Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on July 08, 2011, 02:35:49 AM
-
I was thinking about the back and forth guncrasher and I were having about the A-26 in another thread and I started looking at it against the Tu-2 instead of against the Bf110G-2, Mosquito Mk VI and A-20G. While I am nothing remotely like an expert on the two aircraft, it seems to me that they are pretty competitive with one another. The A-26 would be faster, 355mph to 325 or 342mph for the Tu-2, and have better firepower, ten Browning .50s with lots of ammo to two 20mm ShVAK cannons with 100 or 200rpg, but the Tu-2 generally has a better climb rate listed in the sources I looked at, 2,300fpm to 2,000fpm, and would also have lower wing loading, 44.5lbs/sq.ft to 51.1lbs/sq.ft at normal loads. Bomb loads are useful for both being 6,000lbs for the A-26B and a bit over 8,000lbs for the Tu-2. Both were also supposed to be robust aircraft, though simply due to the weight of the aircraft the A-26 is likely tougher.
In AH the A-26 will likely be a perk bomber and after looking at the Tu-2's capabilities, it may end up being the bottom end perk bomber or another top end free bomber.
While I think using either as a fighter is silly, I do think that dogfights between the A-26B and Tu-2 would be fairly entertaining.
-
doesn't the A26 have WAY better defensive positions?
-
doesn't the A26 have WAY better defensive positions?
Not really, no. Better yes, but a top and bottom dual .50 turret isn't that much better than two of the nice Russian 12.7mm guns manually aimed in the dorsal and one in the ventral positions. Ammo supply is likely much better for the A-26 though.
-
How were the flight characteristics in terms of maneuverability of the Tu-2 compared to the A-26?
ack-ack
-
How were the flight characteristics in terms of maneuverability of the Tu-2 compared to the A-26?
ack-ack
I do not know, but I was hoping somebody more familiar with the two aircraft would see the thread. Soviet pilots described being able to fly the Tu-2 like a fighter and the A-26 was credited with 7 air-to-air kills, but both of those are very, very subjective measures.
-
The 10x .50cal setup would be an option but comparing glass nose to glass nose, I think the Tu2 has better forward firepower, for sure.
I think the A-26 has a better bomb load. The Tu-2 has only 1000 or 1500kg internal, and about 5000lbs rating for external, but as far as I recall it rarely carried that much. It only had so many hard points. Post-war it was used in a number of test configurations (it flew on into the 50s) where its power and loading were pushed to the limits, but during the war I'd be shocked if it ever carried more than 2000kg at a time.
-
I do not know, but I was hoping somebody more familiar with the two aircraft would see the thread. Soviet pilots described being able to fly the Tu-2 like a fighter and the A-26 was credited with 7 air-to-air kills, but both of those are very, very subjective measures.
Probably more believable with the Tu2 than the A-26. Similar to comments like you've read, I've heard that before but also that pilots would turn back after dropping bombs to engage enemy fighters in the region. Subjective, still, since they there are any number of motivating factors, circumstances, and the like that make this plausible. They also flew IL2s as fighters when they had to defend themselves. Overall it's still very subjective, but I think it would be more like our A-20G than it would be like our B-25C.
-
I do not know, but I was hoping somebody more familiar with the two aircraft would see the thread. Soviet pilots described being able to fly the Tu-2 like a fighter and the A-26 was credited with 7 air-to-air kills, but both of those are very, very subjective measures.
The air to air kills credited to the A-26 are very misleading as I believe all of them were a result of the Invader's defensive firepower and not the pilot operated guns during a dogfight. However, an A-26 was credited with a possible kill in a Me 262 that was either taking off or landing at the time of it being shot down.
ack-ack
-
The air to air kills credited to the A-26 are very misleading as I believe all of them were a result of the Invader's defensive firepower and not the pilot operated guns during a dogfight. However, an A-26 was credited with a possible kill in a Me 262 that was either taking off or landing at the time of it being shot down.
ack-ack
One of our older members who hasn't played in years flew the A-26C during Vietnam - Dukemskt. Completely different beast with the On Mark conversion then the B models we had in 45.
-
One of our older members who hasn't played in years flew the A-26C during Vietnam - Dukemskt. Completely different beast with the On Mark conversion then the B models we had in 45.
Where is he anyway?
-
Where is he anyway?
At the moment, Chinook WA
-
Interesting Tu-2 in Russian: http://youtu.be/nLs2qeDuuC8 (http://youtu.be/nLs2qeDuuC8)
-
Interesting Tu-2 in Russian: http://youtu.be/nLs2qeDuuC8 (http://youtu.be/nLs2qeDuuC8)
Fourteen separate fuel tanks to ensure that getting one shot up didn't leak all your fuel from that location. A simple, brute-force solution at the expense of some additional weight; typical Russian approach.
-
My mental estimation of the size is a little off. I thought it was actually a bit larger than it really looks with people in it. It's very much a compact airframe like a Pe-2, but I thought it was larger like a B-25 or something.
Very interesting seeing the crewman climb into the door in front of the tail wheel and the pilot with the canopy glass opened up (which I also wasn't aware they could do!)
It looks to be a very claustrophobic airframe now, after seeing that youtube link.
-
I'm always "stunned" at how difficult many of these are so difficult to exit in an emergency. It always seems that was the least important design aspect of any plane. :confused:
-
I'm always "stunned" at how difficult many of these are so difficult to exit in an emergency. It always seems that was the least important design aspect of any plane. :confused:
I'd make a quip about it being Russian, but.....I've seen what needs to be done to get out of a Mosquito or B-17, and it isn't pretty.
-
I've seen what needs to be done to get out of a Mosquito or B-17, and it isn't pretty.
In my opinion the worst was the 3rd crewmen in US torpedo planes and dive bombers, they had virtually no way of bailing out if needed.
ack-ack
-
"Better yes, but a top and bottom dual .50 turret isn't that much better than two of the nice Russian 12.7mm guns manually aimed in the dorsal and one in the ventral positions."
Turret should actually be better. From point of gunner induced scatter the turret should be very much better as any maneuvering or vibration will cause the defensive fire to have excessive dispersion with manual aimed guns. Turrets also have larger angle to fire as the high speed affects the manually aimed guns very much making them hard to aim anywhere but to a narrow aft cone.
What is bad in turrets are very much greater weight of course and in some cases limited view from turret depending on sight arrangement. So I'd say that A26 has an advantage in defensive armament.
-C+
-
I agree that it is better, but neither is like attacking a B-17 or B-26.
-
I bring this thread up as this a more appropriate thread for the recent A-26 vs. Tu-2 discussion going on in another thread.
As a level bomber I think it's clear that A-26 would be the better bomber in AH.
- The top speed often listed for A-26 is 355mph at its best alt. According to the Warbird Tech Vol.22 that is the speed of the solid nosed model and the glass nosed level bomber actually had a top speed of 375mph. Based on the data I've seen, Tu-2 will most likely do ~340mph at its best alt. Either way, A-26 is clearly faster.
- Many references list the max. bomb load of the Tu-2 as 6614lbs (3000kg). Considering the layout of the Tu-2, I'm not even entirely sure it would have that load in AH due to the layout of the Tu-2. Many sources also list 2000kg and that is all I have ever seen in the photos (4x250kg in the bomb bay and 2x500kg in the wing root hard points). If the wing root hard points are capable of carrying 1000kg bombs and considering that only one 1000kg can be fitted to the bombay, that would be the 6614lbs figure mentioned in several sources. Think everyone can agree that having three very big bombs isn't very versatile load in AH if the Tu-2 is able to carry that load to begin with. In the real war the average bomb loads carried by the Tu-2 were 1200-1350kg (this was due to irregular supply of bombs, however). A-26's max. load is 6000lbs which in usual American fashion can consist of several different loadouts/bomb sizes which make its load far more versatile in AH, although external bombs could be not included for the A-26 aswell as they seem to have been very rare or nonexistent in use during WWII. That would leave 4000lbs internal bomb load for the A-26.
- The defensive armament of the A-26 is better IMO largely due to the superior fields of fire of the guns and the higher top speed of the A-26 helps to keep the attacker in the rear hemisphere, although speed of the Tu-2 is very high for a bomber as well. If the attacker approaches for the lower rear, it will have three turrets with 6 .50cals tracking it by an A-26 formation. In the Tu-2 there's only three flexible mounted 12.7mm Berezins firing back.
- Climb rate goes for the Tu-2 due to its clearly better power loading over all.
All that being said I'd much rather see the Tu-2 first in AH as there's not a single domestic Soviet bomber in the game. US bomber said on the other hand is basically the best covered plane set in the game already along the US fighter set.
-
I do not know, but I was hoping somebody more familiar with the two aircraft would see the thread. Soviet pilots described being able to fly the Tu-2 like a fighter and the A-26 was credited with 7 air-to-air kills, but both of those are very, very subjective measures.
The A-26 is not credited with any confirmed A2A kills. All officially confirmed kills in A-26s were from the defensive gun turret positions, though one A-26 pilot was credited with a probable Me 262 kill (shot at while landing).
ack-ack
-
The A-26 is not credited with any confirmed A2A kills. All officially confirmed kills in A-26s were from the defensive gun turret positions, though one A-26 pilot was credited with a probable Me 262 kill (shot at while landing).
ack-ack
You said that on the first page of this thread when it was posted two years ago.
-
You said that on the first page of this thread when it was posted two years ago.
:cheers: To consistency then :D
-
If I saw an upgrade coming that included the Yak-3 and the TU-2 I'd probably over night a big wet sloppy kiss to Keller Texas. :D
-
- Many references list the max. bomb load of the Tu-2 as 6614lbs (3000kg). Considering the layout of the Tu-2, I'm not even entirely sure it would have that load in AH due to the layout of the Tu-2. Many sources also list 2000kg and that is all I have ever seen in the photos (4x250kg in the bomb bay and 2x500kg in the wing root hard points). If the wing root hard points are capable of carrying 1000kg bombs and considering that only one 1000kg can be fitted to the bombay, that would be the 6614lbs figure mentioned in several sources. Think everyone can agree that having three very big bombs isn't very versatile load in AH if the Tu-2 is able to carry that load to begin with. In the real war the average bomb loads carried by the Tu-2 were 1200-1350kg (this was due to irregular supply of bombs, however). A-26's max. load is 6000lbs which in usual American fashion can consist of several different loadouts/bomb sizes which make its load far more versatile in AH, although external bombs could be not included for the A-26 aswell as they seem to have been very rare or nonexistent in use during WWII. That would leave 4000lbs internal bomb load for the A-26.
http://russian.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/tu2.html
Bomb Load:
Internal: 1500 kg (3312 lbs)
External: 2270 kg (5004 lbs)
http://ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
TU-2S (1944)
Up to 8,818 lb of disposable stores carried in a lower-fuselage weapons bay rated at 8,818 lb. General disposables load consisted of:
4 × 2,204 lb FAB-1000 bomb, or
8 × 1,102 lb FAB-500 bombs
This version was an upgrade from the Tu-2. It had an increased bombload, uprated engines, and the twin 0.3 inch (7,62 mm) ShKAS guns in the dorsaland ventral positions were replaced by single 0.50 inch (12,7 mm) Beresin UBT guns.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1010
The aircraft featured external hardpoints for munitions as well. Total ordnance capacity was 3,300lbs internally and up to 5,000lbs externally.
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Tupolev_Tu-2
Bombs: 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) internally and 2,270 kg (5,000 lb) externally
http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=129
2 20mm cannons ; 3 12,7 mm mg. ; up to 4000 kg of bombs
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/CAM00435_zpsfc28e0a7.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/CAM00424_zpsf677b410.jpg)
-
http://russian.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/tu2.html
Bomb Load:
Internal: 1500 kg (3312 lbs)
External: 2270 kg (5004 lbs)
http://ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
TU-2S (1944)
Up to 8,818 lb of disposable stores carried in a lower-fuselage weapons bay rated at 8,818 lb. General disposables load consisted of:
4 × 2,204 lb FAB-1000 bomb, or
8 × 1,102 lb FAB-500 bombs
It doesn't matter how many times you post links to dime-in-a-dozen websites or that scan from an connect-the-dots - an airplane coloring book. That book is a good example of throwing bunch inaccurate info together from other alreay published inaccurate books to publish yet another "WWII aircraft book". Use of some common sense and source-criticism would go a long way.
Gordon & Khazanov's book which is known for it's accuracy lists 3000kg as the maximum load:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img811/378/000c369d350x468.jpg)
Here's a wartime soviet source listing 3000kg as the maximum:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_30.jpg)
Tu-2 is a very slim airframe. Even a cursory look at the actual plane easily tells that you can fit loads mentioned on those websites into the plane.
Tu-2 with one 1000kg bomb in the bomb bay:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_13.jpg)
So the maximum load would be three of those, one in the bay two in the wing roots.
Here's the bomb bay loaded with four FAB250s (250kg) and two FAB500s (500kg) in the wing roots:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/TU_22.jpg)
-
Meh. :D
AIR FORCE Magazine / April 2010
http://tinyurl.com/k6yy4am (PDF file)
Yet another gorgeous diagram (not designed to illustrate every loadout option):
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/watermark.php?file=20755)