Author Topic: A-26  (Read 1399 times)

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3993
A-26
« on: May 01, 2013, 12:44:45 AM »
How would it fare in AH and how did it do in AW?
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: A-26
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2013, 09:11:21 AM »
Dunno and fine.  :D

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3993
Re: A-26
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2013, 11:17:34 AM »
I want uber bomber then. It's know a bigger 38! :banana:
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: A-26
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2013, 12:12:01 PM »
How would it fare in AH and how did it do in AW?

In AW it enjoyed a rather over modeled flight model that allowed it to out turn and stall fight Zekes and Spitfires like any other bomber in AW.

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: A-26
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2013, 12:18:55 PM »
Based on its wing loading I would guess it will turn something like an Me410 in AH.

Its advantages will be speed, bombload and firepower.

Many years ago I spoke with Pyro and he brought it up as an example of a perk bomber.  I imagine it would be the cheapest perk bomber, probably at about 10 like the F4U-1C.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3993
Re: A-26
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2013, 12:32:44 PM »
In AW it enjoyed a rather over modeled flight model that allowed it to out turn and stall fight Zekes and Spitfires like any other bomber in AW.

ack-ack

that's just funny.

And I'd pay 10perks for it. Didn't it have simile turrets to the 29?
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline tunnelrat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: A-26
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2013, 12:42:06 PM »
that's just funny.

And I'd pay 10perks for it. Didn't it have simile turrets to the 29?

Similar in that they were the low-profile remote controlled turrets, but it only had a dorsal and ventral turret. (2 .50's each)

It was very fast, however, and if the external racks were allowed would carry more ords than a B-17... 4k internal, 2k external.

Of course, another option - if the gun pods made it in - would be up to 16 .50s with 8 in the nose and 8 in underwing pods.



« Last Edit: May 01, 2013, 12:43:42 PM by tunnelrat »
In-Game: 80hd
The Spartans do not enquire how many the enemy are but where they are.

Offline TOMCAT21

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: A-26
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2013, 01:51:28 PM »
I could live with it being slightly perked.
RETIRED US Army/ Flying and dying since Tour 80/"We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded." - Capt. Richard Winters.  FSO 412th FNVG/MA- REGULATORS

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3993
Re: A-26
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2013, 02:10:37 PM »
Need this plane :furious :joystick:
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: A-26
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2013, 03:33:17 PM »
Similar in that they were the low-profile remote controlled turrets, but it only had a dorsal and ventral turret. (2 .50's each)

It was very fast, however, and if the external racks were allowed would carry more ords than a B-17... 4k internal, 2k external.

Of course, another option - if the gun pods made it in - would be up to 16 .50s with 8 in the nose and 8 in underwing pods.




The B-26C model, which was called the A-26 "invader" series of aircraft was one of those aircraft which did not receive the praise that it should have during WW2. It just happened to have poor forward vis when in the ground attack mode. The B-26Z, which was never produced, was supposed to fix all the pilot complaints, i.e., a "Malcom" type canopy to improve the forward visibility, but as I said, was never produced. You are correct about the number of guns and bombs carried, but could, with out the wing pods mounted, could also carry 10, 4.5 inch "hummers" for ground attack as well. Great aircraft and very easy to fly!
 1,091 A-26Cs were built and delivered, five at Long Beach, California (A-26C-1-DL and A-26C-2-DL) plus 1,086 at Tulsa, Oklahoma (A-26C-16-DT to A-26B-55-DT). About 53 more airframes were built at Tulsa but not delivered to USAAF, some of those later sold to other civil and military customers. A-26C was re designated B-26C with USAF in 1948. This tough old bird had a top speed around 350 IAS, before it started "groaning", and was still in service up until late 70's with some Air National guard units. Some were still flying as late as late 90's as fire bombers, based at Chino, Calf. There were some TB-26C's produced, but total is unknown, many of whom wound up in South Vietnam. One of the little know facts about the TB model in South Vietnam, nobody but a handfull of USAF pilots knew anything much about them, so the good ole CIA pilots of Air America was training the Nam pilots. Many of the Air America pilots who were flying C-123's had experience in the 26C, so I was told. Would certainly be a nice addition to the AH hangar of aircraft.
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: A-26
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2013, 04:37:26 PM »
Earl,

The Martin B-26 and the Douglad A-26 are 100% unrelated aircraft.  It is confusing because the A-26 was renamed B-26 after the MartinB-26 was retired.  In short, the A-26 was not a new version of the B-26 from WWII.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3993
Re: A-26
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2013, 05:35:45 PM »
I always saw the 26 as a bug brother of the 20.
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline earl1937

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2290
Re: A-26
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2013, 01:27:26 PM »
Earl,

The Martin B-26 and the Douglad A-26 are 100% unrelated aircraft.  It is confusing because the A-26 was renamed B-26 after the MartinB-26 was retired.  In short, the A-26 was not a new version of the B-26 from WWII.
Did not mean to infere that it was one and same! The ole Martin series was never really a good aircraft, although a lot of them saw a lot of action. The Douglas B-26, which came into serice, if memory serves me correctly, late 43 or early 44. Didn't mean to confuse anyone. Never been in a Martin A-26, but went throught flight school on the Douglas B-26 at Kessler AFB, in eary 50's. Can't remember a lot of details about TIA and ground school, but was there about 3 months. Can't hardly remember what I did yesterday! LOL
Blue Skies and wind at my back and wish that for all!!!

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: A-26
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2013, 03:53:24 PM »
The Martin B-26 had the lowest loss rate of any American bomber in the European theater.  It wasn't going to Berlin, but still, not a bad bomber.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: A-26
« Reply #14 on: May 03, 2013, 03:26:45 AM »
Before the A26, why not the Beaufighter?

The A26 would turn the MA into P51D and A26 monotonous base grab hoards. It's speed would be the attraction then the firepower.

Now with our updated town model and xBox weenie hero's. I wish Hitech would allow some percentage of airfields on maps to be closer than 1 sector. The distances unlike in the earlier era of AH, are promoting a diffusion of available combatants at altitude hiding from combat looking only to pick or not take part in the local fight. You fly a sector and change to then loiter around in diffuse "onesy twosys" talking to other players on range about when they bet anyone will simply fight.

The current distances are allowing fight avoidance in favor of FSO inspired very high altitude strategies or obvious pandering to lack of ACM Combat skills in the AH physics environment. Allowing fields to be placed at .75 of a sector would bring players back into immediate contact and cause them to adapt. More than a decade of game experience favors the adaptation will be attempting to learn some ACM by the majority.

The current distances are not a friend to the future natural evolution of players forced to find sources of knowledge to ingame ACM strategies. Currently we are turning into arcade xBox hero's and not much different than the competitors.     
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.