Douglas A-20 Havoc

• Jan 31, 2006

• #21

evangilder

"Shooter"

19,035

210

Sep 17, 2004

Moorpark, CA

www.vg-photo.com

Beautiful! Nice shots!

 

• Jan 31, 2006

• #22

syscom3

Pacific Historian

15,338

13,480

Jun 4, 2005

Orange County, CA

Heres what the RAF Turbinlite A20's looked like.

 

Attachments

• turbinelite_1a_693.jpg

  61.1 KB · Views: 5,292
• turbinelite_2a_936.jpg

  44.6 KB · Views: 557

• Jan 31, 2006

• #23

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,075

8,761

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

WOW!!!

 

• Jan 31, 2006

• #24

pbfoot

1st Lieutenant

6,970

34

Apr 14, 2005

niagara falls

thats a little overkill for a landing light did the crew have special goggles? and any cloud would certainly be a hoot

 

• Jan 31, 2006

• #25

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,075

8,761

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

You shot down your enemy by blinding them!!!

 

• Feb 1, 2006

• #26

Gnomey

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Staff

Mod

74,320

10,560

Nov 28, 2004

London / Southsea / Royal Deeside, UK

www.flickr.com

Wouldn't surprise me if it did, they had something like half a ton of batteries in the bomb bay to power it as well...

 

• Feb 1, 2006

• #27

Wildcat

Major

9,287

1,405

Apr 11, 2005

South East Queensland

Apparently the search light was 2700million candlepower!!

 

• Feb 1, 2006

• #28

mosquitoman

Master Sergeant

2,979

16

Jan 20, 2005

Saffron Walden/Sheffield

www.myspace.com

It was used to illuminate targets found with the on-board radar so that Hurrican night-fighters could see them to shoot at them, not the biggest success story

 

• Feb 1, 2006

• #29

evangilder

"Shooter"

19,035

210

Sep 17, 2004

Moorpark, CA

www.vg-photo.com

I could imagine that light would make you an instant target for the nightfighters and the flak gunners. "Here I am!"

 

• Feb 4, 2006

• #30

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,634

16,851

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Holly crap talk about High beams.

 

• Feb 4, 2006

• #31

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

a mossie was also experimentally fitted with the system for use over germany.......

 

• Sep 26, 2007

• #32

C

Canaris

Recruit

1

0

Sep 26, 2007

Great shots of the Turbinlite!

I've been looking for pictures of one of those for years now.

 

• Sep 27, 2007

• #33

Marshall_Stack

Senior Airman

382

9

Sep 29, 2005

Missouri

The P-70 (the USAAF night fighter version of the A-20) may have had a decent chance of being successful if they would have put turbo-superchargers on them. Same thing for the Navy's Venturas. The P-61A and B also didn't have turbo-superchargers and it was finally put on for the P61-C. I don't understand why they didn't install the turbo-superchargers on earlier aircraft.

 

• Sep 29, 2007

• #34

davparlr

Senior Master Sergeant

3,297

661

Mar 23, 2006

Southern California

FLYBOYJ said:

Yep, and although Northrop and Douglas work on a lot of projects together (Jack Northrop worked for Douglas at one time) by the time the P-61 was on the scene they were competitors. As a matter of fact the A-20 was one of the first Ed Heinerman designs.

Click to expand...

My reference indicate that the Douglas 7B (Prototype of the A-20) was originally a Northrop design which was finished by Heinemann.

 

• Nov 12, 2007

• #35

H

hermancl3

Recruit

1

0

Nov 12, 2007

I met a gentleman over the weekend who flew A20 his plane was called
The Belle Of Bells.

 

• Nov 12, 2007

• #36

Negative Creep

Staff Sergeant

876

15

Apr 1, 2007

New Zealand

Always struck me as an odd system. In the time it would take you to line up a bomber with the light you could've fired hundreds of rounds into it with the regular nose

 

• Nov 13, 2007

• #37

Freebird

Master Sergeant

2,561

106

Nov 12, 2007

British Columbia

Don't forget that the A-20 was an important part of the Soviet AF too, I think we sent about 3,000+ to Russia. I was on a trip to Russia last summer, I looked for any of the Bostons that were sent over there, but they don't keep lend-lease on display, only Russian stuff

 

• Nov 13, 2007

• #38

comiso90

Senior Master Sergeant

3,583

26

Dec 19, 2006

FL

I always thought the A-20 was UGLY...

Not near the beauty of the A-26 or B-26!

.

 

• Nov 13, 2007

• #39

Freebird

Master Sergeant

2,561

106

Nov 12, 2007

British Columbia

comiso90 said:

I always thought the A-20 was UGLY...

Not near the beauty of the A-26 or B-26!

.

Click to expand...

Yah but neither of them were available in '41! They did very well in the desert too. I kinda like the aircraft, I didn't think it was ugly

 

• Nov 14, 2007

• #40

M

maxs75

Airman 1st Class

246

4

May 2, 2005

Marshall_Stack said:

The P-70 (the USAAF night fighter version of the A-20) may have had a decent chance of being successful if they would have put turbo-superchargers on them. Same thing for the Navy's Venturas. The P-61A and B also didn't have turbo-superchargers and it was finally put on for the P61-C. I don't understand why they didn't install the turbo-superchargers on earlier aircraft.

Click to expand...

The original P-70 was derived from the A-20 (without letter) that was to be the turbosupercharged high-altitude version of A-20 (vs A-20A medium altitude). The engines had cooling troubles, I don't know if they were deployed in combat zones.
The later versions P-70A and P-70B were derived from A-20C and G, and I believe that they didn't have turbosupercharged engines.
Any info about engine types of P-70A/B and early P-70?

Max