after the war, and the newer, safer Douglas A-26 remained in service--a similar airplane-. But it was then re-designated as the "B-26." Fast forward to the 1960s with the On Mark conversions of the B-26, that came out (subject of our video) the converted planes were at first designated the "B-26K." However, when introduced to southeast Asia, the Thai government would not allow them to be based there because "B" stood for "Bomber", and they did not want "bombers" to be based in their territory. So, the "B-26K" designation for the conversion was changed back to "A-26" or "Attack" plane--just like in WWII--full circle. With the "A" or "Attack" A-26 designation, the Thai government allowed the On Mark conversions to be based in their territory. J.A. Reed
In defence of the Martin B-26 Marauder, it was always a hot rod, that required a higher level of skill from the pilot to fly. It did not have "bad flying characteristics" - it had flying characteristics consistent with being a very high performance aircraft, built to go as fast as possible. It was not designed to be the general purpose aircraft the Douglas A-26 was. It was heavy for its size, powerful, as slippery as an eel, and had high wing loading, consistent with its purpose of high speed. As a result,it was very unforgiving of low performance pilots. It needed to be flown at very precise speeds, particularly on landing where it had to be flown at at least 150 mph or 130 knots on short landing approach, and gently flared onto the runway at 120 mph / 104 knots - which is a much higher speed than most pilots were used to on other aircraft As the design was trying for the highest level of performance possible at the edge of the technology of the time, it was unforgiving of inexperience, ineptitude, incapacity or stupidity. The cost of the high speed was higher stalling speeds that go with it. Which is why when you put inexperienced pilots in it, do not train them sufficiently, or treat it with the respect that it needed - those inexperienced pilots did not live to become old pilots. With that being said - when those training problems were fixed, and some refinement of the early aircraft took place with slightly bigger wings, a slight change in the angle of attack of the wing, and bigger tail surfaces, the Marauder had the lowest loss rates of any US Bomber in WW2, and it fought in most of the theatres of war. In other words, if you were competent and respected the high performance nature of the beast - you had a better chance than any other bomber pilot or crew member flying other US aircraft of the time, to come home alive. The one in the National Air & 'Space Museum in Virginia is called "Flak Bait" - and this aircraft survived 207 operational missions over Europe, more than any other American aircraft during World War II. Personally, the fact that it brought you home alive the most, and that so many were made, brings home to me at least, that this was an excellent aircraft that simply required skill and respect to get the best out of it.
I agree 100% with your assessment of the Marauder. It had a lower casualty rate and a better combat safety record (especially with the bigger wing) than other bombers. There was little aerodynamically wrong with it. My understanding is that its early problems including its poor safety record were mostly due to 1) it being a "hot" airplane as you say with the highest wing loading and fastest approach speed ever for a bomber, 2) unproven early-version R-2800 B engines with many lingering teething problems, 3) inexperienced trainees at the controls, and in many cases, less experienced instructors in the airplane due to 4) the panicked urgency of war. This is a recipe for disaster when an engine quit on takeoff--a regular occurrence in early training (you know, "One a Day in Tampa Bay"). This caused the crews and squadrons to be skeptical about the airplane and otherwise be afraid of it. Jimmy Doolittle began to put their fears at rest when he did whirlwind demonstration tours with the plane, doing engine-out takeoffs, slow flight, and aerobatics--at low level. Nonetheless, despite an excellent combat record, the plane was rapidly retired after the war in favor of the similar, more forgiving Douglas A/B-26. This was mainly due to the higher risk associated with attaining consistently high pilot proficiencies with the Martin (everybody who flew it had to be far better than average), as well as type redundancy. Thanks for your excellent comments and for watching! J.A. Reed
No it was not a HOT ROD. Marauder's top speed was 287. An A-26 was faster... WAY FASTER, at over 355. The reason the Marauder was called the "Widow Maker" was because of its higher landing speed because of the high wing loading. The higher landing speed caused many experienced pilots to crash it on take offs and mainly landings. Anyway, the A-26 was conceived to replace the Marauder and the B-25, for which the Invader was better than both. Period.
@@AeroDinosaur "the plane was rapidly retired after the war in favor of the similar, more forgiving Douglas A/B-26." The reason was more than just forgiving, the A-26 was faster than the Marauder.. WAY FASTER. And it had a heavier firepower with its internal wing guns, and optional wing gun pod attachments and multipurpose interchangeable nose guns with 6 or 8 50 caliber machine guns and also ability to carry 37mm and 75mm cannons, could carry a heavier bombload and had better self defenses, plus its speed, at 355mph. No Marauder could carry that much at 287mph. The Invader was just better all around.
@@ILSRWY4 Respectfully, the Martin B-26 was a 1939 design, starting deliveries in 1941. The Douglas A-26 started development in 1942, and only started being delivered in numbers in 1943-early 1944. That might not sound like a lot, however in war time the pace of development in between was enormous. Which makes your comparison between the two unrealistic, and taken out of context of the times in which these aircraft flew. The A-26 did its best service later in Korea, and surprisingly, in Vietnam, which is reflective of it being a later generation aircraft than its Martin predecessor. The Martin B-26 was a hot rod for 1941, but not so much in 1945,
@@ILSRWY4 Thanks for the excellent summary! JA Reed.
At KRFD is an A-26 (former Vietnam survivor) owned by Courtesy Aircraft im a ferry pilot for them. I can say I e never flown the A-26 as there is not many left Airworthy however, other warbirds I have and at 52 this is a bucketlist of mine someday
Thanks for watching--you got me beat--as a pilot I never flew a warbird except for given the controls for awhile on a Stearman flight.
I bet the repaid for the door has not been fixed at the time of this video because there is an AD on the door opening in flight
Very detailed and informative video. In 1969 I was in the U.S. Air Force stationed at Takhli RTAFB. One night, a fellow airman and I were walking back to our shop and as we rounded a revetment one of these aircraft was parked on our ramp. Being an aviation nut I immediately recognized what it was. It must have just landed because the exhaust stacks were making the distinctive "tink tink" sound as they cooled down. The eight, .50s in the nose was an impressive sight. All these years I thought what I saw was an A-26, but now I don't know. I never did find out why it was at Takhli. It may have diverted from NKP due to a mechanical or weather. We had a CIA (excuse me I meant to say Air America) installation at one end of the field and aircraft associated with their mission usually parked on their ramp. I looked for it the following night, but it was gone. Before entering the USAF I worked at an airport and had the opportunity to tour an On Mark Marketeer, the executive conversion owned by the Magnolia Mobile Home Company. Very cool for the time.
Thanks for watching and your positive comments. I had heard of the A-26's occasionally diverting over to Takhli for various reasons--I understand the A26/B26K also provided a lot of air cover for CIA ground operations in Laos and the rest of SEA, so it looks like you were in the middle of it. I agree with you--all the On Mark conversions, both civil and military, were pretty cool!
@Kraals BADLANDS (1973) FILM by Malick on the late 50s Charlie Starkweather psycho killings in SD, there is the scene in the and @ an airport where the perp played by Martin Scheen is transported to his trial/execution in a corporate, leather-clad civilian executive Invader. IMNSHOAO (=in my not so humble of an opinion), 2 much of a luxury 4 such a citizen ; a box/ox car w no seats and not even a hole in the floor shouda been sufficient enuff - Soviet Zibirija style . . .a great period film w music kinda Springsteen s NEBRASKA style though not of the Ry Cooder Paris,Tx mode ....
"Welcome" to NATO (betw cholera & plague ...) 🇫🇮
Was at NKP airbase in Thailand when they were doing their Thing! Flew the A-1 69-70. Boo On You! Sandy's were initially 602 SOS FIREFLY's at NKP prior to Hobos and Zorros!
I'm always glad to hear from those who were there, and certainly glad you survived it! One of my favorite authors is Richard S. Drury who released his book "My Secret War" in the late 1970's. He flew A-1's out of NKP during the same 69-70 time period you did. Also, I apologize about leaving out the FIREFLY's. Incomplete research on my part.
I'm planning an A-1 Skyraider video for this channel and I would like to see if you'd be interested in a short phone interview sharing your A-1 flying experiences in '69-'70 out of NKP, to be featured in the documentary. If you are so interested please contact me at j.reed3930@sbcglobal.net -- otherwise no problem if not.
Was at NKP with VO 67 Navy 67 68.
Weren't the Hobos the 601st? I remember we'd call them the" six o' worst" jokingly of course.
Gorgeous aircraft!
Agreed!
What a magnificent specimen she is! Thanks for the chance to see her fly.
You bet, thanks for checking us out!
Really great video. I have always been a fan of the A/B-26 since I first saw them as a young boy when they were employed by the 183 TAC RECO Sqd of the MS ANG in 1953 at KHKS. It was real hot rod then. You mentioned that Special Kay had, at one time, been converted, or was to be converted into a fire bomber by someone in Georgia. In the early ‘70’s while a pilot for the Mississippi Forestry Commission, I had a trip to Macon, Ga., where our counterpart, the Georgia Forestry Commission people had a maintenance hangar for their large fleet of aircraft. I seem recall they used several TBM/F Avengers in a fire fighting role. As we taxied up, there were a couple B-26K’s that I was told they were going to use as fire bombers. I remember wondering if there was a way that I could wangle my way into that outfit and fly one of these wonderful beasts. However, my aviation career took a different turn and I never saw these airplanes again. Could one of these have been the ship that later became Special K? If so, a small world! Thanks again for a wonderful video.
Glad you enjoyed! Yes it is a small world on the B-26K's you saw in Macon. Probably a 100% chance that one of them you saw wound up being "Special Kay". Luckily, you didn't land your dream job of flying one, you probably wouldn't have ever been able to pay the rent. Thanks again for the complement!
yes Aircraft 679 and 640 we're both there in Macon Georgia, A/C-640 is now at Ellsworth Air force museum, also neither A/C were converted into Air Tankers.
@@robstuessy1292 I remember seeing those two at Macon in the early 70s. My parents would take me to visit the airport when we visited my sister when she and her husband were at Warner Robins. If I recall correctly there was a B-17 there at the time being operated by a company out of Dothan Alabama…….I always wondered what happened to those aircraft.
I worked on Kay when she was owned by Lynch Air Tankers. I was fortunate enough to get a couple rides in her in the right seat. The sound difference you mention has nothing to do with the engines. An R2800 sounds the same, regardless of the dash number. The sound difference you hear is the prop. The K model has those HUGE paddle blades that make a really different sound. Those engines and props were removed from an old Martin that sits at the Billings MT airport.
Special Kay is a truly beautiful plane, hope she flys for many years to come!!
Bill, sorry I missed your comment of 5 months ago on Special Kay. Thanks for your explanation on the engine sound differences. It must have been a lot of fun riding in the right seat!
Thank you AD for this great video. The A/B 26 Invader is a favorite of mine. It's said that the airplane likes to go fast and one would certainly think so. That laminar flow airfoil (see P-51 Mustang) makes for a fast airplane.
Agreed! Thanks for checking us out.
Awesome model collection.
Thanks, always been out of control, can't help myself!
A PRETTY LETHAL PRETTY LITTLE BIRD .. Thx 4 the detailed details. Been alwayzz a top fav of mine ...F7F being the other. A very nice Starliner on yr shelf. Metallic ? O er n naut 🇫🇮
Although I built most of my models, the Starliner was a one-piece diecast model--the only way you can get one. I also agree with you on the F7F-a great plane! Thanks for watching--J.A. Reed
Great times, Nkp 70' & 71' 56th sps K9.
I got an autographed copy of " My secret war" a truly great book. Although we never knew each other we were both there at the same time. Some great time at the "Fanny".
I'm glad you were able to find us and thanks for watching. Reaching military folks like you who were actually there is the most important thing to us. Also, "My Secret War" is one of my "top 5"--I've owned a hardbound copy since 1980--Drury is one of the greatest. Thanks for your service and THANKS AGAIN!
What a great video! I also like your impressive collection of model aircraft.
Thanks John--glad you enjoyed the program. I'm for sure a bit overboard on the aircraft models!
Thanks for all your hard work 👍
Yes and thanks for checking us out!
There is still one on display in Touson AZ!
Yes, at Pima Air Museum. I took extensive photos of it when it was still parked on desert sand there in 1987. Thought that was the last one I would ever see, much less fly! Thanks for checking us out!
And there is one at NM-USAF
A question: was there ever any thought to up engining the A/B 26 with Turbo props like the DC-3 Basler does???
Not to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. Thanks for watching. J.A. Reed.
@@AeroDinosaur thank you for the reply and video.
I do know that Kermit Weeks has one that is almost airworthy Steve Himton has one flight in out in Chino, CA
Thanks for all your comments and info! Yes, Kermit Weeks had one restored at Chino. Steve Hinton test-flew it and both canopy doors opened during the test flight--just like you said they would. A problem with the early A/B-26s. Got it back down OK.
Great video! One of my favorite WWII era aircraft. I'd heard they'd been used in this role, but had never seen one like this. I'd love to see a video on the C-123. My dad flew them in the 50's. His unit picked them up at the factory, and flew them back to New Jersey, and then on to France.
B-26 is one of my favorites too! I'd certainly like to do a video on the C-123 too, but need to contact the 1-2 organizations who fly one so I can get some footage. I think I'll do that! Thanks for watching.
@@AeroDinosaur thank you!
Oooh what a beauty!
Me think so too. Thanks!
Another great video , as usual.
You have an impressive collection of models and replicas as well. You build all those? Maybe you should do a video showcasing all your models some time? Just a quick overview of each one in the display.. a few words on each and a close up. Just a thought. Thanks fo all the time you put into this.
Amazing--you've just read my mind. Next year I'm going to start doing a big series showcasing the model replicas (10-15 videos--but I'm not making the series title public yet--you'll find out when I start advertising it in my upcoming videos later this year). I built all the replicas and have around 100 to feature. Each video will focus on a particular engine size with discussion (such as starting with a video or two on the 1,200 hp R-1830, talk, then for example showing the C-47/DC-3 and B-24 replicas representing planes powered by that engine and discussing all the other airframes it powered--then follow with actual footage of some of them in action. We would do follow-on videos on each more powerful engine category and panning the relevant aircraft models, and always try to put in as much real operational footage as possible. I may build some kind of "set" to serve as a backdrop for the replicas. Hearing from a loyal viewer like you makes me think that this concept just might work!
@@AeroDinosaur Sounds great.. looking forward to it.
I always called them A26Ks just so they aren't mistaken for the Martin aircraft. Probably adding to confusion just the same.
Well, you can join me and everybody else as a member of the "B-26 Confusion Club." That is a big club! J.A. Reed
We only put 100 gal in each wing tip tank and the bomb bay always had bombs in it. I was 609 May 69 until they left.
Kenneth Arrowsmith: Thanks much for your comments. It's always good to hear from 609th crews who were there. I wasn't at NKP (only 13 years old then) so I have to get most of my information from published (and other second hand sources) which are not always accurate as you know. They say -- perhaps incorrectly as you point out -- that the bomb bay was not utilized that much. I'll be sure to reference your comments and correction in the description section for this video.
@@AeroDinosaur I do not know what the bombs were called but they were small and several on each rack. I will see if I can find out what they were. Also the tip tanks were to be empty when landing.
@@arrowsmith63 Please do, I'd be very interested! Thanks for all your feedback.
@@AeroDinosaur Here is what the loaders told me.
When we carried napalm on the wings we loaded frag clusters in the bomb bay. There were six 20 pound frags per rack. They could time it so that when the napalm ignited the six frag bombs exploded in the napalm.
Other times we loaded two M32 thermite bombs (often called "funny bombs") and six of the M1A4 clustered. The funny bombs looked like a pale blue trash-can with fins on it. Funny bombs were the best truck convoy killers because it was an air burst bomb and spread little thermite bombs over a large area.
@@arrowsmith63 Thanks for following up and for the good info. I wish I knew you at the time I was making this documentary--would have wanted to do an interview with you which would have added a lot of credibility. This week I will incorporate your info with the written description of the video.
I worked at On Mark Aviation, Van Nuys as a young A&P mechanic in...1968?The B-26s sat out back and we had a gorgeous executive Douglas DC-7C in the hangar for extensive work. This was just before the upsetter, Bill Lear came along and everything changed.If you remember, Cessna even developed and flew the Model 620, 4-engine executive transport airplane...only made one and it got scrapped. Hard to even find good pictures of it now. Scrapping it was stupid.As to the editing, I'd really suggest more attention to sound editing. At times, the music almost overwhelms the voice. Nice video. I enjoyed it and I did hit "Like". =PC=
Thanks for your comment of 4 months ago, I overlooked it and just now saw it--sorry about that! I certainly agree with you on the music track in a few spots--I thought I had the sound track levels correct on those segments but obviously did not--and still I cringe about it. Glad you enjoyed the video anyway, and good to hear from someone who worked at On Mark! I don't remember Cessna's 4 engine 620, I'll look it up.
@29:27
“Carl, see if you can find what’s wrong..”
“It ain’t got no gas in it.”
Great video but the background music blocks out large portions of the narration.
I know, we've gotten plenty of complaints about that--the original video had the sound mixed better, don't know why that music got so loud after uploading. We have since dropped the music overlap with narration, and most of the music altogether.
Just so you know, Special K (and your little model for that matter) is not a B-26K. It is an A-26A. How? Because of the paint scheme they have it painted in. The SEA scheme. Med. Green/dark green/tan. Those aircraft would not be painted that sheme until they were deployed to Thailand and when they were redisgnated A-26A. B-26K were painted a solid dark green over light grayish/white. A-26A were painted in SEA scheme like you see Special K painted in.
Thanks for this information. That was brought to our attention years ago by the president of the museum that operates the plane (Greatest Generation/Vintage Flying Museum). The CIA Congo operations retained the original B-26K designation. Because of Thai objections to "B" = "bombers" operating in their country, the designation was changed to A-26A for SEA operations, which is also the appropriate designation for our "little model" as you say.
The WWII B26 (called the B26 Marauder) was built by Martin, the later A26 (Invader) was built by Douglas, and was an evolution of the Douglas A20 Havoc.
This video is of the Douglas A26. It is NOT a B26.
The B-26 was indeed prone to accidents, as its high power, high wing loading and high approach speeds necessitated lots of training and an absolute requirement to "fly by the numbers". It apparently also had some prop overspeed issues, and earned the dreaded "Widowmaker" reputation. However, its high speed and toughness also gave it one of the lowest combat loss ratios among all WWII aircraft. I guess you just had to survive the training...!
Ah crap - he explains all this AFTER all this typing!
AKA Naked Phanny.
You got it!
MY DAD FLEW IN THE B-26 ARMY AIR CORPS. BUT THIS IS A A-26 AND YOUR THING SAYS B-26K. THE B-26 HAD A MORE ROUNDED BODY AND STUBEY WINGS, THIS ARE TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNS, SORRY, I KNOW IT GETS CONFUSING MY DAD ALWAYS SHOOK HIS HEAD WHEN SOMEONE WOULD CALL AN A-26 A B-26. HE ALWAYS TOLD ME THE B-26 WAS A FLYING COFFIN OR A WIDOW MAKER. BUT HE WAS PROUD OF BEING A PART OF IT WHILE MY UNCLE FLEW B-24's
Thanks for checking us out and sharing about your dad. In WWII the USAAF had the Martin B-26 ("B'" for "Bomber) with the stubby wings you mention which had a bad safety record, especially for trainees. When Douglas introduced the subject twin-engine attack plane of similar size during WWII (and safer to fly) it was designated by the USAAF as the A-26 ("A" for "Attack). Because of its poor safety record, the Army retired all its Martin B-26s immediately after the war, and the newer, safer Douglas A-26 remained in service--a similar airplane-. But it was then re-designated as the "B-26." Fast forward to the 1960s with the On Mark conversions of the B-26, that came out (subject of our video) the converted planes were at first designated the "B-26K." However, when introduced to southeast Asia, the Thai government would not allow them to be based there because "B" stood for "Bomber", and they did not want "bombers" to be based in their territory. So, the "B-26K" designation for the conversion was changed back to "A-26" or "Attack" plane--just like in WWII--full circle. With the "A" or "Attack" A-26 designation, the Thai government allowed the On Mark conversions to be based in their territory. J.A. Reed
Kill the music ,this spoils a great video
We’ve known about that annoyance for years and once it is in there it cannot be removed. We don’t use music anymore.