space dodo
Airman 1st Class
ive noticed that my other threads have been quite unfair. hopefully this is more balanced
A-36 Apache vs SB2C helldiver
- Thread starter space dodo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Just a heads-up: the A-36 was a Mustang.
Only the Army's P-51 (NA-91) was briefly called an Apache.
Starting with the A-36A (NA-97) and P-51A (NA-99) onward were Mustangs.
Only the Army's P-51 (NA-91) was briefly called an Apache.
Starting with the A-36A (NA-97) and P-51A (NA-99) onward were Mustangs.
- Thread starter
- #3
space dodo
Airman 1st Class
i know, i just called it the apache to avoid confusion with the dive bomber and the air superiority varient
GregP
Major
These two airplanes never flew the same missions.
The Helldiver was a naval dive bomber and the A-36 was purely land-based. You could not swap them and they flew for different services.
The Helldiver was a naval dive bomber and the A-36 was purely land-based. You could not swap them and they flew for different services.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
The USAAF did purchase a version of the SB2C, the A-25, modified to army requirements. But it was never used in the dive bombing role for the army air forces because wartime experience in Europe had demonstrated dive bombers were quite vulnerable if enemy fighters were around. Hence the move toward fighter-bombers such as the A-36 which could defend itself well after dropping its ordnance.
Shortround6
Major General
SB2C could hold a pair of 500lb bombs inside the bomb bay and around 330 US gallons in internal tanks.
It was a lot slower, a lot less maneuverable, but would have much greater range carrying a similar bomb load.
It was a lot slower, a lot less maneuverable, but would have much greater range carrying a similar bomb load.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
This one's pretty unfair too, to be honest.
wuzak
Captain
So you are saying it is a choice between range and survival?
Shortround6
Major General
The Navy was not expecting the SB2C to be "self escorting"
The SB2C was a bit of a pig on a carrier but then an Allison Mustang with a pair of 500lb bombs won't have the shortest take off either. even without external loads it had almost twice the take-off run of an F4U-1.
A bit different engines but a P-51A needed about 1400ft to take off clean in zero wind.
An SB2C-2 needed 1135ft zero wind, 330 gallons of fuel and a 1000lb bomb in the bomb bay.
The planes had very different capabilities.
- Thread starter
- #10
space dodo
Airman 1st Class
Yeah, almost all of my threads are
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I was opining more about the airplanes than your thread. I just think the A-36 would walk away with it in most specs.
Barrett
Senior Airman
In researching the Osprey SB2C Units book I was surprised to find that a few Marine Corps squadrons had A-25s, sort of an internal US Lend-Lease!
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
Well, the Army had no use for them.
I was surprised to find that the USAAF was still using A-24s in combat in 1943.
I was surprised to find that the USAAF was still using A-24s in combat in 1943.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
According to
P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the Eighth Air Force
Book by James William "Bill" Marshall and Lowell F. Ford
The A-36 was never meant to be anything else but a placeholder in the Mustang production line. There were no funding slots for fighters, but there were slots for dive bombers. As it so happened, the A-36 actually exceeded expectations, but by the time it got to combat, the factories were already turning out Merlin-Powered P-51Bs and those were worth their weight in gold. (I also learned from this book that before the US even brought the P-51B in combat, the P-51D model with its bubble canopy and 6 50-cal guns was already in the pipeline, and early D-models were flying as of January 1944.)
The A-36 was never meant to be anything else but a placeholder in the Mustang production line. There were no funding slots for fighters, but there were slots for dive bombers. As it so happened, the A-36 actually exceeded expectations, but by the time it got to combat, the factories were already turning out Merlin-Powered P-51Bs and those were worth their weight in gold. (I also learned from this book that before the US even brought the P-51B in combat, the P-51D model with its bubble canopy and 6 50-cal guns was already in the pipeline, and early D-models were flying as of January 1944.)
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It seems I've heard of that book's author. 
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
He any good?It seems I've heard of that book's author.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Getting my coat.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yeah...sorta
drgondog
Major
Dave - despite researching more than 10,000 NAA, AAC/AAF docs I have never been able to find one NAA or AAF Management reference to Apache - only NAA Marketing - and various propaganda illustrations (author unknown) in 1941 referencing Apache.
The few marketing drawings showed six gun wing battery so I I drew conclusions that the origination of the brand was during mid-late 1941 when Kindelberger actually was optimistic that NAA would get an order for P-51s with Materiel Cmd.
Note that A-36 was on the boards in fall 1941 as NAA got wind of the Attack Pursuit funding and knew that Combat command was not excited by A-24, 25, 31 and prototype XA-32.
IIRC the formal 'memo' issued by Materiel Command in 1944 cleared up the various name confusion by declaring that all NAA Variants be named Mustang.
drgondog
Major
The actual first flight of P-51D-NA 42-106539 was Nov 16, 1943. It was modified EXACTLY as P-51B-1-NA 43-93102 except for the new six gun wing. It began life as a NA-102 spare Fuselage - then modified with "Cockpit Enclosure, Sliding" per MCR 258. The sister P-51D-1-NT 42-106540 was also so modified PLUS installed a 55 gallon Fuselage Tank - as Static Test article, but emerged on December 1943 as a flying test bed. The P-51D-5-NA and P-51D-5-NT had all the NA-106 airframe mods but incorporated the 85 gallon tank.
AAF wished all 1944 deliveries of P-51B/C/D to have the 85 gallon tank, and for reasons I haven't fully nailed down, there was interference created between new wing and NA-102 fuselage which restricted the fuselage tank to 55 gallon - and the earlier production delivery of P-51D-NA was killed in November 1943.
