- Thread starter
-
- #21
NACA report, dated November 1940, where XP-41 gains 18 mph by implementation of individual exhaust stacks: link
NACA was also doing the similar tests with XP-42 in winter of 1941/42.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
NACA report, dated November 1940, where XP-41 gains 18 mph by implementation of individual exhaust stacks: linkUnless you use a time machine you don't get the better cowls/exhaust in production in early 1942.
They'd come in with fighter cover just like any dive-bomber squadron would. They'd use their belly-fuel on the way in while not engaging anything and drop it once they reached the target and engaged the CAP. At that point they'd be just like any SBD squadron coming in with fighter cover. A squadron of bomb-armed F6s scattered among a squadron of F6 fighter-cover is feasible as such for the 1200-mile hops. The drop tank isn't a liability because it's gone when they need it to be. They go into their dives as bombers and come out as fighters. This should have been utilized more. All these pilots knew how to do it, it's right there in their training logs.F6F held 250 gal internal, An SB2C carried 330 gals internal.
Ranges were close, until you start hanging bombs off the bottom of the F6F.
The fighter bombers worked at short range and worked very well. For long range?
Until the Japanese forces were degraded you need both. Or you need a squadron of F6Fs with a drop tank and one bomb each escorted by a Squadron of fighters in order to reach the target. If the fighter bombers drop bombs and defend themselves the target was not get bombed and the defending forces can claim a successful defense.
Obviously things changed from 1941-42 to 1944-45 but it wasn't just tactics/technique.
Looking at the air group compositions in the final few months of the war, they fell into 3 groups:-The F6 was already a crack dive-bomber right out of the box. That's where the B in VBF comes from. The way many are accustomed to thinking of these one would think they were in VF squadrons. Those were the F4Us. The F6 didn't need a second seat because it could take care of itself. The SBDs were the ones that needed to run from the carrier fighter CAP. You look at the training logs in these F6s and you'll see all the bombing runs they did. Still, instead of thinking of them as bomber-fighters, which they were, many still conceive of them as just fighters.
Well sure they mixed these up, that's hardly being full of any news. F4Us could dive-bomb, they just didn't off carriers. F6, which carrier-qualified earlier, were largely in VBF squads. They should have been more utilized for dive bombing, is what I'm maintaining, they were made for it, but they weren't.Looking at the air group compositions in the final few months of the war, they fell into 3 groups:-
Those with VF AND VBF equipped with the F6F-5. Like CVG-13 earmarked to go aboard the Bunker Hill when she completed her repairs in Sept 1945.
Those with VF AND VBF equipped with the F4U
And finally those equipped with a squadron of each type. In those cases the VF unit was flying the F6F-5 and the VBF unit the F4U. The only exception was CVG-19 where VF-19 was trading its F6Fs for F8F-1 Bearcats between May & Aug 1945.
Source: Location of US Naval Aircraft reports produced roughly fortnightly from various USN commands including COMAIRPAC.
Edit:- I would add that, by that stage of the war, there was little difference between the missions being flown by VF and VBF units on the carriers, due to the lack of enemy air opposition.
Problem is that the gross weight of the aircraft is limited by the length of the flight deck for flying off, by the catapults for using the catapults, and by the arresting gear.To meet the timing goal of the problem, maybe it would be better to use a pair of R1820 or R1830 engines. The Navy had not ruled out compact two-engined aircraft for carrier use, hence the XF5F.
A more powerful engine would not have helped, much. It would have increased the payload some and reduced the range some (more thirsty engine), but the basic physical aircraft design "sets" the maximum speed, more or less. This is due to the "power-cube relationship" which applies to objects moving through a fluid (liquid or gas), i.e. to aircraft and ships. The required power is proportional to the cube of the velocity. For example, the SBD-5 had a top speed of about 255mph with the 1600hp (max) R-1820. Assuming the engine could be replaced with an R-2800 having (magically) the same weight and dimensions of the R-1820 (maintaining the same weight and "geometry" of the aircraft), the increase in top speed would be approximately: (cube-root(2100hp/1600hp)) x 255 = 280mph, or about a 9-percent increase in top speed for a 31% increase in power. To increase the SBD-5 top speed to 350mph, for example, would require a "magic" engine of the same weight/size of the R-1820 that produced (350/255)^3 x 1600 = 4,137hp (!). To increase the max speed of an object in a fluid by 50% requires an increase in power by a factor of 3.38 (1.5 cubed). This is why aerodynamic design in aircraft (and hull design in ships) is so critical. The design shape is where the "max speed" values are ultimately throttled by the power-cube relationship. "Throttle" pun intended.What about fitting a bigger engine in the Dauntless until the avenger comes on board?.
For example, the SBD-5 had a top speed of about 255mph with the 1600hp (max) R-1820.
That last line makes me wonder. The SDB probably didn't have room or weight allowance for a proper bomb bay but what about a semi-recessed bomb bay where half the bomb was inside the aircraft to decrease the amount of drag out in the slipstream? Similar to how some modern fighters have recessed missile hardpoints to reduce drag?
Really, not my idea - eg. Ju 87s used the cooling system for the same purpose (by accident more than by design? - there was a lot of draggy bits and pieces already on it). Possibly also the He 118, but good luck finding the picture of a bombed-up He 118.I never would have thought of that.