Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: cobia38 on August 13, 2005, 04:23:41 PM
-
how about an A-26 with 8 nose and 10 wingmouted 50.cals
-
Originally posted by cobia38
how about an A-26 with 8 nose and 10 wingmouted 50.cals
::sniff:: I miss the vader too.
Can we trade in the A 20 for it?
-
+1
-
-1
We need aircraft that were major participants in the war added. Things that barely played a role can wait. It isn't like the US planeset is lacking in capability.
B-17E, B-17F or B-24D I can get behind though.
-
Naaaah, we need an A-26...
And the perk price lowerd on the mossie, who flys that thing anyway/?
-
how about an A-26 with 8 nose and 10 wingmouted 50.cals
Is it that necessary to have that many guns. What will happen is people will HO with it, I can see text 200 whining right now.
-
Is it that necessary to have that many guns. What will happen is people will HO with it, I can see text 200 whining right now.
no different than getting in front of a 110, if your dumb enough to do it you deserve it.
-
Is it that necessary to have that many guns. What will happen is people will HO with it, I can see text 200 whining right now.
Then let them whine.
-
how about an A-26 with 8 nose and 10 wingmouted 50.cals
So much for saving HTC $$$ on 50 cal bullets............... :devil
Would be nice to see at some point,have found memories of flying it in another sim. :aok
:salute
-
no different than getting in front of a 110, if your dumb enough to do it you deserve it.
Big difference with you have a 110 HOing you with 20/30 MM over 18 x .50 cals.
-
Big difference with you have a 110 HOing you with 20/30 MM over 18 x .50 cals.
How's it any different? If you HO a 110, you should expect to die. If you HO an A-26, you should expect to die.
-
-1
We need aircraft that were major participants in the war added. Things that barely played a role can wait. It isn't like the US planeset is lacking in capability.
B-17E, B-17F or B-24D I can get behind though.
I can understand your train of thought here, BUT: haven't the last 2 or 3 planes added been planes that were major participants?
Time for something fun! :rock
Gettin a little sick of filling the "gaps".
A-26 all the way!! :pray
-
INVADA! :aok
-
I can understand your train of thought here, BUT: haven't the last 2 or 3 planes added been planes that were major participants?
Time for something fun! :rock
Gettin a little sick of filling the "gaps".
A-26 all the way!! :pray
The last plane added was the Mosquito Mk XVI, something that was not a "fill the gap" addition and much more of an "uberplane" addition. The most recent announcement was the G4M1, which was a "fill the gap" announcement. I believe the P-47M was the aircraft prior to the Mosquito Mk XVI, and that is another pure "uberplane" addition. So of the last three, two were "uberplanes" and one was a "fill the gap" addition.
There are not terribly many "uberplanes" left to be added. The A-26 is one of those.
-
The last plane added was the Mosquito Mk XVI, something that was not a "fill the gap" addition and much more of an "uberplane" addition. The most recent announcement was the G4M1, which was a "fill the gap" announcement. I believe the P-47M was the aircraft prior to the Mosquito Mk XVI, and that is another pure "uberplane" addition. So of the last three, two were "uberplanes" and one was a "fill the gap" addition.
There are not terribly many "uberplanes" left to be added. The A-26 is one of those.
Maybe its just me, but the Mosquito and the 47m were more of a modification of already existing airframes.
The 25 and the Brewster were "fill the gap" planes as well as the G4 and the P-39. (but who's countin?)
Its time for another "uber"plane.
-
how about an A-26 with 8 nose and 10 wingmouted 50.cals
No such animal.
wrongway
-
as stated before.. I can get behind this if I have the option of using it to put out fires ;)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/4/3/0664345.jpg)
-
+1
-
How's it any different? If you HO a 110, you should expect to die. If you HO an A-26, you should expect to die.
1) 110 has 2 x 20mm and 2 x 30 mm, low firing rate. A-26 with 18 x .50, fast firing rate.
2) Going back to 1#, A-26 most likely throws out 4-5 time more lead out at you then what the 110 can.
3) More gun can pack a huge punch spraying a con over a 110, have a high % hit rate.
There is the big difference.
-
I think it's about to give birth! :O
-
No such animal.
wrongway
ohhhhhh please forgive me it was a typo, shoulda been 8 in nose and 6 in wings.
-
1) 110 has 2 x 20mm and 2 x 30 mm, low firing rate. A-26 with 18 x .50, fast firing rate.
2) Going back to 1#, A-26 most likely throws out 4-5 time more lead out at you then what the 110 can.
3) More gun can pack a huge punch spraying a con over a 110, have a high % hit rate.
There is the big difference.
you forget though, it only takes one 30 mm to bring a plane down,compared to how many 50.cal so your statement is moot
-
you forget though, it only takes one 30 mm to bring a plane down,compared to how many 50.cal so your statement is moot
Yes, but compared the fire rate of the 30mm to just .50 cal. You have a greater chance of getting a hit with the .50 cal
-
You seem to think the .50 cal had a high rate of fire. It did not. 12.5 rounds per second is what I usually see listed for it, which puts it squarely between the Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon's 10 rounds per second and the Ho-5 20mm cannon's 15 rounds per second.
The US Navy concluded that a single M2 20mm cannon (Hispano Mk II) installation was equal to the firepower of a triple Browning .50 caliber instalation. 10 rounds per second vs 37.5 rounds per second and being equal.
The MK108 30mm cannon hits far harder for the weight of the weapon and ammo. One MK108 is probably worth about ten .50 cals.
-
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
-
who cares if they're equal or not, you ho either one of them. you will die, either by .50 or by 20-30. dead is dead.
semp
-
Cobia if A-26 flies similar to the A-20 I think we should keep it as a wish. You sir are too good already to be given even more .50's to punish us all with :salute
-
+111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 :aok
-
Performance wise, I think A-26 handles more like a Mossie than an A-20. Their top speeds are 11mph apart, with the Mossie having the edge.
Personally, I think the A-26 was operational long enough to warrant it in the game. While the Mossie is nice to have as a perked bomber, I'd still prefer something with better ground attack capabilities.
J
-
+1 on the A-26
-
cur-BUMP! :aok
-
Armament:(A-26B) ten 0.5in Brownings, six fixed in nose and two each in dorsal and ventral turrets; internal bomb load of 4,000lb (1814kg), later supplemented by underwing load of up to 2,000lb (907kg); (A-26C) similar but only two 0.5in in nose; (B-26K, A-26A) various nose configurations with up to eight 0.5in or four 20mm, plus six 0.30in guns in wings and total ordnance load of 8,000lb (3629kg) in bomb bay and on eight outer-wing pylons.
:airplane:
-
Well I can understand the purists. And now hey have the Betty bomber, "tho nobody will probably fly the thing after the first few weeks". At best its MW, in LW its going to get slaughtered by every 15yo in a P-51D.
Heres some perspective for why we need the A-26. In tour 129 the EWAs had a combine K/D of 1,113. The MWAs had a combined 23,454. The LWAs had a combined 739,708 K/Ds. Thats over 30 times that of MW and about 70 times that of EW. So I guess players have voted with their feet and we need somthing that is both fun and can survive against the horde of 190s, K4s, P-51Ds, 47Ms, LAs.....ect The A-26 fits the bill in all ways.
I wish it were different but it aint. Personaly I'd rather see the TU-2 or the PE-2. Both would be competative and finally give us a Soviet bomber. The TU-2 would give us a level bomber, a dive bomber, a torpedo plane, a night fighter, all kinds of good things. But the Invader would cause more excitement and be the more survivable airplane. It saw as much or more service in WW-ll as many airframes we currently have beginning in spring of '44. It would have to be perked I believe, tho Im not sure by how much.
-
Well I can understand the purists. And now hey have the Betty bomber, "tho nobody will probably fly the thing after the first few weeks". At best its MW, in LW its going to get slaughtered by every 15yo in a P-51D.
Heres some perspective for why we need the A-26. In tour 129 the EWAs had a combine K/D of 1,113. The MWAs had a combined 23,454. The LWAs had a combined 739,708 K/Ds. Thats over 30 times that of MW and about 70 times that of EW. So I guess players have voted with their feet and we need somthing that is both fun and can survive against the horde of 190s, K4s, P-51Ds, 47Ms, LAs.....ect The A-26 fits the bill in all ways.
I wish it were different but it aint. Personaly I'd rather see the TU-2 or the PE-2. Both would be competative and finally give us a Soviet bomber. The TU-2 would give us a level bomber, a dive bomber, a torpedo plane, a night fighter, all kinds of good things. But the Invader would cause more excitement and be the more survivable airplane. It saw as much or more service in WW-ll as many airframes we currently have beginning in spring of '44. It would have to be perked I believe, tho Im not sure by how much.
I dont think there should be a perk. Definitely a lower ENY then most planes of its type, but no perk.
-
even if you perk the crap out of it, some of us so many bomber perks we could fly it non stop for a year :rofl
-
The A-26 will not have the performance that so many of you seem to think. It will be quite a potent ground attack aircraft, but it will be very vulnerable in air-to-air encounters. It is not fast, topping out at only about 355mph, and its very high wing loading means it will not turn very tightly. Like all twin engined aircraft, barring the boosted aileron P-38, it will have a sedate roll rate.
-
The A-26 will not have the performance that so many of you seem to think. It will be quite a potent ground attack aircraft, but it will be very vulnerable in air-to-air encounters. It is not fast, topping out at only about 355mph, and its very high wing loading means it will not turn very tightly. Like all twin engined aircraft, barring the boosted aileron P-38, it will have a sedate roll rate.
The A-26 POH clearly states that aerobatic dogfighting maneuvers were to be avoided because of the tendency of the A-26 to enter into a nasty spin when the wings are banked beyond a certain angle at slow speeds. This problem wasn't fixed until post-war, before Korea.
Though, I wonder if this particular quirk of the Invader would be modeled in AH if it wins the vote.
*EDIT* Correcting myself, it wasn't a spin that would result, the wing would stall out.
ack-ack
-
Armament:(A-26B) ten 0.5in Brownings, six fixed in nose and two each in dorsal and ventral turrets; internal bomb load of 4,000lb (1814kg), later supplemented by underwing load of up to 2,000lb (907kg); (A-26C) similar but only two 0.5in in nose; (B-26K, A-26A) various nose configurations with up to eight 0.5in or four 20mm, plus six 0.30in guns in wings and total ordnance load of 8,000lb (3629kg) in bomb bay and on eight outer-wing pylons.
:airplane:
The red is very incorrect.
The A-26 was designed with an "All-Purpose Nose" which could be configured with a variety of combinations of armament, including combinations of .50 cal. mgs, 37mm cannon, and 75mm cannon.
From A-26 and B-26 Invader by Scott Thompson: There is no indication that any A-26 entered combat with anything other than six or eight .50 calibre gun noses.
No 20mm.
wrongway
-
heh, look at the date of the OP. :confused:
-
Guess I should have put dates in. The red that you highlighted would be for the B-26K, A-26A. The A-26B and the A-26C would be what we would see in game. There were air forces using the A-26A (as the rebuilt b-26K was called) in 1977. A-26A was made in 1948 from what I understand.
I was responding to the first post and trying to show that there were not 18 guns.
-
The A-26 POH clearly states that aerobatic dogfighting maneuvers were to be avoided because of the tendency of the A-26 to enter into a nasty spin when the wings are banked beyond a certain angle at slow speeds. This problem wasn't fixed until post-war, before Korea.
Though, I wonder if this particular quirk of the Invader would be modeled in AH if it wins the vote.
*EDIT* Correcting myself, it wasn't a spin that would result, the wing would stall out.
ack-ack
maybe there will be a miracle like with the 110's we have. in ww2 they got shot down so easily by the spits and hurrican due to its inability to turn. towards the end of the war, they actually were not allowed to go into england without heavy fighter escort.
another point is the b20, look how people use it to dogfite.
but I dont really care if the a26 can turn or not, it's just the fact that in aw was so much fun, that just flying one in ah has been my dream since i joined 4 or 5 years ago. it is one of those things that bring lots of fond memories, like the sheep, that now has disappeared.
semp
-
I just want it. Whether it is "uber" or "toejamty" I want it. Simple as that. :devil
-
I just want it. Whether it is "uber" or "toejamty" I want it. Simple as that. :devil
LOL HTC...
-
The A-26 POH clearly states that aerobatic dogfighting maneuvers were to be avoided because of the tendency of the A-26 to enter into a nasty spin when the wings are banked beyond a certain angle at slow speeds. This problem wasn't fixed until post-war, before Korea.
Though, I wonder if this particular quirk of the Invader would be modeled in AH if it wins the vote.
*EDIT* Correcting myself, it wasn't a spin that would result, the wing would stall out.
Don't know which POH for the A-26 you have been reading but the Pilot traning manual for the Invader - A-26 states the following:
"Remember that the A-26 has a high wingloading, and your stalling speed increases with the rate of bank."
...this isn't some "particular quirk of the Invader" but something that applies to all traditional fixed wing aircraft that fly under the Newtonian physics of this universe. Simple physics.
-
B-29 :noid
You guys killed the Beau.... so I shall kill you.... :cry :mad:
-
Pe-8
:bolt:
-
Guess I should have put dates in. The red that you highlighted would be for the B-26K, A-26A. The A-26B and the A-26C would be what we would see in game. There were air forces using the A-26A (as the rebuilt b-26K was called) in 1977. A-26A was made in 1948 from what I understand.
I was responding to the first post and trying to show that there were not 18 guns.
B-26K's still never had 20mm cannon nor .30 calibre machine guns....
wrongway
-
Our weapons loadouts should be simple... in addition to the four (4) .50cal in the upper and lower turrets...
We should have the choice of a glass nose, 6-gun, or 8 gun nose, with obvious penalties in performance due to weight.
(http://www.airventure.de/warbirdmus_kissimmee/pe-12-A-26%20Invader.JPG)
(http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/606/A-26B_Invader_Nose_Art_from_WWII_days.jpg)
We should also have the option of wing gun packs, adding an additional four (4) .50cal MGs to the wings, again, with drag and weight performance reductions.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/a26-006.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/a26-007.jpg)
I like the A-26, mostly because of improved survivability in the LW arena. If you're vehemently against the A-26, well, this one is for you...
(http://www.manbottle.com/pictures/b-26.jpg)
-
I like the A-26, mostly because of improved survivability in the LW arena. If you're vehemently against the A-26, well, this one is for you...
(http://www.manbottle.com/pictures/b-26.jpg)
:lol :rofl
-
I wonder which will happen first - Skuzzy to edit that pic, or someone to verify that its his backside!
J
-
I never stated that a a-26 with cannon was used in combat. All I did was list the armament that Bill Gunston had listed in his book. They did make a prototype with a 20mm. There was at least one made. Why did they list this, even though it was not used in combat? Because they show the complete history of the aircraft.
I was also shocked to find out that they made one with 18 guns firing forward. 8 in nose, the 2 turrets were locked in place firing forward, and they put 3 under both wings. IT DID NOT SEE COMBAT, but they made at least one.
This is what we would see in game--
(A-26B) ten 0.5in Brownings, six fixed in nose and two each in dorsal and ventral turrets; internal bomb load of 4,000lb (1814kg), later supplemented by underwing load of up to 2,000lb (907kg); (A-26C) similar but only two 0.5in in nose.
-
I never stated that a a-26 with cannon was used in combat. All I did was list the armament that Bill Gunston had listed in his book. They did make a prototype with a 20mm. There was at least one made. Why did they list this, even though it was not used in combat? Because they show the complete history of the aircraft.
Dunno where Bill got his information, but it's wrong.
(http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8338/image1wa.jpg)
The only reference I can find for 20mm on an A-26 is a proposed night fighter version that did not go beyond the design phase.
I was also shocked to find out that they made one with 18 guns firing forward. 8 in nose, the 2 turrets were locked in place firing forward, and they put 3 under both wings. IT DID NOT SEE COMBAT, but they made at least one.
This is what we would see in game--
(A-26B) ten 0.5in Brownings, six fixed in nose and two each in dorsal and ventral turrets; internal bomb load of 4,000lb (1814kg), later supplemented by underwing load of up to 2,000lb (907kg); (A-26C) similar but only two 0.5in in nose.
Incorrect again. The lower turret will not lock forward to fire directly forward. 360o travel in rotation, and depressed from 5o to 89o down.
There is a distinct step in the fuselage forward of the lower turret where it fares into the rear of the bomb bay.
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Attack/A26Invader.jpg)
Also, with the installation of a new, bulged canopy, the upper guns could no longer be locked forward to fire.
In mid-September 1944 a hand-built prototype canopy was installed on an A-26B at Long Beach. Two moulded Plexiglas hatches, bulging upward over the cockpit, replaced the flat, framed canopy. The two hatches were hinged on the outside edges, opening outward in a clam shell fashion and meeting in the middle when closed. The decking behind the cockpit was also modified to meet the lines of the bulging canopy as it fared back into the fuselage. Besides the improved visibility, the higher canopy also allowed the pilot to look over the top of the nacelles on each side of the aeroplane, with the right side hatch extending further aft than the left hatch to increase visibility toward the right rear of the cockpit. One drawback was that the top turret guns could no longer be locked forward for use by the pilot for strafing since the canopy bulged into the line of fire.
(Douglas A-26 and B-26 Invader by Scott Thompson)
You still could potentially have 18 forward firing .50s but at the expense of poor visibility and slower airspeed.
wrongway
-
I like the A-26, mostly because of improved survivability in the LW arena. If you're vehemently against the A-26, well, this one is for you...
(http://www.manbottle.com/pictures/b-26.jpg)
I wonder which will happen first - Skuzzy to edit that pic, or someone to verify that its his backside!
J
That is, infact, cobia's hiney.
-
Good lord a 75mm and a 37mm in the nose, wow!
-
Later versions also carried 6 .50cal in the wings...so in theory...unless the wing packs couldn't be carried on the versions with the wing guns...
You could have an 8 gun nose, 6 fifties in the wings, and an additional 8 fifties in two twin packs under each wing, for a total of 22 .50cal machine guns.
Now - it more than likely never happened, why would anyone want the added drag and weight of 8 more .50s when you've got 14 already...but...unless someone has a pilot's manual for an A-26, it could, in theory, be done.
According to Francis Gallemi's Warbird Profile A-26B/C (Aries Publications, 1994), two twin 'tubs' could be carried under each wing. The author mentions that used in conjunction with the wing-mounted .50s, it dramatically increased the Invader's firepower...
Attached is a pic...
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/jherne/tub.jpg)
-
That is, infact, cobia's hiney.
nope my hiney is not that fat :D
-
Good lord a 75mm and a 37mm in the nose, wow!
Never used.
ack-ack
-
+1 to the A-26!
-
Attached is a pic...
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/jherne/tub.jpg)
interesting!
how much ammo is in those twin pack pod dealies? doesn't look like theres room for much.
-
The Douglas XA-26A was a prototype night fighter/attack aircraft ordered at the same time as the XA-26 light attack bomber. The XA-26A was similar to the XA-26 but was designed specifically for the night attack mission. The aircraft had a solid nose designed to carry radar used for search, intercept and attack. Since the nose was filled with electronics, there was no room for attack weaponry. Douglas engineers solved the problem by designing a ventral "tub" housing four 20mm cannons. The cannon machinery and ammunition boxes took up a relatively large amount of space in what was the forward bomb bay of the XA-26. Only the aft bomb bay was retained and gave the XA-26A a maximum internal bomb load of just 2,000 pounds. Defensive armament consisted of a remote controlled dorsal barbette with four .50-cal. machine guns.
Testing of the XA-26A was successful; however, its performance was about the same as the Northrop P-61 "Black Widow" night fighter. The P-61 was already in production and Douglas was short of production capacity for new aircraft so the XA-26A program was canceled after only a single prototype was built.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y268/bigspivey/XA-26A.jpg) (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y268/bigspivey/invaderxa-26ajpgw300h192.jpg)
Serial # 41-19505
-
Too bad the A-26 didnt make it. Maybe next time +2 anyways