A-26 nose question

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

Hoggardhigh

Airman 1st Class
199
8
Jan 6, 2014
United States
Hi all,

Many sources (including Wikipedia and Joe Baugher's website) claim that a glazed A-26C nose was easily interchangeable with the solid A-26B nose (and vice versa), yet Jim Roeder's book A-26 Invader Units of World War 2 claims that "to attempt such a task in the field would have been far too time-consuming for the groundcrew involved."

Does anyone know which of these statements makes the most sense?

Thanks☺
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem. They did it in the field with B-25s quite a bit. That doesn't mean it was done very much with the A-26, though, as the mission is going to determine that.

Heck, look at the frankenstein B-17s ground crews built - lol.
 
A more complicated Invader nose-job...

img505.jpg
 
That's a really Cool A-26 there, but I guess it's not really an A-26 anymore with the added Turboprop, and as you said airframes, a modified fuselage. Is that a Firefighter, or some private owners experiment?
 
Wow, so that A-26 is here in the valley in Arizona, that's pretty cool. I think I prefer the A-26 without the oddly placed and kind of ugly Turbo prop on the nose. Still cool though........
 
I worked with a guy who was in the 2nd Air Commando in Louisiana and he frequently got duty to fly to Sacramento to take delivery of new A-26As from On Mark. He loved them.

Later, when he arrived at his base in Viet Nam, he told his escort the in use bombing range looked like it was way too close to base for safety. The escort said that wasn't a range, that's the war. Joe was a funny guy. He brought four of us mechanics (he was lead) coffee on a tray and asked if we needed anything while some foremen, managers and the Vice President of Maintenance were watching our progress on a 727 mod.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back