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!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I want to buy a P-51 at 1944 prices! But at 2017 dollars.
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.
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.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.
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.
There were a few MiG drivers who got a nasty surprise, but that was most likely because they fought to the AD's strengths.
It wasn't just turn-radius, it has a better rate of climb too.You and your turn radius obsession!
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.Turning radius has nothing to do with it, although the A1 has shot down more jets than the A26, and it was speed flexibility
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.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;
You mean the ability to dump speed rapidly?Once again in your obsession with turning, you overlooked the biggest advantage the Skyraider had in a jet fight: speed flexibility.
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 mean the ability to dump speed rapidly?
You keep trying to put reason for the outcome on the aircraft, not the pilots.You mean the ability to dump speed rapidly?