Awesome WW2 experimental Aircraft

It was tested by the Americans first. This is standard American as described (actually everyone practices this.) to test equipment for own use.
 
The V-72 was a private venture to cater to foreign needs, and was ordered by the French and that order was taken over by the British, who named it Vengeance. When lend-lease came into effect, it require a USAAF designation, and A-31 was picked. When the US entered the war, they dipped into production and used them as target tugs. The British used them as dive bombers, notably during Imphal and Kohima, to good effect. They were a crappy airplane due to CW engine garbocity, as well as zero forward visibility and poor take-off characteristics, but they were said to be accurate dive bombers, due to the wing's lack of incidence. The US developed a version called A-35 with wing incidence, wherein it became a better target tug, but lost bombing accuracy.

Perhaps you would like to counter with the tale of the Whitley bomber. There never was an A-35 version of that one.

The USN and American army tested the planes. Rejected same as described. As for the Whitely?

Therein lies a curious counter. The Whitely did not need to be "fixed" with the new wing, did it? The A-31/35 was a turkey.
 
And guess what? The British found a use for it in Burma... as a target tug.

You missed out the bit where did praiseworthy service, before it was cast aside in haste.
Recommended reading Ground Attack Aircraft of World War II by Christopher Shores, then there's Peter S Smith (a great fan of dive bombers) - try 'Dive Bomber! an illustrated History, or Dive Bombers in action, or Close Air Support an illustrated history from 194 to the present, from p.106 "The only genuine dive bomber to finally to be used by the RAF was the Vultee Vengeance, which was used by four RAF and two Indian air force squadrons in Burma. Their accuracy was phenomenal and their work was highly praised. After the various Arakan campaigns the main role of these squadrons became holding off Japanese attacks against the surrounded garrisons at Kohima and Imphal in 1944. Here the Vengeance units were called upon to drop their bombs onto enemy positions that were within only a few feet from the defenders."
Some - target tug!
 
You missed out the bit where did praiseworthy service, before it was cast aside in haste.
Recommended reading Ground Attack Aircraft of World War II by Christopher Shores, then there's Peter S Smith (a great fan of dive bombers) - try 'Dive Bomber! an illustrated History, or Dive Bombers in action, or Close Air Support an illustrated history from 194 to the present, from p.106 "The only genuine dive bomber to finally to be used by the RAF was the Vultee Vengeance, which was used by four RAF and two Indian air force squadrons in Burma. Their accuracy was phenomenal and their work was highly praised. After the various Arakan campaigns the main role of these squadrons became holding off Japanese attacks against the surrounded garrisons at Kohima and Imphal in 1944. Here the Vengeance units were called upon to drop their bombs onto enemy positions that were within only a few feet from the defenders."
Some - target tug!

The Vengeance wasn't perfect, but it did a good job and was far from a failure.
 
I don't know if I prefer the jet or the propeller version. Both are cool planes. I have the Hasegawa model kit of the propeller version. Don't know if I'll ever try to put it together.

The jet version also looks like it could fly alongside the X-wing and Y-wing as a Rebel Starfighter.

Hasegawa also did the jet version - the 72nd kit had a new sprue with the intakes and exhaust. IIRC it was for the Japanese market only but some escaped into the wider world.
 
The USN and American army tested the planes. Rejected same as described. As for the Whitely?

Therein lies a curious counter. The Whitely did not need to be "fixed" with the new wing, did it? The A-31/35 was a turkey.

The US Navy listed its version as the TBV, a torpedo bomber variant, notably with a 4 degree angle of incidence as befits a variant of the A-35B. The order was cancelled and the quantity listed as produced is zero. At the time, 1942, the Grumman Avenger was well into service.

Nothing wrong with the Whitley? ( proper spelling, sorry.)
 
When the P-40 is a better and more accurate dive bomber, one has problems defending the A-31/35

Really, sources please? Close Air Support again p.115 - "A political decision removed them but the RAAF continued to fly close-support missions with Curtiss Kityhawks, although with less accuracy and a higher casualty rate as these fighters were not so robust on the jungle airstrips as the Vengeance's had been".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultee_A-31_Vengeance
 
Hasegawa also did the jet version - the 72nd kit had a new sprue with the intakes and exhaust. IIRC it was for the Japanese market only but some escaped into the wider world.

I bought my first Shinden model kit, the propeller version, on Okinawa back in the early 80's. That's how I first learned about the plane. I lost that model kit in a flood in 1994, still unassembled.

Ah, there are Shinden models available on Shapeways. I may have to get some.
 
The Brewster Bermuda might have befitted the moniker "debacle" more accurately, ending its sad target tug career quite often, as a target for artillery practice.
 
it was a case of bad being better than nothing. As soon as proper aircraft showed up, the Vultees were kicked back to scut work. It was BURMA the place where all the castoffs and rejects wound up;
Though an M3 Lee would be a terror to IJA armor and Infantry
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
bp100-box.jpg
 
Though an M3 Lee would be a terror to IJA armor and Infantry
----------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed!
M3 Lees may have been ugly, but they out-gunned all Japanese tanks.
M3 Lee's 37mm and 75mm guns also equaled the guns installed in Panzer I, II and III.
M3 carried the same 75mm gun as most M4 Shermans .... just in an awkward hull mount. It took American engineers another year to figure out how to build a turret large for 75mm gun.

Also remember that the American 75mm tank gun was well-respected for infantry support and 3/4 of the ammo they fired was high-explosive with the occasional smoke or illumination round.
 
XP-55 and his two competitors, XP-54 and XP-56. I kind of prefers the XP-67, but performance sucked.
They were planning to stick a pair of Merlins on later versions of the P-67. But seeing as there were no Axis heavy bombers to Massacre the whole project was cancelled after the first prototype was destroyed.
 
The XP-55 and others never got the engine the proposals called for. IIRC they were supposed to get Pratt & Whitney X-1800's. One of the H-24 cylinder sleeve valve designs P&W was developing when they convinced Hap Arnold to let them drop them in favor of the R-4360 Wasp Major. The P&W sleeve valve designs were a quite different animal than the Sabre or later Eagle. They had removable cylinders for one thing. I think it goes back to P&W having almost all its experience in building radials. P&W did build one of the first, if not the first, inline radial. The Yellowjacket

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...zXAhVh2oMKHYXUAUsQMwiYASgOMA4&iact=mrc&uact=8

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...qzXAhUH_IMKHeqrBM8QMwhNKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
 
Top