WWII aviation mystery I've tried for years to solve

[bull]

For years I've been trying to verify the authenticity of this painting to find out if it is based on real events and to get all the details if it is legit. From memory the story goes that some British attack aircraft were doing a strafing run on some German targets when the lead plane was hit on the starboard engine. Due to its low elevation the power loss sent it straight to the ground but it bounced off the deck and the adept pilot was able to gain altitude and return to base on the one remaining engine.

I saw this painting for sale in an aviation magazine years ago and just today I was able to find it again. Unfortunately there's no info to go with it.

http://www.wallcoo.net/paint/Air_Combat_Art_02/Air%20Combat%20Art%200104.html

[Drache]

July 4, 1942

Captain Charles C. Kegelman was flying an A-20 borrowed from the RAF (American Aircraft although in the RAF).

To make the story even better, while flying with one engine after the bounce he flew straight at the closest Anti Aircraft Flak tower and destroyed it with the nose guns!

For this he earned the Distinguished Service Cross.

2 years later he was killed at age 29 when an allied plane collided with his midair.

[bull]

Nice! What's the source?

[Drache]

Nice! What's the source?

A lot of reading over the years. But give me a sec and....

http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=31588

[bull]

  Excellent. Thanks a bunch!

[Drache]

Excellent. Thanks a bunch!

Anytime! Stories like these need to be shared!

[bull]

Exactly right. The snippet I wrote in my initial post was all I could remember from the magazine description and I've been kicking myself for not writing it down or saving it somehow.

It's an unbelievable feat if you ask me. To hit the ground like that and still be able to save it is just incredible. And somehow the port prop didn't hit the ground and get damaged. Nothing short of a miracle really.

[polywideblock]

that's a hell of a story       I'd be remiss if I didn't  point out that the plane in the pic is a glass nose not a gunship

[bull]

Are you saying it's the wrong plane for this type of mission? It may have been an impromptu mission or a mid-mIssion improvise. Sounds as if it there was some spontanaity involved since it was an American pilot in an RAF plane.

[stripedelete]

Google a-20.    Looks like there are two flavors.   The glass may have been the bomber set-up.   No glass - fighter?

[Drache]

I'd be remiss if I didn't  point out that the plane in the pic is a glass nose not a gunship

Not sure what you're getting at?

If you're suggesting that the A-20 with the glass nose didn't have forward facing guns;

The light bomber variant of the A-20 Havoc had a glass nose. On either side of the glass nose was the forward fix mounted .303 machine guns. A machine gun on each side stuck out of the body itself. Then there was a pod that stuck out from the body that held another machine gun on each side. Some models took the pods off and left it down to two machine guns instead of the four.

The Night Fighter variants without the glass nose instead all four machine guns mounted dead center of the nose.

Here is a light bomber variant of the A-20 being worked on. The yellow covers are covering the two machine guns on the starboard side.

[polywideblock]

what I was saying was that it wasn't one of these   

would be interesting to know if it was a MK1 or MK 2 BOSTON as the difference between 2x 303's and 4x 303's is fairly large 

[Drache]

what I was saying was that it wasn't one of these    

would be interesting to know if it was a MK1 or MK 2 BOSTON as the difference between 2x 303's and 4x 303's is fairly large  

MkIII actually. Better armored, larger fuel tanks, 4x .303 machine guns in the nose

MY understanding though is that the only difference between the MkI and MkII was the engine type, not the forward mounted guns.

[Mytur Binsdirti]

And in another WWII avaiatonhistory, this guy just passed away a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.uasvision.com/2014/01/09/wwii-pilot-who-flew-through-eiffel-tower/

[polywideblock]

what I was saying was that it wasn't one of these   

would be interesting to know if it was a MK1 or MK 2 BOSTON as the difference between 2x 303's and 4x 303's is fairly large 

MkIII actually. Better armored, larger fuel tanks, 4x .303 machine guns in the nose

MY understanding though is that the only difference between the MkI and MkII was the engine type, not the forward mounted guns.

you could very well be right       it was 4 in the morning after all 

for those interested in this sort of thing this is   a very good read 

loosely based around the first " b25 gunships" built in northern Australia from scrap and stolen ordinance    that were so successful that the factory's started churning them out

[tan top]

interesting stuff , 
   bit of usless info , I use to do  jigsaw puzzles  with those sort of pictures !  WW2 aircraft etc   when  I was about 5 or 6  mid 70s
then I saw DMCL  , Bullet , then DOH on TV & the rest is history 

[John_Kunkel]

MkIII actually. Better armored, larger fuel tanks, 4x .303 machine guns in the nose

Machine guns in the nose aren't nearly as destructive as a 75MM cannon in the nose (B25G).

[Drache]

MkIII actually. Better armored, larger fuel tanks, 4x .303 machine guns in the nose

Machine guns in the nose aren't nearly as destructive as a 75MM cannon in the nose (B25G).

That is true but the Germans did it right:




Unlike the 75mm on the B-25, the Germans 75mm on the Hs129-B3 was Semi/Full auto (The B-25 was hand loaded) and had a much longer barrel with a 12 round rotary magazine. 

[polywideblock]

   this gives a better idea of the workings






                late war German engineering was so far ahead of its time its not funny  

edit well they were bigger on my screen   
                                                   

[ACUDANUT]

http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=31588

[Drache]

http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=31588

You're a little late to the party there 'nut, check the third reply 

[wingcar]

Too bad the Hs129 had engine issues throughout its operational career which made it a less effective aircraft.  I may be mistaken but I believe the engines were of French design and perhaps were even built in France.
 
The deadliest cannon equipped German aircraft on the Eastern front was the Stuka JU-87....as long as it had air cover.  The highest scoring tank destroyer, Hans-Ulrich Rudel had over 500 tank kills, over 800 vehicles, in addition to a Soviet destroyer, two cruisers, and a battleship.  He was also an Ace having downed nine aircraft.  Too bad he was a diehard Nazi until the day he died. 

[bull]

The ugly German plane reminded me of a point I wanted to make. Performance and firepower aside for a second, one thing I doubt anyone can deny is that WWII American planes were always the best looking planes in the sky. You know, it's odd when you think about it. You'd think form would have zero priority compared to function in 42-45 WWII but the US produced some of the best looking planes ever made during that war.

[Drache]

Performance and firepower aside for a second, one thing I doubt anyone can deny is that WWII American planes were always the best looking planes in the sky. You know, it's odd when you think about it. You'd think form would have zero priority compared to function in 42-45 WWII but the US produced some of the best looking planes ever made during that war.

The top three best looking fighters in my opinion (no particular order):

~ BF-109
~ Supermarine Spitfire
~ P-51 Mustang

[bull]

The 109 is a good looking plane but no effen way is it better looking than a P-51. Just my