And the airplance did not have counterrotating propellors.
I’m not sure why you weren’t made aware of the critical engine. Perhaps it was assumed knowledge. Flight manuals (in my experience) tend not to say which is the critical engine. However, I was taught about critical engines during my initial twin training and so I know which is the critical engine from the direction of rotation. That may be the assumption made in the B26 manual.
All single engine performance in the flight manual assumes that the critical engine is failed so if you stick to the book speeds and figures you will be covered for any engine failure.
It may be better to say that a failure of the non-critical engine will give slightly better than expected performance rather than stating that failure of the critical engine will give worse performance.
OK, I had a long response all typed out, but it’s pointless.
David just because a WWII bomber did not have a section on the “critical engine” in it’s manual doesn’t mean the airplane itself did not suffer this affliction.
I’m not saying that “torque effect” caused any of these accidents. In fact, I think that inexperienced pilots and a high-loaded wing were the primary cause of the B-26 crashes.
But remember, this thread was started to find out why a helicopter had a tail rotor and an airplane didn’t.
The torque effect is a minor factor in a twin-prop, but it can either be a minor detractor (P-38) or a minor advantage (any airplane with CR props).
However, often that minor factor is the difference between staying airborne and not. If the B-26 had CR props, I say that there would have been fewer crashes because the margin for error would have been wider.
I don’t know why either unless it was because, as I said, the performance difference was so small it disappeared into the “noise”. In addition, the critical control speed was given at 135 mph and I strongly suspect that it was well known that if an engine fails on takeoff at that precise speed a crash will most likely be the outcome. You only get one chance in such a marginal case and must without fail do things exactly right. Probably the best thing would be to cut the good engine and land straght ahead.
And just for kicks, here are two photos from the cited book of Burnett doing single engine turns into the dead enginefirst at Omaha with right engine out andthen at Baltimore with the left engine out. Both appear to be at about 80-100 ft. altitude. Burnett did these stunts as confidence builders to overcome the idea that the B-26 was a killer.
Sure, I know why the thread was started and that question was answered long ago. As often happens, we have drifted into other areas.
I suspect that this min control speed was for use with the critical engine dead. If someone could maintain exactly 135 KIAS with the critical engine failed, they were golden. But drop to 134 KIAS, and the beast started to roll over on you. If the non-critical engine failed, there were a few extra knots of slop.
I could swear that earlier in this thread I said that if we started talking about Vmca and Vmcg that most people’s eyes would glaze over! 
That would definitely be the best course of action.
If the critical control speed was 135mph, then it might have had a single engine best rate of climb (Vyse) of 150-160mph or so (your manual will no doubt have it in there somewhere.) Our procedure is to maintain control (reduce power on the good engine if necessary) and land ahead if we have an engine failure prior to achieving Vyse. So we still have a buffer over the minimum control speed but are not attempting to fly out of a dodgy situation. This is in a light twin with marginal single engine performance though. I’d suspect that Pilot141 probably doesn’t get airborn until reaching a speed at which it is safe to fly out of an engine failure.
Pilot141 forgive my ignorance, but what is Vmcg?
Vmcg = Minimum Ground Control Speed. Usually defined as the minimum speed at which you can suffer an engine loss and continue the takeoff. It assumes takeoff thrust on the good engine and a combination of nosewheel steering/rudder to keep yourself centered on the runway.
Vmcg is usually very low (85-90 KIAS in my current airplane) and almost never comes into play in takeoff data calculations. The only time it would be a factor is if you had a very slick runway (low RCR) that was also short, making your refusal speed very low. As an example, imagine a 5,000 ft runway with an RCR of 5.
Warning: I’m making up the following numbers for illustration only.
So given a short, slick runway let’s say your refusal speed is 85 KIAS. This is the maximum speed which you can accelerate to and still stop within the remaining runway. Normally this would be your go/no go speed (V1, decision speed, whatever you want to call it). But let’s say you forget about Vmcg and go barreling down the runway. Vr = 85 and Vmcg = 90. It’s not your day, and you have an engine failure at 86 KIAS. Go, right? Oops - you don’t have enough lateral control to keep the airplane on the runway and end up going off the side of the runway at 89 KIAS. Rats.
In this case, you have to bring your refusal speed up to at least Vmcg for the takeoff to be safe. You can do this by finding a longer runway, waiting for the (ice, sleet, water, whatever) to be cleared, or reduce your gross weight.
Vmcg is low in aircraft with centrally-mounted engines (DC-9, MD-80, 727, Learjet). Airplanes with wing-mounted engines (757, 767, 777) have higher Vmcg because of the added yaw from having the only operating engine stuck out on the wing.
Even on a 777 Vmcg rarely comes into play for takeoff data, but it’s still something to worry about. Hope this helps!
Yeah, thanks mate!
Regards
I sometimes have this little ditty running through my head (to the tune of a well known Village People song):
It’s fun to stay above V M C A!
It’s fun to stay above V M C A!
When one engine has gone,
Just remember this song!
It’s fun to stay above V M C A!
etc 
You see, this is the kind of thing that makes flying today’s airplanes an entirely different game than WWII types. There is absolutely no question of continuing a takeoff with one engine out in any two engine plane of that era that I know of. The B-26; the Douglas A-20, or A-26 and the North American B-25 could not even maintain altitude on one engine with the gear down. I don’t know anything about the P-38 in that respect.
Different worlds entirely.
pilot141’s example is good; the key to understanding why Vmcg is lowered by reducing gross weight in a critical (wet, cross-windy day, w/ short runway) takeoff situation is that you can use a lower *thrust setting * to takeoff from your short runway because of the lower gross weight; in a takeoff engine failure, lower thrust from the good engine means that engine isn’t pushing quite as hard to turn you off centerline. The amount of rudder authority required to overcome the good engine’s tendency to turn you (toward the failed engine) is reduced. Since less rudder authority is required if the critical engine fails, Vmcg is reduced. Much safer - and one reason some big airplanes don’t use max thrust on takeoff if they don’t have to (like on a longer runway).
True, though somethings such as critical engines have always been there.
That was response to David Simmons, not the post above mine.
I believe you, I believe you. I just think that in view of the many other limitations of WWII two-engine military planes’ single engine performance, it wasn’t considered worth training for or even mentioning.
http://sniff.numachi.com/~rickheit/dtrad/pages/tiMAKEMEOP.html
He’s complaining that all plans can crash. He wants to stay on the ground.