A-1 Skyraider vs A-26
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I know it's not as simple as just looking at wing loading, but I don't see no way a A-26 could turn inside a Bf109.
Even at just 1000 lbs above it's empty weight a A-26 has a higher wing loading than a full weight Bf109G.
Even at just 1000 lbs above it's empty weight a A-26 has a higher wing loading than a full weight Bf109G.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Arguably the Bf 109 was one of the best piston fighters ever made, at least if you go by combat record. I can't see how that's possible, myself, and would have to see it to believe it.
I doubt seriously we'd ever see a Bf 109 vs. A-26 comparison in any case.
I can believe an A-26 at light weight and best corner velocity could easily turn inside a diving Bf 109 going 450+ mph, but the same can be said of ANY WWII fighter in the same situation. Turns radius has a LOT to do with velocity. If the Bf 109 was going more or less the same speed as the A-26, it would be "no contest!"
I doubt seriously we'd ever see a Bf 109 vs. A-26 comparison in any case.
I can believe an A-26 at light weight and best corner velocity could easily turn inside a diving Bf 109 going 450+ mph, but the same can be said of ANY WWII fighter in the same situation. Turns radius has a LOT to do with velocity. If the Bf 109 was going more or less the same speed as the A-26, it would be "no contest!"
Last edited:
Sounds crazy indeed. Don't believe it.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
I would be very suspicious of that claim, especially as maneuver would not be a primary design goal. On the other hand, I would find the idea of a P-61, P-38, or F7F being able to out-turn a Bf109 to be plausible. All had maneuverability as a design criterion, and it seems many US designs had better high-alpha handling than their contemporaries.
drgondog
Major
Nope. Not possible, not plausible. Three major problems right off the top. The B-26 was not stressed for High G maneuver. The B-26 was too underpowered to be able to sustain a decent level turn rate and still overcome the drag. Independent of the huge W/L comparison, the B-26 roll rate was inadequate to a.) initiate a quick bank and turn, or b.) follow a 109 in a turn. I suspect that a B-26 Invader would not be able to keep up with either an A-20 or a P-61 either.
- Thread starter
- #8
tyrodtom
GregP
Hurricane
Could turn inside it easily at most speeds. Turn rate seemed to come closer when the slats came out at low-speeds. I have heard some claim that it was possible to turn inside it at the bottom end of the speed-range provided one was to use full elevator and stab-trim, though aiming the guns would be difficult due to the fact that the slats would often deploy asymmetrically in rapid decelerations and this would cause the plane to wobble.
Spitfire
Same as the Hurricane, though it turned a slight bit slower, though still extraordinary.
P-40 Warhawk
Could turn slightly faster at certain speeds at least, than the Me-109, though it seemed to be fairly close.
P-38 Lightning
Inferior to the Me-109 without maneuvering flaps, superior to the Me-109 at some speeds and altitudes with maneuvering flaps extended.
P-51B/D Mustang
When light to moderately loaded it seemed to be able to turn inside the Me-109 at either low/moderate to moderate speeds, and might have compared similarly to the P-40 give or take. When heavily loaded (drop-tanks off, center tank burned down), it's turn rate seemed to be inferior from low-speed to moderate speeds; at moderate to moderate/high speeds it would be able to turn better from what I recall. It might very well have had better high altitude performance, though I'm not entirely sure if it was merely a function of having more power to carry it through the turn before dumping too much speed.
swampyankee
drgondog[/b]
Wing loading is just one of the variables, there's also aspect ratio, wing cross-section, and probably a host of others.
This came from a documentary on the A-26, it included a guy who flew the plane (as a fire suppression plane), as well as Paul Moga (F-22 pilot). Moga was also quite suprised it could get inside the Me-109 as well.
GregP
It's turning arc wasn't exactly spectacular, though I'm not sure if I'd want to call it bad. The following comparisons I've heard seem to indicate the following
Hurricane
Could turn inside it easily at most speeds. Turn rate seemed to come closer when the slats came out at low-speeds. I have heard some claim that it was possible to turn inside it at the bottom end of the speed-range provided one was to use full elevator and stab-trim, though aiming the guns would be difficult due to the fact that the slats would often deploy asymmetrically in rapid decelerations and this would cause the plane to wobble.
Spitfire
Same as the Hurricane, though it turned a slight bit slower, though still extraordinary.
P-40 Warhawk
Could turn slightly faster at certain speeds at least, than the Me-109, though it seemed to be fairly close.
P-38 Lightning
Inferior to the Me-109 without maneuvering flaps, superior to the Me-109 at some speeds and altitudes with maneuvering flaps extended.
P-51B/D Mustang
When light to moderately loaded it seemed to be able to turn inside the Me-109 at either low/moderate to moderate speeds, and might have compared similarly to the P-40 give or take. When heavily loaded (drop-tanks off, center tank burned down), it's turn rate seemed to be inferior from low-speed to moderate speeds; at moderate to moderate/high speeds it would be able to turn better from what I recall. It might very well have had better high altitude performance, though I'm not entirely sure if it was merely a function of having more power to carry it through the turn before dumping too much speed.
Well if we can find any data on the A-26's turning circle at varying weights and speed, we could compile our own provided we know what Me-109 variant.
swampyankee
It sounds absurd, and I'm not sure I'd have believed it myself except for the fact that in the documentary there was a respected USAF pilot, and a former A-26 pilot who both seemed to confirm this point.
drgondog[/b]
Actually, on that note: What was the A-26/B-26 Invader's maximum g-load? I've been curious about that for some time.
It could outrun the A-20, but not the P-61
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If this actually happened in combat, the -109 driver was either very green or asleep at the stick. I'd also like to know where Moga got to fly an A-26 against a -109???
wuzak
Captain
I think you will find that the Spitfire didn't turn as tightly as the Hurricane, but did it at a higher speed.
At a given altitude, the Spitfire could perform a level turn with a smaller radius and a higher speed than the Bf 109.
Shortround6
Major General
Going for the last, when talking about turning it isn't level speed that matters. It is the climb rate. The climb rate being an indicator of the surplus power available at climbing speed.
Please note that this also varies considerably with altitude. P-61 had hundreds more hp per engine at higher altitudes than an A-26.
As Drgondog has repeatedly tried to tell us the drag of an aircraft turning (or climbing) is considerably higher than one flying straight and level. Plus you have a large loss of lift while turning. The manual for the A-26 says the stalling speed of the plane in a 60 degree bank was 192mph at 31,000lbs or about 42% higher than flying straight and level. And a 60 degree bank is about 2 "G"s
A lot of these big planes simply do NOT have the power to sustain a "high" G turn without loosing considerable altitude.
Even the single engine fighters cannot sustain 4-6 "G" turns for very long without loosing altitude.
An A-26 even at 27,000lbs has a wing loading of 50lbs per sq ft and while wing loading alone does not tel the whole story you need quite a combination of aspect ratio, wing cross-section, and other factors to equal the lift of planes with wing loading around 80% or less of the A-26.
Now perhaps a 109 pilot overshot an already banked and turning A-26 or perhaps a novice 109 pilot was not pulling anywhere near as hard as could in a turn and an A-26 turned with him for very short portion of a turn. Neither case qualifies as turning with or out turning the 109 as is commonly referred to.
I would note that the fire suppression planes had ALL the .50 cal guns removed ( no less than six and often fourteen forward firing guns ) plus the two remote control gun turrets, plus the armor plate (although heavy gauge aluminium may remain) and the fuel tanks were had the self sealing stripped and new fuel bladders put in. .50 cal ammo weighs 30lbs per 100 rounds so An A-26 could be carrying a truck load (literally, could be well over 1200lbs ) of .50 cal ammo. Quite of few of the fire suppression aircraft had also swapped engines for commercial engines as used in DC-6s or Convair 240-440 airliners for a bit more power ( and easier parts availability) so impressions form flying such an aircraft might not be a good indicator of a combat equipped aircraft.
BTW, found a "fun" online calculator for figuring turning circles and G loadings and such. Manual for the A-26 says the stall speed was 125mph clean at 31,000lbs ?
Aircraft Turn Information Calculator
Please note that this also varies considerably with altitude. P-61 had hundreds more hp per engine at higher altitudes than an A-26.
As Drgondog has repeatedly tried to tell us the drag of an aircraft turning (or climbing) is considerably higher than one flying straight and level. Plus you have a large loss of lift while turning. The manual for the A-26 says the stalling speed of the plane in a 60 degree bank was 192mph at 31,000lbs or about 42% higher than flying straight and level. And a 60 degree bank is about 2 "G"s
A lot of these big planes simply do NOT have the power to sustain a "high" G turn without loosing considerable altitude.
Even the single engine fighters cannot sustain 4-6 "G" turns for very long without loosing altitude.
An A-26 even at 27,000lbs has a wing loading of 50lbs per sq ft and while wing loading alone does not tel the whole story you need quite a combination of aspect ratio, wing cross-section, and other factors to equal the lift of planes with wing loading around 80% or less of the A-26.
Now perhaps a 109 pilot overshot an already banked and turning A-26 or perhaps a novice 109 pilot was not pulling anywhere near as hard as could in a turn and an A-26 turned with him for very short portion of a turn. Neither case qualifies as turning with or out turning the 109 as is commonly referred to.
I would note that the fire suppression planes had ALL the .50 cal guns removed ( no less than six and often fourteen forward firing guns ) plus the two remote control gun turrets, plus the armor plate (although heavy gauge aluminium may remain) and the fuel tanks were had the self sealing stripped and new fuel bladders put in. .50 cal ammo weighs 30lbs per 100 rounds so An A-26 could be carrying a truck load (literally, could be well over 1200lbs ) of .50 cal ammo. Quite of few of the fire suppression aircraft had also swapped engines for commercial engines as used in DC-6s or Convair 240-440 airliners for a bit more power ( and easier parts availability) so impressions form flying such an aircraft might not be a good indicator of a combat equipped aircraft.
BTW, found a "fun" online calculator for figuring turning circles and G loadings and such. Manual for the A-26 says the stall speed was 125mph clean at 31,000lbs ?
Aircraft Turn Information Calculator
GregP
Major
Max Moga is pretty well-kown at the Planes of Fame, and he's never mentioned that anytime I've seen him there. And he was there to talk about WWII airplanes.
The turn radius is directly proportional to the square of the velocity and inversely proportional to g-load.
The turn radius is directly proportional to the square of the velocity and inversely proportional to g-load.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #13
FLYBOYJ
wuzak
When I said "same as the Hurricane", I meant that it could easily turn inside the Me-109 at most speeds though it would get closer at low-speed with the slats coming out. As for turning slower I meant a lower rate of turn, the Spitfire was considerably faster than the Hurricane.
Shortround6
GregP
Towards the end of the war the pilots flying for the Luftwaffe were actually quite inexperienced, so that might be something worth considering
I don't believe he did, he was talking to a guy who flew the A-26 to put out forest fires. He did express surprise about the turning rate and asked him if this was indeed correct.
wuzak
We might be misunderstanding each other.
When I said "same as the Hurricane", I meant that it could easily turn inside the Me-109 at most speeds though it would get closer at low-speed with the slats coming out. As for turning slower I meant a lower rate of turn, the Spitfire was considerably faster than the Hurricane.
Okay, so I guess the slats would simply make it close but not superior. I had been curious about that.
Shortround6
Like specific excess power (Ps?)
Yeah, it had a twin-stage supercharger...
That makes sense, 2g is twice the lift at 1g: I do remember hearing that L/D increases at higher AoA, but that doesn't mean that drag doesn't increase substantially, just that lift increases more so.
I thought 2g requires the same AoA regardless of bank?
No dispute, what I was talking about was the turning circle.
I was under the impression that most WWII fighters usually could pull around 2-3g in level flight at certain speeds without loss, jets seemed to be around 2-4g early on, and by the time supersonic planes came around, that number would increase (for example the F-4 could sustain around 7g, but it had a corner velocity that was over 400 kts)
The aspect ratio of the A-26 was 9.07; the Me-109's was around 6.14.
All I heard was it could turn inside an Me-109, it would not shock me if they were already banking and the Me-109 ended up slipping in front.
1037 pounds if you count eight in the nose, six in the wings, two in each turret, and 500 rounds per gun in the turret, 400 rounds in all the others yielding 2280 pounds of ammo. While I know they carried up to 1600 gallons of fuel, I'm not sure how much the turrets, armor, and self-sealing tanks weigh.
If I recall they had about 200 extra horsepower
This weight was bombs off just past the target?
GregP
Look, I'm just remembering what I heard. It might very well be completely wrong, don't shoot the messenger
That's something I know: A = V^2/R
A fire retardant A-26 would be a lightweight hot rod once it got rid of it's load in comparison to a WW2 A-26 without bombs.
I was at a base where they had both the A-26 and the A1E and A1H . but the pilots were all too busy fighting a war to play fun and games. But I noticed the A-26 never ever flew daylight missions, while the A1s were used day and night.
I was at a base where they had both the A-26 and the A1E and A1H . but the pilots were all too busy fighting a war to play fun and games. But I noticed the A-26 never ever flew daylight missions, while the A1s were used day and night.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #16
- Thread starter
- #17
Until drgondog comes back with data on the A-26 maximum g-loads, anything on the A-26 is pretty much guesswork.
How did the A-1 Skyraider compare in agility in terms of rates of turn to the following
How did the A-1 Skyraider compare in agility in terms of rates of turn to the following
- Me-109 & Fw-190 in air-to-air configuration (I was told they had similar rates of turn)
- P-47D in an air-to-air configuration
- P-47D with a 2,000 pound bomb-load
- P-47N with a 2,000 pound bomb-load
- P-51D in a long-range escort mission at moment of combat (tanks off, center tank empty, and wings full)
drgondog
Major
All prewar US bombers - were designed to +3/-1.5G Limit loading at design combat loads. I know of no reason that B-26 Invader should be different. LW doctrine to include dive bombing in the spec suggests higher AoA loading than US and GB but I have not seen a spec.
GregP
Major
An empty Skyraider is quite maneuverable. It is much less so when carting around 8,000 lbs. of bombs. But you know that.
At 15,800 lbs, it was about an 8g airplane (bottom of a dive) and could climb about 3,500 fpm. By the time it was at 22,500 lbs, it was down to a 5.9 - 6.0 g airplane or so. It could haul 6,000 to 8,000 lbs of ordnance and could loiter on-station for hours. I doubt the Skyraider had the excess power to sustain even 6 g in a level turn but, if it did, the airframe could take it easily.
I've never seen a flight envlope drawing for a Skyraider, but also never really looked for one, either. I suspect it could be quite deadly if configured for air combat, but that was never the Skyraider's primary mission, so I can't really say with any degree of certainty.
I doubt seriously if anyone ever flew air-to-air missions in a Skyraider, so getting documented evidence of the performance in that mission would be rather unlikely, to say the least. If anyone out there has it, please share!
At 15,800 lbs, it was about an 8g airplane (bottom of a dive) and could climb about 3,500 fpm. By the time it was at 22,500 lbs, it was down to a 5.9 - 6.0 g airplane or so. It could haul 6,000 to 8,000 lbs of ordnance and could loiter on-station for hours. I doubt the Skyraider had the excess power to sustain even 6 g in a level turn but, if it did, the airframe could take it easily.
I've never seen a flight envlope drawing for a Skyraider, but also never really looked for one, either. I suspect it could be quite deadly if configured for air combat, but that was never the Skyraider's primary mission, so I can't really say with any degree of certainty.
I doubt seriously if anyone ever flew air-to-air missions in a Skyraider, so getting documented evidence of the performance in that mission would be rather unlikely, to say the least. If anyone out there has it, please share!
Shortround6
Major General
Try; http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AD-4_Skyraider_SAC_-_1_November_1952.pdf
Condition #2
Climb performance falls off with altitude like a burnt-out bottle rocket.
However at under 5,000ft it might very well surprise a few people.
