Douglas A-26B/ A26C Invader Specs

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
This would be great right after the B25s.

A-26's ultimately replaced  the A-20,  B-26, and the B-25.  

I'm crusading for a perk-worthy bomber addition to AH-II.  B-25 carried 6K load a little slower than the B-26 and for a little further distance.   B-25 does not have the performance to justify bomber perk cost.

A-26 carries the same load as the B25, with more options and variety, as far as a B-25 (and a little further, not counting DT's), and faster than both the B25 and B26, .... and that's just the level bombing C-version.   Add the B-version (get two perk-worthy bombers for work of one design), and you also get an attack bomber.  

Allow for the 75mm option on the B, and all the buff drivers and attack plane drivers that have been asking for a nose mounted potato gun option to other bombers finally get their wish too.

Originally posted by Saxman
Well, THAT'D throw a lot of guys who like to go after bombers nose-on (especially that 75mm uber spud gun).

But I do have one question:

Do we really, REALLY want to see 999000 in that thing?

A head on with an Invader.... think word will spread that is unhealthy pretty quick.  It will be a race to see who posts the first pic or film of a A-26 with 75mm HO of another plane.    Boom!!----Poof!!
"Hey! He got me with a single ping!"   "THAT was not a "ping", son...."


Nose mounted big cannons have been requested before with other planes, I just see an opportunity with this one design to meet a lot of requests.  Here's one, but manual loading will mean a very slow rate of fire.

Want a faster penetration bomber with larger ord load than B-26 or Ki-67, grab an A-26C.   Want the potato cannon, outfit the A-26B.   Want an uber strafer, 8-.50's  nose gun, 6-.50's wings, internal bombs, and 14-rockets on a B model.  Want something other than the Ar-234 to spend buff perks on, here's some options for you.


Funny thing is, the skies would be FILLED with them, if/when first introduced, until the massive bomber perk accounts got drained.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Tails
A-26 might not have the same problems with a sighting system as a B-29 or P-61 as described. I was assuming the Invader used the binocular remote sighting system that the previous mentioned aircraft use, which was connected to a simplified electromechanical computer for figuring out convergance to point of aim. The Invader seems to use a different system entirely, possibly without the rangefinding capabilites (that would be quite dificult in an aircraft-mount periscope with '40's era technology, I imagine).

The A-26 may not need this, as it seems there is a small enough displacement between the periscopes and the actual barbettes to permit having the guns fire parallel to the periscope line of sight and still be able to hit the target.

Okay, if point of aim is the periscope, then and angle difference should be small enough to not really effect gunnery.  I suppose hat switch views could still have some use from gunner position as well .... change point of view to just under the dorsal periscope's position (which was centered in the upper rear canopy) looking up and out of the canopy.

One thing I noticed however, from the position of periscope heads, that the dorsal barbette itself (and a slight curve of the fuselage) blocks the view when firing forward (not too big a deal) --- the direct six rear view obstructed by how close the tail assembly is as well --- and the ventral periscope is blocked by it's barbette from looking at a dead six to slightly higher position to the rear.  Combined with 70 degree field of view for each, gunning for a A-26 probably would be a little harder than most bombers, which I can live with considering all the other strengths of the plane.

[tedrbr]

Some more digging produced this:

....The A-26 had a 70 foot wing span, compared to the 61 foot span of the 30-percent-lighter A-20. Greater care had been applied to simplify the manufacturing and maintenance of the A-26 structure. Moreover, the fuselage of the all metal, semi monocoque A-26 allowed the 3 crewmen to exchange positions, an advantage the A-20 did not offer.

A most unusual feature of the A-26 was the aluminum alloy monocoque engine mount, which was a combination of structure and cowling, thereby reducing weight and easing engine installation. Another special feature was the Douglas devised slotted wing flap, which had a lower pitching movement for a given lift coefficient than the Fowler flap. Finally, the engines were cooled with a new type of high entrance velocity cowling. This cowl induced less aerodynamic resistance and lowered the temperatures of the engines.

The A-26 entered combat testing in mid 1944, when 4 of the aircraft assigned to the Fifth Air Force began operating in the Southwest Pacific. Lt. Gen. George C. Kenney, Commanding General of the Far East Air Forces, grounded the planes after less than 175 hours of total flying time and stated shortly afterwards, "We do not want the A-26 under any circumstances as a replacement for anything." Ironically, about 4 years before, as a colonel in charge of the Wright Field Production Division and a strong proponent of attack aviation, Kenney had strongly urged the aircraft's development. General Kenney's statement and his mid 1944 decision to ground the planes appeared justified. A-26 production had slipped badly; the B-25s and A-20s that the A-26s would replace had proven satisfactory; and the canopy of available A-26s was poorly designed. A new canopy was needed to improve visibility. Without it, pilots could not safely fly the formations required for low level tactics. While the Wright Field Production Division agreed that the A-26 could not replace current types of light and medium bombers, Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Commanding General of the Ninth Air Force, was much less critical than General Kenney. The few A-26s introduced in the European theater towards the end of the summer were performing well. Undoubtedly, the aircraft's marginal visibility needed attention. But new productions were seldom free of problems, and General Vandenberg thought the A-26 was a satisfactory replacement for the B-26s and A-20s in Europe.

Regardless of the mixed reports generated by the performance of the early A-26 (A-26As or A-26Bs), the Army Air Forces' plans to re-equip all B-25, B-26, and A-20 units with A-26s were reaffirmed in November 1944.....

.....The Ninth Bombardment Division was first in pointing out that once pilots were familiar with the A-26, they liked it better than any other plane they had flown. Even General Kenney eventually agreed that improved A-26s particularly the A-26 with the 8 gun nose were proving to be highly satisfactory replacements for the A-20s and B-25s. Deficiencies such as canopy frosting, faulty brakes, and the like were still being corrected. However, substantial progress was achieved swiftly.......

---- from GlobalSecurity.org

[tedrbr]

WWII combat record information on the A-26 Invader has proven hard to find with any details.  Lots of references as to various Air Force operations in general, but not much specific to the squadrons.

Article from a pilot's perspective in the ETO:

Benson, Arnold "A-26 in WW II..."The best airplane I ever flew"". Flight Journal. Feb 2000. FindArticles.com. 02 Feb. 2007.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200002/ai_n8889794/pg_1

Apparently in ETO, at least, every 6 plane flight was led by an A-26C "glass nose" version.. pathfinders? .... the rest dropped on the lead.  Their missions were almost always tactical in nature and targets included railways, marshaling yards, depots, and communications centers, before dropping down to strafe any targets of opportunity.  

By the end of WWII, 48 squadrons of A-26's were in operation among the Fifth(Far East Air Force), Seventh (WPTO), Ninth(ETO), and Twelfth (MTO) Air Forces, at the very least.  
This included the 8th and 13th in the 3rd Bomb Group (Light) "Grim Reapers";  the 386th's 554th Bomb Squadron;  and the 319th Group after assigned to the 7th AF at Okinawa.

Haven't seen any reference or photos to the 75mm being used in combat, or the 37mm's even being outfitted, but 30 A-26B's were delivered with 75mm nose cannon, and the A-26B-16: (2 aircraft, no further specific information), A-26B-51: (6 aircraft, no further specific information), A-26B-56: (19 aircraft, no further specific information) small block orders, as well as use by the Grim Reapers, lead me to believe that a few did get fielded and used, most likely in anti-shipping operations like those performed by the B-25's and A-25's.... especially among the Grim Reapers.

I have come across references that the 8 -.50's stacked vertically in the nose *was* a redesign from WWII that came out of the Pacific operations, as they found the massed .50's in that arrangement was more useful than the slower firing 75mm, as well as problems the 75mm was causing in airframe fatigue (after 15 to 19 rounds fired) in the A/B-25 Mitchell's that were fitted that way.


Also found this write up of interest:
http://www.b-26marauderarchive.org/ms/MS1733/MS1733.htm

Still digging.

[Tails]

I wonder... did the glass-nosed planes (factory built or field-refit) retain their wing guns/gunpods?

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Tails
I wonder... did the glass-nosed planes (factory built or field-refit) retain their wing guns/gunpods?

If the mission called for medium level bombing, they would remove the gun-pods to add drop tanks, more ord, or keep the wing clean for more speed and fuel efficiency.

When they started building the block 50's with the 6 x .50's in the leading edge, they soon stopped building the C model (50 more units, then numbers stop) from the factory (from the numbers I've come across anyways).   Glass nose versions became a field-refit after that point, and there was more emphasis on carrying out bombing, then going down to the deck to hunt for more targets to strafe anyways.  Then there was the practice of salvaging what you could to fix what you could.  A lot of B's and C's changed their nose and configuration.

Early models that took the gun-pods, were usually later retrofitted with the internal .50's, reported to be a pretty straight forward field modification.

The Invader was a very modular design.  Early Invaders could mount gun pods, or rockets, or bombs, or drop tanks (and in some cases combinations).  Later models had the internal wing guns, which freed up wing mount points for ord, as well as increased efficiency of airflow (speed, fuel mileage).

If you look, you will find pictures of early model B's and C's, with neither internal wing or wing mounted gun-pods, you'll see the classic B's with all the .50's, and you can find lot's of C models with the six internal wing .50's and the glass cockpit.

Refitting the nose of the Invader was said to take a few hours in the field.

This was a very versatile plane.  Lot's of options, which is why I see it as a great perk ride for bomber perks.  75mm, lot's of .50's, lot's of ord options, even the 37mm's.   Just about *any* combination would be a valid one that saw action somewhere at sometime in the various theaters it served in.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Tails
I wonder... did the glass-nosed planes (factory built or field-refit) retain their wing guns/gunpods?

Best photo I have of this; post WWII.  Either late Korea or Early 'Nam.  Basically a C model (maybe a K rebuild, if 'Nam) - glass nose and wing mounted .50's

[Pyro]

Originally posted by Krusty
I just realized why we won't get this plane.


The turrets are remotely operated. Same reason we won't get the B-29!

Well, at least, once HTC figures out a solution to this problem (convergence when the guns aren't at the aiming spot) we'll look forward to both the B-29 and the B-26.

We can't do a remotely operated turret?  Oh crap, I need to pull the B-17G out of the game right away.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Pyro
We can't do a remotely operated turret?  Oh crap, I need to pull the B-17G out of the game right away.

Yeah, I always thought it was a weak argument against the B-29 too, when I would see it brought up in a thread...... the high altitude, speeds, heavy bomb-load, and nuke were enough justification against it.... especially now with smaller maps in use.  Not to say I wouldn't like to see a B-29.... I just don't see it ever happening and opening up the whole "I-wanna-nook" can of worms.

Always heartening to see a thread and topic has been at least noticed by the powers on high, Pyro!  

[cobia38]

its cute !!
 I WANT ONE !!!!!:D

[tedrbr]

Ah, I found a photo with the gunner's position:





Also two decent sites for photos and registry info on Invaders.

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/a26registry/a26registry.html#A-26B

http://ronsarchive.com/A-26_2nd/index.htm

[frank3]

I'd say aiming trough those periscopes would be terribly difficult, with a normal gunsight you always have more S.A.

[Tails]

Hmm, monocular vision through the gun sight. Means you get no depth perception...

On the plus side, it will be the most accurately simulated bomber gunner position in any flight sim as a result

[tedrbr]

Like it states above (somewhere), the periscope had a 70 degree field of view.  Plus top periscope partially blocked in forward view, bottom blocked in rear view.  Primarily I posted the pic to show the periscope stalk for any that might not get the idea from external pics.

Anyone know what degree our field of view in gunsights are now?

On the plus side, if they cared to try and model it, use of the HAT/view switches could have you gazing out of the rear canopy for acquisition, like a rear gunner would (similar to "looking up" from bomb sight - F6 - view now).... then use "periscope" view for targeting.  Then you also have external view for bombers to use as well.

Even if the barbettes in an A-26 had narrower fields of view, and they do have less firepower combined than other medium bombers that have more turrets. and modeling the "locking barbettes forward with main guns" option is probably not a good idea to try and feature (and unnecessary with firepower, and you'll often need the barbette ammo for defense anyways to be wasting in on attacks) --- in the end, any deficiencies in the defensive armament is no worse than, say a JU-88's limited, constrained, and weak defensive guns, and besides, the strengths of the Invader more than make up for it.


One guess.... the "Anyone need a gunner?" questions in Country and Help channels would often be replaced by "Any Invaders need a gunner?"  were we to see this plane.

[tedrbr]

Did come across WWII A-26 Invader Flying Tips.... about 15 minutes low res video:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/A-26.html

Interesting to watch if an Invader fan.