A-1 Skyraider vs A-26

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Good old 1900C?

Got two 1900D's in my hangar tight now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we were the launch customer for the 1900 Airliner. N6667L was UB-1, the prototype for the commuter configured version, and featured in the photos in the first edition ACFM and ACMM in our company colors. Although marketed as a 1900C, it was actually a B model. We eventually wound up with 8 UBs and 3 UCs, which were pretty much the same bird except for a wet (constantly weeping) wing with higher fuel capacity. Lighter and less powerful than your Ds, but livelier. Fuselage was a stretched King Air 300, so low ceiling and cramped seating. But she flew like a little fighter.
Cheers
Wes
 
Last edited:

Yeah we have an Ameriflight 1900C based at our airport.

The 1900 is pretty much a KA on steroids.

Sorry to get off topic everyone...
 
I used to think civil airplanes were great until I started working aound them. It's hard to believe how bad they can get and still be technically airworthy!

I was working temporarily at an avionics shop and we had a Comanche 180 come in for a pitot-static check. The pito-static guy noticed a lot of control friction, and we started looking.

We found the cable was run by person unknown underneath the radio stack and was wearing on it. The cable was halfway through the radio mounting box and had about another 0.01 inches before sawing through the 24-volt power line on the board!

The owner said not to mind it, he'd take care of it, but we could not legally let an unairworthy condition go. We told him he could fix it or we could fix it, but it was going to be fixed or red-tagged to the FAA before it rolled away from the shop. He was not a happy camper, but he let use fix it. Turned out the control cable had 6 broken strands and needed to be replaced!

This was primary the elevator - aileron cable! and he really wasn't happy because it uncovered another host of issues that had been swept under the rug. Not by us, as were were an avionics shop only, but by a Chino A&P shop. Apparently this guy was getting "paper annuals" for several, if not many, years. I don't know the eventual outcome, but the pitot-static test failed, too and had to be repaired.

I don't care who you are, if you FIND unairworthy stuff, you have to address it!

I'm sure everyone who has worked on aircraft has a few stories, some of which are actually pretty entertaining.

Fire the retro-commode rocket, Mr, Spock! Let's crap on e'm but GOOD!
 
Last edited:

I so agree with that. I had the added burden of having to fly on what I fixed, get the royal treatment from aircrew if my work was less than satisfactory, plus answer not only to my squadron/group/wing brass, but also to Scott AFB (AMC). Also, having to go in behind work done by others and sign off on repairs certifying their work could be a chore.

And yeah, I've got a career's worth of entertaining stories.
 
""I ORDERED you to fix that f...king radar, Boy, and it's still f...king broke! My next hop is at 1400, and if you've signed it off again and it's still f...king broke, Boy, you're going to see the Skipper!"

""Sir, that radar passed all the ground checks. It ops checks OK. Can you tell me what it's doing wrong in flight, Sir?"

"I fly the f...king airplane, Boy, you fix the f...king radar! You're the f...king expert, Boy, so fix the damn thing and don't give me no twenty questions! And don't go bugging my RIO, neither!"

Homo Neanderthalis, but "an officer and a gentleman". An inspirer of entertaining stories.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, let's get back on topic!
XBe02Drvr said:
As for straight wing vs swept wing, the Skyraider is a nastier customer than most due to its ability to slow down abruptly then re-accelerate quickly, and its agility at all speeds. Plus, those 20MMs can do a lot of damage.
Click to expand...

You're closing on him quickly,
Pipper's on his nose,
One more second, squeeze the trigger,
"Oh shit, where did he go?"

Madly rubbernecking,
Eyes around the clock,
Can not see, where can he be?
"Check your six o'clock!"

Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tyrodtom said:
Those four M-39 cannons on the A-1 have a combined rate of fire equal to the Vulcan cannon, 6000 rounds a minute, 100 rounds a second, over 3300 fps MV too. Not a aircraft a opponent would want behind him, even for a second.
Click to expand...

But did it use the M39 or the earlier AN/M2 Hispano-Suiza cannon?
 
The Skyraider was absolutely the greatest thing you could possibly see in Viet Nam if the bad guys were around.

They usually travelled in groups of 4, and four of them could orbit overherad for up to maybe 3 hours ... and could either drop something or shoot at something on each and every pass!

None of the bad guys made a single move when Skyraiders were flitting about in anger! They also didn't DARE shoot one down, usually, because that only caused from 8 to 24 more of them to show up REALLY angry, and usually with a lot of stores under the wings. Definitely the King of the Hill. Has they been able to be deployed in WWII, I'm sure they would have been game changers. An Attack plane with the bomb load of a B-17. But, no such luck. The aircraft is rather firmly rooted in WWII technology, though, except for avionics updates.

I am trying to imagine a Skyraider with a Garmin GTN750 in the panel! Talk about a BAD guy! Lotsa' ordnance, can't get lost, and knows EXACTLY whe he is at all times. Could it GET any better?
 
Can you imagine an A-26 doing as well? I can't. Zipper 23 fodder.
Cheers,
Wes
 
No I can't imagine it, but the A-26 WAS formidable, even if it never could come CLOSE to out-turning a real-world Skyraider. It was probably the best medium bomber "at the end of the war," not the one with the best war record, because it arrived late. The B-25 was there for the entire race and had immense statistics for tonnage and other variables.

There was never a B-25 that could hang with an A-26 at the speed of anger, but it did very well despite all that. The Martin B-26 turned from the "Widow Maker" and "Baltimore Whore" (no visible means of support: small wings, high stall speed) into one of the the safest medium bombers of the war, so an intial problem with an early plane was NOT the death-nell of it. Actual training helped a LOT.

Very obviously nothing you don't already know ...

Clear the relief tube! Gnarfle the Garthog! Mepps .... to quote Conehead ...
 
wuzak said:
But did it use the M39 or the earlier AN/M2 Hispano-Suiza cannon?
Click to expand...
You're right, it's the F-100 that had 4 M-39s. I think the Vietnam era A1E's and H's the AF had had been upgraded to M3's.
I doubt you could get a M39 in a A1s wing.
They did some experiments with M-39, and Vulcan pods, at NKP while I was there.
I think gun pods hung from bomb racks weren't very accurate, but that's just what the line talk was about them.
I was just a enlisted man, I wasn't in on the official results.
 
GregP said:
C'mon Zipper, you're doing the same thing above. There EIGHT quotes there! If I were to answer everything above, it would take a lot of time I do NOT want to dedicate to that.
Click to expand...
1. Quoting: I thought the general issue was quoting different members in one fell swoop (I find that difficult to do -- as it seems an urge exists to then punch out 20 replies rather than batch quote all as there's so many interesting responses!).

2. Criticism: I can usually take criticism okay, so long as it's meant to be actual advice, and not meant to just dump on, be nasty, or cruel. At that point I usually get ticked off.

3. Multiple questions in topic: When I start up a topic, I honestly don't always know where it's going to go. There are some surprising things that can pop-up in one thread! When that happens, I usually ask follow-ups to those questions.

The P-47 question for example came into it because I was just puzzled how they'd compare in payload/range and agility to the A-1 (The P-47's were not the most maneuverable fighters and, when used as fighter bombers, usually a cover group was employed in an air-to-air trim), though I suppose I could have created a new thread around that...
 
tyrodtom said:
I think pods hung from bomb racks weren't very accurate, but that's just what the line talk was about them.
I was just a enlisted man, I wasn't in on the official results.
Click to expand...
I worked for a bit at GE where the Vulpod was built. You're right, it was a huge disappointment. One of the engineers had been a fighter pilot, and he said loudly from the outset it wouldn't be accurate. He understood the difference between theory and reality when it came to bomb shackles and sway braces. He was promptly shipped off to Chu Lai to do tech support.
Both the Navy and the AF shipped pods back to us and said they were misaligned. Tested good on our range. Turns out they shot straight on when freshly hung, but were useless after the first high-G maneuver. If they were fired with any G load on the aircraft, the gunsight couldn't do its prediction thing properly due to wandering bullet strike.
That was the impetus for the F-4E.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
drgondog said:
Robin Olds was particularly vocal in 1967 about the need for the internal gun.
Click to expand...
Along with the "fighter mafia".
 
My apologies for the irrelevant quote above about AI radar and turning circles. My not-so-smartphone is getting funky on me and every once in awhile dredges up something out of the blue or drops something I typed. Maybe my "senior moments" are contagious!
Cheers,
Wes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

P
Skyraider suitable for escort carriers??
Replies
13
Views
1K
EwenS
E
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
564
SaparotRob
M
Train in a PT-19
Replies
3
Views
525
MIflyer
M
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
644
CHen10
Menu
Log in
Register