Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
True, but it was larger and probably less maneuverable when loaded (maximum g-limit) though I could be wrong. I'm curious which costed more, a P-47D & N, or an A-26?In Europe, when they got the A-26 they found it was just as fast as a P-47 at low altitudes and cold carry a much heavier load of ordnance.
Basically the B-26 was a medium bomber, the B-25 was originally conceived as a light bomber, then respecified into a medium bomber and classified as such; the A-26 was basically designed for the A-20's mission, though better defended, with a heavier load: It was still classified as a light-bomber because the bomber guys always wanted every new bomber design to be bigger, faster, and further flying.I think the A-26 ended up being used more or less as a medium bomber, like the B-25 and B-26 and replaced both those airplanes starting at the end of the war.
If that's true, it's such a waste. A lot of the metal used in that A/C could be recycled.A-20 crews deployed at forward bases in Europe were told to fly their A-20's to an airstrip in Scotland, where they stopped, advanced the throttles, jumped out, and let the airplanes run off the end of the runway and over a cliff into the ocean.
I'm curious why they'd use such heavy ammunition -- it didn't have enough firepower to be effective against tanks as far as I know.At least one of the XA-41 aircraft had 4X37MM guns in the wings.
Not exactly, it was slower, had less range, though an internal bay was a nice touch.It amounted to a USAAF AD Skyraider.
I'm not sure if that was true, the XA-41 and could turn inside of the P-51B (not sure if the XA-41 was unarmed or loaded). Regardless, the P-47's often flew with top-cover, so they profited from escorts as well.It was not adopted because the USAAF found that the XA-41 needed a fighter escort, while P-47's and P-51's equipped with bombs could provide their own escort as well as act as attack aircraft.
Actually, I thought it was 2 x V-1710 at first; but I remember being told it was V-3420The XB-42 used two V-1710 engines driving a V-3420 gearbox.
Actually 2, the XB-42A and the XB-43...Of course the jet engine doomed it; although they did build a jet powered version that proved to be a nice airplane for testing engines
That's coolI posted some 1940's vintage articles on it a while back.
Regarding the XA-41: Was this combat-range figure based on payload or not? Most sources I got specify a range of 800 miles with 1000 pounds of bombs.
The XB-43 is a different aircraft than the XB-42, particularly in that it is jet powered.I have the XB-43 having a range of almost 2,500 miles
I also think Joe Baugher miswrote the 1940 mile figure, because none of the other designs are that high up. I think he meant "1490" and got 4 & 9 backwards.Shortround6 said:Not quite. If it doesn't say COMBAT RANGE, then it probably isn't.
The listed figures on the chart you gave me seems to indicate that combat range is 80% of normal range, so combat radius is 40% of the range.Combat radius will include reserves, a combat allowance, and perhaps a few other things (like climb to operational altitude)
I thought the specification was to do what the Mosquito could do, or faster, with twice the load and self-defending armament? So the idea was actually an alternative to the B-29 that could do what I basically wrote? Why was it classified as a light and not a medium bomber with an 8,000 pound bomb load?MIflyer said:The XB-42 was envisioned by Douglas as an alternative to the B-29 for the Marshall Is to Japan mission
If the combat radius of a bomber is 0.4 that of the range that would yield a radius of 2000 miles...The Aviation article says it has a 5000 mile range, so that sounds about right.
I'm aware of that, how do the SFC figures compare? From what I remember, the R-3350's used on the AD-1 used a twin-speed supercharger?Note that the XA-41 uses an R-4360 rather than the AD's R-3350..
I also think Joe Baugher miswrote the 1940 mile figure, because none of the other designs are that high up. I think he meant "1490" and got 4 & 9 backwards.
The XA-41's listed cruise is 294 mph; the AD-1 has a listed indicated airspeed of 185 mph which would at 15000 come out to 233 mph and, with 164 mph as one of the SAC sheets listed, would come out to 207 mph. With ingress altitude listed at 15000 and egress at 5000 feet: You would see speeds that would be around 177-199 mphCheck out the cruising speed on the AD versus that on the XA-41.
Apparently the XA-41 had a three-speed single-stage supercharger, I'm not sure why you'd gear the high-speed setting for around 15,000 feet.Well an airplane can "cruise" at just about any speed, from just above stalling to full power. I would guess that the XA-41 speed given is maximum cruising speed while the AD speed given is economy cruise.
Ice on the wings?I just read where in WWII a Mossie night fighter was caught in a massive thunderstorm and could not climb.