best medium bomber

[davparlr]

Can't say too much about the maruder. However, the B-25, while used and was effective in many missions, it did not last long as a war fighter. I do not believe it even served in Korea. It did last many years as a trainer. Its contribution to WWII was much greater than the A/B-26 and I will concede it was the best medium bomber for the war era, but as an absolute best medium bomber of WWII, the A/B-26 proved itself by it's longevity and performance as stated before. It was 70 mph faster than the B-25 and had a greater range with 1000 lbs larger bomb load. That more than makes up for some reduced visibility I would think.

The research I did on the Do217 indicated that the only model that was faster than the A-26 was the high altitude reconnaissance version, which, I believe, had a separately driven fuselage mounted supercharger and was probably was stripped and could not be classified as a bomber. In all other aspects, the A-26 was at least equivalent. See http://ww2aircraft.co.uk/Do217.html

[loomaluftwaffe]

the 217 was in service before the a-26

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's what glider said.............

and are we not separating strategic bombers from tactical?

[loomaluftwaffe]

yeah but they cant help mentioning it

[syscom3]

Gen Kenneys opinions of the A26 were framed by his pilots. They said that flying at low altitudes required the pilots to be able to see their targets and obstacles.

There is no way the A26 could have performed the low level strafing and skip bombing the B25's did.

[loomaluftwaffe]

whatever it is, the Do-217 was a great plane usually forgotten...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Gen Kenneys opinions of the A26 were framed by his pilots. They said that flying at low altitudes required the pilots to be able to see their targets and obstacles.

There is no way the A26 could have performed the low level strafing and skip bombing the B25's did.

I've been in the cockpit of both aircraft and the visibility is about the same, I give the B-25 points to be able to carry the 75mm cannon, the A-26s cockpit just needed a re-design and once that was completed it was more than capable and eventually replaced all B-25s, 26s, and A-20s.

Operators in the ETO had little complaints about the aircraft...

Here's the real story....

"The A-26 entered combat testing in mid 1944, when 4 of the aircraft assigned to the Fifth Air Force began operating in the Southwest Pacific. Lt. Gen. George C. Kenney, Commanding General of the Far East Air Forces, grounded the planes after less than 175 hours of total flying time and stated shortly afterwards, "We do not want the A-26 under any circumstances as a replacement for anything." Ironically, about 4 years before, as a colonel in charge of the Wright Field Production Division and a strong proponent of attack aviation, Kenney had strongly urged the aircraft's development. General Kenney's statement and his mid 1944 decision to ground the planes appeared justified. A-26 production had slipped badly; the B-25s and A-20s that the A-26s would replace had proven satisfactory; and the canopy of available A-26s was poorly designed. A new canopy was needed to improve visibility. Without it, pilots could not safely fly the formations required for low level tactics. While the Wright Field Production Division agreed that the A-26 could not replace current types of light and medium bombers, Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Commanding General of the Ninth Air Force, was much less critical than General Kenney. The few A-26s introduced in the European theater towards the end of the summer were performing well. Undoubtedly, the aircraft's marginal visibility needed attention. But new productions were seldom free of problems, and General Vandenberg thought the A-26 was a satisfactory replacement for the B-26s and A-20s in Europe.
Regardless of the mixed reports generated by the performance of the early A-26 (A-26As or A-26Bs), the Army Air Forces' plans to re-equip all B-25, B-26, and A-20 units with A-26s were reaffirmed in November 1944. In December, 2 more contracts were approved, and in April 1945 both of the new agreements were supplemented, bringing to 4,000 the total of new A-26s ordered since mid 1944. However, the German surrender on 8 May 1945 prompted a re evaluation of military requirements. Production which had been scheduled to increase to 400 A-26s per month was cut to 150. The procurement orders of 1944 and 1945 were canceled.

Douglas adopted several long standing suggestions by General Arnold: engineering personnel at Long Beach established closer liaison with the Tulsa plant; extra well qualified personnel were placed in the 2 plants; and the number of stations in the production lines was raised. These production changes facilitated modifications of the aircraft, which were designed to improve its effectiveness. An all purpose gun nose was devised and the faulty nose landing gear redesigned. A-26s (redesignated as A-26Cs) that came off the production lines after January 1945 featured an enlarged, raised canopy which provided increased visibility.

[Glider]

Its suprising that with all the experience of the war behind them, the designers should make such a mistake over the visibility. Which is unquestionably one of the most critial items needed for any warplane of that era.
One question you might be able to awnser FJ, is do you know how much could the gunner see through the sight? I have always had a doubt over sights of that nature remembering that the most important job of a gunner is seeing the enemy coming in so the pilot can take evasive action.

[davparlr]

whatever it is, the Do-217 was a great plane usually forgotten...

That is true. I didn't know anything about it until I did a little research. Even my German aircraft book did not have it. It is an impressive aircraft although a little funky looking-like all Dos.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its suprising that with all the experience of the war behind them, the designers should make such a mistake over the visibility. Which is unquestionably one of the most critial items needed for any warplane of that era.
One question you might be able to awnser FJ, is do you know how much could the gunner see through the sight? I have always had a doubt over sights of that nature remembering that the most important job of a gunner is seeing the enemy coming in so the pilot can take evasive action.

Good question glider - I've seen B-26s with the turrets removed and upward visibility was excellent, but from what I remember that all that could be seen from the gunner/ navigator's position. I'm wondering if control of the turrets was possible from the cockpit?!?

[syscom3]

The pilots position in the B25 was forward of the engine nacelles. In the A26, the pilot is astride the nacelle.

At 250mph 100 feet over the "deck", you sure need that extra margine of visibility.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The pilots position in the B25 was forward of the engine nacelles. In the A26, the pilot is astride the nacelle.

At 250mph 100 feet over the "deck", you sure need that extra margine of visibility.

The B-25 offered better visibility but the area restricted by the A-26s engines isn't a show stopper at low altitude - you could still see the lower 2 and 10 o'clock positions - important when landing - its at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions where the most obstruction is apparent.

But in essence almost every aircraft has a blind spot where visibility is limited...

[plan_D]

I saw a programme a while back that was uncovering an A-26 wreckage. They discovered it was actually two A-26s , and the programme went on to discuss what had happened. In the end, they figured that these aircraft had crashed and become locked together in mid-air, then gone down.

It then went on to discuss the visibility problems because of the engines, and quite a few pilots complained about formation flying and said it was quite hazardous. But I don't recall mention anything of low level flying ...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I saw a programme a while back that was uncovering an A-26 wreckage. They discovered it was actually two A-26s , and the programme went on to discuss what had happened. In the end, they figured that these aircraft had crashed and become locked together in mid-air, then gone down.

It then went on to discuss the visibility problems because of the engines, and quite a few pilots complained about formation flying and said it was quite hazardous. But I don't recall mention anything of low level flying ...

I could see the formation hazard, especially if each aircraft weren't stepped down....

[pbfoot]

Formation accidents are a natural hazard of formation flying turn your head a bit a 2 degree turn and its over especially in high performance a/c . We had a couple of Jags hit each other once both went down the crews managed to eject and later at the bar someone asked how much the Jags were worth one of the Jag guys said f*** all now