soulezoo
Senior Airman
Ha! I still couldn't afford it! Much less operate and maintain...
I recall some airshows where the deal for a P-51 to show up included a case or two of engine oil!
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
Ha! I still couldn't afford it! Much less operate and maintain...
I recall some airshows where the deal for a P-51 to show up included a case or two of engine oil!
- Thread starter
- #222
This data doesn't list the maximum g-load, but it does have some data regarding g-load for the A-26B
http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/flyingcharacteristics.pdf
A 3G-turn at 235 mph would yield a theoretical radius of turn of 375m, 410 yds, or 1230.8 feet. This isn't accurate for obvious reasons, it couldn't sustain 3g's in a continuous turn and would slow down through the turn. Regardless, it does give some kind of figure to work with, though the A-26 from what I remember was at least capable of 4g normal.
The AD/A-1 wasn't really listed, but the data that was gleaned from the LA-5, LA-5FN, and LA-7, seemed to indicate the following (thanks E eagledad btw), in respective order: 275m (300.7 yds, 902.2 ft), 289m (316.1 yds, 948.2 ft), and 282m (308.4 yds, 925.2 ft).
The LA-5FN was the most commonly produced variant of the LA-5, so that seems the best figure to use for most purposes.
http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/flyingcharacteristics.pdf
A 3G-turn at 235 mph would yield a theoretical radius of turn of 375m, 410 yds, or 1230.8 feet. This isn't accurate for obvious reasons, it couldn't sustain 3g's in a continuous turn and would slow down through the turn. Regardless, it does give some kind of figure to work with, though the A-26 from what I remember was at least capable of 4g normal.
The AD/A-1 wasn't really listed, but the data that was gleaned from the LA-5, LA-5FN, and LA-7, seemed to indicate the following (thanks E eagledad btw), in respective order: 275m (300.7 yds, 902.2 ft), 289m (316.1 yds, 948.2 ft), and 282m (308.4 yds, 925.2 ft).
The LA-5FN was the most commonly produced variant of the LA-5, so that seems the best figure to use for most purposes.
- Thread starter
- #223
Looking at a chart I found on the A-26 on Avialogs.com, listed maximum g-load figures are: A-26B/C: +4.27/-2.35g @ 26000 lb, and +2.69/-1.48g @ 36000 lb. (as of June 20, 1944).
The AD-1 also has a lower stall speed, which would allow it to get inside it without any trouble whatsoever: The AD-1 is a better plane for attack missions.
The AD-1 also has a lower stall speed, which would allow it to get inside it without any trouble whatsoever: The AD-1 is a better plane for attack missions.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If you want to make a better comparison, explore the AD and A(B)-26 variants that flew during the Vietnam war.
You and your turn radius obsession! The A1 is a better plane for attack missions because of its simplicity, ruggedness, smaller crew, less fuel and runway requirements, wider range of operating speeds, and greater variety of weapons delivery profiles, all with practically the same ordnance lift capacity. Turning radius has nothing to do with it, although the A1 has shot down more jets than the A26, and it was speed flexibility, not turning radius that mattered in those cases.
Cheers,
Wes
I know at NKP, Thailand where we had both the A1 of various marks, and A26s, both bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail, the A1 flew almost all the day missions, and the A26 were mostly night.
We were right at the end of the runway, close to the usual approach direction, and I was outside most of the time watching the aircraft. Got chewed out for it several times.
I saw very few A26s coming back during daylight hours. Most A26's I saw during daylight hours were on the flightline being worked on,.
Of coarse both day and night missions had their own unique hazards, so I don't know how you could determine which aircraft was overall the best.
Charts and calculations don't always decide what works best in real combat .
We were right at the end of the runway, close to the usual approach direction, and I was outside most of the time watching the aircraft. Got chewed out for it several times.
I saw very few A26s coming back during daylight hours. Most A26's I saw during daylight hours were on the flightline being worked on,.
Of coarse both day and night missions had their own unique hazards, so I don't know how you could determine which aircraft was overall the best.
Charts and calculations don't always decide what works best in real combat .
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
There were a few MiG drivers who got a nasty surprise, but that was most likely because they fought to the AD's strengths.
You must treat every adversary as if he wants to kill you, and he has a skill you may not be aware of. If you don't, you may end up as a little colored star on the side of his a/c...
Cheers,
Biff
- Thread starter
- #229
It wasn't just turn-radius, it has a better rate of climb too.
Actually the reason they took out jets was often because the pilots weren't exploiting the advantages of their aircraft: The MiG-17 has most of the advantages -- it has a higher sustained and zoom-climb rate, it can dive faster, probably was able to roll-faster, and sustain higher g-loads.
The only advantage the AD-1 was that it had a lower stall speed, and had better endurance down at low altitudes. The lower stall speed allows one to hit peak turning speed first; the greater endurance generally only applied if you can avoid being taken out immediately (something that happened quite a lot in Vietnam -- often by somebody they didn't know was there), but you could drag out the fight until the other guy slips up, or realizes he's running so low on gas that he has to head home real quick, but their superior speed could allow an effective disengagement.
The only advantage the AD-1 had was it was most likely flown by more experienced pilots than the Mig-17s.
The Mig pilots saw a prop plane, as they saw it, they had all the advantages, and they did.
Maybe it slipped their memory the AD-1 was armed with 4X20mm cannons.
The Mig pilots saw a prop plane, as they saw it, they had all the advantages, and they did.
Maybe it slipped their memory the AD-1 was armed with 4X20mm cannons.
fubar57
General
Weren't they called A-1H's by the time of Viet Nam?
fubar57
General
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=144
"In the 1962 revision, the AD-1 Skyraider became the A-1 Skyraider and its various marks followed. A-4D became the A-1D, AD-5 was the A-1E, AD-5N was the A-1G, AD-5Q was the EA-1F, AD-6 was the A-1H, and AD-7 was the A-1J"
"In the 1962 revision, the AD-1 Skyraider became the A-1 Skyraider and its various marks followed. A-4D became the A-1D, AD-5 was the A-1E, AD-5N was the A-1G, AD-5Q was the EA-1F, AD-6 was the A-1H, and AD-7 was the A-1J"
fubar57
General
I don't think the AD-1 or -2 even served in Korea let alone Viet Nam The Douglas AD / A-1 Skyraider
On 20 June 1965, Lieutenants Charles Hartman and Clinton Johnson, each flying an A-1H, were credited with shooting down a MiG-17 with cannon fire; their flight had been attacked by MiGs, with the Spads then dumping their stores and going into a circle, where each could protect the tail of the other. A MiG-17 tried to break into the circle, and was promptly blown out of the sky. On 9 October 1966 Lieutenant JG William T. Patton, also flying an A-1H, shot down a MiG-17, again with cannon fire
On 20 June 1965, Lieutenants Charles Hartman and Clinton Johnson, each flying an A-1H, were credited with shooting down a MiG-17 with cannon fire; their flight had been attacked by MiGs, with the Spads then dumping their stores and going into a circle, where each could protect the tail of the other. A MiG-17 tried to break into the circle, and was promptly blown out of the sky. On 9 October 1966 Lieutenant JG William T. Patton, also flying an A-1H, shot down a MiG-17, again with cannon fire
Once again in your obsession with turning, you overlooked the biggest advantage the Skyraider had in a jet fight: speed flexibility. Attacked by MiGs, the A1 would get down in the weeds and jink like crazy. Close to the ground, the MiGs had a hard time keeping their sights on target and their wingtips out of the treetops. The A1 would accelerate as the MiG rolled in on a firing run, then chop throttle and jink suddenly, forcing an overshoot. Eventually the frustrated MiG pilot dirties up and cuts throttle to reduce his Vc, the A1 chops throttle, throws out dive brakes and flaps, and the MiG overshoots again, whereupon the A1 cleans up, firewalls throttle, and pops up on the MiG's tail, while the MiG driver bends his throttle around the stop as his engine slowly spools up amidst a hail of 20MM fire. Scratch one MiG. This scenario repeated itself more than once.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #236
You mean the ability to dump speed rapidly?
Yes, AND the ability to regain it quickly, which jet engines of the day lacked. Despite its rudimentary afterburner, the MiG17 couldn't accelerate quickly when spooled down, as afterburner application in that condition would flame out the engine.
You keep trying to put reason for the outcome on the aircraft, not the pilots.
If the Migs had been flown by pilots of equal experience to that of the A1's, the encounter very likely would have turned out different.
You had Migs with pilots of maybe, maybe, 500 hours verses pilots with maybe 1500-2000 hours.
Probably all the A1 pilots of the Vietnam era had jet experience, knew their characteristics.
While most of the NVAF pilots went from bicycles to flying. If they had any experience with prop jobs, probably it was only low horsepower training planes, then to jets.
They had no idea what high powered combat prop aircraft could do. They had never been in one, and they'd never encountered one either.
You seem to only think of the math and science of aviation, and ignore the most important part, the humans flying the aircraft.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
The NVAF pilots made the most critical error of anybody in a fight: they fought to the Skyraider's strengths. In their defense, their aircraft tended to be more maneuverable (for some definitions of maneuverable) than the USAF and USN aircraft they were fighting.
Yes, it was because of lack of training.
Yes, it was because of lack of training.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I recall reading that in Europe in WWII the 9th AF was thinking that the A-26 would make a better attack aircraft than the P-47. Experiments proved that the A-26 was just as fast a a P-47 down low and could carry a lot more ordnance, but it made a significantly larger target than the P-47 and was less manueverable, making it far more likely to get hit by German AAA and small arms fire.
