# Greatest Carrier-Born Dive Bomber of WW II...



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2007)

Here is another Poll to add to the discussion....


----------



## mkloby (Apr 8, 2007)

Ohhhh I popped it's cherry!


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2007)




----------



## mkloby (Apr 8, 2007)

Haha thanks. I do like the dance on the bottom! The wife got a kick out of it too


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2007)

It's the Ju 87E, it didn't ever fly from a carrier but because of that ...you can't say it was bad at it.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 8, 2007)

plan_D said:


> It's the Ju 87E, it didn't ever fly from a carrier but because of that ...you can't say it was bad at it.



Dude - the Ju 87E made a significant contribution to the war effort. Actually, it sunk HMS Hood.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2007)

Really ?


----------



## mkloby (Apr 8, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Really ?



Yup - 1800kg bomb. You don't think the Bismark was able to do that with it's infantile 15" guns do you?

I voted SBD because it had the longest, most successful career out of the WWII carrier dive-bombers. It's performance at Midway was stunning.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2007)

I was always under the impression that the secret Pz.Kpfw VII 'Maus' was landed on Iceland and blasted the _Hood_ from the shore.  

I voted the same, for the exact same reasons. Because I'm your stalker...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 8, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I was always under the impression that the secret Pz.Kpfw VII 'Maus' was landed on Iceland and blasted the _Hood_ from the shore.
> 
> I voted the same, for the exact same reasons. Because I'm your stalker...



I told you already that once you got the clap it's done


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2007)

Aha... my god, my friend got back from Taiwan in January ... and he still can't rid of the clap he got from there... ooh, but that's a completely unrelated story to World War II ...and carrier, bomby thingys...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2007)

Someone sounds like they had a weeee bit too much ale tonight...

I voted for the SBD for all the common known reasons....


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2007)

I had to go with the "beast".

Although the SBD is my sentimental favorite.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 8, 2007)

SBD for above mentioned comments.


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 8, 2007)

SBD here too.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 9, 2007)

I would go for the SBD, but was the Helldiver responsible for the most Axis shipping sunk in the Pacific?

Or is that wrong information I have in my head?



Edit: I found something from Warbird Alley.

Warbird Alley: Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

History: The Curtiss Helldiver, despite a reputation for being difficult to handle at low speeds, was responsible for the destruction of more Japanese targets than any other aircraft. The Curtiss SB2C single-engine dive-bomber joined the fleet late in 1943, joining the Douglas Dauntless as the primary attack/bombing planes for the US Navy. The two-man Helldiver had a top speed of 295 mph and good range, making it an essential tool in the far reaches of the Pacific war.

With underwing and bomb attachments, the Helldiver could carry 1,000 pounds of bombs or an internal torpedo; later improvements included an up-rated Wright Cyclone engine and rocket hard-points. It carried two fixed forward 20mm cannon and machine guns in the rear cockpit.

Only 26 of the 7,000 Helldivers built found their way to the other services; the plane was so valuable in the Pacific theater that the Navy absorbed nearly every plane. Postwar, the Helldiver found further use with the French, Italian, Greek and Portuguese Navies and the Royal Thai Air Force. Only one airworthy Helldiver remains -- with the Commemorative Air Force in Texas -- but at least one more is under restoration to airworthy status.

===========================================================
I suppose even if it did sink the most, it still might not be the best aircraft.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 9, 2007)

SBD for above mentioned reasons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

Dauntless...


----------



## trackend (Apr 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I was always under the impression that the secret Pz.Kpfw VII 'Maus' was landed on Iceland and blasted the _Hood_ from the shore.



Oh I stand corrected PD, I always thought it was Von Ribbentrop on an amphibious Glockenspiel. He attacked disguised as a sea born Eine Keine Naccht Musik recital and launched a devestating armour piercing Bratwurst attack.


SBD is my choice really superb kill tonnage ratio, probably the best of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2007)

All these stories about the Hood, the plot thickens. Someone's lying...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

I thought the Hood sank cause someone fogot to put the drain plug in...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2007)

Probably, after all that was the major cause of loss for British submarines.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 9, 2007)

I voted for the Aichi B7a, but only for technical reasons.
I am aware that the plane did not fly carrier operations just because her carrier was sunk few days before beeing fitted out. However, with the japanese experience with the B4 Kate, the B5 Tenzan I believe that the B7a at least would not have been a carrier disaster.
The B7a flew combat missions from landbases and prooved to be difficult to intercept due to her agility, speed and untypically high ruggedness.

If I had to vote for carrier operated planes only, my vote would belong to the SB2C, the SBD in my eyes -like the D3a- had the best combat record but were technically obsolete by 1941.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

The Slow But Deadly Dauntless for the reasons already mentioned by you gentlemen.
About the Curtiss Helldiver or Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class as it was also lovingly known as wasn't popular with the Captain of USS Yorktown CV-10....
He said something about using the Helldiver as anchors instead. He quickly changed his SB2C to SBD-5 before heading for the Pacific.

*The Helldiver Song*

*"Oh Mother, dear mother, take down that blue star.
Replace it with one that is Gold.
"Your son is a Helldiver driver; he'll never be 30 years old.
"The people who work for Curtiss are frequently seen good and drunk.
"One day with an awful hangover, they mustered and designed that old
clunk.
"Now the wings are built with precision, the fuselage so strong it won't
fail.
"But who were the half-witted people who designed the cockpit and tail?
"The skipper hates Helldiver drivers and he doesn't think much of that
clunk.
"Each time we fly aboard his carrier, he prays his ship won't be sunk.
"My body lies under the ocean; my body lies under the sea.
"My body lies under the ocean wrapped up in an a SB2C!"*


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 4, 2007)

I would go Douglas SBD Helldiver for the reason that these aircraft were flying through hell in the Pacific Midway etc. and yet still delivered their bombs to take out the majority of the Japanese carriers that were at Pearl Habour.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2007)

The SBD was the Dauntless, the SB2C was the Helldiver...


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2007)

I personally went for the B7, it was a superb plane that didn;t get the chance to prove itself. That said for what they achieved the Dauntlass would have to be the choice.


----------



## renrich (Jun 8, 2007)

I believe by the end of the war, the best dive bomber the navy had was the F4U1D. It could bomb as accurately as the Dauntless and it could carry as big an ordnance load as the Helldiver and double as a fighter or strafer and it only needed one man as a crew.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2007)

renrich said:


> I believe by the end of the war, the best dive bomber the navy had was the F4U1D. It could bomb as accurately as the Dauntless and it could carry as big an ordnance load as the Helldiver and double as a fighter or strafer and it only needed one man as a crew.



I dont believe the F4U could dive bomb like the Dauntless or helldiver could.

No dive brakes!


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2007)

On the contrary, the Corsair did have dive brakes. The landing gear was designed to be lowered and used as a dive brake. If you see combat films of the battle for Okinawa you can see Corsairs divebombing with the gear extended.


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2007)

If you push the landing gear handle to the left and then up the gear will extend for landing on the Corsair. If pushed to the right and up the gear will extend in the dive brake mode. If the pilot tries the dive brakes above approx 255 knots the gear will dangle until a safe speed is reached. The dive brakes consist of the flat aluminum doors attached to the main gear struts. When the dive brake is used the tail wheel stays retracted. The aft main gear doors also remain retracted. The recorded percentage of hits on a 250 ft circle was only 7 % fewer than that of the SBD.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 9, 2007)

Blackburn Skua - just to be controversial. Mind you it did work, after a fashion.

Blackburn Skua

.. but I must say that I think the Brits failed to take the Blackburns and the Boulton Pauls, get rid of their silly turrets (where appropriate), and make them into half decent carrier borne fighters.

Its not that far-fetched, and they were no good for the RAF after all.

Imagine if all the Defiants had been given even 2 or 4 fwd firing guns, dump the turret, and other Navalisation features like a landing hook ?

It would have really helped early on in the Atlantic when Sea Hurricanes were mostly knackered ex-RAF lash ups, or shot off Catapaults on a one way trip !


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2007)

I bet the Skua had a sterling combat record in the Pacific.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 10, 2007)

It was mainly used in Europe, 39-42ish I think so didn't see any action in the Pacific.
They were good planes, just very vulnerable to the 109s around back then.
3 of them sunk the Konigsberg of the coast of Norway- first time a carrier-borne dive bomber had sunk a ship


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2007)

SBD for winning the Battle of Midway. SB2C for having the best capability

Swede Vejtasa for best Val/Zero killing dive bomber pilot of all time.. when Zero pilots were really good... in a SBD.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 17, 2007)

Would be cool to have one gun hidden in the tail or something. First time Mr Me-109 comes in that way, and it's what the heck, this thing can fire backwards?


----------



## Plane Freak (Jul 10, 2007)

SBD all the way


----------



## trackend (Jul 10, 2007)

SBD by a mile


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 10, 2007)

SBD goin' away. Best lookin' as well.


----------



## R0NNC0 (Jul 10, 2007)

I think the Helldiver sunk more ships, but I have to say SBD. I'm surprised more people didn't pick the Val. It did a lot of damage.


----------



## AVRoe (Dec 13, 2007)

Fairey Barracuda Mk111


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 13, 2007)

AVRoe said:


> Fairey Barracuda Mk111



And what exactly did this airplane do to warrent its claim to be the best?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 13, 2007)

plan_D said:


> It's the Ju 87E, it didn't ever fly from a carrier but because of that ...you can't say it was bad at it.



Actually, there were plans on the drawing board to construct an ocean-going version of the Ju 87B for the never-finished Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier, but it never got beyong the planning stage.


----------



## ccheese (Dec 13, 2007)

The SBD for me.. Look what happened at Midway...

Charles


----------



## ccheese (Dec 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Dude - the Ju 87E made a significant contribution to the war effort. Actually, it sunk HMS Hood.




That's not the way I recall the account of the sinking. To my knowlege
there was no aircraft involved......

This from Wiki....

The first shots were fired at a range of about fourteen miles. The Hood raced toward the Bismarck in an attempt to close the range and reduce the time Hood's decks were exposed to plunging fire. Initially Hood engaged Prinz Eugen instead of Bismarck, a mistake the Prince of Wales did not repeat. The German ships quickly found the range to the Hood and she was hit first by an 8 inch (203mm) shell from Prinz Eugen on the boat deck which ignited 4 inch (102 mm) ammunition and UP rockets, causing a fire to burn out of control endangering the ship. Shortly after this, the Prinz Eugen shifted her aim to the Prince of Wales, in accordance with a semaphore order from Bismarck.[9] At about 0600 (0601 in German reckoning), Hood signalled a 20-degree turn to port which would have brought the aft turrets of the British ships into action. However, as the Hood began her turn, she was struck by one or more shells of Bismarck's fifth salvo, fired from a distance of between 15 and 18 km (about 8 to 9.5 nautical miles).[10] Almost immediately, a huge jet of flame burst out of Hood from the vicinity of the mainmast.[11] This was followed by a devastating explosion that destroyed the after part of the ship. The stern rose and sank rapidly before Hood's bow section reared up in the sea before it too sank.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2007)

ccheese said:


> That's not the way I recall the account of the sinking. To my knowlege
> there was no aircraft involved......
> 
> This from Wiki....
> ...



Charles he was kidding. pD knows that the Hood was sunk by the Bismark and that there were no carrier born Ju-87s. 



He was mocking someone else....


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2007)

ccheese said:


> The SBD for me.. Look what happened at Midway...
> 
> Charles



And Coral Sea, The Guadalcanal Campaign, Rabaul, Truk .....


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 21, 2007)

sbd's rule8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2007)

'Lil'tyger said:


> sbd's rule8)



Very informative!


----------



## Pong (Apr 5, 2008)

The Dauntless rules.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2008)

Another informative post!

Come on people. If you are going to open up an old thread, please make it worth it.


----------



## B-17engineer (Apr 5, 2008)

I am going to go with the SBD because it was able to be land or carrier based. It did a lot of damage to Japanese ships and also, as Swede Vejtasa proved it was able to dogfight with Zero's and other fighters. It was an all around great plane that was able to deliver its payload and fight its way back to its carrier...Also, it proved as a good scout airplane early on in the war.


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2008)

I believe that the B7a Grace was armoured, structurally more sound than those aircraft it replaced, and more fire retardant a well. If all this is true, than it is obvious this aircraft is superior. It s performanc is at leas t generation better tan the SBD. The only thing I would say is that by the time the design was finalised, divebombing was not viewed with the same reverance that had prviously been. A divebomber is a vulnerable target, especially to flak. 

I am also not sure that the Grace was a great divebomber, because it was a dual role aircraft. This is usually a rcipe for disaster.


----------



## Freebird (May 17, 2008)

Cromwell said:


> Blackburn Skua - just to be controversial. Mind you it did work, after a fashion.
> 
> Blackburn Skua
> 
> ...



Hey what about the British Barracuda? Sank the "Tirpitz" you know! {revenge for those nasty Stuka's sinking the "Hood"!  }

OK, well at least they helped....


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 17, 2008)

Stukas didn't sink the Hood...


----------



## Freebird (May 17, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Stukas didn't sink the Hood...



The guys have been jokin' around about the Hood, Kool...



mkloby said:


> Dude - the Ju 87E made a significant contribution to the war effort. Actually, it sunk HMS Hood.





plan_D said:


> Really ?





mkloby said:


> Yup - 1800kg bomb. You don't think the Bismark was able to do that with it's infantile 15" guns do you?





plan_D said:


> All these stories about the Hood, the plot thickens. Someone's lying...





lesofprimus said:


> I thought the Hood sank cause someone fogot to put the drain plug in...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 18, 2008)

Oh... 

But that was written over a year ago...


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

Yes Kool K, it was dormant for about a half year before somone re-started it with a brilliant informative analysis....



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Another informative post!
> 
> Come on people. If you are going to open up an old thread, please make it worth it.



But I was serious about the Barracuda, it was a neat aircraft, could be used as TB or DB. Not that I am an expert by any means.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 18, 2008)

Yep not a bad bird. But the Helldiver could double as a topedo bomber as well.



And I noticed the thread was dormant I just hadn't read back...
And that post was truely informative.  As was the following one.


----------



## drgondog (May 19, 2008)

Back to the question.

The SBD may have to be nominated as the single aircraft that contributed the most to the fortunes of WWII over four days as any aircraft other than the B-29.

Other than that the Beast was a more capable wepon system.


----------



## lm2f (Sep 27, 2008)

no corsair?


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 27, 2008)

Mmm, haven't voted...Guess I should have a crack...From such a short list it seems to be no real contest.....The SBD Dauntless!..... it's giant killing efforts at Midway would be a significant high point.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 27, 2008)

Wayne, one battle dosen't win a war.

But look at the other big ones it was involved with that it added to its reputation.

Coral Sea
Eastern Solomons
Santa Cruz Islands
Numerous small naval and ground support missions during the fight for Guadalcanal
Numerous small naval and ground support missions during the fight up the Solomon Islands
Rabaul
Tarawa
Kwajelein
Eniwetok
Marianas
Hollandia.

Now someone tell me about the other dive bombers that had such a sterling naval record?


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 27, 2008)

Sys, can you tell me why the USAAF never favoured dive bombers in WWII?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 27, 2008)

I think it was because of their high vulnerability to fighters and AAA, plus they were specialized aircraft.

The A-24's used by the AAF in New Guinie didnt have a good record, and that sealed their fate.


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 27, 2008)

The A-24 losses may have been a big influence, however if you look at the Vengeance wing that was deployed by the RAAF in late 43 early 44 over New Guinea you'll see they were making pinpoint attacks on jungle targets for very little losses- yet Gen Kenney ordered them out much to the surprise of the RAAF. I've never understood this attitude seeing as the Vengeance was possibly the must accurate bomber in New Guinea at the time.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

i say the cat,
not really a "dive" bomber, but still sank a quite a few ships between recon missions


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

sry, otherwise i vote for the sbd


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 30, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Wayne, one battle dosen't win a war.
> 
> But look at the other big ones it was involved with that it added to its reputation.
> 
> ...



Of course Sys., totally agree with you!.....simply pointing out but one that immediately came to mind amongst many....


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

"My body lies under the ocean.
My body lies under the seeeeeaaaa...
My body lies under the ocean,
Wrapped up in an SB2C!!!

Oh bring back, bring back,
bring back my Douglas to me, to meeeee...
bring back, ooooh brinnnng baaaack...
bring back my Douglas to meee!!!!"

Actual ditty sung by carrier pilots during the war, showing what they thought of the Curtiss (SB2C = son of a bitch second class was their verdict) and how much they loved their Douglas...


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

OK people, IMHO (again you know me) The Barracuda could have been a *really good plane* with a *Griffon* in it earlier in the war

In fact they DID make a version with the Grif - it was the Barracuda V - but it was too late in 45 to be used











freebird said:


> Yes Kool K, it was dormant for about a half year before somone re-started it with a brilliant informative analysis....
> 
> But I was serious about the Barracuda, it was a neat aircraft, could be used as TB or DB. Not that I am an expert by any means.



*Fairey Firefly*

Would this qualify as a kind of Dive Bomber or just an 'Attack' plane ?

It was pretty darn good plane anyway and was used in Korea too, as you know probably.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (May 31, 2009)

I went with the SBD.
Syscom covered my reasons.


Wheelsup


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 31, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> Would this qualify as a kind of Dive Bomber or just an 'Attack' plane ?



I'm pretty sure its an attack plane... I don't think it was designed or operated as a dive bomber


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 31, 2009)

SBD hands down.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 31, 2009)

Have to go with the SBD. Excluding it's feats at Midway, it also did a good job in Coral Sea, Guadacanal, and other battles in the Pacific.


----------



## Grampa (Jun 1, 2009)

I whonder if we do an hypotecikal thinking about the A-1 Skyraider, If the Douglas company manage to produce the A-1 earlier enought to take part in the beginning of 1945 pacific combat. How big impact whould it do in compare to the other divebombers?

A-1 Skyraider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way does anyone have some interesting info of how the Aichi B7A Ryusei whas compare to other bombers?

Aichi B7A Ryusei (Grace) - a knol by net-junkie


----------



## Freebird (Jun 1, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> *Fairey Firefly*
> 
> Would this qualify as a kind of Dive Bomber or just an 'Attack' plane ?
> 
> It was pretty darn good plane anyway and was used in Korea too, as you know probably.



Is there any record of notable Firefly missions as a Dive Bomber?


----------



## Waynos (Jun 1, 2009)

I voted for the Dauntless too, a true classic. Regarding the Griffon Barracuda, I read recently that Fairey may well have been unfairly maligned for their feeble warplanes in WW2. It appears that both the Barracuda and the Battle were designed for the Griffon but Fairey were forced to adapt them for the Merlin, with the predicatbly disastrous results we saw. So Fairey knew what they should have been doing all along.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 1, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Regarding the Griffon Barracuda, I read recently that Fairey may well have been unfairly maligned for their feeble warplanes in WW2. It appears that both the Barracuda and the Battle were designed for the Griffon but Fairey were forced to adapt them for the Merlin, with the predicatbly disastrous results we saw. So Fairey knew what they should have been doing all along.



The Barracuda did have a fairly successful career though, while the Battle was a big failure in combat IIRC


----------



## Waynos (Jun 1, 2009)

The Barracuda got sorted eventually, but was awful in its first few incarnationas. Interesting point that after the Swordfish, not only its first generation replacement, the Albacore, was incapable of fully replacing it, but the 2nd generation replacement, the Barraccuda, was in exactly the same predicament. Only Fairey's 3rd attempt, the Spearfish, was deemed suitable to take over completely but then the war was over and the money dried up, only the 4th go, the Gannet, finally put a new torpedo bomber in Royal Navy service 

That Battle's biggest problem was the tactics employed, but with Griffon Power, and sized down a little to match the Fulmar, its crews could have stood a much better chance.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 1, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The Barracuda got sorted eventually, but was awful in its first few incarnationas. Interesting point that after the Swordfish, not only its first generation replacement, the Albacore, was incapable of fully replacing it, but the 2nd generation replacement, the Barraccuda, was in exactly the same predicament. Only Fairey's 3rd attempt, the Spearfish, was deemed suitable to take over completely but then the war was over and the money dried up, only the 4th go, the Gannet, finally put a new torpedo bomber in Royal Navy service
> 
> That Battle's biggest problem was the tactics employed, but with Griffon Power, and sized down a little to match the Fulmar, its crews could have stood a much better chance.




*Fairefy Firefly - Powered by Griffon*


Don't leave the Fairey Firefly off the list guys - I was reading your various postings and I think we are forgetting that the firefly Did have a Griffon too









Waynos said:


> The Barracuda got sorted eventually, but was awful in its first few incarnationas. Interesting point that after the Swordfish, not only its first generation replacement, the Albacore, was incapable of fully replacing it, but the 2nd generation replacement, the Barraccuda, was in exactly the same predicament. Only Fairey's 3rd attempt, the Spearfish, was deemed suitable to take over completely but then the war was over and the money dried up, only the 4th go, the Gannet, finally put a new torpedo bomber in Royal Navy service
> 
> That Battle's biggest problem was the tactics employed, but with Griffon Power, and sized down a little to match the Fulmar, its crews could have stood a much better chance.



*Battle with P 24 Engine*

Another Battle Could-Have-Been was the P24 Exp 

*The following is taken from Fairey Monarch engine production*


_With the P24 design - there was no "coupling" of its two component halves - They were two entirely separate engines - one of which drove its propeller through the hollow driveshaft of the other. Other than that there was absolutely no mechanical linkage between the two "halves" at all – So very little to go wrong.

The P24 Monarch was a very advanced engine if the surviving details are true...

Compressed Glycol /Water Cooling - As first used in Rolls Royce production engines (Merlin XII) from the end of 1940. RPM of 3,000 (same as wartime Merlins) 2 Stage, 4 Speed supercharger (Rolls Royce only ever managed a 2 speed Supercharger on the Merlin and only managed a 3-speed supercharger on post-war Griffons).

With a 2-stage, 4 speed supercharger you would expect the Monarch to have had a very impressive performance at height.

There were two designs - The 16 Cylinder H-16 "Prince" of 1.540 hp and the 24 cylinder P-24 "Monarch" of 2,240hp (perhaps more). 

The H-16 had only a two-speed single stage supercharger.

The H-16 could well have boosted a Battle Bomber to close to 300 mph - who knows with a Monarch - 350 mph +???

The Fulmar and Barracuda could have had similar boosts in performance – along with "Twin-engine" reliability.

Both the H-16 and P-24 used essentially the same cylinders as the earlier P12 Prince - Which had first flown in 1934, and it used poppet-valves, and so would have had none of the problems Bristol + Napier had with sleeve-Valves, so it is by no means unreasonable to think that with a bit of government backing the H-16 and P-24 could have been in production as early as 1938, and certainly by 1940. As it was CR Fairey said to have spent at least 1 million pounds (at today’s prices) out of his own pocket on the project.


The information on the Fairey family of engines is somewhat fragmentary...

The Prince 1 and II were just normal liquid-cooled "V" engines - very close in performance to the very late R-Royce Kestrel and the Peregrine.

The Prince H-16 was essentially two lots of 8 cylinders from Prince 2 engines each rearranged into a "U" shape - one on top of the other to form a "H" (but not a true "H" engine - two separate halves) - This is the only one we have firm data for weight on ... 2,180 Lb - a bit heavier than the weight of a Griffon (1,980 lb)- in it's prototype form it was not as powerful as a Griffon - giving only 1,600 hp - but this is not far off the 1,720 hp of the very early Griffons (although they were later developed to 2,500 hp). Because of it's layout the Prince H-16 would have had a bigger frontal area - leading to a somewhat "blunt" nose on any aircraft it was fitted to - unless a particularly large spinner or extension shaft was used (both these methods would add weight). -

The Monarch prototype was rated at 2,400 hp - but it was considered capable of development to 3,000 hp - no figures survive for its weight. The extra eight cylinders would have made the engine longer - but the frontal area would have been the same as the Prince H-16. I think it's fair to approximate this engine to a Bristol Centaurus in terms of weight.

I think most aircraft designers would have used the more powerful Monarch engine if given the choice - But there might have been some designs (the Fairey Fulmar and Barracuda spring to mind) where the Prince H-16 would have been a handy stop-gap to avoid major redesign for the extra weight of the Monarch.

As a general rule I think it's fair to say any aircraft with a late model Hercules or a Griffon engine could probably have used the Prince H-16 instead.

Similarly any aircraft designed with the RR Vulture or Centaurus could have taken a Monarch without too much redesign._



freebird said:


> Is there any record of notable Firefly missions as a Dive Bomber?



Freebird - Hi !

GOOD question !

I know that Fireflys were very successful against Japanese Oil Refineries - and it did have fully retractable Youngman flaps which were also fitted to the 'Cuda (although not fully recessed in that case).

You can read more here if you wish - [Click Here] Fairey Firefly aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945


To be honest, I find the reports on Naval attack methods seem to blur the boundary between 'dive bombing' and 'attack'

It seems that as the war ground on, even planes like the Helldiver was used to fire rockets, strafe and skip-bomb more than actual dive bombing specifically, from what I can make out.



syscom3 said:


> I think it was because of their high vulnerability to fighters and AAA, plus they were specialized aircraft.
> 
> The A-24's used by the AAF in New Guinie didnt have a good record, and that sealed their fate.




*Apache A36 - Land Based Dive Bomber ?*

The Apache (later aka the 'Mustang') was I believe originally designed to be able to dive-bomb - it certainly had Dive Brakes and Bomb Shackles

That was operated by the US Air Corp - and the rest is history of course !!

There is even a whole book about it ! - look here 

*A-36; North American A-36; Dive Bombers the Apache;*


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 2, 2009)

Very true Cromwell, however the A-36 differed from other USAAF dive bombers in that it was a single seater and therefore could be deployed as a fighter bomber rather than a dedicated dive bomber (ala A-31, A-24, -25 etc.) . The obvious benefits being the fact that the A-36 could engage e/a if attacked, and infact was used on occasion as an escort fighter. I wonder if it was this added flexibility that put it in favour over other USAAF dive bombers?


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 3, 2009)

Wildcat said:


> Very true Cromwell, however the A-36 differed from other USAAF dive bombers in that it was a single seater and therefore could be deployed as a fighter bomber rather than a dedicated dive bomber (ala A-31, A-24, -25 etc.) . The obvious benefits being the fact that the A-36 could engage e/a if attacked, and infact was used on occasion as an escort fighter. I wonder if it was this added flexibility that put it in favour over other USAAF dive bombers?



It is also interesting that the P38 Lightning was also / is also classed a 'Dive Bomber' in some texts too.

From : P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" A little-known role of the P-38 in the European theater was that of fighter-bomber during the invasion of Normandy and the Allied advance across France into Germany. Assigned to the IX Tactical Air Command, the 370th Fighter Group and its P-38s initially flew missions from England, dive-bombing radar installations, enemy armor, troop concentrations, and flak towers.[48] 

The 370th's group commander Howard F. Nichols and a squadron of his P-38 Lightnings attacked Field Marshal Günther von Kluge's headquarters in July 1944; Nichols himself skipped a 500 lb (227 kg) bomb through the front door.[49] 

The 370th later operated from Cardonville France, flying ground attack missions against gun emplacements, troops, supply dumps and tanks near Saint-Lô in July and in the Falaise-Argentan area in August 1944.[48] The 370th participated in ground attack missions across Europe until February 1945 when the unit transitioned to the P-51 Mustang."


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 26, 2010)

The Val. For her accuracy. Its not her fault her fighters didn't give her the cover she needed.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

I voted for the Dauntless, but if one accepts that "great" need not mean "best", a case could be made for the Helldiver since it was produced in such numbers and is so famous, in spite of its awful flying characteristics.


----------

