The North American XB-28 Dragon - Mini Superfort

Even before the B-25 entered service, the USAAC wanted work to begin on its replacement. And North American seem to have succeeded with the XB-28.
Pity the specification proved to flawed...
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatters.online/
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/ednashmilitarymatters
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

[@SanderAnderon]

it is just staggering to consider all these great designs (like the Dragon) going no further than the scrap heap, even more the crushed dreams of the visionary designers behind them. Thanks again Ed for showcasing yet another lost prototype that many of us never even heard of.

[@kdrapertrucker]

It might have been great, or it could have been mediocre. Remember the B-32? Not many do, basically it was to the liberator what the B-29 was to the B-17. Except the B-32 only saw limited service and never got the defensive armament to work, ended up needing a new tail design, and had even more problems then the early B-29s.

[@gordonhall9871]

politics

[@mikepette4422]

but its not all wasted technology. the things they learned would get put to use in future jet designs

[@jamesricker3997]

The Dragon was also compeating with the A-26

[@brucegoodwin634]

Spot on, Randy!

[@MM22966]

It's like a Superfortress and a Marauder had a baby together! Thanks for finding this, Nash!

[@wormyboot]

I really like how you display statistics in your videos. I don't care if you use metric or imperial. Say one; print the other. It makes it easier to relax and enjoy the video. I wish more content creators did this. Your videos really set the standard.

[@robertmeegan3354]

Very nice. All of the medium and light bombers are under-reported (except possibly the Wellington). These were fascinating aircraft with insanely courageous crews. Thank you for creating content on them.

[@scootergeorge7089]

The A-20 Havoc was an outstanding aircraft as well. An early multi-mission aircraft.

[@robertbalazslorincz8218]

@@scootergeorge7089 was about to say, beat me to it. Indeed.

[@randalldunkley1042]

The aircraft still exists in the Pacific Ocean off of Laguna Beach , California having crashed due to an inflight fire 4 August ,1943. The crew bailing out successfully.

[@joshkamp7499]

Properly excited for this one! This has always been one of my favorites. The 'other' WWII US bomber aircraft seem oddly forgotten, even among late piston plane enthusiasts. Keep up the absolutely stellar work sir, it is greatly appreciated.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

*salute*

[@Nafeels]

The Dragon looked years more advanced than its contemporaries. Heck, if the Double Wasp radials were to be replaced with a turboprop it would look suspiciously like a Fokker Friendship or similar regional turboprops from the 60s.

[@scootergeorge7089]

I do not see it being greatly better than the Martin B-26. Other than service ceiling and remote defensive armament, what? Turboprops? Why not go turbojet a la the NAA B-45? And the mission of a high altitude, precision medium bomber was a non starter to begin with. Now if neither the B-25 or B-26 did not exist, the B-28 would have been a viable option, but only if adapted to the roll of low level tactical bomber.

[@shawnmiller4781]

I see a lot of the later A26 invader in the design

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@shawnmiller4781 - They were both designed by Ed Heinemann at Douglas Aircraft Company. He also designed the SBD Dauntless, AD Skyraider, A3D Skywarrier, F3D Skynight and others including the A4D Skyhawk, AKA Scooter. Worked on them in the USN.

[@Nafeels]

@@scootergeorge7089 It’s also noted that early Marauders tend to have dangerous landing characteristics which lead to numerous airframe and aircrew losses before a tail redesign would change that. Also, since the top brass within the USAAF realized how lagged their were for turbojet development it naturally goes full priority, then came experimental piston engines and their upgrades. In fact, turboprops wouldn’t be a thing for many countries until long after WWII had ended because attaching a shaft directly to a spinning turbine to spin massive propellers turned out to be a massive engineering challenge. Some late-war piston engines like the R-4360 were modified to have extra compressors in the exhaust paths, which essentially turns it into somewhat of a hybrid, Frankensteined proto-turboprop.

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@Nafeels - The problem with the B-26A was not the stall characteristics as much as the high stall speed. Pilots fresh from flying docile trainers were thrust into what was a "hot ship." In early 1942, the aircraft was grounded as unsafe while at the same time pilots flying them into combat in the SW Pacific against heavily defended targets like Reboul shouted for more Marauders as it was the best aircraft available. Speed was it's defense. Martin increased the size of the wing but stall speed was barely affected because the US Army Air Force requested more equipment, that brought wing loading and stall speed back to what it was with the A model. What turned things around was pilot training. The B-26 ended the war with the lowest loss rate of all bombers used over Europe. Undoubtedly, the B-26 was a superior aircraft though. It fought in WWII, Korea, and even Vietnam.

[@TimTheInspector]

These probably would have been quite sought after on the surplus market as executive transports if they’d gone into production

[@fritz7th77thanddadjust8]

My dad worked for Boeing before ww2 in the red barn. He worked on the b29 prototype. He enlisted Dec 26th 1941. When he was over seas people thought he was crazy when he talked about the b29.. lol they couldn't fathom its size

[@dannycalley7777]

F 777 .................Dad got the last laugh ...........And my Pop was damn proud they made a B-29 .........he was going to be on the initial invasion of Japan !!!!

[@MrDgwphotos]

They let someone in the aviation industry enlist?

[@fritz7th77thanddadjust8]

He did have a deferment yes. But him and his brother both enlisted. Dad was sent almost strait overseas to Australia then to port Moresby. He was then sent to a secret front line emergency field. He participated in a couple of landings in the 3rd and 4th waves as it was top priority to get the airfields up and going. He was a structural and skin specialist. Who later became a plastics specialist fixing canopies and turrets etc. When asked about basic training the had none. Just sent to the front as soon as possible. As there was a huge shortage of trained personnel. His brother was sent to Africa and participated in the battle of casserine pass. And ended the war in Bavaria.

[@xfirehurican]

BRAVO ZULU on your excellent account of this airplane. Anyway you slice it, the XB-28, along with scores and scores of 'developmental' combat aircraft, technological advancements in flight and war-fighting systems generally found their way into future military and civilian air and ground platforms. The Dragon done her duty!

[@davidgifford8112]

Wasn’t away of the XB28 so thank you for the review. The history of aviation and other endeavours are littered with examples of superb realisations of specifications required by the intended user, only to be discarded primarily because the specification itself was I’ll conceived. While politics always plays it’s part, the Space Shuttle is a more recent example (pushbacks welcome).

[@Riccardo_Silva]

Magnificent plane! It's disconcerting how US could produce formidable prototypes that were later dropped, while in Gemany and more so here in Italy the designers struggled to put on the line models that were barely decent, and in the case of Italy, in very little number. My great uncle used to work as a designer for Macchi in those days. He told me he realized the war was lost the day he saw a B-17 that crash landed in northern Italy and compared the quality of its technology with that of our aero industry.

[@eze8970]

The US dwarfed all countries with it's almost unlimited resources, no one could keep up to be fair. The B29 was next generation over all piston engine bomber aircraft. For the Axis, I'd imagine a lot of their limited resources went into the Army, as this was the largest service.

[@Riccardo_Silva]

@@eze8970Well, yes and no. Actually, the air force was the most "fascist" (so they used to call it) of the three services. So, it might seem a little odd that it was so obsolescent as to manage to do so little, when compared with the fleet, that blocked the mediterranean for three years with its very presence, and the army, that fought bravely on every front, notwithstanding its lack of modern equipment and sufficient supplies. Apart from our SM 79s torpedo bombers , whose pilots did incredible feats (even though the high brass of the service tried to prevent the development of the torpedo bomber specialty!), the courage of the italian airmen had little chances to bear results. No up to date technology at their disposal. Of course, Italy's industries could not compare with US' , but, if it werent for that stupid dictatorship, if those twenty years that preceded the war had not been wasted by mussolini and his gang, italian researchers and engineers could have come up with some very clever products. BTW, probably in that case Italy and US would have been allied!

[@eze8970]

@@Riccardo_Silva Thank you for your reply. Italy, could & did produce world leading equipment (like the first airship to reach the north pole, & Schneider trophy planes etc), but like most industries in Europe, had smaller manufacturers, in direct competition & not speaking to each other, dispersing the overall design effort. Their battleship guns had good range, but being 'hand made' in the production process, had different tolerances, so aiming accurate shells from guns of the same turret was a problem. The Italians could make exquisite individual items, but mass production processes hadn't been truly adopted. This was still going on in the 1960's when Ferrari took on Ford at the French Le Mans road race. It was the only Americans (& Soviets) who really took on mass production before WW2. Being bigger also gives more influence with neutral suppliers around the world. Due to the war blockade, the Italians were denied some of the rarer metals/ materials/fuels to help design & manufacture. Their equipment was Ok for 1940, but design moves on very quickly in war, & their industrial capacity, already small, just couldn't keep up, obviously not helped by Allied bombing raids. Low serviceability in aircraft, & fighters not heavily armed also didn't help. However brave the Italian armed forces could be, their mainly outdated weapons didn't help morale. Italy's rearmaments programme was due to be complete in 1943 (on a peace time basis), the Fall of France caught Mussolini off guard, & with hindsight, he committed too early. Mussolini did actually increase some production, & promote industry (like the Schneider planes). Once war began, the Germans would have taken whatever materials were available, & Italy probably didn't envision sending troops to Russia either, another drain on it's limited resources. Italy on the side of the Allies in 1939, or staying neutral is an interesting 'what might have been' though.

[@Riccardo_Silva]

@@eze8970 I'm afraid Italy would have been easily defeated by the wehrmacht if it suited them. About the V. Veneto class' 15 inch guns, i gathered on Nathan Okun's site, NavWeaps, that they were actually quite accurate: the dispersion was mainly due (cfr. Santoni, Alberto et al.) to the wide tolerances allowed in the making of the propellant charges.

[@eze8970]

@@Riccardo_Silva Thank you for your reply. If Italy had been on the Allied side, a completely different story (anywhere from 1935-1940). Lots of extra French divisions in France, & Germans spread far thinner, having to attack Italy through Alpine passes. Extra British forces also available for France & Italy (altho may have been sent to Far East). Yugoslavia & Greece more likely to go Allied earlier. Balkans more likely to stay neutral, French morale would be higher. Germany may not even had taken over Austria & Czechoslovakia. Soviet Russia waiting to attack, altho Hitler may well still have invaded Poland & do the Nazi Soviet Non Aggression Pact. Nationalist Spain may not have received any German aid, only Italian. Germany would be in a worse position than 1914. I'd think that Hitler wouldn't have gambled so much, & actually it would have been the Allies watching Nazi Germany fight the Soviet Union (either Hitler invading or the Soviets invading). Even if France had fallen, British forces would still be in Italy. Mussolini may have sought peace (even switched sides). Thank you for info on propellants, it makes sense, altho seems odd the easiest part of firing a shell would be so bad. I believe my info came from Drachfinel videos. Good to see things from the Italian perspective, as usually things seen from other countries view.

[@johndavey72]

Interesting that the Wooden Wonder had a greater ceiling and payload Ed. But you have to say this was a cery atractive aircraft . Thamks Ed

[@chuckcawthon3370]

Outstanding Presentation Sir. Never heard of this plane until today. Well Done.

[@bigblue6917]

In the spring of 43 the Germans believing that they were on the way to winning the war cancelled many military projects. Especially those which were for the defence of Germany. Amongst those projects cancelled was the Enzian. It was a smaller pilotless version of the Me-163 but was a radioguided ground launched anti-aircraft missile with a 500 kg, 1,100 lb, warhead. You can imagine what that would do if one or two of those had exploded in formation of USAAF B-17s. If it had gone into production then maybe the XB-28 would have been looked at again.

[@375GTB]

NAA also had the earlier Douglas B-23 Dragon experience to look at, IT even looked rather like a twin R-2600 engined B-17. And it did get built and used during WWII Stateside, for training and coastal patrols in small numbers. It also had our very first (cramped) tail gun position. One B-23 was prized by Howard Hughes as his personal transport. One example resides at the Air Force Museum Wright-Patt... J.C.

[@markgranger9150]

Also one at the old air force base in Atwater California

[@jagreb]

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing!

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

Counter-rotating engines. Nice. (This kind of thing is important for single-engine handling: That is why they could go with a single vertical stabilizer rather than the draggy twin tail layout, without making it ridiculously large/tall.)

[@zekevaltz9843]

Except for one key point - the props both rotate with the outer blade descending. In critical situations (engine out at low altitude and low airspeed), the descending blade makes more thrust than the ascending blade. This is called P factor. Counter rotated engines are superior for performance and handling when the inboard blade is descending on both engines. When counter rotated engines are arranged like this plane, and like the production version of the P-38, the arrangement is worse than having them both rotate the same direction.

[@PhantomP63]

In the case of the P-38, making both engines critical reduced the takeoff roll substantially. The Lightning and this Dragon have the thrust line below the wing- it would be interesting to see how the prop wash affects airflow over the wing in a wind tunnel or simulation.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Kudos Ed 👍👍 many thanx.

[@darrellid]

Good-looking bird, as were most US twin-engined bombers (A-20, A-26, B-25, B-26, Ventura, etc.). The moment you said it would have a pressurized cabin, I knew what the reasons for its "failure" would be. Unnecessarily complex.

[@joeschenk8400]

Another obscure one that I had never heard of....thanks for the post and you can teach this old dog a new trick!

[@ypaulbrown]

Very nice slow pans and push-ins on the edits....Bravo, Paul down in Orlando Florida

[@mikearmstrong8483]

I find it odd that the plane was named the Dragon, as that name had been assigned to the Douglas B-23 developed only a few years before, and which was still in service in limited numbers as this one was being developed.

[@wills2140]

6:42 my dad enjoyed seeing the B - 26 flying training and missions over Central Florida. He and a British friend would occasionally reminisce about their exploits and how often they saw all the different aircraft flying, from all over Florida. He served there mid to late WWII and would eventually return to meet my mom here, after returning home to Chicago, twice lol ( where I was born ). We would all also return to Central Florida in 1981, and stay. r. i. p. William W. Sanford & Anne P. Sanford

[@jeffreymcdonald8267]

No mention of the B-25 (or the A-20) being turned into a gunship would be complete without the mention of Paul "Pappy" Gunn. He was the inventor, innovator and test pilot of these new platforms and their role in ground attack and anti shipping. A good book on his life and accomplishments is the book, "Indestructible : One Man's Rescue Mission That Changed The Course Of WW2", by John R. Bruning. He has to be one of the most overlooked combat aviators in history. Great book.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks Mr Ed 👍 Shoe🇺🇸

[@sealove79able]

I have never heard of this plane. An excellent video. Who knows how it would deal with jet powered planes. B29s had that experience. Too bad it was not made a standard bomber due to a war time rush.

[@375GTB]

This experience led to the excellent NAA A/B-26 Invader Which had many of the XB-28s features slimmed down and minus the unneeded pressurization The A-26 was well received by all who used it Later WWII, Korea, the Cuban invasion, and Vietnam wars.... So the development money was not wasted..... J.C.

[@mochabear88]

Enjoyed the steerman video and this one

[@maxrudder6091]

I'm not sure if anyone's interested, but the shot at 8:22 in front of the hangar with the white mission revival style tower on the corner is where the FedEx facility on the south side of LAX is now located. That was back when it was Mines Field.

[@oldesertguy9616]

What a beautiful plane. It just looked fast.

[@johnwatson3948]

The periscopic gunsights were a popular idea and showed up in other designs of that time - were reportedly abandoned after live testing showed they caused vertigo and nausea when operated.

[@m0ther_bra1ned12]

If a B25 and a B26 had a passionate night together...

[@sr7129]

The B stands for Busted early

[@m0ther_bra1ned12]

B-28 Pullout.

[@johnwriter8234]

Lol..I see what ya did there !!

[@shawnmiller4781]

I see a lot of A-20 and layer A-26 influence and similarities

[@danielwalker1991]

Say what? 😆

[@jackroutledge352]

Fascinating! This is a really good example of where the aircraft is perfectly fine (superlative even), but the requirements are I'll thought out. Aeronautical history is absolutely littered with examples (TSR2) springs to mind.

[@MikeBracewell]

Great video Mr Nash, always look forward to them. Looks like the Dragon could have been a real winner & for 1942, a very advanced design. Such a shame it never entered production, but totally understandable.

[@allangibson8494]

Unfortunately by 1942 the Dragon was behind the curve already - jet bombers were already being designed in Britain and Germany…

[@alfrede.newman6626]

Nice.. good job 👍😎

[@haveaknifeday]

Beautiful, put into the friends zone and then forgotten

[@jamesroets800]

I've never heard of this aircraft! Great video and a real shame it was never put into production. The planform looks like it would have been great for either turboprops or jets.

[@johnwriter8234]

Such a BEAUTIFUL Aircraft

[@grumblesa10]

A fully pressurized aircraft and remote turrets in 1942! That is almost bleeding edge tech for the time. (Though my Dad who was a B29 FE would say it was also bleeding edge tech in 1944-45...)

[@EstorilEm]

Such a beautiful plane, the cockpit windshield reminds me of NA’s X-15 actually… can’t believe those are R-2800s either, the cowls and props almost look like 4360’s.

[@Redhand1949]

Never heard of this one! I also confused it with the Douglas B-23 Dragon. Never heard of a situation before where the USAAF had two different aircraft of the same class with the same popular name.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

There was also XB-21 Dragon! I'm tempted to do a "curse of the dragon" video 😂

[@Redhand1949]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Definitely. There are a few B-23s still flying, too.

[@allangibson8494]

@@Redhand1949 The B-23 was easier to maintain long term given the number of parts it shared with the C-47…

[@shawnmiller4781]

Dragon vs. Dragoon

[@christopherandersch1299]

How about the B-26, 1 made by Martin, and the other by and the other by Douglas. One vanished after the war, and the other served in 2 more

[@shawnmiller4781]

I wonder how much influence the XB-28 had on the A-26 Invader. You can see a lot of family resemblance

[@aaronlopez492]

As usual the UAAC gives a contract to manufacturer..... then they build it, it works fine. But the brass comes back later with "Never mind guys we're going in a very different direction". 😡 Thanks Ed.

[@butchs.4239]

I'll agree it seems wasteful in hindsight, but prototype contracts gave the design staff something to do while the production side was busy building whatever they were currently making. Oftentimes things learned with the prototypes that weren't adopted still ended up being incorporated into later variants of the types that saw large scale production.

[@chuckp8705]

Interesting video. Another aircraft I had not heard of before. Thanks. I always thought the cannon equipped B-25 was interesting. I also like the version with 8 nose mounted .50 caliber guns. Along with the 4 fixed guns firing forward, 12 guns on target would be a lot of bullets.

[@malcaniscsm5184]

It was also a phenomenal amount of heat, and apparently many crews ended up removing some of the .50s

[@bluetopguitar1104]

Great video on a rare subject. Thanks.

[@pavelskrylnikov9658]

It gives me Ilyushin Il-28 vibes, except for props. And the number only ads to the similarity.

[@fooman2108]

The 75 in the Mitchell was loathed by the ground Crews! Every time it was fired Cruise had to retighten every nut Bolt & Screw from the wing spars forward. I was reading that the most experienced 75 mm Mitchell fired less than 100 rounds in combat, before having the gun yanked out and replaced by a pair of 50 caliber guns. Which was the standard refit.

[@ronroche3138]

I'd have loved to be in the right seat of one of these prototypes. It'd have been brilliant!

[@Rich77UK]

I love the B25. Awesome bomber...even for the yanks!

[@gordonhall9871]

needed both

[@randyminnick5031]

Thank you kindly, sir, for another excellent and informative video! Can't wait to get the rest of them!!!

[@billnu]

That is a good looking machine.

[@HootOwl513]

Thanks for the video Ed. While I was aware of the XB-28, I was unaware of its complexities like pressurization and remote barbettes... In fact, I was puzzled why NAA would follow on the Mitchell with essentially a B-26 Marauder? Are you saying Martin copied North American's advanced design? I read where a B-25 was tried with a pair of R-2800 powerplants. Company test pilots were enthusiastic about he extra power. Then an Air Corps test pilot heard about it: ''Oh yeah. Lemme see what this baby can do...'' And he proceeded to fly the wings off it. Literally. Total tragedy. No R-2800 upgrade for the Twenty-Five. But the Marauder was designed around the R-2800, so it had a different set of problems, but underpower wasn't one of them. I saw a wartime USAAF training film about the B-26 Airplane, and the test pilot took one off, flew the pattern, and landed on only one engine.

[@dyer2cycle]

...from the first time I ever saw a photograph of this aircraft, I thought, "Oh, North American must have decided Martin had the best shape for a medium bomber, after all"...mini Superfort?..to me, it looks very much like a mid-wing B-26 Marauder...cylindrical, streamlined cigar-shaped fuselage, single tail, elevators with pronounced dihedral, similar looking cockpit...it even had the B-26's engines!...I love the B-25 Mitchell, but I have always REALLY loved the Marauder!...it always seemed to be overshadowed by the B-25, much like the B-24 was always overshadowed by the B-17..it would have really been interesting if the 4 engine B-33 Super Marauder had actually been built!....

[@yes_head]

Nice one, Ed. Although I can't imagine a B-28 in service would have had a very long career. The allies already had an embarrassment of riches when it came to lower level, 2-engine bomber/attack planes, and the high-altitude bombing role was clearly going to the B-29. Plus, the Bomber Mafia's doctrine was coming under serious scrutiny by the time this would have gone into production. I just can't imagine we would have fielded a medium-weight version of the B-29.

[@jjsoko6393]

Great video of a great kite.

[@drawn2myattention641]

I remember as a teenager first discovering this beautiful aircraft in the pages of a 1980s AirClassics magazine, and how horrified I was at the phrase, “terminal dive” used to describe its fate.

[@sreed8570]

Its still amazes me how high they were able to fly with I/C engines. The airs real dam thin up there. Turbo's and superchargers really made all the difference.

[@whiplash8277]

Was a beautiful aircraft.

[@m.streicher8286]

Dragon, such a cool and obvious name for a plane.

[@grahamnash9794]

At that time, the US produced some very pretty mid-size bomber. And this XB-28 was one of the prettiest, especially an polished metal. What a shame it wasn't selected for a bigger production. Having said that, the B-26, and B-26 are themselves flying pinups. But being a proud brit, I still say you can't beat the mosi for being the true twin beauty of the day.

[@huskergator9479]

I love the term ‘flying pinups’!! I wish the US and especially our brothers down under had the Mosi. She is a thing of beauty.

[@MrDino1953]

" What a shame it wasn't selected for a bigger production". So true. Is that why you wrote the song "Military Madness " Graham?

[@grahamnash9794]

@@MrDino1953 Same name, different chap. However, I think I know where my mum got my name from. She liked the Hollies in the 60s

[@ronroche3138]

Graham, the Mosquito and Spitfire are, hands down, 2 of the most achingly gorgeous combat aircraft ever produced. I doubt there's any real debate on that point, but I'd still say that when it comes to medium bomber design and construction the U.S. absolutely dominated. We just didn't always make em pretty.

[@grahamnash9794]

@@ronroche3138 Well said that man.

[@mattbaur9784]

another great video. if anyone knows a good video showing/explaining how these remote firing systems worked.

[@yourgrandmasalzheimerpills1143]

I WAS JUST THINKING HOW THERE ISN’T A SINGLE CIDEO ON THIS PLANE LAST WEEK.🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

One of those planes that just looks right!

[@808bigisland]

An amazing line of beautiful airframes engineered by men with great intellectual capacity on a vast industrial capacity built in mere months under severe wartime constrictions.

[@thegodofhellfire]

What a beautiful aircraft, amazing whatif.

[@mjw1955]

And don't forget the Other Dragon that didn't wind up in it's intended role- The Douglas B-23. Obsolete by the time it would have entered service, it at least made the short list for the Doolittle Raid, but was rejected by it's wings were too long. Some found service in the postwar era as executive transports. For those of you who find themselves in central California, there is on on display at the Castle Air Museum in Atwater, CA.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Yep, have to get around to the b-23 AND the b-18 one day.

[@mjw1955]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters The Castle Museum also has a B-18 on display. Come in on Open Cockpit Day (Memorial Day weekend and 1st weekend in October) and you can look around inside as well.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

@@mjw1955 LOL maybe next time. Not very close to the US at the moment.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

As to Doctrine being "Faulty" - that would depend on what you mean by that. For Both Medium and Heavy bombers - over Europe - the further they got away from the heavy AA the Germans had - the better - and getting entirely out of the range of all the light and medium AA was a big plus. For Medium Bombers over Europe - such as B-25's and B-26's bombing the transportation network from high altitude - it certainly was NOT faulty. The Low Level Attacks by B-25 Straffers in the Pacific - were a tactical aspect of war in that Theater - and - did NOT make other uses of Medium Bombers - Faulty. For Heavy Bombers - over Europe - it was NOT faulty to have them flying at high altitude and attempting to accurately bomb specific targets. The Norden was NOT a bad bomb sight. We just thought it was better than it was. The problem with High Altitude Bombing was NOT the Norden - but - the Weather. If the sky below them was overcast - the Bombers couldn't see the target. If the winds below them, which could blow in several different directions from one altitude to another, threw the bombs off target - well - that couldn't much be helped either. But - if they had a clear day with low wind changes between their altitude and the ground - they COULD be very accurate - though that doesn't mean they would be - as the skill of the air crews and enemy fighter opposition were factors in this as well. Over JAPAN - as with the different tactics used over Europe and the Pacific by Medium Bombers, there were different tactics that needed to be used by the Heavy Bombers as well. Here again they had problems with the Weather in that they knew very little if anything about the Jet Stream before they were flying in it. Also - Japanese production methods tended to a greater degree than in Europe to be based on lots of small shops scattered about a city, all producing individual parts - which were then brought together at an Assembly Plant. Bombing the Assembly Plant - didn't destroy much - as they could just use an open field. Also the engines on the B-29 were very powerful but - they had been rushed into production and were less reliable than would have been preferred. The higher the altitude the aircraft flew at - the greater the strain on these engines - which did after all - have to fly over water for vastly greater distances than crossing the Channel. When he took command, LeMay realized several things. That Area Bombing with Incendiaries as the British had done - would catch all those little shops that were actually making the parts. Flying at night - against a Japanese Air Defense that had poor Radar, Communications and therefore Control - PLUS - the fact that the Japanese night fighters had little to no airborne radar made Night Bombing much safer. Their AA and Night Fighters were much less capable than those the Germans had had. Japan's poor Air Defenses meant that if they flew at night - the B-29's could fly a lower altitudes which was easier on those engines and - the Jet Stream - wasn't a factor at all. With Japanese Air Defenses being much less at night the B-29's could carry fewer guns and gunners - and devote that weight saving - to things like Bomb Load and Fuel. Here - it wasn't that their doctrine was a faulty doctrine - it was that Japan was a different tactical environment - and thus - changes in their doctrine from what had worked over Europe - were appropriate. It wasn't the Doctrine they had pursued over Europe (other than being unescorted) that was flawed - it was just that a different Doctrine over Japan was needed because it was a different tactical environment. It just took them a while and seeing how what they'd done before could be improved that was needed - and LeMay did that. So - I'd not be so fast and loose with saying a Doctrine was Faulty. .

[@martinradcliffe4798]

Always thought this was a rather handsome aircraft.

[@stevetournay6103]

The 28 would've been a wonderful postwar "boardroom bomber"...

[@SoloRenegade]

the high altitude approach was valid, assuming better targeting for the bombs. But at that altitude you need some degree of guidance post-drop to counter the winds on the way down. It didn't work only due to the lack of sufficient targeting equipment at the time.

[@currentbatches6205]

5:10 - The winds at various altitudes created problems using the Norden. Easy to correct for aircraft speed and winds at that altitude, but what are the wind speeds and directions at 25K, 20K, 15K and so forth?

[@LordRumCake]

Wow this airframe still looks advanced especially for the era

[@johnking6252]

That's a beautiful aircraft. Should've seen more service, but considering all the other craft out there .... cie la vie?

[@ifga16]

The Dragon looks so much like the Marauder.

[@davidmowers5949]

I'm looking at the sidebar of this video and see the Military Matters Stearman XA-21 segment. Exact same plane in the photo just with a different background,

[@johnwriter8234]

Dude! ( am retired US Coast Guard C-130 crew/technician) ... you NEVER fail to amaze me about sh**t that I never knew! Keep it up! Am a Big Fan!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

;)

[@johnwriter8234]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters wow! You responded!! .. have you posted a history of the Lockheed C-130?

[@johnwriter8234]

(Also..my Dad was Radio-lower gunner on TBM Avenger ..(( same as actor Paul Newman)) ..*** bonus trivia**

[@whyjnot420]

Whatever it may or may not have been had circumstances differed, one thing is certain, it was a good looking bird.

[@jessekrisher7580]

how about doing one for the s 26

[@huskergator9479]

I wonder what how her low level capabilities would have compared to the b25 & b26, a10, etc.

[@williamcody7427]

Did Pratt & Whitney produce a special opposite rotation R-2800 or was the counter rotation of the propeller happen in the gearbox? Anyone Know?

[@44hawk28]

The B25 fitted with the artillery piece was, as said by many of the pilots who flew them, capable of hitting a billboard as long as they pulled the plane right up against the billboard and parked it in front of it. It is interesting that the first photo you show shows counter rotating props and the later photo does not. However the counter rotating props would have been a better application in an actual action role as opposed to the reconnaissance role of the follow-up aircraft.

[@allangibson8494]

The target of the B-25H was somewhat larger than a billboard… It was designed to attack ships with enough explosive to sink them. The other item that got missed was the B-25 was also LANDED on an aircraft carrier (in 1944). The other North American product that landed on a carrier in WW2 was the P-51 Mustang.

[@Anlushac11]

To what extent did the A-26 Invader do the role of light and medium bombers?

[@msgfrmdaactionman3000]

That bomber looks very deadly in a thousand bomber raid!

[@seavee2000]

Beautiful looking aircraft-many US aircraft of this period seemed to have paid great attention to aerodynamics and "cleanliness" . Such a shame that all the hard work of the engineers and fitters went for nought in the end.

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

OSS or SOE obtained several final French designs in 1940. As we now see before us.

[@bruceboatwright7488]

Did this have props rotating in the opposite direction from each other?

[@garyjust.johnson1436]

There must've been an air museum somewhere that would have wanted a dragon for display.

[@eastindiaV]

You could make a manned turret pressurized, they just overdeveloped everything back then, no intermediate step between manual operated manned turret, and remote operated unmanned turret

[@moss8448]

resembles the Marauder in a lot of ways

[@thurin84]

the one wild night when a b-25 and b-26 got drunk on leave in paris.

[@davef.2329]

Wonder how it was to fly?

[@hlynnkeith9334]

How much did General George Kenney, 5th Air Force, change the doctrine of use of medium bombers?

[@mikepette4422]

an impressive looking design ! but you can totally see why they didnt make this

[@vascoribeiro69]

What was the purpose off having two outboard counter rotating propellers like the P-38? The single engine performance should have been a mess.

[@ElsinoreRacer]

I am guessing they would have stripped them for lower altitude use, like they did the Superfort. But then, like you said, it would be a B-26,

[@robertbalazslorincz8218]

I wonder, what if we made this into some sort of airliner or transport after we realise we already have good enough aircraft?

[@shero113]

One wonders. Drop the pressurisation, use the extra weight savings for a slightly increased bomb load of 5,000 Ibs, at a slightly lower 25,000 feet, and what you have is a B-17, but smaller, with fewer men, and half the number of engines...

[@martentrudeau6948]

What a beautiful design, an improved Mitchel, Republic hit a home run. But, Oh Well, the original government spec was garbage, and the plane wasn't needed?