Jump to content

B-25 OPERATIONAL AND INFLIGHT GUIDE


P-59A
 Share

Recommended Posts

Delaware WWII Fallen
1 hour ago, P-59A said:

I can't speak to the B-25, but I have read and the movie Unbroken depicts an issue with glass nose aircraft ditching at sea. With the greenhouse nose on the B-24 it would implode causing it to act as a break. On the B-24 the sudden stop would break its back at the Bombay bulkhead causing the sudden death of anyone in the nose or on the flight deck. Aircrew in the aft section were faced with major damage to the bomber that impleaded survivability of the crash or the ability to get out.

Thanks. I'm not sure, but I think it might have been a gun nose B-25. At least, there was no bombardier in the crew. More on the crash: 23 Days at Sea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aircraft in question was a B-25J-11, #43-36044. This was the modified 'glass-nose' that was armed with 5-.50's in the nose compartment and the bombardier equipment removed. FYI, the 'Capt. Elmo Crawford' in the report you show is actually Capt Elmo Cranford, seems a typist got the name wrong when transcribing. Cranford was leading the 498th BS that day.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TBMflyer said:

The aircraft in question was a B-25J-11, #43-36044. This was the modified 'glass-nose' that was armed with 5-.50's in the nose compartment and the bombardier equipment removed. FYI, the 'Capt. Elmo Crawford' in the report you show is actually Capt Elmo Cranford, seems a typist got the name wrong when transcribing. Cranford was leading the 498th BS that day.

Mark

Pacific wrecks gives the tail number as 44-31065, They site Baugers list on  this. They also say no one survived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. I think this fell through the cracks at Pacific Wrecks. I sent them the report on this thread. They will come up with something on this in short order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36036 (38th BG) lost Nov 10, 1944, Philippines. MACR 10669

36041 (501st BS, 345th BG "Cactus Kitten") lost 19 mi SSW of center of Saigon Apr 28, 1945. MACR 16256. All 5 KIA

36045 (498th Bs, 345th BG) lost over central Luzon Jan 13, 1945. MACR 11793. There is a report that the crew was seen alive on the ground but were executed by Japanese forces, but the MACR makes no mention of this.........

Baughers list does not have a B-25J #43-36044.   Interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delaware WWII Fallen
1 hour ago, TBMflyer said:

The aircraft in question was a B-25J-11, #43-36044. This was the modified 'glass-nose' that was armed with 5-.50's in the nose compartment and the bombardier equipment removed. FYI, the 'Capt. Elmo Crawford' in the report you show is actually Capt Elmo Cranford, seems a typist got the name wrong when transcribing. Cranford was leading the 498th BS that day.

Mark

I know the tail number already (no thanks to the typist who also screwed that up in the copy of the MACR I obtained in the IDPF for the man I'm profiling, Sgt. Amedeo J. Vincenti, having it as 44-36044), but thanks for the information about Cranford. You may have saved me from having an error in my article. I don't suppose you have a copy of Warpath Across The Pacific? I am trying to get it through interlibrary loan since I'd rather not spend $75 just to read a few pages pertaining to the Chambers crew.

VINCENTI_AMEDEO_J_-_33787917_IDPF_COMPLETE_50979_WWII_USAAF_34-0903d5e182a4a874-13.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delaware WWII Fallen

U.S.S. Sealion war patrol report about the rescue of the sole survivor. The man I'm profiling, the flight engineer, Sgt. Amedeo J. Vincenti, was apparently killed in the crash or drowned when the plane sank.

Sealion survivor.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So regarding your questions on the flying side of the incident, here are my thoughts-

 

1. Yes, in my opinion climbing to 1500’ gives options. Dealing with an engine issue on the deck leaves little room for error. However, you will climb at the cost of airspeed. It is sort of a trade off and the B25 bleeds airspeed quickly when you pull the nose up, especially if you pull it up quickly.

 

2. Yes, variable pitch constant speed propeller (Hamilton Standard). To feather the engine you simply push the feathering button, which activates a separate pump with a separate hard line directly to the prop governor. It pumps high pressure oil directly into the dome and drives the propeller to full feather, meaning 90 degree pitch. The button then pops out and shuts off the pump.

 

3. If for whatever reason and there are a few, you cannot feather a windmilling propeller, things can get dicey. Additionally, I heard that the gun nosed 25’s didn’t fly particularly well on one engine due to all the added weight in the nose. Couple that with a windmilling prop and airspeed probably hovering around 145 +/-, I’m not surprised immediately ditching was the only option.

 

4. My thought is that in the condition of the airplane, making turns was probably not an option without losing control of the aircraft.

 

5. No idea about the radio call. But, if there was an electrical issue that prevented further radio comms, that would explain the inability to activate the feathering pump for the respective engine. The other possibility is that there was never a radio call and hand signals were used.

 

Hope that helps.

 

John

 

19 hours ago, Delaware WWII Fallen said:

I'm profiling an airman killed in an incident in which a B-25 ditched in the South China Sea while returning to the Philippines from a raid on the Indochina coast on March 10, 1945. The only member of the crew who survived was picked up by a submarine after three weeks in a raft. One source indicates the B-25's engine may have been damaged during a skip bombing attack when its bomb detonated on contact with the target ship. Although I'm pretty well read in WWII histories, my limited knowledge of technical matters pertaining to the B-25 makes it hard to translate an eyewitness narrative into plain language for the reader. I was hoping B-17Guy or someone else with experience in B-25s might be able to clarify a few things.

 

Original statement from Captain Elmo L. Crawford in a Missing Air Crew Report (MACR):

 

  1. Is it safe to assume that Chambers gained altitude when the engine started acting up so he would have more altitude to play with if the engine cut out? You mentioned lowering the nose was a must when flying the B-25 on one engine, after all.
  2. Do B-25s have a variable pitch propeller or did feathering entail something other than adjusting the blades to face edge-on to airflow, thereby reducing drag?
  3. After the feathering failed, it seems the B-25 ditched rather quickly. The pilots would surely have wanted to get as close to friendly territory as possible. Does that suggest that with the increased drag from the windmilling propeller, that they were already having difficulty keeping the speed up and feared an imminent loss of control if they didn't ditch immediately?
  4. Why did the pilot ignore the recommendation to land crosswind? If he was already fighting to keep his airspeed up, did he feel that landing into the wind was the only way to keep lift up and avoid losing control? I would assume hitting the swell greatly increased the impact on the plane and either killed or incapacitated those men who did not manage to abandon the plane before it sank.
  5. If Captain Crawford's radio set was out, preventing him from speaking with Chambers directly, how did he immediately call "for rescue from the ground station"?

Thanks!

B-25 crash Chambers.JPG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...