Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

GOT: The Douglas B-23

GOTTHREAD

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined 14 Years and 18 Days
  • 297 topics

Posted 05 February 2007 - 01:05 AM

Hi friends, one of the aircraft on Greg's list is the Douglas B-23. As it often happens with American aircraft which went in service of the US army or navy air forces, the documentation on the net is very good, and in English language. There is one site out of Joe Baugher's homepage, it is exhaustive, and I don't have much to add:

http://www.joebaughe...bombers/b23.html

The only thing for me is if the negative judgement of the B-23 is justified. My standard book tells the following performances:

B-23: 454 kph (engines 2 x 1.622 hp)

B-25: 438 kph (engines 2 x 1.724 hp)

B-26: 455 kph (engines 2 x 2.028 hp)

B-25 and B-26 may wear dorsal turrets, but equipped with stronger engines, the comparison is, in my eyes, not unfavorable for the B-23. Also, there is nothing exact told about worse flight characteristics of the B-23. The B-25 suffered from stability problems, the B-26 from too high take-off and landing speeds. The B-23 derives from the good hearted DC-3/C-47, so what can go wrong here?

Finally, you know that I like to provide you with some nice pictures (all processed a bit using XnView, as usual):

#1: Hard to get a big and good one in camouflage. John Smith, head of airwarfareforum.com, gave me this one:
AWF2.jpg

#2: From Wikimedia:
wikimedia.jpg


#3: From a website called "Warbirdregistry":
warbirdregistry.jpg

#4: Received from airwarfareforum contributor *Jarda Rankl*:
Rankl1-b.jpg

#5: dto. These trials are mentioned in Joe Baugher's site. The goal is to retrieve a landed glider. Maneuvres like this were successfully performed in Normandy, although the tug used to be a C-47.
Rankl2.jpg

#6: This picture is from Flickr.com and shows the aircraft displayed in the McChord museum.
flickrmccord.jpg

Contrary to its contenders, the B-23 had a much longer operational life, as it was converted back to civil use, now called UC-67 (#7):
e28b3a52.jpg

See much more nice (and couloured) pictures of the UC-67 on airliners.net!

Regards, RT



#2 Double T

Double T

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 23 Days
  • 82 topics

Posted 05 February 2007 - 03:30 AM

RoTec:
Good subject and excellent photos.
I admit that I was not aware of this aircraft previously... or if so, it failed to register with me. Thank you for sharing.

My first impression?
It looks woefully underarmed. It reminds me more of a Heinkel 111 than either a Mitchell or Marauder in comparison. (Overlooking the radial-engines of course.) Flex-gun in plexi-nose, no-power turrets. Though it adds a sting in the tail that was lacking in the Heinkel... the '111 at least had a flex-gun in the belly.

As to the B-26 Marauder, I seem to recall they added span to the wings which improved take-off and landing characteristics... and it finished the war as the safest twin-engined bomber with the fewest overall crew-losses.

The Mitchell?
First to bomb Japans' mainland... it was one of Americas favorites... for more than sentimental reasons. The B-25D-J strafer/skipbomber as used in anti-shipping roles wreaked nothing but devastation on Japanese naval and land forces. How can you not love a menacing mouth, or beak painted on the nose, and punctuated by more .50 caliber machine-guns than seems possible?

Tim

#3 montanamotor

montanamotor

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 5 Months and 27 Days
  • 39 topics

Posted 06 February 2007 - 01:01 AM

Hi, RT,

from certain angles, it looks like a twin-engined B17. Cool. Watch THIS tailfin! But this nose strongly reminds me of a FW 59 Weihe.

Good work, RT!

Cheers!

Montana

#4 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 24 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 06 February 2007 - 04:17 AM

quote:Originally posted by Double T

As to the B-26 Marauder, I seem to recall they added span to the wings which improved take-off and landing characteristics...


I believe they added the span, and at the same tome added more weight so that in the end the wing loading went up!

What they ended up doing to improve landing characteristics was to change the angle of incidence of the wings - this also had the effect of knocking off a significant amount of speed from the maximum.

#5 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined 14 Years and 18 Days
  • 297 topics

Posted 06 February 2007 - 02:10 PM

Thanks for the laud, friends! :) And more to follow! ;)

Regards, RT

#6 Corsarius

Corsarius

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 3 Months and 16 Days
  • 19 topics

Posted 06 February 2007 - 09:24 PM

quote:Originally posted by Double T
As to the B-26 Marauder, I seem to recall they added span to the wings which improved take-off and landing characteristics...


I recall that when the Marauder first went to the squadrons, it's wingspan was so short they called it 'the baltimore whore' because it had 'no visible means of support'

#7 Trexx

Trexx

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,188 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 29 Days
  • 62 topics

Posted 08 February 2007 - 03:48 AM

The plane was a piece of crap. Let's be honest.

#8 Trexx

Trexx

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,188 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 29 Days
  • 62 topics

Posted 08 February 2007 - 03:51 AM

quote:Originally posted by Double TB-25D-J strafer/skipbomber as used in anti-shipping roles wreaked nothing but devastation on Japanese naval and land forces. How can you not love a menacing mouth, or beak painted on the nose, and punctuated by more .50 caliber machine-guns than seems possible?...


Now were talkin' ! It's a lovable beast! Now, imagine them heading in over the beach at 25 feet, ten abreast and blazing away. There's your 'shock & awe' ! [:P]

#9 Double T

Double T

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 23 Days
  • 82 topics

Posted 08 February 2007 - 09:12 PM

Trexx...
I've read stories of B-25 strafers returning to base with palm-fronds stuffed into their engine cowlings.
We're talking "down on the deck... and in your face!"

Tim

#10 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 10 Months and 10 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 08 February 2007 - 10:31 PM

Hi Double T and Wuzak,

Double T:

quote:As to the B-26 Marauder, I seem to recall they added span to the wings which improved take-off and landing characteristics... and it finished the war as the safest twin-engined bomber with the fewest overall crew-losses.

This is true; They did, and it did.

Wuzak:

quote:I believe they added the span, and at the same tome added more weight so that in the end the wing loading went up!

What they ended up doing to improve landing characteristics was to change the angle of incidence of the wings - this also had the effect of knocking off a significant amount of speed from the maximum.

Interesting. I'll have to do a little reading on this. I know that what Double T says is correct. The improvement in takeoff/landing performance may have been due to a combination of these things.

I grew up in Baltimore--about 10 miles from the Martin plant which was located in Middle River, MD. I used to ride my bike there to see what I could see. There was always something going on, and there were always interesting planes sitting around on the airport ramps.

In later years, I flew out of Martin Airport which, by that time, had been taken over by the state and used for civilian flying. The military and the Civil Air Patrol maintained a presence there, however. The 175 FS (formerly the 104 FS) and the 135 Tactical Airlift Group still fly out of there. I believe that Group II of the MD. Wing, CAP still has its HQ there.

There is also a nice aviation museum located in some of the old Martin Co. buildings.

Regards,
Lightning





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GOTTHREAD

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users