That was 24 April 1942, according to my files. Source is probably Le Fanatique de l'Aviation.
 
XB-28 first flight on April 24, 1942. Crew: Ed Virgin and Joe Barton.
XB-28A first flight on April 24, 1943. Exactly one year later. Same crew.
Source: 'North American Aircraft 1934-1998 - Volume 1' by Norm Avery.
 
Arjen said:
XB-28 first flight on April 24, 1942. Crew: Ed Virgin and Joe Barton.
XB-28A first flight on April 24, 1943. Exactly one year later. Same crew.
Source: 'North American Aircraft 1934-1998 - Volume 1' by Norm Avery.
Thanks so much Arjen! Steve
 
Spiteful, you should pm PaulMM, the Administrator, to fully activate your account. New members need a minimum number of posts before they are allowed to attach pics and docs in their posts.
 
From the Robert Patterson Files, Box 108 at Library of Congress Manuscript Division.

References NORTH AMERICAN XB-28 / B-28 and MARTIN XB-33 / B-33. [put here for keyword search]
 

Attachments

  • B-33_and_B-28-1.jpg
    B-33_and_B-28-1.jpg
    660.1 KB · Views: 555
  • B-33_and_B-28-2.jpg
    B-33_and_B-28-2.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 586
CTI-538 (7 April 1942): "Cancellation of 300 Lockheed Troop Carriers (C-63), and 600 North American B-28 Airplanes, and Procurement of 400 Additional B-25's and 500 Additional P-51's"
 
RyanC said:
CTI-538 (7 April 1942): "Cancellation of 300 Lockheed Troop Carriers (C-63), and 600 North American B-28 Airplanes, and Procurement of 400 Additional B-25's and 500 Additional P-51's"

For those playing along at home, C-63 was a convertible bomber/transport—it was the provisional designation for what became the Hudson IIIA in Commonwealth service.
 
Sherman Tank said:
RyanC said:
CTI-538 (7 April 1942): "Cancellation of 300 Lockheed Troop Carriers (C-63), and 600 North American B-28 Airplanes, and Procurement of 400 Additional B-25's and 500 Additional P-51's"

For those playing along at home, C-63 was a convertible bomber/transport—it was the provisional designation for what became the Hudson IIIA in Commonwealth service.

Thank you
About 400 B-25 and 500 P-51 which versions are they ?
 
I often see the name Dragon associated with the XB-28. But was that ever officially confirmed?
 
From the Robert Patterson Files, Box 108 at Library of Congress Manuscript Division.

References NORTH AMERICAN XB-28 / B-28 and MARTIN XB-33 / B-33. [put here for keyword search]
Geez the US military procurement process is extremely convoluted with rather large dosages of utter stupidity.
And "fuds" talk about the procurement policies of France, Germany and Japan for example...
 
RyanC said:
CTI-538 (7 April 1942): "Cancellation of 300 Lockheed Troop Carriers (C-63), and 600 North American B-28 Airplanes, and Procurement of 400 Additional B-25's and 500 Additional P-51's"

For those playing along at home, C-63 was a convertible bomber/transport—it was the provisional designation for what became the Hudson IIIA in Commonwealth service.
Was also provisional designation of A-29A
 
From the Robert Patterson Files, Box 108 at Library of Congress Manuscript Division.

References NORTH AMERICAN XB-28 / B-28 and MARTIN XB-33 / B-33. [put here for keyword search]
Geez the US military procurement process is extremely convoluted with rather large dosages of utter stupidity.
And "fuds" talk about the procurement policies of France, Germany and Japan for example...
Well, in WW2, I doubt that it involved significantly more stupidity than any othe large bureaucratic endeavor.

Remember: the US production effort was [a] very large and distributed across an amazing variety of dissimilar civilian industries, all of which had to be coordinated and directed at one, previously unfamiliar goal, military manufacture. The fact that, in the middle of a huge war, the US had the flexibility to trade B-26s for non-existent B-33s and back again, while trading mediocre B-28 mediums for B-29 heavies is itself evidence of both size and robust organization, if anything. It worked. Mobilization of civilian mass-production capabilities worked so well that waste, indecision, and occasional poor requirements had little or no impact on the outcome of the war.
 
I just scanned these photos of the NAA XB-28 in the Gerry Balzer collection last week.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • NAA XB-28 rollout.jpg
    NAA XB-28 rollout.jpg
    6.1 MB · Views: 277
  • 63-0-1 XB-28 left side view.jpg
    63-0-1 XB-28 left side view.jpg
    3.9 MB · Views: 223
  • NAA XB-28 Head On View.jpg
    NAA XB-28 Head On View.jpg
    3.7 MB · Views: 224
  • NAA XB-28 on ramp engines running.jpg
    NAA XB-28 on ramp engines running.jpg
    6.8 MB · Views: 298
The amount of excellent aircraft designs produced by the USA in WWII never cease to amaze me. In fact at some point they had too many good planes & prototypes competing with each others. Notably in the twin engine bomber / attack category (the B- & the A-).
 
Well, in WW2, I doubt that it involved significantly more stupidity than any othe large bureaucratic endeavor.

Remember: the US production effort was [a] very large and distributed across an amazing variety of dissimilar civilian industries, all of which had to be coordinated and directed at one, previously unfamiliar goal, military manufacture. The fact that, in the middle of a huge war, the US had the flexibility to trade B-26s for non-existent B-33s and back again, while trading mediocre B-28 mediums for B-29 heavies is itself evidence of both size and robust organization, if anything. It worked. Mobilization of civilian mass-production capabilities worked so well that waste, indecision, and occasional poor requirements had little or no impact on the outcome of the war.
And the basic prioritization process is still in use today, so it mostly works. Did need some modifications during WW2, however, as the plight of the M7 Medium Tank demonstrated. The factory, despite being scheduled to build a top priority vehicle, was way down the priority list for getting the machine tools to build the tank. That's been fixed now, I believe it was fixed in 1944.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom