U.S.A.A.C. TRAINING FILM #1332 " flight charictaristics of the douglas a20"

[Brooke]

A20 out-turn some fighters with full bomb load, without any structural damage done to it.

No it can't.  I've flown the A-20 a fair amount in dogfights, and I don't think it can outturn fighters even when the A-20 isn't carrying any bombs.  If you think so, I suspect that you are looking at an unfair comparison, like situations where the A-20 has more E that it is dumping into temporary turn rate, and you are mistaking that for a situation where both planes have the same E.

The turn capability of the A-20 isn't horrible, and is great for a bomber, but it isn't in the same league as fighters.

Also, it's all about g's.  An A-20 can certainly turn when carrying bombs.  If that turn generates less than about 3-4 g's, then it's fine, as the airframe with bombs loaded can certainly handle some g's -- just not 6 g's with bombs.

[Serenity]

We're published do NOT pull greater than 6.5 G below 5,000 ft... Ask me how many times we hit 7.1 this last month... just food for thought.

[colmbo]

We're published do NOT pull greater than 6.5 G below 5,000 ft... Ask me how many times we hit 7.1 this last month... just food for thought.

What does altitude have to do with load factor?

[PR3D4TOR]

It doesn't matter how experienced an operator of any type of vehichle is, he or she is not going to be able to push it outside of it's designed performance envelope. it doesn't matter if it's an airplane or an automobile.  It's  not experience it's engineering and physics, the wing cantilever and fitting to the airframe,  proper modeling  and  realism is what separates a game from a true simulator. one option like as in the zerstorers is while they are still around have the men and women...who flew  and fought in them and against them to critique the performance of the ah planes,  the women part,, there were a lot of woman pilots in the ussr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7R7jZmliGc

[Serenity]

What does altitude have to do with load factor?

A question that has been asked by every pilot who has flown this jet. My personal answer: no one has ever said "it MUST be well-engineered, it's British!"

[PR3D4TOR]

The only reason I can think of is that at the same speed at lower altitudes the dynamic load on the wings just from flying straight and level is higher than at high altitude.

[Ack-Ack]

IIRC, is stated in the pilot's manual that the A-20 had a tendency to enter into a nasty spin if banked past a certain degree in a turn, which is why pilots were prohibited from performing aerobatics in the Havoc.

[PR3D4TOR]

That makes no sense at all. The plane doesn't know where the ground is. The plane only react to the forces acting upon it. There is little or no difference between flying straight and level and doing a 1 G barrel roll.

[FLS]

What does altitude have to do with load factor?

Maybe they're worried about the pilot not the airframe.

[Ack-Ack]

There are some interesting things in the Boston III's Pilot Operating Instructions, things like:

• Tab controls are NOT to be used for maneuvering or dive recovery assistance
• Bombs should not be dropped while the aircraft is at an angle of dive in excess of 20 degrees

I wonder what had changed between the Boston II and the Boston III for the RAF to add the warning not to use tab controls to assist in dive recovery when the Boston II manual states, "In a dive the aeroplane tends to become tail heavy and the trimming tabs should be used carefully to correct this."

The Boston II was also able to use its gear as dive brakes, as stated in the Boston II manual, "For speeds up to 355mph IAS, the under carriage may be lowered and used as a dive brake."  That was removed in the Boston III for some reason.

[PR3D4TOR]

In AH bombs magically spawn beneath the airplane, so we don't need such restrictions. Dive-bombing lancs FTW!