Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Yossarian on January 28, 2010, 10:19:09 AM

Title: A-26 Invader
Post by: Yossarian on January 28, 2010, 10:19:09 AM
It's been way too long since the last A-26 request.  So, here goes:

(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/5/6/1374659.jpg)

Here's a link to a very recent post with videos about the A-26:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247368.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247368.0.html)

And here's the video website itself:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MATINEE.html (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MATINEE.html)

Now, as for why I think we should have this aeroplane at some point in the near future (i.e. ASAP :P):

a) It came out in 3rd place in the vote HiTech Creations held, below the B-25 (first place) and the P-39 (second place).  We have had both the B-25 and P-39 added already, so it makes sense that the A-26 be added sooner rather than later.  In my opinion, the other planes which came after the A-26 should be added after the A-26 itself, for the simple reason that the vote represents what the players of this game want.  The results of that vote are in this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,202838.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,202838.0.html)

b) It would be a very popular aeroplane amongst many players.  Whilst I am aware that there are a lot of people who want the He-111, the speed, survivability and firepower of the A-26 Invader would give it a very prominent role as a light bomber.

c) The A-26 is a good enough aeroplane in my view that it would be worthy of a perk point price.  If this were the case, it would give us all a much-needed way to spend our bomber perks (aside from the Ar-234, which at the end of the day is rather limited in its usefulness).

Now for some stats about the A-26B (Number built: 1355):

"Armament (Typical for early block A-26B): Two .50-cal. machine guns in a dorsal barbette, two .50-cal. machine guns in a ventral barbette and various combinations of forward-firing weapons: 75mm cannon, 37mm cannon and .50-cal. machine guns, plus provisions for 6,000 lbs. of bombs (4,000 lbs. internal and 2,000 lbs. external on wing racks); (Typical for early/mid block A-26B): Two .50-cal. machine guns in a dorsal barbette, two .50-cal. machine guns in a ventral barbette, and six forward-firing .50-cal. machine guns in the nose, plus provisions for 6,000 lbs. of bombs (4,000 lbs. internal and 2,000 lbs. external on wing racks), aircraft could be fitted with up to four wing-mounted gun pods each housing a pair of .50-cal. machine guns; (Typical for late block A-26B): Two .50-cal. machine guns in a dorsal barbette, two .50-cal. machine guns in a ventral barbette (sometimes omitted in favor of an extra fuel cell), eight forward-firing .50-cal. machine guns in the nose, and six .50-cal. machine guns in the wings, plus provisions for 6,000 lbs. of bombs (4,000 lbs. internal and 2,000 lbs. external on wing racks, 14 5-inch rockets could be carried in place of the wing-mounted bombs
Engines: Two Pratt & Whitney R-2800-27 radials of 2,000 hp each
Span: 70 ft. 0 in.
Length: 50 ft. 0 in.
Height: 18 ft. 6 in.
Weight: Approx. 35,000 lbs. gross takeoff weight
Maximum speed: 355 mph
Cruising speed: 284 mph
Range: 3,200 miles maximum ferry range
Service ceiling: 22,100 ft.
Crew: Three (pilot, navigator/cannon loader, gunner)
Serial numbers: 41-39100 to 41-39151; 41-39153 to 41-39192; 41-39194; 41-39196 to 41-39198; 41-39201 to 41-39599; 43-22252 to 43-22303; 43-22305 to 43-22307; 43-22313 to 43-22345; 43-22350 to 43-22466; 44-34098 to 44-34753"
All the above stats are from this website: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3060 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3060)


Here are some links containing information on the A-26:

http://www.warbirdalley.com/a26.htm (http://www.warbirdalley.com/a26.htm)

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=91 (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=91)

http://members.tripod.com/a26invader/ (http://members.tripod.com/a26invader/)
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Denholm on January 28, 2010, 10:30:26 AM
I disagree for reasons stated in the past. We have plenty of American bombers and attack planes in the plane-set. It's time we looked at countries lacking (Russia, Italy, Japan, and Germany).
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: waystin2 on January 28, 2010, 10:38:01 AM
+1 to the A-26.  Let HTC decide priority. :aok
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Yossarian on January 28, 2010, 10:51:09 AM
I disagree for reasons stated in the past. We have plenty of American bombers and attack planes in the plane-set. It's time we looked at countries lacking (Russia, Italy, Japan, and Germany).

Good point, but I think there's two different things to balance here.  Firstly, the category of bombers in AH overall, and as you say the various countries the planes come from.  In my opinion, you're definitely right about needing more bombers from other countries, however I think that a more pressing need is that of another perked bomber - that seems to be a far more serious hole in the plane set right now, and one which cannot be compensated for in any way.  IMO the A-26 fulfills all the requirements to be a perked bomber, and adding it would patch a major gap in the plane set.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: cobia38 on January 28, 2010, 11:21:09 AM

  Build it..... and they will come    :noid
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: caldera on January 28, 2010, 11:49:53 AM
Bring it on.  Would like the glass nose Mossie as another possible perk bomber. "Nigh uncatchable."
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: saantana on January 28, 2010, 11:52:21 AM
A lot of other planes are needed more and earlier. HTC needs more coading powaaaaaaaaa!
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: 1Boner on January 28, 2010, 12:16:00 PM
A lot of other planes are needed more and earlier.

Needed by who?
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Saxman on January 28, 2010, 12:23:07 PM
Needed by who?

The value of an aircraft is NOT decided by its utility in the Mains.

FSO/AVA/Special Events has a FAR more pressing need for the:

Ki-43
G4M
Ki-44
He-111
Beaufighter

than we have for yet ANOTHER late-war monster plane. You're talking five of THE most important players in their respective theaters--the Ki-43, G4M and He-111 ESPECIALLY--that are missing from the game. So tell me, why should a plane that saw only limited action towards the very end of the war take precedence over aircraft that had a SIGNIFICANT impact?
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: 1Boner on January 28, 2010, 01:21:05 PM
The value of an aircraft is NOT decided by its utility in the Mains.

I do beleive you are correct!

Look at the B-25,P-39 and the Brewster!!

Late war monsters indeed!
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: AWwrgwy on January 28, 2010, 01:52:11 PM
+1 to the A-26.  Let HTC decide priority. :aok

Perhaps he already has....

 :devil

wrongway
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: jolly22 on January 28, 2010, 02:09:43 PM
I disagree for reasons stated in the past. We have plenty of American bombers and attack planes in the plane-set. It's time we looked at countries lacking (Russia, Italy, Japan, and Germany).


G55!!
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 28, 2010, 04:07:22 PM
Bring it on.  Would like the glass nose Mossie as another possible perk bomber. "Nigh uncatchable."
Mosquito B.Mk XVI would probably need a bit of a perk price.  It can carry a 4000lb 'cookie' about as fast as the Ar234 can go when laden.

Mosquito B.Mk IV would not need to be perked.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: waystin2 on January 28, 2010, 04:26:58 PM
Perhaps he already has....

 :devil

wrongway

Possibly, I really do not know.  I just get a little irked at all the "we need insert plane or vehicle name here before the plane/vehicle that the thread is requesting" responses.  If you want a plane or vehicle added, then request it. There, all better now....rant over. :D
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: whiteman on January 28, 2010, 04:29:01 PM
I do beleive you are correct!

Look at the B-25,P-39 and the Brewster!!

Late war monsters indeed!

and all three have filled in holes for the events Saxman listed.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: 1Boner on January 28, 2010, 04:52:27 PM
and all three have filled in holes for the events Saxman listed.

Great!!

NOW can we stop filling "gaps" for a minute??
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Denholm on January 28, 2010, 05:00:22 PM
Possibly, I really do not know.  I just get a little irked at all the "we need insert plane or vehicle name here before the plane/vehicle that the thread is requesting" responses.  If you want a plane or vehicle added, then request it. There, all better now....rant over. :D
If all responses were positive, then HTC would have to implement all requests. :D
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 28, 2010, 05:03:05 PM
Great!!

NOW can we stop filling "gaps" for a minute??
Ask for some non-American uber planes and you'd get more support.  The planeset is WAY to imbalaced right now.

Ask for the Tu-2 instead of the A-26, for example.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Saxman on January 28, 2010, 05:04:57 PM
and all three have filled in holes for the events Saxman listed.

We have no Japanese medium bomber for the early or midwar period. We have the 1944/45 Ki-67 substituting for the Betty in 1942/43 scenarios.

We have no early-war IJAAF fighter--not to mention the MOST-produced Japanese fighter of the war.

The main front-line German level bomber of the early war period is missing.

So tell me, how is the A-26 justified when we're missing some VERY important workhorses in the plane set?
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: whiteman on January 28, 2010, 05:39:25 PM
We have no Japanese medium bomber for the early or midwar period. We have the 1944/45 Ki-67 substituting for the Betty in 1942/43 scenarios.

We have no early-war IJAAF fighter--not to mention the MOST-produced Japanese fighter of the war.

The main front-line German level bomber of the early war period is missing.

So tell me, how is the A-26 justified when we're missing some VERY important workhorses in the plane set?

think you quoted the wrong name there, I'm all for adding that entire Japanese list posted a couple days ago before any other country gets a plane.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Saxman on January 28, 2010, 05:42:47 PM
Whoops, sorry. Yeah, I meant to quote 1Boner.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: guncrasher on January 28, 2010, 07:02:22 PM
We have no Japanese medium bomber for the early or midwar period. We have the 1944/45 Ki-67 substituting for the Betty in 1942/43 scenarios.



So tell me, how is the A-26 justified when we're missing some VERY important workhorses in the plane set?

add the a26 and it will be flown more than any of the japanese planes combined.  we dont want planes sitting in the hangar looking pretty (look at the last 3, I hardly see them in the ma).  lets add planes that we actually use  :banana:.

semp
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Saxman on January 28, 2010, 07:24:09 PM
add the a26 and it will be flown more than any of the japanese planes combined.  we dont want planes sitting in the hangar looking pretty (look at the last 3, I hardly see them in the ma).  lets add planes that we actually use  :banana:.

semp

Utility in the Mains is only a fraction of an aircraft's value. FSO and Scenarios are missing MAJOR contributors that pretty much makes any scenario except 1944-45 on the Western European front a nightmare to set up. Add the G4M and Ki-43 and I can guarantee you they'll see FAR heavier use in FSO, scenarios and AvA than the A-26 would.

Actually, I would even venture to say that if the perk on the A-26 was high enough, you'd see more use of the G4M and Ki-43 in Scenarios/etc. than the A-26 would in the MAINS.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 28, 2010, 10:04:17 PM
add the a26 and it will be flown more than any of the japanese planes combined.  we dont want planes sitting in the hangar looking pretty (look at the last 3, I hardly see them in the ma).  lets add planes that we actually use  :banana:.

semp
You think the perked A-26 (source: Pyro) would get used more than the N1K2-J?  N1K2-J and Ki-84 and A6M5b?

I doubt it.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: 1Boner on January 28, 2010, 10:10:27 PM
Utility in the Mains is only a fraction of an aircraft's value. FSO and Scenarios are missing MAJOR contributors that pretty much makes any scenario except 1944-45 on the Western European front a nightmare to set up. Add the G4M and Ki-43 and I can guarantee you they'll see FAR heavier use in FSO, scenarios and AvA than the A-26 would.

Actually, I would even venture to say that if the perk on the A-26 was high enough, you'd see more use of the G4M and Ki-43 in Scenarios/etc. than the A-26 would in the MAINS.

Again with the gaps.

I think we get it--its all about the Fso and Scenarios.

Alot of other people think differently.

While I would love to see you get the planes you want, I think that after the last 3 or 4 planes you guys would stop it with the "gaps" already.

Apparently I'm wrong.

Again.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Saxman on January 28, 2010, 10:32:48 PM
Again with the gaps.

I think we get it--its all about the Fso and Scenarios.

Alot of other people think differently.

While I would love to see you get the planes you want, I think that after the last 3 or 4 planes you guys would stop it with the "gaps" already.

Apparently I'm wrong.

Again.


Yeah, you are.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: guncrasher on January 28, 2010, 11:28:22 PM
You think the perked A-26 (source: Pyro) would get used more than the N1K2-J?  N1K2-J and Ki-84 and A6M5b?

I doubt it.

wanna bet.  hi tech please add the a26 so I can prove to the unbelievers that it will be the most widely used buff/fiter in the ma's  :D.

semp
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 29, 2010, 12:16:31 AM
wanna bet.  hi tech please add the a26 so I can prove to the unbelievers that it will be the most widely used buff/fiter in the ma's  :D.

semp
Did you miss the fact that it would be a perk plane?
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: guncrasher on January 29, 2010, 01:00:32 AM
Did you miss the fact that it would be a perk plane?

buff perk points everybody has them but nothing to spend them on.

semp
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 29, 2010, 01:56:35 AM
buff perk points everybody has them but nothing to spend them on.

semp
You might be surprised how many people don't have a lot because they either are new or because they cancel for periods.  Even those who have some, would pretty quickly run out and not that many people have the tens of thousands that get posted about on the forums.

If you think any perk plane would overtake the N1K2-J's 4% share of the kills, I don't know what to tell you.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Larry on January 29, 2010, 02:25:04 AM

While I would love to see you get the planes you want, I think that after the last 3 or 4 planes you guys would stop it with the "gaps" already.


Oh no not three or four planes. I for one have been waiting the better part of decade for the He-111.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: AApache on January 29, 2010, 06:46:00 AM
+1 on the Heinkel-111
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: 1Boner on January 29, 2010, 07:20:07 AM
Yeah, you are.

Of course I am.

And of course, you're right. :cheers:

Anytime someone suggests a plane on these forums the "gap" police are ALWAYS there to tell them why their wish is not as nessesary as theirs.

And they (gap police) aren't going to take no for an answer, simply because your wish isn't nearly as important (in their estimation) as theirs is.

And of course they're right! :rock
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: guncrasher on January 29, 2010, 10:01:16 PM
You might be surprised how many people don't have a lot because they either are new or because they cancel for periods.  Even those who have some, would pretty quickly run out and not that many people have the tens of thousands that get posted about on the forums.

If you think any perk plane would overtake the N1K2-J's 4% share of the kills, I don't know what to tell you.

I want you to tell me that the a26 would be a great idea.  any more requests  :devil.

semp
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Stoney on January 29, 2010, 10:56:27 PM
Do we really have to have this thread once a quarter? 

Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Shamrock on January 30, 2010, 01:17:37 AM
I disagree for reasons stated in the past. We have plenty of American bombers and attack planes in the plane-set. It's time we looked at countries lacking (Russia, Italy, Japan, and Germany).
yes but this is a WW2 flight sim (in my opinion) but the keyword in there is WW2 and FLIGHT SIMULATOR....now this means that ww2 planes (any that sirved for over 5 mins) i conisider a WW2 plane....and why should we worry about why it should NOT be in the game...i mean...somewhere in the text i heard ***cannon loader**** comeon man!!! its a FREAKEN CANNON dude we havnt added any *needed* planes so why not add this to the list...ALL WORLD WAR II PLANES SHOULD FLY IN ACES HIGH!!!!!!!!! +1128354091283562876 FIND SOMEMORE THINGS W/ CANNONS MAN!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Yossarian on January 30, 2010, 02:50:30 AM
Do we really have to have this thread once a quarter? 



Yes, we do  ;)

The value of an aircraft is NOT decided by its utility in the Mains.

FSO/AVA/Special Events has a FAR more pressing need for the:
[snip]
than we have for yet ANOTHER late-war monster plane. You're talking five of THE most important players in their respective theaters--the Ki-43, G4M and He-111 ESPECIALLY--that are missing from the game. So tell me, why should a plane that saw only limited action towards the very end of the war take precedence over aircraft that had a SIGNIFICANT impact?
Because we need another perked bomber.  Right now we have one perked bomber, and its usefulness is limited, to say the least.  The same would go for the Tu-2 - yes, it's a very good bomber, but it would largely be confined to level bombing.  I know it was used for ground attack, but it appears to be mainly a high-speed level bomber.  On the other hand, the A-26 could certainly be used as a dogfighter (look at what the A-20 or Boston III can do in the right hands), as well as dive bombing, ground attack and level bombing.

Overall, I see two main categories that need to be filled out.  One is the FSO/AVA/Special Events set, the other is the perked bomber set.  As it stands, I'd say the set of planes available for Special Events is at the very least useable, whereas the perked bomber set is not.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Shifty on January 30, 2010, 08:01:35 AM
Because we need another perked bomber. 

We do?  Saying you want a certain aircraft is one thing I can understand. However you're saying we need the A-26 when we have people in Lankstukas doing the job quite well right  now in the LWA.

The LWA is full of late war high speed uber monsters that can level a town. You really don't need another warp 12 perk bomber or an attack plane with a nose full of guns so you can HO your way to glory. Besides the buildings are not fighting back and the AR-234 and B-25H fill these rolls very well. For dogfighting there's plenty of late war cannon armed fighters than can kill with one small snapshot already. Adding another aircraft that has the ability to vaporize something with a half second burst isn't another area where the LWA is lacking. As far as FSO and special events the late war setups are covered quite nicely. It's the mid and early war setups where most of the problems are.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Saxman on January 30, 2010, 08:18:39 AM
As it stands, I'd say the set of planes available for Special Events is at the very least useable, whereas the perked bomber set is not.

Uhm, let's see...

We can't do an appropriate Flying Tigers setup because we don't have ANY early-war IJAAF fighters or bombers.

We have late-war Ki-67s substituting for early-war G4Ms during many setups.

EVERY early and mid-war PTO scenario outside the carrier battles are INCREDIBLY difficult to setup because, once again, we don't have some VERY important parts of the Japanese plane set of the early and mid-war period. So Dutch East Indies, Philippines, CBI, and Solomons are either VERY limited if not outright impossible until we get into the end of 1943 and into 1944. We had BF-110s substituting for Ki-45s during one recent Philippines setup in FSO.

Japanese are left with D3As and B5Ns as their primary naval attack craft in very late-war scenarios, without even the option of the more capable Jill and Judy.

We have a later Ju-88 variant substituting for He-111s in BoB setups. This also makes other early-war European scenarios such as the Battle of France difficult or outright impossible.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Big Rat on January 30, 2010, 09:49:35 AM
Not disagreeing that we have gaping holes in the early plane set for scenarios and the like.  But the A26 would deffinitly get a lot of use in the late war arenas.  For those of us that tend to use the A20 quite a bit and love to fly it, I feel it's a bit too outclassed in late war.  Too many big power cannon birds that simply out power the a20 in any sort of fight in the verticle.  In midwar the A20 is great and can hold it's own quite well.  Go in bomb my target and fight my way out if needed.  Late war I feel it's underpowered for the threat environment.  This is why I think the A26 would be great in late war, it would basically fill the same roll and be as much of a factor as the A20 in midwar.

 :salute
BigRat 
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: guncrasher on January 30, 2010, 02:53:35 PM
Do we really have to have this thread once a quarter? 



why not, we have the b29 thread at least once a month  :D.

semp
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 30, 2010, 03:02:15 PM
Not disagreeing that we have gaping holes in the early plane set for scenarios and the like.  But the A26 would deffinitly get a lot of use in the late war arenas.  For those of us that tend to use the A20 quite a bit and love to fly it, I feel it's a bit too outclassed in late war.  Too many big power cannon birds that simply out power the a20 in any sort of fight in the verticle.  In midwar the A20 is great and can hold it's own quite well.  Go in bomb my target and fight my way out if needed.  Late war I feel it's underpowered for the threat environment.  This is why I think the A26 would be great in late war, it would basically fill the same roll and be as much of a factor as the A20 in midwar.

 :salute
BigRat 
Take a Mosquito instead.  It out performs the A-26 for air to air purposes anyways.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: JonDoe999 on January 30, 2010, 03:53:20 PM
+1 :aok
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Big Rat on January 30, 2010, 04:57:08 PM
Take a Mosquito instead.  It out performs the A-26 for air to air purposes anyways.

If it had the bomb load of an a20/26, was as durable, and was as fast as it should be in this game (the mossie) I would use it more.  I do fly it in an attack role in late war on occasion.

 :salute
BigRat

 
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 30, 2010, 05:32:18 PM
If it had the bomb load of an a20/26, was as durable, and was as fast as it should be in this game (the mossie) I would use it more.  I do fly it in an attack role in late war on occasion.

 :salute
BigRat

 
It is quite tough now, and while it may not be as fast as it should be, it is still faster than any A-26 with firepower to match or exceed the A-26's.


The fact is, people asking for the A-26 are asking for an American fighter-bomber to tool around in and use as a fighter.  We already have aircraft in that category that are all quite capable, Mosquito and Bf110G.  We don't need an American aircraft in every category before we fill vital gaps.  That is basically all that the request for the A-26 is, a request for yet more American iron because the asker doesn't want to fly British or German aircraft.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Big Rat on January 30, 2010, 06:30:22 PM
Actually my primary use, is for using it as an attack aircraft, only a fighter if pressed into that duty by circumstance.  Same way I use an A20.  If I could dive bomb GV's from F3 mode like I do an A20, I probably wouldn't be wanting the A26 so much, except for the bomb load.

 :salute
BigRat 
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 30, 2010, 06:38:10 PM
Actually my primary use, is for using it as an attack aircraft, only a fighter if pressed into that duty by circumstance.  Same way I use an A20.  If I could dive bomb GV's from F3 mode like I do an A20, I probably wouldn't be wanting the A26 so much, except for the bomb load.

 :salute
BigRat 
At a guess, I'd say that you are in the minority on that count.


Don't mistake me, I do think the A-26 has a place in AH as a perk bomber, I just think some other things are needed more.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: MrAxe on January 30, 2010, 09:43:25 PM
+1. I loved the a26 in aw3. I'd love to see all the mentioned aircraft, but wouldn't the a26 be much easier to implement seeing we have the b26 now? I don't know how different they are, so maybe I'm wrong!

<S>
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 30, 2010, 09:51:01 PM
+1. I loved the a26 in aw3. I'd love to see all the mentioned aircraft, but wouldn't the a26 be much easier to implement seeing we have the b26 now? I don't know how different they are, so maybe I'm wrong!

<S>
A-26 and Martin B-26 are 100% unrelated, even if the B-26 wasn't an AH 1.0 3D model.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Wingnutt on January 30, 2010, 10:05:55 PM
The value of an aircraft is NOT decided by its utility in the Mains.


You know if the only paying subscribers were the people that do not spend the majority of their time in the MA, HTC would probably go out of business..

that's no reason not to cater to them though.

 :aok

add more planes that only %5 of the subscriber base will use regularly, solid investment in time!
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: MrAxe on January 31, 2010, 03:36:58 AM
R
A-26 and Martin B-26 are 100% unrelated, even if the B-26 wasn't an AH 1.0 3D model.

Ty for clarifying this!! :)
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: slimmer on January 31, 2010, 10:07:20 AM
 :aok
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on January 31, 2010, 09:26:59 PM
R
Ty for clarifying this!! :)
The mistake is common due to the Martin B-26 being retired after WWII and the A-26 being relabeled the B-26.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: phatzo on January 31, 2010, 09:48:35 PM
a 26

(http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/global_ranger/images/26055/douglas-a-26-invader.jpg)

b 26

(http://387bg.com/Aircraft/B-26%20Carolyn%201.jpg)
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Stoney on January 31, 2010, 09:52:07 PM
a 26

(http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/global_ranger/images/26055/douglas-a-26-invader.jpg)


I'll have "Enormous Vertical Stabilizers" for $1000 Alex...
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Saxman on January 31, 2010, 09:54:28 PM
I'll have "Enormous Vertical Stabilizers" for $1000 Alex...

Pssh. That's nothing.

(http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/images/images_6/pb4y-2sh_3.jpg)
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: waystin2 on February 01, 2010, 09:03:01 AM
Bragging about the size of our Vert Stabs! :rofl
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Soulyss on February 01, 2010, 11:30:50 AM
Of interesting historical note, the A-26 was sent to the 13th BS/3rd BG for operational evaluation in the Pacific and was soundly rejected as being wholly unsuitable for the mission they were flying in that theater.  Instead they chose to soldier on with their B-25's and A-20's. 
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Karnak on February 01, 2010, 01:00:14 PM
Of interesting historical note, the A-26 was sent to the 13th BS/3rd BG for operational evaluation in the Pacific and was soundly rejected as being wholly unsuitable for the mission they were flying in that theater.  Instead they chose to soldier on with their B-25's and A-20's. 
Interesting.  Did they say why it was unsuitable to the mission?  On paper it is a pure upgrade to the A-20.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Beefcake on February 01, 2010, 01:10:41 PM
Interesting.  Did they say why it was unsuitable to the mission?  On paper it is a pure upgrade to the A-20.

They were probably waiting for gaps in the plane set to be filled before accepting it into service.  :rofl
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 01, 2010, 05:10:35 PM
Interesting.  Did they say why it was unsuitable to the mission?  On paper it is a pure upgrade to the A-20.

The four A-26s that the 13th Bombardment Squadron received were very early production models of the A-26B.  The main reasons why there weren't so well liked in the Pacific was due to the poor visibility out either side of the cockpit and insufficient forward fire power to make it an effective straffer.  These two reasons played a large part in the USAAF's decision to give the ETO the A-26 in quantity first and then the PTO second after the A-26 was improved with a new canopy that allowed better visibility on each side and increased forward fire power for straffing.


ack-ack
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Soulyss on February 01, 2010, 11:53:26 PM
Interesting.  Did they say why it was unsuitable to the mission?  On paper it is a pure upgrade to the A-20.

I'd love to actually see if there was a physical report that was submitted.  In his book Henebry talks about going to the Pentagon to deliver his report on the A-26. 

They tested the A-26B and found that the plane did have many positive characteristics, it handled well, had good range, bomb load and engines.  The problems they had were somewhat related to the mission profile they were flying. 

They felt the cockpit arrangements were inefficient, and pilot visibility was hampered.  The engines extended too far forward, he said about to the 3/9 line in the pilots vision.  You could only see forward and up, which was a problem when you were making low level attacks in formation.  All in all they compiled a list of 32 grievances with the design. 

He took the list to 5th Air Force Command and was placed on special assignment by General Kenney to go tell the brass at the Pentagon that they didn't want it and would continue the war with their B-25's and A-20's.
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Delirium on February 02, 2010, 12:17:58 AM
pilot visibility was hampered.  The engines extended too far forward, he said about to the 3/9 line in the pilots vision.  You could only see forward and up

Why didn't they just hit F3 like we do?

 :bolt:
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: guncrasher on February 02, 2010, 12:37:31 AM
it wasnt manly to use f3 back then.  or ho.  can u imagine all the yelling and screaming on 200 if they had?

semp
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Soulyss on February 02, 2010, 01:07:22 AM
Why didn't they just hit F3 like we do?

 :bolt:

 :lol
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: Reaper90 on February 02, 2010, 09:35:49 AM
Ack-Ack you need to change that damm avatar, I spit Coke all over my monitor when I saw that derned alien!
Title: Re: A-26 Invader
Post by: stephen on February 07, 2010, 11:28:33 PM
Boy Ithink with such an historic past, and rabid following..., this plane should be introduced as soon as is ecinomicaly possible...

About time the bombers had a run and gun option on the deck...