A-1 Skyraider vs A-26
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bomb racks have sway braces on them that are adjustable for the different diameters of the various bombs.
On a iron bomb you could adjust the sway braces very tight, the bomb sides didn't give, but on the aluminum sides of a firebomb, even though there was structural ribs on the inside of the bomb body where the sway braces would contact the bomb body, you'd get a little movement with a napalm bomb even with the sway braces tight. You could get at the extreme tail, or nose, and push, and something gave way, the napalm bomb's sides were flexing.
I just installed bombs, not ECM pods, or gun pods, but I suspect those sway braces , no matter how tight, couldn't take all the movement out of a aluminum sided pod, and even at my strongest I couldn't put as much side force on a hanging pod as a hard maneuver could.
On a iron bomb you could adjust the sway braces very tight, the bomb sides didn't give, but on the aluminum sides of a firebomb, even though there was structural ribs on the inside of the bomb body where the sway braces would contact the bomb body, you'd get a little movement with a napalm bomb even with the sway braces tight. You could get at the extreme tail, or nose, and push, and something gave way, the napalm bomb's sides were flexing.
I just installed bombs, not ECM pods, or gun pods, but I suspect those sway braces , no matter how tight, couldn't take all the movement out of a aluminum sided pod, and even at my strongest I couldn't put as much side force on a hanging pod as a hard maneuver could.
Right on, Pbehn! It does. However, due to the relatively small diameter and compactness of the rotating mass, the gyroscopic forces are light compared to some of the other forces at work. Gyroscopic precession, especially during the spin-up acceleration would certainly add to the side loads working on the shackles and braces, as well as influencing the trajectories of the rounds. This is something the engineers supposedly took into account in the design process.
Cheers,
Wes
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Conformals are USUALLY rigidly attached to the airframe and are not subject to the same vibrations as hardpoints with SER, MERS, and TERS (single-ejection racks = 1 bomb, multiple-ejection racks = 2-bombs, and tripple-ejection racks = 3-bombs).
Fighterguy
Airman
Airframe mounted guns can be boresighted and aligned much easier than pod mounted. They also hold zero better. As BiffF15 can confirm, we would verify and adjust the F-15 gun boresight with the gun reticle on the HUD so point of aim and point of impact matched at a given range. This was done periodically or before a special event such as weapons evaluation (WSEP). The gun was very accurate from what I had seen during the couple weapons evals I was involved in.
- Thread starter
- #206
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
That would be a difficult calculation to make, as the A-26/B-26 variants were produced during WW2, while the AD's were produced after. In any case, and with the proviso that a direct comparison may not be reliable, wikipedia (I know, I know; Douglas A-26 Invader - Wikipedia) gives $242,595 in 1942 for the A-26, and http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-1_skyraider.pl gives $414,000 for the Skyraider, but that was for one of the two-seat variants.
- Thread starter
- #208
Where would one go to find out the costs of fighters/attack/bombers of different eras?
fubar57
General
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
You could try the Federal Register.....
- Thread starter
- #211
GregP
Major
Ya' gotta' do better than that, Zipper.
WE sift through stuff to find information. Why shouldn't YOU, especially when we tell you where it is?
At LEAST try "Federal Register."
WE sift through stuff to find information. Why shouldn't YOU, especially when we tell you where it is?
At LEAST try "Federal Register."
- Thread starter
- #213
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
I had never been to that site before and my google fu is weak, but I was able to locate pertinent information in less then 15 minutes.
GregP
Major
Damn Zipper. I was hoping you'd FIND it and report same. 
Always good to find new data sources.
Always good to find new data sources.
fubar57
General
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
I want to buy a P-51 at 1944 prices! But at 2017 dollars.
parsifal
Colonel
My apologies, I haven't read all of the thread. It was vaguely interesting, because Ive recently read similar claims for the DH98, being able to turn inside a spitfire.......I don't believe this claim, but it is also claimed that the mosquito managed to destroy over 600 enemy fighters in daylight, another claim to fully accept. Something like that probably, but hard to accept it in total.
GregP
Major
There are a LOT of lies out there accepted as truth.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Alas, quite true. Many of the historical "truths" are based on unreliable or missing data; this is especially true when looking at battle statistics from more than a century or so back (McPherson, in his Battle Cry of Freedom, states that Civil War casualty statistics aren't reliable; I suspect that this is even more true for earlier large-scale conflicts). Many of the other "truths" are due to deliberate concealment (the rather genocidal nature of the Indian Wars in Colonial North America and the United States, for example). I wouldn't consider the former to be "lies," and well-meaning people can (and do) defend what they learned in school even if it was bowderlized. However, holding to an opinion once there is evidence showing it to be in disagreement with fact is, at best, lying.
I think a third area where "truths" in conflict with reality arise is when people focus on one facet of a complex phenomenon, and ignore the others. Aircraft related issues that may exemplify this are that the US 0.50 in M2 machine gun was the absolute best aircraft gun of the war (it almost certainly wasn't, although it was the best available in quantity for US aircraft) or that German aerodynamics was decades ahead of everyone else (again, almost certainly not true; witness that the P-40 had performance comparable to the Bf109 despite being nearly a half-ton heavier, oh, and the Bf109, along with many other German aircraft used NACA airfoils)
