A26 Invader anyone???

[scott66]

+1 

[Arlo]

Arlo .....Tu-2RShR 1947?

 That book is almost likie you wikie

Reach Around,

The book covers the lifetime of the plane. The ord load does, as well. 

[Arlo]

Sorry Arlo but those kind of all-in-one books are rarely very good sources. The whole caption does not make much sense as it first says 1500kg internally and then mentions that the internal bomb load ranges from 9x100kg bombs to one 1000kg bomb. Also, just look at the pic on that next page, those nine FAB100s fill the whole bomb bay. How is a 1500kg bomb load going to fit in there?

Likely because there were bomb sizes between the two illustrated.

Existing Tu-2 vs A-26 thread here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316230.0.html
One Tu-2 thread here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328373.0.html

Good threads with more info making the Tu-2/A-26 comparison. More and more, it seems
a 'hands down winner' claim holds no water. 

[Rich46yo]

USAF generally doesnt like stunts pulled with any of their airplanes. Most of all their heavier bombers and attacks airplanes. There is no doubt however the A26 was pretty maneuverable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iayVNS20rc unless weighted down by ordinance. But you only have to look at the wings to see this plane was made for speed and B&Z attacks instead of pretty twists and turns. Accounts from its pilots rate the Invader very high in maneuverability.

It was the "K" model that saw service in 'Nam that was rated for 12,000 lb of ord. This was a pretty much rebuilt batch of 40 air frames plucked from the bone yard and given new engine, wings, and a lot of things. These were the famous "Nimrods" who hunted at night in S/E Asia.

[SmokinLoon]

Are we seeing people arguing which plane should be added based on its performance vs another aircraft not even in the same category???   

Forget the A26, move on.  There are many other bombers and attack aircraft that were more prominent in WWII that are ahead in the list. FWIW, both the SB-2 and Tu-2 will be added before the A26.  Get over it.  The A20 will get a remodel prior to the A26 being added as well.   

[Eric19]

 chances are that when they remodel the B26 they'll add the A26 since they are very close airframe wise

[Wmaker]

Good threads with more info making the Tu-2/A-26 comparison. More and more, it seems
a 'hands down winner' claim holds no water.  

I didn't say anything about which wins what or doesn't. Just pointed out that over 8000lbs bombload claim was nonsense and very very easy to spot nonsense at that.

[Ack-Ack]

anyone that want's to spend $20 for a dvd can find out what the pilot manuals say...
http://www.zenosflightshop.com/A_20_and_A_26_Bomber_DVD_with_free_B_26_DVD_p/a2026dvd.htm

With a little searching, these manuals can be found for free.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

chances are that when they remodel the B26 they'll add the A26 since they are very close airframe wise

B-26 and the A-26 are not similar in design.

B-26 Marauder


A-26 Invader



ack-ack

[guncrasher]

Good threads with more info making the Tu-2/A-26 comparison. More and more, it seems
a 'hands down winner' claim holds no water. 

faster, can carry more bombs internally and has better defensive armament.  which part did I miss?  even the threads you linked to, all mention the vader having an advantage.

semp

[Arlo]

I didn't say anything about which wins what or doesn't. Just pointed out that over 8000lbs bombload claim was nonsense and
very very easy to spot nonsense at that.

The 'better is better' argument, which preceded your observation, was all about such and that's what
started the statistical comparing (or in some cases, misunderstanding or ignoring).

Sources vary and there's probably a very good reason why (model type variation):

bomb load 5,000 lb (later 6,615 lb)

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/War-Planes/Bomber-Planes/Russian/Tupolev-Tu2/Tu-2.htm

Technical data on the Tupolev 'Type 103V'

Up to 6,613 lb of disposable stores carried in a lower-fuselage weapons bay rated at 6,613 lb. General disposables load consisted of:

    1 × 2,204 lb bomb, or
    2 × 1,102 lb bombs, or
    up to 3 × 2,204 lb bombs

Technical data on the Tupolev Tu-2S

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

Tupolev Tu-2S    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://ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html

Even if we take the lesser of the two here, both planes carried the same approximate load at the same approximate speed for the
same approximate distance it shoots the A-26 overall superiority argument you're not a part of in the foot.

[Arlo]

faster, can carry more bombs internally and has better defensive armament.  which part did I miss?  even the threads you linked to, all mention the vader having an advantage.

semp

No, actually. You're missing a lot. 

[gyrene81]

With a little searching, these manuals can be found for free.

ack-ack

did that, nada. not even my normal manual sources have any "freebie" versions.

[guncrasher]

hey arlo why dont you post links to wowp for that bomber too.  you are running out of expert sites.


semp

[Ack-Ack]

did that, nada. not even my normal manual sources have any "freebie" versions.

Here is a site where they have a number of manuals you can download for free. 

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3744925/WW2-U-S-Army-Air-Force-U-S-Navy-Aviation-Manuals-1939-1945

ack-ack