Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: tedrbr on January 31, 2007, 02:12:54 AM
-
Douglas A-26B/C Invader Reference Information:
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/a-26silverleftturn.jpg)
Overview:
A High performance medium bomber/attack plane (also referred to as (Ground) Attack Fighter, Close Support Attack Fighter, Light Bomber in roles it filled in WWII) during late WWII, the Douglas XA-26 prototype first flew July 10, 1942, and saw military service from August 1943 until final retirement from Air Guard in 1972. Designed and meant to not only to replace the DB-7/A-20 Havoc, but also the North American B-25 Mitchell and Martin B-26 Marauder light bombers. They flew in the Pacific Theater, the European Theater, Korean War, Vietnam, and small conflicts from Central America, Asia, and Africa. Re-designated the B-26 in 1947 by the USAF when the Marauder declared obsolete. Some converted to business planes for corporate executives and military brass, and, probably most famously, as water bombers to fight forest fires. Quite a few are still around. Nearly 40 are still airworthy. A-26 was hampered by initial development problems, caused reportedly by indecisiveness of the USAAF about armament mix, and a lack of manufacturing equipment.
Three variations of the A26 Invader were initially conceived - a night fighter, a level bomber and an attack variant. The night fighter was not adopted as the Black Widow got that job during WWII.
They began arriving in England in September 1944 for assignment to the 9th Air Force and entered combat two months later on Nov. 19, 1944. Invaders began operations in the Pacific Theater in January 1945. Invaders saw combat for 7 months in the European Theater, and 8 months in the Pacific Theater.
2,448 – 2,452 to 2,502 Aircraft were built (sources vary, and may or may not include prototypes).
The A-26B "solid nose" (aka “All Purpose Nose”) Invader was seen more in WWII, the A-26C "glass nose" with Norden bombsight was also used... Invaders could be converted between the B and C models in the field in a couple hours, and often a B model that got the glass canopy was re-designated a C model.......but not always..... this has led to some confusion about the B and C models in surviving aircraft, A-26 websites, and restoration information.
Originally, the optional wing guns were mounted in gun pods on very early models. The water-injected R-2800-79 engines wing panels with internally-mounted guns, increased tank capacity, and provision for underwing rockets were introduced on the production line with the A-26C-45-DT block, and allowed an additional 2,000 pounds of ord to be mounted on the wings.
Details:
Type: Attack/Medium Bomber
Crew: Three in B model (pilot and navigator/radioman in the cockpit and a gunner). The C model added a co-pilot/bombardier.
Specifications
Length: 51' 3" (15.24 m)
Height: 18' 6" (5.64 m)
Wingspan: 70' (21.34 m)
Wing Area: 540 Sq. Feet (50 m²)
Empty weight: 22,850 lb (10,365 kg)
Loaded weight: 27,600 lb (12,519 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,900 kg)
Propulsion
Number of Engines: 2
Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-27 "Double Wasp" 18-cylinder radial engines; Horsepower: 2000 HP each (1,500 kW)
Performance
Normal Range: 1400 miles (1,200 nm, 2,300 km)
Maximum (ferry) range: 3200 miles
Cruise Speed: 284 mph
Max Speed: 355 mph (308 knots, 570 km/h) at 15,000 feet
Ceiling: 22,100 feet (6,700 m)
Rate of climb: 1,250 ft/min (6.4 m/s)
An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 8.0 - 8.2 minutes
Wing loading: 51 lb/ft² (250 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.145 hp/lb (108 W/kg)
Armament
Guns - typical, late model A-26B
8× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in the nose
6-8 × 0.50 in M2 machine guns in/under the wings (internally mount or gun pods)
2× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in remote-controlled dorsal turret
2× 0.50 in M2 machine guns in remote-controlled ventral turret (or fuel cell)
Bombs: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg)-4,000 lb in the bomb bay and 2,000 lb external on the wings (post A-26C-45-DT block introduction).
C-model typically was built with 2 forward firing .50's, plus 2-twin barbettes and additional guns were added to the wings once delivered for operations in the field. C-models performed as pathfinders and observation aircraft often, and were fewer in production numbers.
Original A-26B from Original Pilot’s Training Manual was listed as having 6 configurations for the "All Purpose Nose" (The B model) – not counting the original two "4-pack" gun pods option that could be mounted under the wings (before the 6 internal .50's - 3 per wing - were done with/after 45-block).
* 6 -.50s (later upped to 8) – most commonly ordered configuration
* 1 - 37mm and 4 - .50's
* 1 - 37mm and 2 - .50's
* 2 - 37mm’s (gah!)
* 1 - 75mm and 1 - 37 mm (Racks held 20 rounds for manually loaded 75mm)
* 1 - 75mm and 2 -.50's (30 actually ordered and deployed by numbers below....crimminy!!)
Unsure if any of the other configurations were ordered, deployed, or retrofitted in the field later. That was one great thing about the A-26, you could swap nose components in and out in hours. 75mms?? 2 – 37 mms?? Yikes!
Ammo capacity reported to be 500 rounds-per-gun in the barbettes, 400 rounds-per-gun in the nose. Wing guns about the same, but no fixed numbers yet.
75mm had racks for 20 rounds, manually loaded by loader in jump seat in cockpit.
Ordanance:
Up to 6,000 lb, consisting of 2 × 2,000 lb max in 2 internal bays, plus 4 underwing hardpoints rated at 500 lb each. Total of 20 hard points, but maximum of 16 could be used at any one time points.
Loadout was generally:
* 4 × 1,000 lb, or
* 8 × 500 lb, or
* 8 × 250 lb, or
* 12 × 100 lb internal
* 4 × 500 lb or 4 × 250 lb under the wings additional typical, 4 X 100 lbs possible
Torpedoes/rockets: 14 × 5 inch rockets under the wings instead of bombs.
(Original Training Guide also lists 2 torpedoes carried internally (doors open), but I don't think it was ever used this way in WWII, since by that time, Axis fleets were mostly done, and an A-26 low and slow for torps is not a good use of that plane.)
Diving Speeds:
26,000 lbs gross --- 425 IAS
32,000 lbs gross --- 400 IAS
35,500 lbs gross --- 360 IAS
Fuel capacity
Internal 6.056 l, plus provision for 1.173 l if the ventral barbette was omitted (mostly the Pacific theatre) Fuel capacity external 1.741 l in two drop tanks.
Normal fuel consumption at cruise approx 150 GPH
• Main Tanks, 300 gals each
• Aux Tanks 100 gallons each
• Bomb Bay Tank 125 gallons
Total Normal = 925 gallons
• Ferry Tank 675 gallons
Total Ferry = 1600 gallons
• Ventral barbette was dropped for an additional fuel tank with 258.1 Imp gal (310 US gal/1.173 l) in some cases for Pacific operations.
• Option of 460 US gal fuel in two wing mounted drop tanks, 1 hard point each.
The cabin and fuel tanks of the A26 Invader were heavily armored, adding increased protection to the aircraft and her crew.
-
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1_1950.jpg)
Production numbers and details:
A26BInvader
• A-26B-5: (30 aircraft), without the camouflage, and with 1 × 75 mm cannon in the nose plus 2 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) machine guns on the left.
• A-26B-10: (55 aircraft), 6 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) guns in the nose, and 2 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) in each of the barbettes.
• A-26B-15: (142 aircraft), 8 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) guns in the nose, and 2 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) in each of the barbettes, plus 4 additional gun packs mounted on the underwing hardpoints, each with 2 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) guns.
• A-26B-16: (2 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26B-20: (153 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26B-25: (63 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26B-30: (75 aircraft), new devised cockpit canopy, to improve sideview from the cockpit. (A Major issue when plane first fielded)
• A-26B-35: (75 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26B-40: (100 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26B-45: (120 aircraft), Powered by 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-79 Double Wasp water injected radials, rated at 2,000 hp (1.491 kW) each, with war emergency power of 2,350 hp (1.752 kW).
• A-26B-50: (109 aircraft), Gun armament revised to 8 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) fixed forward firing in the nose, and 6 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) in the leading edges of the wings in stead of gun packs. Because the nose and outer wing panels were interchangeable with the original units, upgrades were simple. Therefor a lot of older versions could easily and were upgraded to the A-26B-50 armament standard.
• A-26B-51: (6 aircraft), no further specific information, except that the ventral barbette was dropped for an additional fuel tank with 258.1 Imp gal (310 US gal/1.173 l)
• A-26B-55: (121 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26B-56: (19 aircraft), no further specific information, except that the ventral barbette was dropped for an additional fuel tank with 258.1 Imp gal (310 US gal/1.173 l)
• A-26B-60: (34 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26B-61: (110 aircraft), no further specific information, except that the ventral barbette was dropped for an additional fuel tank with 258.1 Imp gal (310 US gal/1.173 l)
• A-26B-66: (136 aircraft), no further specific information, except that the ventral barbette was dropped for an additional fuel tank with 258.1 Imp gal (310 US gal/1.173 l)
A-26C Invader
Glazed nose Invader, for bombing purposes. It had duplicate controls, and 2 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) fixed forward firing guns. The production blocks for the A-26C are identical to the blocks of the A-26B:
• A-26C-1: (1 aircraft), for further specific info see the A-26B entry above
• A-26C-2: (4 aircraft), for further specific info see the A-26B entry above
• A-26C-5: (30 aircraft), for further specific info see the A-26B entry above
• A-26C-15: (27 aircraft), for further specific info see the A-26B entry above
• A-26C-16: (10 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26C-20: (71 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26C-25: (187 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26C-30: (160 aircraft), for further specific info see the A-26B entry above
• A-26C-35: (200 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26C-40: (97 aircraft), no further specific information
• A-26C-45: (127 aircraft), for further specific info see the A-26B entry above
• A-26C-50: (155 aircraft), for further specific info see the A-26B entry above
• A-26C-55: (52 aircraft), no further specific information
Strengths:
• Good handling
• Excellent to Incredible firepower, and flexible mix of ordnance available
• Good performance
Weaknesses:
• Poor fields of vision, and fewer sets of eyes in attack version operations --- the C model in level bombing formation attacks suffered from this less.
In-game: the A-26 Invader would be a suitable addition to the bomber lineup as a way to spend bomber perk points, beyond the existing Ar-234 Arado. It could be split into 2 models, the cheaper, medium level bomber C-model, and a more expensive attack bomber B- model. Flown either single, or as part of a flight w/ drones, with with many of the weapons package options those planes had available to them.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/a26_1_3v.jpg)
-
A-26B Cockpit
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1.jpg)
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/cockpit.jpg)
-
I'm guessing the 'JD-1' nose shots up there are hard-nosed Invaders that have been field retrofit into glass-nose level bombers?
Also, do you have any information on the aiming system for the barbettes? I'll assume that it's the same remote controlled system used on the B-29 and P-61, although looking at the images I cant see how the lower barbette would be aimed. Unless there is another window on that plane I'm not aware of.
-
The nose on the A-26's were historically re-fitted each way, depending on what missions were required, or what was being salvaged and slapped together from battle damage and field crack-ups.
That slide comes from Russian sources, the JD-1 shot may be from Korea, or Vietnam..... have not seen a photo of an Invader with that nose. That graphic also shows the change made to the cockpit canopy to improve vision.
The top sketch shows the nose guns in WWII configuration. The lower vertical stacked configuration of nose guns appears more in Korea and Vietnam as well. I haven't found a WWII pic that has the guns stacked vertically.
Targeting was through two periscopes, 1 for each barbette, and each gave the gunner a 70 degree field of view. Barbettes turned a full 360 degrees, and had the limiters to keep you from shooting holes in your own plane. Gunner also had that big glass canopy to look out the back. So, remote-controlled guns. Only 1 gunner. You can actually see the periscopes in the drawings, top and bottom, along one stalk...... guns synchronized, not sure what kind of view that gave the gunner though....
(One of the reasons sometimes given for not getting the B-29 in-game, but I don't see how modeling those kinds of guns would be that different that what we have now in a computer game --- should be no different than dorsal or belly turrets are, just model the view of view limitation with the graphics and go. What we probably would not get is the big clear canopy at the back...... but, there is always external view.)
-
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.
-
Envisoned A-26B and C in-game.
With one airplane modeled, you can actually create two perked bombers for use in-game to spend bomber perk on.
A cheapr, C-model, meant for level bombing attacks with medium bombers. Priced at about 1/3rd to 1/2 the cost of a Ar-234 Arado in perks.
A more expensive B-model, attack bomber, priced at about 1/3rd to 1/2 the cost of a Me-262 in perks.
The A-26 won't dominate in-game as it did in the real theaters of combat, Invaders did not have to contend with swarms of La-7's, Ponies, Spit-16's, and Niki's during the war. The gun-heavy B-model would be the "lord of the HO", but it won't take long for folks to figure that is the wrong direction in which to approach an Invader.
Ordnance Load out for both the B and C models would be the same.
Internal:
* 4 × 1,000 lb
* 8 × 500 lb
* 8 × 250 lb
* 12 × 100 lb
* 2 x torpedos (an option, but probably not actually used, so this is a throwaway if needed)
Wings (here's were it gets convoluted, and choices need to be made for Hangar screen simplicity):
* clean wing
* 2 - 230 gallon drop tanks
* 14 x 5-inch rockets
* 8 X 5-inch rockets and 2 -230 gallon drop tanks
* 4 × 500 lb
* 4 × 250 lb
* 2 x 500 lb and 8 x 5-inch rockets
* 2 x 250 lb and 8 x 5-inch rockets
(not sure wing could take load of fuel tank and partial bomb combination, so I don't use it here)
Ammunition for C-model:
500 rpg for each twin-.50 barbette
400 rpg for 2 forward nose .50's and 6 wing-mounted .50's
Ammunition for B-model:
500 rpg for each twin .50 barbette
400 rpg for 6 wing-mounted .50 cal MG
options for nose
* 6 - nose mounted .50's w 400 rpg
* 8 - nose mounted .50's w 400 rpg
* 1 - 75mm cannon w 20 rds, 3-5 second load time (manual) plus 2 x .50's with 400 rpg
(no 37mm options ever ordered from factory I am aware of, and may have been intended for Lend-Lease....so I left them out).
Some pilots been wanting a big-cannon armed bomber for a long time..... here it is. 75mm with 20 rds and slow manual loading. 30 for sure were built and fielded..... no idea what conversions were done later on.
-
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.
Yeah, that is one of the reasons given against the B-29. It's just a realllll weak reason, IMHO.... this is a computer game. You jump to a "gun position" in this case, you see a 70 degree field of view with a target reticle. We already deal with 1 gunner operating multiple turrets in existing bombers.
I always considered the "remote gun" argument to be somewhat bogus.
What A-26 gunner probably won't get is the view out of the top, rear canopy, but they have external view to compensate.
A PDF copy of the A-26 Invader's Pilot's Training Manual can be downloaded here:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?FileType=fs2k4&loc=downloads&page=downloads&Category=other#download (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?FileType=fs2k4&loc=downloads&page=downloads&Category=other#download)
About the 9th file down: A-26_TraMan.zip
-
Sorry, I may have been unclear.
The Point of Aim argument solution would be to put the point of aim just above or just below, or even in between, the barrels coming out of the barbette. About where the weather boot is. "Physically" just outside of the barbette. 70 degree field of vision is probably more restrictive than what you get in game from a turret position.
So, the gunner's view in-game would not be from where he is actually sitting, but a simulated view of what would be seen through the periscopes... simplified for use in-game. Not a very realistic solution, but practical.
You don't get the out-the-rear canopy view.... unless you did it similar to looking "up" from the F6 bomb site view (which you would be forced to do well and support if a decision was made to limit the A26 to internal views only, but I think that is a hard sell, all things considered). That way, a hat-switch up, left, or right, could have you looking out of that canopy instead of the "periscope"...... but this also changes your physical Point of Aim location (and probably be more trouble than it's worth in the end) ----------
much easier to just make use of external view for acquisition, and gun site to target, and put up with barbettes having slightly lower fields of view in use as compared to turrets.
-
I think I see what you're saying. That might work. Only, in the B-29 you have a little more complex a problem.
The gunnery stations were placed for best view, and the guns placed for most utility. So the gunner domes would have the best spot to see incoming attackers. If you just jumped to 1 turret and "saw" where the guns on that turret were pointing, you'd be limited in what you could do compared with the real deal.
In the A-26 you just have the 2, almost on top of each other, with about identical gun arcs. But on the B-29 you could have 2 dorsal and 2 ventral turrets all aiming at the same spot. That's also another problem for the turret numbering system (jump to turret 2, is that dorsal1 or dorsal2??). Now the 500yard convergence will mean that all guns should converge at 500 yards, but this depends on the origin point of the gunner. If you're in just 1 turret then you have problems getting all the other guns to fire on the right spot. If you're in the gunner's dome you have problems getting any gun to fire on the right spot.
It's a good idea, but I think it only works if you fire just 1 gun/turret. If you're firing every gun on the plane, and/or every gun on every drone, I don't think any but the gun you were in would land hits.
(*shrug*) <-- we need a shrugging emoticon
I dunno. A step in the right direction, but still has problems.
-
I'd love a chance to play with the A-26b in this game
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Only, in the B-29 you have a little more complex a problem.
A step in the right direction, but still has problems.
Oh, definitely still problems and issues....could be much harder in the B-29, due to size of the plane and distance between guns, as well as aim points, periscopes, and barbettes. Some players will complain they don't get that big rear canopy view with A-26, or that the periscope is not realistic the way it's modeled in either plane.
You may end up with gunners needing to apply more "Kentucky windage" to their shots. But bombers often criticized for their laser accuracy anyways.... and only experienced buff drivers would be in these perked rides anyways, and their high speed will keep more intercepts behind them, so in the end, I think it comes out as a wash.
I also think we have a much better chance of getting the Invader with it's two barbettes, than the Superfortress with many gun positions added to the game..... ever. The B-29 also has the massive bombload carried, speed, and very high altitude issues working against it (oh, and the nook). So, I'm concentrating my "crusade" on what I think we may be able to eventually get.
A-26 does best speed at 15K and ceiling is 22K. Can't even operate up where the heavies can. Nice ord mix, and ultimate HO-machine..... but real world Invaders did not contend with the planes found in the LW arenas either.
Not to mention that an "A-26" icon in LW arena would be a huge "Kill Me!" sign.
-
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.
-
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?
-
This would be great right after the B25s.
-
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...."
:rofl
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.
-
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.
-
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
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/afm-007.jpg)
-
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 (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 (http://www.b-26marauderarchive.org/ms/MS1733/MS1733.htm)
Still digging.
-
I wonder... did the glass-nosed planes (factory built or field-refit) retain their wing guns/gunpods?
-
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.
-
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
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1_1952.jpg)
-
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.
-
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!
:D
-
its cute !!
I WANT ONE !!!!!:D
-
Ah, I found a photo with the gunner's position:
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tedrbr/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/7705creargunseatlrg.jpg)
Also two decent sites for photos and registry info on Invaders.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/a26registry/a26registry.html#A-26B (http://www.warbirdregistry.org/a26registry/a26registry.html#A-26B)
http://ronsarchive.com/A-26_2nd/index.htm (http://ronsarchive.com/A-26_2nd/index.htm)
-
I'd say aiming trough those periscopes would be terribly difficult, with a normal gunsight you always have more S.A.
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
Did come across WWII A-26 Invader Flying Tips.... about 15 minutes low res video:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/A-26.html (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/A-26.html)
Interesting to watch if an Invader fan.
-
Originally posted by cobia38
its cute !!
I WANT ONE !!!!!:D
i can sell you one for $180,000
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
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.
The only references to any A-26Bs that had a 75mm cannon was the one used in 1941 as a test prototype of different gun packages. I could find nothing that referenced "30 A-26Bs that were delivered to active combat units with a 75mm cannon".
I wonder though if the cannon was a 75mm howitzer like the ones in the B-25G and H.
ack-ack
-
A-26 is a beauty but if they add other twins to the game, there are others that saw much more widespread combat use that I'd like to see before hand such as the B25 or the Beaufighter.
The A26 would be a limited asset outside of latewar with not much scenario use outside of a 1945 ETO bit.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
..... I could find nothing that referenced "30 A-26Bs that were delivered to active combat units with a 75mm cannon".
I wonder though if the cannon was a 75mm howitzer like the ones in the B-25G and H.
ack-ack
Production numbers I have are listed in second post of this thread.
The block numbers have 30 produced and delivered, as in to the USAAF. No idea if they saw combat, were used as trainers, re-fitted,.... that level of detail on A-26 Invader use has been difficult to track down. Field refits are even dicier since the B and C noses were interchangeable between planes when repairing or salvaging aircraft, and the B-model nose has six configurations of its own (seven if you count the change to 8 vertically stacked .50's later in the war).
The 75mm was manually loaded (assisted by a ram) by a gunner sitting on a jump-seat next to the pilot, fired electronically by the pilot, and has 23 inches of maximum recoil (not solid mounts like some B-25 conversions). It was 133 inches long reaching back into the cockpit and weighed 693 pounds.
The slow rate of fire was one of the reasons for the switch to the 8 nose mounted .50's becoming the standard later on for B-models, along with refit to 6 wing-mounted internal .50's, rather than 8 .50's in gun pods on wing racks. Large numbers of .50's with API proved more effective than the 75mm. But some AHII pilots like the idea of a "spud gun", so I keep mentioning it.
There is some mention to it in the Pilot's Training Manual.
A-26 is a beauty but if they add other twins to the game, there are others that saw much more widespread combat use that I'd like to see before hand such as the B25 or the Beaufighter.
The A26 would be a limited asset outside of latewar with not much scenario use outside of a 1945 ETO bit. -- Guppy35
I'm arguing more on it's perk-worthiness than use in SEA and EW/MW arenas. Buff drivers need something other than the Arado to spend perks on. Bomb-and-bail runs becoming too common.
-
From an article in Air Classics Magazine, August 2002.
The third prototype, and last A-26 built at El Segundo, was the XA-26B which had a solid nose fitted with the massive 75mm cannon. Over the course of testing, this nose was modified several times to accommodate changes in the mounting of the 75mm weapon and the addition of a 37mm cannon.
There were problems with late delivery of components from outside manufacturers while the government itself was having difficulties supplying government-furnished equipment (GFE) such as propellers and engines. Also, production tooling was well behind schedule and the non-standard prototype tooling was transferred to the production line so the first six production A-26s were built with this equipment. At this point, the government accused Douglas of not having enough interest in producing weapons of war - concentrating instead on producing a new (and profitable) post-war generation of civil transports (Douglas was designing the huge C-74 transport for the Army and was proposing a civil version known as the DC-7 which in no way was like the DC-7 that went into production. As an apparent form of retribution, the AAF Production Division at Wright Field ordered Douglas to transfer two-thirds of the personnel assigned on the C-74 to the A-26. Also, the AAF instructed Douglas that "no engineers were to be utilized in improving crew comfort or arrangement in cargo planes unless specifically authorized by Wright Field.")
Problems were also becoming apparent with the wing. The A-26 wing was built around eight inboard and eight outboard spars. Each outboard spar was different from its fellow and required a special manufacturing arrangement. The lack of milling machines was a major problem and General Oliver Echols who was attempting to rectify A-26 production problems started giving consideration to using milling machines held by various Boeing production plants until, as he stated, "such time as the machines ordered for the A-26 program are delivered." Sub-contractor Beech Aircraft, who was to make the spars for the A-26s being built at Tulsa, was also awaiting its milling machines.
Problems continued and in a damning indictment for both company and military, it was not until the end of 1944 that the decision was made that the Long Beach plant would produce A-26Bs with a solid nose containing either six or eight machine guns while the Tulsa facility would discontinue building A-26Bs in favor of glass nose A-26Cs. All the while there was a war going on and the aircraft were sorely needed at the combat fronts. During this time, plans for 37mm and 75mm variants joined the night fighter in the heap of discarded A-26 ideas.
copy of article: Invader Part I (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200208/ai_n9104030/pg_1)
Would be nice if you could cite some sources that can show if any A-26Bs were every deployed with a 75mm and to what units to back up your claims.
So far, everything that I've looked up shows that while initial designed did call for a 75mm and a 37mm to be used on the A-26B, the idea was scrapped and only the prototype test models carried that armament.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Would be nice if you could cite some sources that can show if any A-26Bs were every deployed with a 75mm and to what units to back up your claims.
So far, everything that I've looked up shows that while initial designed did call for a 75mm and a 37mm to be used on the A-26B, the idea was scrapped and only the prototype test models carried that armament.
ack-ack
Actually, your article points indirectly to it,
Changes were also coming in from the combat fronts. Four early production aircraft were rushed to the Fifth Air Force during mid-1944 for combat testing with the 13th Bombardment Squadron, 3rd Bombardment Group, in New Guinea. The pilots flying the aircraft (A-26B-5-DLs) really liked the A26's high speed and response to throttle settings but when the under wing .50caliber gun packs were added, they were a bit dismayed by a 25 mph drop in speed due to the extra drag.
As by the production numbers I've got, the Block 5's were outfitted and delivered with:
A-26B-5: (30 aircraft), without the camouflage, and with 1 × 75 mm cannon in the nose plus 2 × 0.50 in (12,7 mm) machine guns on the left. (Nose guns had 400 rpg. Barbettes carried 500 rpg.)
.
These also had the original framed canopy that pilots complained about and was replaced with the bubble canopy. So, at least 4 Block 5's were sent to the POT/Far East Air Forces for evaluation, and I'm guessing some numbers from original 30 delivered to the USAAF went to other AO's for similar evaluation. I knew 5th got 4, but did not know which Block numbers before.
Does not necessarily mean they saw combat, but it is possible, depending on how much evaluation was done, by whom, and how aggressively, in each of those AO's, as well as back in the States.
The eight .50s were standardized by Block-B-15, New canopy by Block-B-30, internal wing guns by Block-B-50, C-models were not produced after the Block-C-55 run.
-
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.
I just saw this
Skuzzy, isn't what I typed one of the reasons given for "why don't we have the B-29"?? I'm pretty sure somebody on staff said that, but I could be wrong. It's been tossed around so much I could be remembering it wrong. Is this an urban myth, or is it really one of the problems with bringing the B-29 to AH? (It'd be good to know if it's a myth or not)
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Actually, your article points indirectly to it,
As by the production numbers I've got, the Block 5's were outfitted and delivered with:
.
These also had the original framed canopy that pilots complained about and was replaced with the bubble canopy. So, at least 4 Block 5's were sent to the POT/Far East Air Forces for evaluation, and I'm guessing some numbers from original 30 delivered to the USAAF went to other AO's for similar evaluation. I knew 5th got 4, but did not know which Block numbers before.
Does not necessarily mean they saw combat, but it is possible, depending on how much evaluation was done, by whom, and how aggressively, in each of those AO's, as well as back in the States.
The eight .50s were standardized by Block-B-15, New canopy by Block-B-30, internal wing guns by Block-B-50, C-models were not produced after the Block-C-55 run.
You didn't read the article did you?
Problems continued and in a damning indictment for both company and military, it was not until the end of 1944 that the decision was made that the Long Beach plant would produce A-26Bs with a solid nose containing either six or eight machine guns while the Tulsa facility would discontinue building A-26Bs in favor of glass nose A-26Cs. All the while there was a war going on and the aircraft were sorely needed at the combat fronts. During this time, plans for 37mm and 75mm variants joined the night fighter in the heap of discarded A-26 ideas.
ack-ack
-
Yes, I did read it. Also the part where the original focus was the Army Air Force wanting a "flying cannon". Also seen the Pilot's Training Manual which lists the 75mm in it. And the production block numbers.
Because the 75mm was dropped does not mean that that none were built beyond the prototype. The 8-nose gun .50 in two vertical stacks became the standard, but many 8-gun and 6-gun horizontal rowed nose versions were built before that.
I've also read articles and websites that referred to the C-model as the hard nosed model with the nose guns. I've seen pics posted claiming to show Invaders that were actually B-26's or B-25 gun mods. There is a lot of false and conflicting information out about the Invader.
Of note, I would point out that the comment about the 75mm and 37mm discarded comes after the mention of the dedication of the Tulsa and Long Beach plants each to separate models at the end of 1944, but chronologically, A-26's were being built and delivered since 1943 before this decision to dedicate the plants to separate models in late 1944. "Production totals: 1150 A-26Bs were built at Long Beach (A-26B-1-DL to A-26B-66-DL) and an additional 205 were built at Tulsa (A-26B-5-DT to A-26B-25-DT)".
From the block numbers I've got, I still believe the early Block 5's from 1943 came with the 75mm, since the USAAF still have an emphasis on a "flying canon". These were the one's evaluated in the field starting in mid-1944. These evaluations, and possibly the experience with the B-25 gun conversions, led to the change to internal wing guns over gun pods, revised canopy, and 8-gun pack in nose from late 1944 onward.
What I can't find is any reference to are if any 75mm armed Invaders saw combat operations or not, or any specifics on any of those first 30 Block-5 aircraft. I also don't know what field conversion "kits" may have been packaged with the delivered craft, outside of the "ferry range fuel cell" that went in the bomb bay.
-
this thread is a good platform to get the A 26 in.
-
Really,who cares if the A26 gets twin37's or 75 mm cannons.14 50 cals plus the other 4 in barbettes give you up to 18 forward firing 50 cals.
I'm on board with ya Ted. give us the A26 with a small:O perk price:aok
-
Dis iz Da One uze Buff dwivers want ta VOTE fer!!!!
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/evilgrin0036.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
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.
AGAIN... Krusty is PWNED!!!!
:aok
-
Question: My local AFB (Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu HI) has one of those on static. The placard under it has it labeled as a B-26, not A-26. Should I write the base commander an angry letter? :D
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Question: My local AFB (Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu HI) has one of those on static. The placard under it has it labeled as a B-26, not A-26. Should I write the base commander an angry letter? :D
A-26 Invaders were reclassified as B-26's in late 40's, early 50's when Martin B-26's Marauders were all retired from service. In Vietnam, since bombers were not allowed to be based in Thailand, they got re-designated A-26's (refurbished K models) to allow basing there as attack planes.
So, depending on how it's painted (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) and model (B, C, K) would determine whether being listed as a B or A is correct.
Many B (solid gun nose) and C (glass nose with norden) models listings are also confusing, as the nose was interchangeable and replaceable on the Invader (which happened due to changing missions and repairing damaged aircraft, so some glass nosed "b" models and solid nosed "c" models can be found.
Plane had a long history and went through many changes.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
A-26 Invaders were reclassified as B-26's in late 40's, early 50's when Martin B-26's Marauders were all retired from service. In Vietnam, since bombers were not allowed to be based in Thailand, they got re-designated A-26's (refurbished K models) to allow basing there as attack planes.
So, depending on how it's painted (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) and model (B, C, K) would determine whether being listed as a B or A is correct.
Many B (solid gun nose) and C (glass nose with norden) models listings are also confusing, as the nose was interchangeable and replaceable on the Invader (which happened due to changing missions and repairing damaged aircraft, so some glass nosed "b" models and solid nosed "c" models can be found.
Plane had a long history and went through many changes.
"B-26K" is its listing. Its black body with red trim on the tail. Glass nose.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
"B-26K" is its listing. Its black body with red trim on the tail. Glass nose.
Ah....if a K, Vietnam, then probably should be listed as an A-26 Invader. It's not wrong, as they were refurbished and delivered back to the Air Force as B-26's in 1966.... but were re-designated then shipped to the war, so they operated as A-26A's (which were B/A-26K models..... military is like that...).
"On Mark converted 40 Invaders to the new B-26K Counter Invader standard, which included upgraded engines, re-manufactured wings and wing tip fuel tanks. In May 1966, the B-26K was re-designated A-26A and deployed in Thailand to help disrupt supplies moving along the Ho Chi Minh trail."
If it was actually in the war zone, I'd argue to the A-26 designation. Plus, it probably confuses lots of people familiar with the Marauder, but not the Invader.
-
But it looks nothing like a Marauder. I looked at the placard and said "Theres no way in hell thats a B-26."
-
My Dad is currently a board member of the 13th Bomb Squadron Association. http://www.13thbombsquadron.org
Organized as 13th Aero Squadron on 14 June 1917, the "Devil's own, Grim Reapers" are one of the oldest operational USAF squadrons, currently flying the B-2 after transitioning from the B-1.
Originally starting with SPAD 13's they eventually flew the A-20 from 1941 through 1945, the B-25 from 1942 through 1945 and the A-26/B-26 from 1945 through 1956
Dad is also taking me to their annual reunion in october this year in Virginia Beach...WOOOHOOO!!!...
If someone can come up with a list of questions I can ask him to pass them on to the association members I will also follow up on them at the reunion.
These guys, pilots, mechanics, gunners...you name it...they WANT to tell people their stories....but they are dying out quickly. Dad gets very depressed each year as the notices come back of members who won't be making it to the reunions any more. Now is our chance.
Something interesting from the website concerning gun turrets and gunners during Korea:
"Too many of the aircraft had only a top turret -- nice for warding off attacking aircraft, but that just wasn't done in Korea. Well, maybe it was done a few times.
Still, an upper turret could be used effectively when the plane was making evasive maneuvers departing from the attack. Able was the classic attack B-26 with both uppers and lowers. The gunner's job was to suppress anti-aircraft fire, usually after the attack had begun and the ground gunners learned the attack was in progress."
-
You're Dad got to fly some real hot hots then, in their day.
Did think about it before, but it makes sense a lot of A-26/B-26 in Korea lacked ventral barbette.... they removed them in WWII to add an additional fuel cell in the A-26's operating in the Pacific. They needed the extra range more than the extra firepower, since USN and USAAF planes dominated the skies by then.
I could see where the ventral guns would have been missed in Korea and Vietnam.
A-26 Invader is just one sweet cherry of a ride. The fact some kept flying them in combat zones around the world (Central America, Far East, Africa) until the 1980's says a lot about them. Even U.S.A. did not retire it's last one until 1972.
-
A great training video for our new bird:
Link (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/A-26.html)
RealPlayer required.
-
Yeah, that's a good video for the A-26 Invader.
Training manual can still be downloaded here:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?FileType=fs2k4&loc=downloads&page=downloads&Category=other#download (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?FileType=fs2k4&loc=downloads&page=downloads&Category=other#download)
About 15th file down. A-26_TraMan.zip