The A-26

[Nuke33]

I mean seriously...









And to learn how to fly it..

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/A26SS.ram

[sullie363]

Yeah you would think an A26 could be developed by changing the B26 as they're mostly the same plane.  This would fill the need for something like the B25H.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by sullie363
Yeah you would think an A26 could be developed by changing the B26 as they're mostly the same plane.  This would fill the need for something like the B25H.

The B-26 and A-26 are completely unrelated aircraft.

After the war was over the B-26 was taken out of service and the A-26 was relabeled the B-26.


Adding the A-26 would entail doing a completely new polygon model.


Just look at the two aircraft, there is nothing in common between the two other than both being multi-crew, twin engine, tricycle gear, prop monoplanes.




The B-26 has a wound fuselage, the A-26 a rectangular one.
The B-26 has rounded wings with the engine nacelles completely beneath them, the A-26 has squared wings with the engine nacelles portruding above them.
The B-26 has a rounded vertical stabalizer, the A-26 a larger squared vertical stabalizer.
The B-26's fuselage is wide enough at the end for a tailgunner, the A-26's is too narrow to accomodate a tailgunner.
The B-26 was designed and built by Martin, the A-26 was designed and built by Douglas.

They are completely unrelated.

[scott123]

A 26 was a cleaned up,upgraded A 20.I believe.

[cobia38]

Such a sweet ride,i hope they consider it !!!:aok

[sullie363]

Alright, I retract my previous comment.

[frank3]

I don't know if we can find use of any more of those twin-attackers.
We already have the mosquito, A-20 etc.

Or it'll be another useless aircraft like the Boston...(fast, but small payload, laughable defensive armament)

[Tilt]

IMO the A26 would see significant MA usage compared to other ac and is one of the few USAAF original airframes awaited. (with the P39)

As mentioned above it is an "attack" aircraft  of considerable specification however its one disadvantage should be modelled.

Pilots suffered from poor visibility.

It should not have an F3 view in the MA. (neither should the A20, IL2m3, Ju87, SB IMO)

And as for defensive armament.................

Specifications of Douglas A-26B-15-DL Invader:
Powerplant:
Two Pratt & Whitney R-2800-27 or -71 air-cooled radials, each rated at 2000 hp for takeoff and 1600 hp at 13,500 feet.
Performance:
Maximum speed 355 mph at 15,000 feet. Cruising speed 284 mph. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 8.1 minutes. Service ceiling 22,100 feet. Normal range 1400 miles, maximum range 3200 miles.
Dimensions:
Wingspan 70 feet 0 inches, length 50 feet 0 inches, height 18 feet 6 inches, wing area 540 square feet.
Weights:
22,370 pounds empty, 27,600 pounds loaded, 35,000 pounds maximum.
Armament:
Six forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns in nose. Forward-firing armament could be supplemented by eight 0.50-inch guns mounted in four-gun twin packages mounted underneath the outer wing panels. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely-controlled dorsal turret. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely-controlled ventral turret. An internal bomb load of 4000 pounds could be carried. Maximum total bomb load of 6000 pounds.

16 forward firing 50's plus 4 x 50's in turrets? (Do I rem that the turrets could also be "locked" forward and fired from the pilots positon)

And even more uber...........

 The forward-firing armament of the early A-26B was found to be insufficient, especially in the Pacific theatre. Beginning with the A-26B-50-DL production block, a new eight-gun nose was fitted, and six internally-mounted 0.50-inch guns were mounted in the outer wing panels so that bombs or rockets could be carried underneath the wings.

These later A26B's also had water injected WEP and slightly better visibility over the engine nacelle.

[Skydancer]

Problem is the sky is so full of uber rides that the earlier marks of plane might as well be deleted in the MA. If you add the A26 no one will use Ju88s mossies, B26, A20 etc. Same thing happened in AW as i recall. When are Hitech going to address this issue and give us rolling planesets and different sets for each country!?

[moot]

That's false on both points, people still use the early war planes; they aren't as outmatched as you think, and HTC probably won't implement an RPS in the MA, there's perk prices and ENY values for that.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by moot
That's false on both points, people still use the early war planes; they aren't as outmatched as you think, and HTC probably won't implement an RPS in the MA, there's perk prices and ENY values for that.

What he said.


As for A26's having F3 view, I say let them have whatever it takes to get them to fight.  One more plane scrapping it up is always a good thing IMO.

[frank3]

Armament:
Six forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns in nose. Forward-firing armament could be supplemented by eight 0.50-inch guns mounted in four-gun twin packages mounted underneath the outer wing panels. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely-controlled dorsal turret. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in remotely-controlled ventral turret. An internal bomb load of 4000 pounds could be carried. Maximum total bomb load of 6000 pounds.

Why on earth have we got the B-26 again?!

[lasersailor184]

The only time I use the newer rides is if I my squad needs my help.

All the rest of the time I fly Hurri B's, SBD's, Hurrid's, spit 1's...

[Furious]

Originally posted by Skydancer
...When are Hitech going to address this issue and give us rolling planesets and different sets for each country!?

I hope never.  Not for the MA, anyway.

[Tails]

Originally posted by frank3
Why on earth have we got the B-26 again?!

Remember there are two versions of the A-26. Hard nose and glass nose. The hard-nose version would not conflict with the B-26's role, and likely would not have formations. And a glass nosed A-26 would not have that powerful forward firing punch.