Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The wingspan on that B-26 looks a bit on the short side. Is it an illusion or did some, or early, models have shorter spans?
The wingspan on that B-26 looks a bit on the short side. Is it an illusion or did some, or early, models have shorter spans?
Indeed. The plane in the photo, as can be seen zooming in on the tail, is 40-1373, the 13th production B-26[no suffix], probably taken at Adak, probably 73rd BS a/c. The difficult handling characteristics of early B-26's and Aleutian weather were a very challenging combination.Another way to describe this is that the wingspan was increased for the later models.. yes indeed the wings were increased in span for better low speed handling..
WS increased in B26B-10 and all B-26C's
for true A-20B it's a early 42 plane and beaufighter I it's a early 41 plane
There's another way of looking at the question - how much worse of would you be if you didn't have one aircraft or the other one?
In that case the RAF would be much worse off, if no Beaufighters, it would be awhile before Mosquitoes came to be night-fighters - Bostons wouldn't do
If the French hadn't ordered any, for the RAF to take-over, would the RAF have gone for the A-20 Boston, the B-25 Mitchell or the Lockheed Ventura - as a Blenheim replacement?
As a light-bomber and intruder the Boston was a welcome addition to the RAF's inventory, but not I think critical. Whilst the Beaufighter made more of a difference, whether in the night skies over London, in the North Sea Med. attacking Axis shipping, or in the Far East.
Also according to Owen Thetford - the aircraft with 1,200 hp engines max speed 295 mph, and Boston (Mks III - V) with 1,600 h.p. engines max speed 304 mph.
The A-20 was fast enough at normal attack altitude that it could penetrate enemy airspace without a fighter escort and survive. If it had been capable of dive bombing (to improve accuracy) it would have been just about perfect for a WWII era light bomber.The A-20B/C could outdistance a Zero and a Bf-109E at low altitudes and apparently outdistance a Zero at all altitudes, and be a pain for a Bf-109E to catch at any altitude
There's another way of looking at the question - how much worse of would you be if you didn't have one aircraft or the other one?
In that case the RAF would be much worse off, if no Beaufighters, it would be awhile before Mosquitoes came to be night-fighters - Bostons wouldn't do
Also according to Owen Thetford - the aircraft with 1,200 hp engines max speed 295 mph, and Boston (Mks III - V) with 1,600 h.p. engines max speed 304 mph.
Wing loading 51.7 lb/ft²
A-20 French Boston Aircraft Douglas Model Havoc Engines Nose
A pretty high wing loading. I suspect the stall speed was too high for CV operations.
I suspect the same thing for the Lexington and Yorktown class CVs. Everything from arrestor cables to aircraft elevators would need to be beefed up. Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of making a CV variant of the A-20. But I doubt it woud be operational in 1942 when it's needed most.15,000lb aircraft on early carriers might have been a bit difficult.