GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One XA-26A was built, but not produced.
This is why I said there wasn't an A-26A, because there wasn't.
This is why I said there wasn't an A-26A, because there wasn't.
Confused, Misread, or Just Plain Stupid
- Thread starter Aaron Brooks Wolters
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
ODonovan
Airman 1st Class
The recon version of the P-38 has the honor of sharing designations with another famous aircraft. The first 120 recon Lightnings were designated F-4 (100 P-38E conversions) and F-4A (20 P-38F conversions), sharing the designation F-4 with the Phantom.
-Irish
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Except that the "F" designation before 1948 was Photo/Recon and "F" after '48 was Fighter.
Both the Lockheed F-5s and Northrop F-15s were unarmed.
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
Basically it seems that the USAF got rid of the A for Attack category not long after the change P for Pursuit to F for Fighter (and recon planes got a R prefix added to whatever they were, like the F-6 became the RP-/RF-51, the F-15 became the RF-61, etc). And since the B-26 was retired from frontline use not long after World War II and the A/Attack category got phased out for about 15 or so years, the A-26 became the B-26 until before or during Vietnam it reverted back to being known as the A-26.
Also not to mention that when the USAF/USN/USMC and US Army standardized on aircraft designations after 1962, everything largely reset to zero, so new designs started over from -1 and so on.
Also not to mention that when the USAF/USN/USMC and US Army standardized on aircraft designations after 1962, everything largely reset to zero, so new designs started over from -1 and so on.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yep, like the B-1 and B-2 bomber - the original B-1 and B-2 can be seen here:
flight mantual ?
The B-1 and the B-2 were great aircraft. I am sure the manuals were very simple, as these aircraft aren't complicated machines. With a little luck, you might be able to find detailed 3-view plans for them, too! :thumbleft: Boeing B-1 Curtiss B-2
ww2aircraft.net
Duplication of F-15 etc was a duplication of designator, not duplication of a designation within the same role. I thought that part was obvious. The same is true of A-26 and B-26 until the point where the Invader became a bomber. That may be the only example of that type of duplication. But again as I explained, the duplication was not contemporaneous.
XA-26-DE, XA-26A-DE.........B-26K re-designated to A-26A
Attachments
dick56
Airman
AAron, check out this book.
- Thread starter
- #29
Aaron Brooks Wolters
Brigadier General
If I remember correctly, they did away with the A designation on the Invader when the Marauder was completely phased out. I may have been dreaming this but I thought I remembered reading that when the Invader first came out during WWII is was designated the B-26 just like the Marauder and the ArmAirForce had them change it to the A. But that does not make sense either for it was not used during WWII as a ground attack.
I think you need to read through the thread...
- Thread starter
- #31
Aaron Brooks Wolters
Brigadier General
I have.
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
I do wonder if all those changes that I mentioned were phased in by the USAF at the same time by plan or by coincidence? This maybe feels like he design evolution of the lightweight P-51s, the P-51H and the F-82, in so far as they were sort of three distinct programs that ended up having some cross pollination (especially the lightweights vs P-51H).
But there was a period of time where the USAF for about 15-20 years got rid of the A category, but revived it during Vietnam with the USAF and USN changing the Skyraider's designation from AD1 to A-1, and ultimately the B-26 reverted back to being known as the A-26. And not long after that due to experience in Vietnam the USAF launched what I think was called the AX program, that gave birth to the A-10.
But there was a period of time where the USAF for about 15-20 years got rid of the A category, but revived it during Vietnam with the USAF and USN changing the Skyraider's designation from AD1 to A-1, and ultimately the B-26 reverted back to being known as the A-26. And not long after that due to experience in Vietnam the USAF launched what I think was called the AX program, that gave birth to the A-10.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The B-26 was only temporarily redesignated "A" during the vietnam war and only those aircraft that were operating from Thailand since Thailand would not allow bombers to operate from their airfields.
AD-1 to A-1 coincided with the 1962 redesignation of aircraft (F3H to F-3; SA-16 to HU-16 etc); this should not be confused with (as a number have stated) the changes made to the later Invader designation in the Far East. Both have been explained above.
Mustangtmg
Airman
- 51
- Mar 8, 2014
Aaron,
Has no one "jumped-in" to answer this? I see that it's 2 days old so here goes - I'll try to keep it short and to the point.
In mid-1948, after the US Air Force, formerly the US Army Air Forces, had been a separate branch of the US military services (as of September, 1947), they (by "they" I mean the Generals and administrators in the forerunner of the Dept of Defense-whatEVER it was called back then - decided that the designation of USAF aircraft had to be "clarified," so that the prefix letter of an aircraft would more completely define and describe its role.
So, among the changes, to me, the most important one was that the aircraft such as the P-51 (I'll leave out model suffixes such as the "D" after the bubble canopy Mustang that was the most-built version of the Mustang) had their prefix letter changed from "P" - for "pursuit" - to "F" for "fighter." This made sense because the P-51 Mustang, the P-47 Thunderbolt, P-38 Lightning did more than "pursue" enemy aircraft --- they were "fighters." OK...and I'll say right here that from what I've read on the subject, the "F-" designation did not cause any confusion because the aircraft that was, for instance a "P-51D" became and "F-51D" as far as official designation. The other role of the Mustang aircraft got a little confusing: the aircraft previously designated "F-6D" (the Photo-Recon version of the P-51D, with cameras etc) became the "RF-51D" ... it was a "Reconnaissance/Fighter" (and yes, F-6 Mustangs generally kept their wing guns and performed the same as P-51 Mustangs of the same model). OK...good.
I'll cut to the chase. The Douglas A-26 Invader, which was, as you know, a "light/medium" bomber aircraft that aside from being a bomber, had fixed guns in the nose, firing straight forward for attacking ground/sea targets, and some had auxiliary guns in pods on the wings and others maybe had "cheek guns" installed in theater (maybe a dorsal turret, depending upon the model but that was a defensive feature of some A-26s) and they served primarily as "attack" aircraft because of their ability to strafe "like a big fighter." Well, the plot thickens: The Martin B-26 Marauder was more-or-less "dropped from the inventory" of the air force (I'm using that term,, "air force," to describe the USAAF and the USAF). The USAF "leaders" decided that, since the Invader was a bomber (with an internal bomb-bay), it should be designated as a "B-something" and since the B-26 Marauder was no longer a USAF aircraft, to "simply things" (I am inserting my own opinion on WHY they did it!), that they'd simply make the A-26 Invader officially the "B-26 Invader." THIS causes confusion to this very day.
I've been a warbird nut for 60 yrs or so, going back to my teenage years. Whenever I see a Douglas Invader at and airshow or museum (I've seen maybe a dozen of them over the years), I usually call it the "A-26 Invader." If a "survivor" happens to be in USAF livery (it'll say "US AIR FORCE" on it), and I have to discuss it with someone who's with me at an airshow or museum, I'll go into the "A-26 became the B-26" story if I feel that the person with me is at all interested in such fine points.
I'll add this bit of info. A number of B-26 INVADERS were sent to a mod/rebuild center, a business called "On Mark," in the early 1960s and the wings were strengthened, more powerful versions of the R-2800 engine were installed, changes were made to armament layouts, etc, etc. They became the "B-26K Counter Invader" and were flown by the USAF for a number of years. FUNNY THING: when they became operational in the South East Asian Conflict (AKA, the "Vietnam War") they were going to be based in Thailand. Wellllll...Thailand apparently had a LAW that no other nations could base any "bomber" aircraft anywhere in Thailand. So....the USAF redesignated the Invader (AGAIN!) - they redesignated them "A-26K." It seems that it was OK to base foreign "attack" aircraft on Thailand, but NOT bombers.
I tell you, it's a "game" that confuses folks who follow warbirds...I hope that my "story" above (typed out by me at 0600 before my first cup of coffee) is close to "accurate" and not too boring to read. I'm only a room away from my nice little home library that's got a good number of books on warbirds, but I'm too lazy to get up and refer to any of them for "help" on my facts.
I trust the members of this forum to critique my too-long reply to you, and in doing so, they can correct me and teach me, and make me know more of the story.
In closing, while I DO love the B-26 Marauder (I can say that I've seen the last airworthy fly at several airshows in Houston going back to the 1990s), the A-26/B-26 Invader is also a wonderful aircraft to see and her and watch it tear up the sky at airshows.
Cheers.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Okay, I just woke up. Still working on the first coffee. Weren't B-52s stationed in Thailand?
I think you need to read the thread...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I was told a story by good friend in Thailand who has since passed on.
A B-52 pilot was involved with a Wat (temple). His B-52 was shot up over Vietnam. The pilot said he saw the face of a Monk from the temple in the clouds while trying to make it back. The image somehow told the pilot he will make it back. After that, the pilot was a champion of that temple, helping restore it big time.
I love these "Shepard" stories.
A B-52 pilot was involved with a Wat (temple). His B-52 was shot up over Vietnam. The pilot said he saw the face of a Monk from the temple in the clouds while trying to make it back. The image somehow told the pilot he will make it back. After that, the pilot was a champion of that temple, helping restore it big time.
I love these "Shepard" stories.
Sometime around late 1967 or early 68 Sattahip, that became U-tapao, ( wrong spelling maybe ) became fully operational with B-52s.
We at Nakon Phanom started having a hard time getting 500 and 750 lb bombs. And the supply of 750lb bomb fins were even worse.
At NKP we had to go around base and get all the damaged 750lb bomb fins that were used as butt receptacles and repair them so they could be used.
Thailand evidently changed their mind about not allowing any bombers on their soil around that time, because I never heard anybody try to deny the B-52 was a bomber. A-52??? I think not.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
First of all, I was going nuts trying to remember Sattahip, without actually looking for it on a map.
Secondly , I think your spelling of U-tapao may be more correct than mine. I leave out the dash.
Whilst on my second cup, I realized one can't get "bomber-ier" than the B-52. That's actually stipulated in some document of the World Court in The Hague, I think.
