Best Light Bomber of WWII

• Sep 2, 2008

• #21

Marshall_Stack

Senior Airman

382

9

Sep 29, 2005

Missouri

MacArther said:

I'm stuck between the A-20 and the A-26. I like the A-20 for its sterling service, as well as being one of the first "gunships" in the air. The A-26 just refined the A-20, but it also was great at what it did. What about the PV-2 or PV-3?

Click to expand...

I agree with you about the A-20 / A-26. I personally like the A-20 better. It would have been interesting if they would have put turbosuperchargers on the P-70 version. It may have been a contending night fighter.

AFAIK, the PV-2 and PV-3 were a little on the slow side but pretty maneuverable.

 

• Sep 2, 2008

• #22

kool kitty89

Senior Master Sergeant

3,101

106

Aug 29, 2007

San Jose, CA

They would have to switch to R-2800's as the R-2600 was found impractical to turbocharge. 2-stage supercharged (ie Corsair) R-2800's would be an interesting consideration as well.

 

• Sep 2, 2008

• #23

G

Glider

Captain

8,978

5,249

Apr 23, 2005

Lincolnshire

KrazyKraut said:

I always considered the Mosquito a medium fast-bomber, not a light one.

Click to expand...

The RAF considered the Mossie to be a light bomber if that helps

 

• Sep 2, 2008

• Thread starter
• #24

B-17engineer

Colonel

14,949

65

Dec 9, 2007

Revis Island.

it did....everyone said they liked it as a Medium bomber on the Medium bomber thread

 

• Sep 2, 2008

• #25

kool kitty89

Senior Master Sergeant

3,101

106

Aug 29, 2007

San Jose, CA

I think the criteria would be a combination of maximum bombload (ie short range missions) and the maximum range with a "useful" bombload.

The thing with the mossie is that it was a "light bomber" (in terms of size, weight, and wing area) but operated at medium bomber spec. (in terms of bombload and range)

 

• Sep 2, 2008

• #26

Flyboy2

Senior Airman

669

1

Mar 10, 2008

Las Vegas, Nevada

Well then the Mossie was just one special plane wasn't it

 

• Sep 3, 2008

• #27

Vincenzo

Senior Master Sergeant

3,059

484

Dec 24, 2007

Ciociaria

kool kitty89 said:

I think the criteria would be a combination of maximum bombload (ie short range missions) and the maximum range with a "useful" bombload.

The thing with the mossie is that it was a "light bomber" (in terms of size, weight, and wing area) but operated at medium bomber spec. (in terms of bombload and range)

Click to expand...

the mossie was benifited in usefull load because no weapons and only 2 crew, (so more weight for fuel) the bombload it's good/regular for a light bomber (4*227 kg) with eadditional possiblity of load a 1814 kg bomb

 

• Sep 3, 2008

• Thread starter
• #28

B-17engineer

Colonel

14,949

65

Dec 9, 2007

Revis Island.

What was the job of the Second crewmen on the Mossie?

 

• Sep 3, 2008

• #29

kool kitty89

Senior Master Sergeant

3,101

106

Aug 29, 2007

San Jose, CA

Bombardier ("bomb aimer" in RAF terminology iirc), and as radio operator as well I think.

 

• Sep 3, 2008

• #30

pbfoot

1st Lieutenant

6,974

33

Apr 14, 2005

niagara falls

B-17engineer said:

What was the job of the Second crewmen on the Mossie?

Click to expand...

Navigator , EW operator but mainly nav

 

• Sep 3, 2008

• Thread starter
• #31

B-17engineer

Colonel

14,949

65

Dec 9, 2007

Revis Island.

Thanks pb and KK

 

• Sep 7, 2008

• #32

W

Waynos

Staff Sergeant

1,309

10

May 18, 2008

In terms of classification, I have read before that the UK and USA classified their bombers differently and this may be the root of our misunderstandings. While the USA classification was based around payload and range, in the UK it was basically the size of the aircraft in relation to its contemporaries, eg Mossie = light, Wellingtom = medium, Lancaster = heavy. So it works either way depending on your standpoint.