WWII hanger planes
 

stumbled upon this very nice A4 Skyraider and i think a B26? in Houston...

very nice...
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240018794.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240018808.jpg

Wow, those are beautiful!

Karl
88 Targa

Marc,
You were in town.:confused:

Hope your flight plan wasn't delayed because of the storms.

Tom, yeah, i was there for a short night, and then had a 2 hour ground stop trying to get out of there today,. fun, fun..

Must be nice to have a job where you can just poke around old hangars all day!

Yup, A-1D Skyraider (or any varient up to AD-7) and an A-26 Invader, B-26 was the Marauder a completely different style aircraft. The Skyraider was produced too late(first flight in March 1945) to be used during WWII. It was used in Korea and Viet Nam. The Invader was used in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.

Skyraider was the A-1. The A-4 was a jet. "Heidelman's hotrod."

AD-1 Skyraider had a number of variations there were AD1 through AD5. My wifes father flew an AD5 with an early Magnetic Anomoly Detection (MAD) system and RADAR.

This is an AD5:


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240249292.jpg

The A-1 Spad is one of the great aircraft ever made, regardless of model.

I had a civilian simulator instructor in flight school that flew Spads...his stories of torque rolling the beast really underlines the incredible power of the A-1, which could carry a tremendous ordinance load with endurance.

The Air Force is actually looking at a very similar, albeit modernized (no doubt turboprop) version for close air support.

Love the Spad, wish I could get twenty minutes of stick time.

And it's a much larger plane than you realize until you see one in person. Saw one at an airshow sitting near a Corsair, and it dwarfed the Corsair. It's a monster.

For a great read, pick up a copy of My Secret War by Richard S. Drury

This first-hand account of pilot Richard Drury captures the eerie beauty of Asia and the ugliness of war as aerial missions of raw courage were carried out in a war that officially did not exist. A classic true-life account of combat-action and adventure in the air over Laos.

Yes.. great airplane Powered by the Wright Cyclone R-3350 and some variations had the P & W dual compound R-4360, 28 cylinder "Corncob" engine. As snipe was saying ED Heinemann was the chief designer of both aircraft and they like many incorporate the Heinemann Tail. Most of the aircraft he designed has the same profile "Loft" to the vertical stabilizer that is obvious in the two aircraft in the beginning of this thread. This was his signature. He also designed a the XB-43 which was Douglas's first jet in 1943 and was test flown here where I work in Long Beach, Ca. In the eighties I saw him numerous times here at McDonnell Douglas before he left the company. His A-4 Sky hawk was a subsonic attack bird that was very capable and could carry heavy loads of ordnance.

He was a great designer!

Bob

What is the good are these planes without machineguns and bombs...we need to strafe and bomb something...napalm in the morning smells like victory...

According to my son, who is a walking encyclopedia on WWII airplanes (at age 14) it is correct to call it a B-26 Invader (to diferentiate it from the B-26 Marauder) or an A-26. It was formally designated the B-26 through 1965 and now is usually called an A-26 to avoid confusion with the Marauder.

According to the little professor, the "A" designation indicates an "Attack" airplane, while a "B" Designation indicates a "Bomber". "P" indicates a "pursuit" plane, as in a P-51. The B-26 Invader was flown out of Thailand during the Viet Nam War, so from 1965 on it was formally changed to the A-26 designation. Aparently it was not permissible to operate bombers out of Thailand, but it was OK to operate attack aircraft out of there. So they changed the name.

The A-26 was used from WWII through Korea, the Bay of Pigs and throughout the entire Viet Nam War, retiring from use finally in the 1970s when the last Air Guard or Air Reserve unit discontinued it. It's quite a remarkable airplane and every bit as important as its better known brothers.

Paul, you still have some pull in the USAF, right? Get them to buy some from us, we could use the business right now!:D

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...I_JPATS_lg.jpg

I wish...the JPATS is a great aircraft. I trained in this:http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240256367.jpg

Matt,

From what I understand there USAF is looking for a propeller driven light observation craft similar to the North American OV-10 Bronco. Forward, down low observers for FCS.

Did you ever tell me how your model plane flew that we were going to make a tri-plane....remember?




OV-10 Bronco

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240256272.jpg

Bob

I think there are multiple nations that use the JPATS T-6A/B for that role. We're also producing an AT-6 model with a HUD, weapons system, and hard points. Quite a few nations have bought them for light attack roles.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/ericlpalmer/R_g...umb%5B3%5D.jpg


I do my best to forget that stupid school project. We were stuck with building a concept thanks to school politics, so it never flew. Thank God I'm done with school.

I think the USAF has low and slow covered just fine already...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ghtonTiger.jpg

If they want more they just need to go out to the desert. A couple hundred A-10s are stored in returnable to service condition.

Buying turboprop planes when we've already got the means to field a 500+ plane A-10 force would be just...plain...stupid.

Give the little genius a cookie !

History: The A-26, the last aircraft designated as an "attack bomber," was designed to replace the Douglas A-20 Havoc/Boston. It incorporated many improvements over the earlier Douglas designs. The first three XA-26 prototypes first flew in July 1942, and each was configured differently: Number One as a daylight bomber with a glass nose, Number Two as a gun-laden night-fighter, and Number Three as a ground-attack platform, with a 75-millimeter cannon in the nose. This final variant, eventually called the A-26B, was chosen for production.

Upon its delivery to the 9th Air Force in Europe in November 1944 (and the Pacific Theater shortly thereafter), the A-26 became the fastest US bomber of WWII. The A-26C, with slightly-modified armament, was introduced in 1945. The A-26s combat career was cut short by the end of the war, and because no other use could be found for them, many A-26s were converted to JD-1 target tugs for the US Navy.

A strange aircraft-designation swap occurred in 1948, when the Martin B-26 Marauder was deactivated and the Douglas A-26 was re-designated the B-26. (It kept this designation until 1962.) B-26s went on to serve extensively in both the Korean and Vietnam wars. In Vietnam, they were commonly used in the Counter-Insurgency (COIN) role, with very heavy armament and extra power. This version, the B-26K, was based in Thailand and was, to confuse things further, called the A-26 for political reasons. B-26s were also used for training, VIP transport, cargo, night reconnaissance, missile guidance and tracking, and as drone-control platforms.

Super-duper Bonanza.

Negative, Ghostrider...the T-34C was turbine powered, a JP5 eating machine.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271940.gif
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271971.jpg

I realize it's a different plane, but one of the B-25 variants my father flew in WWII had a cannon in the nose. The aiming system consisted of a cross-hair mounted on the dash. He said you'd have to be damn lucky to hit a freighter. He also said the plane would shudder so hard when the cannon fired, you'd swear the plane would stop.

T-34 (Bonanza in disguise) I do repairs and annual inspections on. Just a trainer and pretty low on the "warbird" pecking order list , but still pretty cool.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272025.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272197.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272574.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272661.jpg

The proud owner helping me do a landing gear check
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272758.jpg

#1 sign you trust your A&P- stand in the plane when the gear lever is raised!

Whatever happened to the T34 AD over the spars breaking due to air combat loads?

Still an ongoing mess. As it stands right now as far as I recall, AD 01-13-18r1 is still pretty much in effect which means after the initial inspection and modification dictated by the AD has been accomplished, it has to be inspected every 80 hours of flight time by someone with the proper portable eddy current equipment. Most of the fleet has this inspection done at just a couple places around the country. The guys that own the one I work on, are pretty piissed about the whole affair as the aircraft that failed were high time airplanes that had gotten the crap beat out of them at those pay to play combat courses. They always did the Sun & Fun, Oshkosh and a few other military fly-ins, but now they do less so that they can get longer times between flying the airplane out for the 80 hour inspection.

True, but we're talking different roles. The A-10 is overkill (pun intended) for surveillance roles. For a small country with a equally small budgets, A-10s are not an option for a light ground attack platform. I'd also be willing to bet that A-10s are exponentially more expensive to operate than a turboprop AT-6.

That's actually incorrect as far as the A-10 not being suitable for spotting/surveillance.

The OA-10 is the USAF's primary manned FAC-A platform.

I am sure you're right about the operating costs though, especially for the high-tech C model hogs.

Paul,
When did you go through primary? I was in VT-3 in late 1980 and an IP in VT-2 '84-'86.

If I had the $$$ Rattlsnatch does, I'd love to have a T-34C to knock around in

A Corsair, a Hornet, and a Skyraider flying together...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvNIcSW0_Ns

VT-2, the Doer Birds.:cool:

Was at VT-6 in mid '83. I had orders to VT-4 in Pensacola for the jet pipeline but was NPQ'd due to sitting height (I'm 6'4"). Losing a waiver can be a bitc$.

Off to HT-8 and HT-18: I got my wings in 1984 so I bet we know some of the some folks...plank owner at HSL-43.

Raging around in a T-34C would be the cats snatch.

I never said not suitable. But using an A-10 for surveillance is like using a C-17 to deliver a rifle. Like I said, overkill.

Yeah, I know... super-duper Bonanza = turboprop Bonanza, man.

It might be cheaper to use the A-10 than to develop a whole new plane, though. And that titanium tub protecting the pilot and the flight control system is a huge plus... the redundant mechanical system in case the hydraulics get shot up, the self-sealing fuel tanks, and all the ways the pilot can deal with things if the landing gear gets damaged... it might be worth the extra fuel and maintenance costs to have a bird that's "overqualified" for the job.

Plus the A-10 can do double duty in 'real wars' too.

My bad.

Sweet the "new" Texan II.

Well we could use your ID and fly the ones at the NFC at Dobbins... There arent turbine T34s, but they still are a blast..

I'd settle for a blast on the Duc right now...

Ill handle that for you. Were going to the boneyard on Mon or Tues BTW... and were taking your bikes..