a-26

[DEECONX]

cur-BUMP! 

[SpiveyCH]

Armament:(A-26B) ten 0.5in Brownings, six fixed in nose and two each in dorsal and ventral turrets;  internal bomb load of 4,000lb (1814kg), later supplemented by underwing load of up to 2,000lb (907kg);  (A-26C) similar but only two 0.5in in nose;  (B-26K, A-26A)  various nose configurations with up to eight 0.5in or four 20mm, plus six 0.30in guns in wings and total ordnance load of 8,000lb (3629kg) in bomb bay and on eight outer-wing pylons.
 

[Rich46yo]

Well I can understand the purists. And now hey have the Betty bomber, "tho nobody will probably fly the thing after the first few weeks". At best its MW, in LW its going to get slaughtered by every 15yo in a P-51D.

Heres some perspective for why we need the A-26. In tour 129 the EWAs had a combine K/D of 1,113. The MWAs had a combined 23,454. The LWAs had a combined 739,708 K/Ds. Thats over 30 times that of MW and about 70 times that of EW. So I guess players have voted with their feet and we need somthing that is both fun and can survive against the horde of 190s, K4s, P-51Ds, 47Ms, LAs.....ect The A-26 fits the bill in all ways.

I wish it were different but it aint. Personaly I'd rather see the TU-2 or the PE-2. Both would be competative and finally give us a Soviet bomber. The TU-2 would give us a level bomber, a dive bomber, a torpedo plane, a night fighter, all kinds of good things. But the Invader would cause more excitement and be the more survivable airplane. It saw as much or more service in WW-ll as many airframes we currently have beginning in spring of '44. It would have to be perked I believe, tho Im not sure by how much.

[DEECONX]

Well I can understand the purists. And now hey have the Betty bomber, "tho nobody will probably fly the thing after the first few weeks". At best its MW, in LW its going to get slaughtered by every 15yo in a P-51D.

Heres some perspective for why we need the A-26. In tour 129 the EWAs had a combine K/D of 1,113. The MWAs had a combined 23,454. The LWAs had a combined 739,708 K/Ds. Thats over 30 times that of MW and about 70 times that of EW. So I guess players have voted with their feet and we need somthing that is both fun and can survive against the horde of 190s, K4s, P-51Ds, 47Ms, LAs.....ect The A-26 fits the bill in all ways.

I wish it were different but it aint. Personaly I'd rather see the TU-2 or the PE-2. Both would be competative and finally give us a Soviet bomber. The TU-2 would give us a level bomber, a dive bomber, a torpedo plane, a night fighter, all kinds of good things. But the Invader would cause more excitement and be the more survivable airplane. It saw as much or more service in WW-ll as many airframes we currently have beginning in spring of '44. It would have to be perked I believe, tho Im not sure by how much.

I dont think there should be a perk. Definitely a lower ENY then most planes of its type, but no perk.

[cobia38]

  even if you perk the crap out of it, some of us so many bomber perks we could fly it non stop for a year 

[Karnak]

The A-26 will not have the performance that so many of you seem to think.  It will be quite a potent ground attack aircraft, but it will be very vulnerable in air-to-air encounters.  It is not fast, topping out at only about 355mph, and its very high wing loading means it will not turn very tightly.  Like all twin engined aircraft, barring the boosted aileron P-38, it will have a sedate roll rate.

[Ack-Ack]

The A-26 will not have the performance that so many of you seem to think.  It will be quite a potent ground attack aircraft, but it will be very vulnerable in air-to-air encounters.  It is not fast, topping out at only about 355mph, and its very high wing loading means it will not turn very tightly.  Like all twin engined aircraft, barring the boosted aileron P-38, it will have a sedate roll rate.

The A-26 POH clearly states that aerobatic dogfighting maneuvers were to be avoided because of the tendency of the A-26 to enter into a nasty spin when the wings are banked beyond a certain angle at slow speeds.  This problem wasn't fixed until post-war, before Korea.

Though, I wonder if this particular quirk of the Invader would be modeled in AH if it wins the vote.

*EDIT*  Correcting myself, it wasn't a spin that would result, the wing would stall out.

ack-ack

[AWwrgwy]

Armament:(A-26B) ten 0.5in Brownings, six fixed in nose and two each in dorsal and ventral turrets;  internal bomb load of 4,000lb (1814kg), later supplemented by underwing load of up to 2,000lb (907kg);  (A-26C) similar but only two 0.5in in nose;  (B-26K, A-26A)  various nose configurations with up to eight 0.5in or four 20mm, plus six 0.30in guns in wings and total ordnance load of 8,000lb (3629kg) in bomb bay and on eight outer-wing pylons.
 

The red is very incorrect.

The A-26 was designed with an "All-Purpose Nose" which could be configured with a variety of combinations of armament, including combinations of .50 cal. mgs, 37mm cannon, and 75mm cannon.

From A-26 and B-26 Invader by Scott Thompson:

There is no indication that any A-26 entered combat with anything other than six or eight .50 calibre gun noses.

No 20mm.


wrongway

       

[L0nGb0w]

heh, look at the date of the OP. 

[SpiveyCH]

     Guess I should have put dates in.  The red that you highlighted would be for the B-26K, A-26A.    The A-26B  and the A-26C would be what we would see in game.  There were air forces using the A-26A (as the rebuilt b-26K was called) in 1977.   A-26A was made in 1948 from what I understand.  

I was responding to the first post and trying to show that there were not 18 guns.

[guncrasher]

The A-26 POH clearly states that aerobatic dogfighting maneuvers were to be avoided because of the tendency of the A-26 to enter into a nasty spin when the wings are banked beyond a certain angle at slow speeds.  This problem wasn't fixed until post-war, before Korea.

Though, I wonder if this particular quirk of the Invader would be modeled in AH if it wins the vote.

*EDIT*  Correcting myself, it wasn't a spin that would result, the wing would stall out.

ack-ack

maybe there will be a miracle like with the 110's we have.  in ww2 they got shot down so easily by the spits and hurrican due to its inability to turn.  towards the end of the war, they actually were not allowed to go into england without heavy fighter escort.

another point is the b20, look how people use it to dogfite.

but I dont really care if the a26 can turn or not, it's just the fact that in aw was so much fun, that just flying one in ah has been my dream since i joined 4 or 5 years ago.  it is one of those things that bring lots of fond memories, like the sheep, that now has disappeared.


semp

[DEECONX]

I just want it. Whether it is "uber" or "toejamty" I want it. Simple as that.  

[DEECONX]

I just want it. Whether it is "uber" or "toejamty" I want it. Simple as that.  

LOL HTC...

[Wmaker]

The A-26 POH clearly states that aerobatic dogfighting maneuvers were to be avoided because of the tendency of the A-26 to enter into a nasty spin when the wings are banked beyond a certain angle at slow speeds.  This problem wasn't fixed until post-war, before Korea.

Though, I wonder if this particular quirk of the Invader would be modeled in AH if it wins the vote.

*EDIT*  Correcting myself, it wasn't a spin that would result, the wing would stall out.

Don't know which POH for the A-26 you have been reading but the Pilot traning manual for the Invader - A-26 states the following:

"Remember that the A-26 has a high wingloading, and your stalling speed increases with the rate of bank."

...this isn't some "particular quirk of the Invader" but something that applies to all traditional fixed wing aircraft that fly under the Newtonian physics of this universe. Simple physics.

[Plawranc]

B-29 

You guys killed the Beau.... so I shall kill you....