North American XB-28 and XB-28A

[Justo Miranda]

Unknown source

 

[Justo Miranda]

Sorry ....North American XB-28-NA :-\

 

[saturncanuck]

Sorry ....North American XB-28-NA :-\

Yup, thats what she is.

 

[Steve Pace]

Can't seem to find the first flight date of the XB-28. Help! Steve Pace

 

[Stargazer]

That was 24 April 1942, according to my files. Source is probably Le Fanatique de l'Aviation.

 

[Steve Pace]

My mistake - I meant for the XB-28A (I had the XB-28) - sorry. -SP

 

[Arjen]

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.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

This thread has a 3-view of the B-28.

 

[Steve Pace]

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

 

[RyanC]

My Flickr Page with four photos in high res of the B-28

 

[spiteful21k]

A couple of pics I have

 

[Antonio]

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.

 

[fightingirish]

Here the interesting article "The North American XB-28: Too Much, Too Late" by our forum member JP Santiago posted at his blog.
Link: http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2015/05/the-north-american-xb-28-too-much-too.html

 

[RyanC]

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]

 

[hesham]

Good documents Ryan,many thanks.

 

[RyanC]

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"

 

[Sherman Tank]

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.

 

[airman]

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 ?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I often see the name Dragon associated with the XB-28. But was that ever officially confirmed?

 

[Archibald]

I often see the name Dragon associated with the XB-28. But was that ever officially confirmed?

I know it was a pretty marginal bomber - but that name was already taken by the Douglas B-23 no ?

 

[Dball]

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...

 

[airman]

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

 

[iverson]

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.

 

[jcf]

Another version of the XB-28A 3-view.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I just scanned these photos of the NAA XB-28 in the Gerry Balzer collection last week.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Mark Nankivil]

One more for you perusal.... Mark

 

[Archibald]

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-).

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Zj6l4xWbM

 

[juanT]

XB-28 original concept (AAHS Journal).

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.