Bomb sights for light bombers.

[Sagittario64]

i always wondered why there was a dive bomber variant of the p-51. i didnt know that the a-36 didnt have bomb sights. so youre saying that the a-36 was simply a p-51 with bomb racks(i dont know if it had swing racks like the stukas and vals), which was nothing more different than the later fighter-bomber versions of the p-51? I know the IAR 80 was another fighter with a dive-bomber variant, with purpose made bomb racks over the centerline for swinging the bombs out of the propellers way. but i dont know if it (IAR 81 i believe is the original name of the IAR 80 dive-bomber) had bomb-sights.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Since it had no bomb sight I think the A-36 was a dive bomber in name only, l.

Not really, it had dive brakes (the only Mark to have them,) but they caused problems, and some, reportedly, were wired shut.

 

[riacrato]

Since it had no bomb sight I think the A-36 was a dive bomber in name only, to trick Congress into funding an additional fighter aircraft type. Rather like calling the F-18E a modified F-18D rather then admitting it to be an entirely new aircraft model.

I may be wrong but iirc many other dive bombers like the Dauntless didn't have anything but standard reflector sights either.

 

[riacrato]

i always wondered why there was a dive bomber variant of the p-51. i didnt know that the a-36 didnt have bomb sights. so youre saying that the a-36 was simply a p-51 with bomb racks(i dont know if it had swing racks like the stukas and vals), which was nothing more different than the later fighter-bomber versions of the p-51? I know the IAR 80 was another fighter with a dive-bomber variant, with purpose made bomb racks over the centerline for swinging the bombs out of the propellers way. but i dont know if it (IAR 81 i believe is the original name of the IAR 80 dive-bomber) had bomb-sights.

IIRC it carried the whole load under its wings so there was no need for swing racks (and a limitation to 500lbs-bombs).

 

[Sagittario64]

Interesting. thanks riacrato

 

[tomo pauk]

Wasn't the A-36 conceived to keep production rate of Mustang airframes up? Anyways it was a fighter airframe adapted to dive-bomber use with good success. My impression is that it's basically a fighter bomber with airbrakes. It has relatively poor top speed for its period which doesn't surprise me given the added weight and drag. So yeah, definetly vulnerable against e.g. a FW 190 A-5.

Could you add some numbers to back up the claim?

 

[parsifal]

I think I got this one wrong. Might go and brush up on my German I think. Great resesource for the Raum Boats incidentally

 

[tomo pauk]

Hurricanes were incapable of carrying bombs until, at the earliest, November 1941, probably even later, since trials went on into May, 1942.

Interesting.
When were the Spits and Typhoons allowed to carry bombs?

 

[davebender]

That doesn't help much without a bomb sight.

 

[riacrato]

Could you add some numbers to back up the claim?

According to this site top speed is about 580 km/h at ~6100m.
The Plane That Saved The Mustang: The North American A-36 Apache

 

[tomo pauk]

According to the 'Vee's for victory', it was able to fly 360+ mph, from sea level to 14000 ft ( >576 km/h up until 4340m) - the engine was tuned for low level work. So from deck to 3500m it was faster than a contemporary Fw-190.

 

[Vincenzo]

According to the 'Vee's for victory', it was able to fly 360+ mph, from sea level to 14000 ft ( >576 km/h up until 4340m) - the engine was tuned for low level work. So from deck to 3500m it was faster than a contemporary Fw-190.

were estimed 345 mph at S.L. and 366 at F.T.H., http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/a-36-na-5338.pdf

 

[barney]

A-36 gunsight - anybody know what this is?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/A-36A_in_India_1945.JPG

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the table, Vicenzo.
The 345 mph at sea level is with MIL rating (1325 HP), 1500 HP was available there with WER (up to 5400 ft), hence the 366 mph at S.L. as stated in the book.

 

[Vincenzo]

Thanks for the table, Vicenzo.
The 345 mph at sea level is with MIL rating (1325 HP), 1500 HP was available there with WER (up to 5400 ft), hence the 366 mph at S.L. as stated in the book.

after years on forums and see many primary sources (digital version off course) i've ever doubt on books
21 mph to up i think i bit too many

 

[parsifal]

An A-36 fully bombed up, is not going to be able to reach 360 mph or 345 mph for that matter. I would expect those figures to be as a "clean" configuration.

However, any bomber or fighter bomber able to travel raster than about 310 mph is going to be a very hard target for an FW 190 to catch. Mosquito B IVs fully loaded and armed had a top speed of around 340 mph. They were basically uninterceptable at that speed. An Fw 190 at that speed I expect is going have the throttles wide open, fuel consumption right up, and far less endurance as a result. In most cases they will lack the legs to keep up or catch up.

If the raid is first detected at a range of say 50 miles, the FW 190 and the target for the bombers is say 150 miles from take off. The A-36 travelling at 340mph will reach target in less than half an hour. If the range to intercept is 50 miles, and the FW 190 wants to intercept before the attack gets under way, he has to do that in less than half an hour. He will need to be travelling at least 390 mph in order tyo intercept by my calculations, which he cannot do. He might catch the A-36 on the return leg, but by then the A-36 has the throttles wide open too and the speed difference might be 20mph or less. Lets assume the A-36 is 20 miles from the Fw190 by the time he starts to head for home, and the rate of closure is now 20mph. It will take the A-36 less than half an hour to get home, but it would take the FW 190 an hour to catch him....in other words he cannot do it.

Of course there are endless variations to this, but the basic maths makes it a difficult prospect to intercept, whern there is only a 40 or 50 mph in speed difference.

 

[parsifal]

We've been told of P-47s having undertaken bombing raids with les than 2% accuracy for an attack on a bridge, which I now believe is the attack undertaken by a P-47 unit in connection to the Monte Cassino Battle in March 1944. What about the other end of th4e scale??? We have looked at the P-47s at their worst, what about at their best?

Looking at the performace of the XiX tactical Command, I came acoss this report in relation to the falaise battle

That morning 37 P-47 pilots of the 36th Group found 800 to 1,000 enemy vehicles of all types milling about in the pocket west of Argentan. They could see American and British forces racing to choke off the gap. They went to work. Within an hour the Thunderbolts had blown up or burned out between 400 and 500 enemy vehicles. The fighter-bombers kept at it until they ran out of bombs and ammunition. One pilot, with empty gun chambers and bomb shackles, dropped his belly tank on 12 trucks and left them all in flames.


Obviously a proportion of these kills were done with guns, but the bombs must also have had an effect

 

[parsifal]

This is an excerpt from the following:

http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/17.htm


I make no claims as to the accuracy of these figures but it at least appears that the p-47s undertook some very critical work and were extremely good at what they did

Even allowing for some exaggeration and duplicate claims, the sortie claims of the Ninth AF and 2 TAF during the Normandy fighting is most impressive. Fighter-bomber sortie claims in Normandy
. 2 TAF/ 9 AF/Total
Sorties flown 9,896/2,891/12,787
Claims for motor transport destroyed 3,340/2,520/ 5,860
Claims for armor destroyed 257/ 134/ 391
Total claims 3,597/2,654/ 6,251
Claims per sortie 0.36/ 0.92/ 0.49
No stronger endorsement of the air support in Normandy canbe found than Omar N. Bradley's letter to AAF Commanding General "Hap" Arnold at the end of September 1944. "I cannot say too much for the very close cooperation we have had between Air and Ground," Bradley wrote. "In my opinion, our close cooperation is better than the Germans ever had in their best days."

 

[riacrato]

According to the 'Vee's for victory', it was able to fly 360+ mph, from sea level to 14000 ft ( >576 km/h up until 4340m) - the engine was tuned for low level work. So from deck to 3500m it was faster than a contemporary Fw-190.

When used as dive bombers they approached at 4300m though.

 

[tomo pauk]

My point was that A-36 was way faster than any dive bomber fielded; it was faster than many fighters in 1942/43. While it's true that in bombed-up state the speed was down, it rook the interceptors being at just the right spot, if they were to score kills. If not, A-36s will bomb the targets and retreat.
With USAAC employing A-24s ( variant of the Douglas SBD Dauntless), for example, in such tasks, the defending fighters would've had far easier time to catch them.

Hi, Vicenzo

after years on forums and see many primary sources (digital version off course) i've ever doubt on books
21 mph to up i think i bit too many

The table from Mike's site declares the figures as 'guaranteed/estimated' - the serial produced planes will achieve at least as good performance as stated there (we could expect better, then). In other words, the table is not a result of USAAC tests.