Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The success of the Mosquito as a design was its high speed, two man crew and useful but not huge internal load capacity. Depending on use it could have huge range, or good range with bombs or cannon and all sorts of combinations. It was never developed to the fullest of any performance because fitting Griffons would improve some parts of performance and lose on others, because the Griffon is heavier and uses more fuel. By the end of its life the Merlin was producing 2,000HP so two would be 4,000HP and the Griffon was circa 2,500HP so 5,000 in an uprated Griffon Mosquito. The thing is, whether you use one or two engines or four engines to produce 5,000 HP you still consume similar amounts of fuel, so you have to put fuel somewhere.C CORSNING S Shortround6 T ThomasP
I was thinking of something about a WWII-era design achieving a combination of high speed and good range with one engine and I was thinking about the power output of the R-4360 (3400 hp with WEP, 3000 hp with military rated power, and 2550-2700 hp with normal rated power).
That power output is about twice the output of some RR Merlin variants, and that got me thinking of the De Havilland Mosquito with the RR Merlins removed and an R-4360 put up front (and this is, of course, grossly over-simplified): While the Mosquito isn't capable of the normal-rated g-loads demanded by either the USAAF (8-9) or USN (7-8), I figure something with the strength of the Tempest scaled-up to the Mosquito's size with a R-4360 could probably deliver some remarkable performance in terms of both speed and range.
So, it was kind of a retroactive detail they learned after the fact? I'm surprised nobody noticed this issue with the A-20's (they were used in the ETO right)They found out about the speed and vulnerability of the A-26 when they actually introduced it into service in the ETO.
So, the A-26's were to be used for CAS & Interdiction?A-20's were not used as CAS, as far as I know. They were used on more medium bomber style missions in the ETO.
The USAAF really liked things big. While the A-26 wasn't trivial in terms of maneuverability, it wasn't able to pull the g-load a fighter could, and would likely be less accurate than an P-47 or A-36I think that by then the USAAF's concept for light and medium bombers had changed. They cancelled the high altitude B-28 medium and in the Pacific the B-25 and A-20 had proved to be mainly valuable for low altitude attacks. In contrast the mediums seemed to have done almost no strafing in the ETO; many of the B-26's had four a package guns aside the nose and almost never used them - and the nose gun for the bombardier could not be used without first removing the Norden bomb sight. The A-26 was supposed to replace the A-20, B-25, and B-26, and with its interchangable noses could be configured either for level bombing or low altitude attack.
The concept they came up for the A-26 apparently was it would be used like a fighter bomber with a much greater load of ordnance, and then they found out it was so much bigger it was easy for ground fire to hit. I think the A/B-26s in Korea were used mainly at night and I have not read of them being used for CAS. I was told they fired 5 inch HVAR rockets at night, too.
I read of one Douglas B-26 in Korea chasing a N Korean PO-2 down a river bed, the bombardier yelling directions to the pilot, since he did not have a gun sight that was effective at night and thus they had to make an "X" with the nose while firing the wing guns in hope of hitting the target. Later the pilot of that same 26 decided to sneak up behind about 50 Yak-9's in daylight and pick a few off, which sounded like a really dumb idea to the bombardier (and I tend to agree with him). The Yaks spotted them before they could fire and scattered wildly.
They did use them for CAS in Vietenam and in the early days there tried what amounted to dive bombing with them - and pulled the wings off a few. That resulted in the B-26K Counter-Invader.The USAAF really liked things big. While the A-26 wasn't trivial in terms of maneuverability, it wasn't able to pull the g-load a fighter could, and would likely be less accurate than an P-47 or A-36
Yeah, that's what happens when you build up too much speed and then pull up too abruptly. The plane wasn't really built for dive-bombing. It seemed to be built for about 30-degree glide-bombing, maybe 45-degrees.They did use them for CAS in Vietenam and in the early days there tried what amounted to dive bombing with them - and pulled the wings off a few.
They strengthened the wings?That resulted in the B-26K Counter-Invader
From Joe Baughers website.Yeah, that's what happens when you build up too much speed and then pull up too abruptly. The plane wasn't really built for dive-bombing. It seemed to be built for about 30-degree glide-bombing, maybe 45-degrees.
They strengthened the wings?
Do you have any idea how much, if it's not classified?yes they strengthened the wings.
While I assume low-altitude attacks over the ETO (in particular, Germany) would have been more dangerous than over the PTO judging by what you wrote, though I'm still surprised they wouldn't have realized a bigger plane would be easier to hit.in the Pacific the B-25 and A-20 had proved to be mainly valuable for low altitude attacks. In contrast the mediums seemed to have done almost no strafing in the ETO
.....Aircraft | Normal Rated Load Factor | Ultimate Rated Load Factor |
.....Douglas SBD | 6g | 9g |
.....Junkers Ju 87 | 7.2g | 10.8g |
.....Vultee Vengeance | 9g @ 11040 lb. | 13.5g @ 11040 lb. |
.....Fairey Barracuda | 6g @ 12000 lb. | 9g @ 12000 lb. |
.....Curtiss SB2C | 9g | 13.5g |
.....Bristol Beaufort | 6.27g @ 17000 lb. | 9.4g @ 17000 lb. |
.....Bristol Beaufighter | 5.67g @ 21000-22100 lb. | 8.5g @ 21000-22100 lb. |
.....Junkers Ju 88 | 4.95 - 5.4g | 8.1g |
.....Heinkel He 177 | 4.8g | 7.2g |
I never knew it had integral armor in its construction. Since I don't know how strong the modified A-26's used in Vietnam were, I couldn't determine what could be done then or earlier, but I figured if they won't build a small single-engined bomber, at least they could build a twin that was tough enough to have some dive-capability.I recall reading that the A-26 was the first US airplane designed with the armor built in as part of thee structure rather than tacked on afterwards.