|
Interesting and timely discussion!
I think the B-25 has a certain "desirability" factor going for it. The B-25 served with most of the allied air arms, in all combat theatres, in huge numbers, throughout the duration of WW2, and it gained instant and lasting popularity from its use on the Doolittle raid. The A-26, on the other hand, served mainly with the USAAF, in somewhat limited numbers, and it entered combat just a few months before the war ended so it didn't have time to gain the kind of widespread notoriety that the Mitchell did. The Invader was never, to my knowledge, used on any particularly high-profile, attention-grabbing mission (like the Doolittle raid). The Mitchell was a more versatile aircraft, which adds to its notoriety. There wasn't much that a B-25 couldn't do. The A-26 served mainly as a mid-level bomber. The B-25 carried a larger crew and there were a lot more of them in service than there were A-26s, so the public has more of a personal connection with the Mitchell through the larger numbers of family members who served aboard them or serviced them. It's true the Invader served honorably in combat in Korea and again in Southeast Asia, but (and I really do hate this) those two wars are not as "popular" as WW2, and I don't think the public has as much "attachment" to them as they do to WW2. In addition, the Invader's role in Korea and SE Asia was not a major, attention-grabbing role (as compared to B-29s and B-52s doing strategic bombing, or F-86s and F-4s knocking down MiGs). The Invaders filled a niche when they were needed and they did their job quite well, but they weren't "big time". What's the point of all this? A more famous airplane brings a bigger price.
Another factor may be a difference in restoration costs. Many of today's surviving A-26s were converted into executive transports. The conversion involved extensive structural modification, and these ships cannot easily be restored to WW2 configuration. Many other A-26 survivors were heavily modified for aerial firefighting duites, and while those mods can be reversed, it can be a difficult and costly process. Most surviving B-25s were not modified that heavily so they can be restored to a more original look more easily and at a lower cost.
Could availability of parts also be a contributor? There were a lot more B-25s made than A-26s, so it stands to reason that parts should be easier to obtain for Mitchells than for Invaders.
How about "usefulness" in today's warbird world? Many bomber operators help defray their operating costs by carrying riders on flight experiences. A stock Invader doesn't have a lot of room for passenger seats so it can't take many guests, whereas a stock Mitchell has plenty of room for added seats. The more riders you can take up, the more the airplane can help pay its way. An executive-converted A-26 can take several riders, but riding in an executive interior doesn't offer a guest that same "warbird" feel as riding in a stark, noisy Mitchell and being able to put their hands on those .50s and make gunnery noises. When guests cough up hundreds of dollars to take a flight in a bomber, they expect it to look, sound, and feel like a bomber, not an executive airplane. Look at the number of B-25s that offer rides versus the number of A-26s that offer rides. It's pretty clear which one's more "useful" in that regard.
Neither the Mitchell nor the Invader could ever be called "economical" to operate, though from what I've heard, the Mitchell costs somewhat less in fuel consumption.
_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Port Charlotte, Florida
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
