Best biplane divebomber

[tomo pauk]

I don't recall reading any Feislers being used in it's intended role.

Intended role was torpedo-bombing.

 

[GrauGeist]

Intended role was torpedo-bombing.

Yes, but it's my understanding that the Fi167 was used mostly as a transport/liaison aircraft by the Croatian Air Force instead of an attack platform.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, but it's my understanding that the Fi167 was used mostly as a transport/liaison aircraft by the Croatian Air Force instead of an attack platform.

Roger that - a case of capability being there, but not used.

 

[elbmc1969]

The SBC benefited from being the product of the most experienced dive bomber design team in the world. The performance of the SBC-4 shockingly close to that of the early Ju87s.

 

[elbmc1969]

also:

Swordfish and Albacore 'normal' dive angles in training were 60°-70° with underwing bombs, though lower angles were often used in operations depending on circumstances. The Albacore was trialed during development and the dive angle limit was determined to be 60° when dropping centerline ordnance - I do not know the limit for the Swordfish when carrying centerline stores. I do not know if either type actually dropped centerline ordnance during operations while dive bombing.

There's an accuracy discussion in this topic: Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.

The Swordfish wasn't amazingly accurate as a dive bomber in tests. (49m or 44m average miss difference, depending on attack profile.) That's good, but others managed about half that miss distance. Always look out for different definitions of miss distance: average miss distance, 50% circle (CEP), etc. The same data set can produce very difference values for different measures.

 

[elbmc1969]

Bomb load - 2,000lb
Cradle - who needs it when the designed bomb load (4x500lb or 6x250lb) was carried under the wings!

The Swordfish Mk.I could carry 6 250lb bombs on the three primary hardpoints under each wing, or a single 500lb bomb under each wing. If it was cleared for the Swordfish, the large AP bomb could only be carried under the fuselage, which limited the dive angle at which they could be released. (If this information is not accurate, please give me a source that corrects it.)

I have one source which specifies a 500lb bomb or 1500lb sea mine on the centerline, or (plus?) a single 500lb bomb, two 250lb bombs, or 4 100lb bombs under each wing. However, it's well-documented that Swordfish carried six 250s at Taranto and it's not clear that this author was using information about the Mk.I. It does specify a maximum 1500lb load under the wings, which rules out both four 500lb bombs and two 500lb bombs plus four 250lb bombs. (In theory, it could carry three, with one under the fuselage.)

In practical terms, six bombs imposed considerable additional drag, limiting range. (Not that the other dive bombers under consideration didn't have drag/range problems when heavily loaded, but a single 1000lb bomb is vastly less draggy than six 250s. Also, a Swordfish carrying those six bombs is going to have its ceiling forced down to about 7,500 ft (from about 11,000 ft unloaded). The SBC had an unloaded ceiling of 24,000 ft, which is a lot more comfortable.

 

[EwenS]

The Swordfish Mk.I could carry 6 250lb bombs on the three primary hardpoints under each wing, or a single 500lb bomb under each wing. If it was cleared for the Swordfish, the large AP bomb could only be carried under the fuselage, which limited the dive angle at which they could be released. (If this information is not accurate, please give me a source that corrects it.)

I have one source which specifies a 500lb bomb or 1500lb sea mine on the centerline, or (plus?) a single 500lb bomb, two 250lb bombs, or 4 100lb bombs under each wing. However, it's well-documented that Swordfish carried six 250s at Taranto and it's not clear that this author was using information about the Mk.I. It does specify a maximum 1500lb load under the wings, which rules out both four 500lb bombs and two 500lb bombs plus four 250lb bombs. (In theory, it could carry three, with one under the fuselage.)

In practical terms, six bombs imposed considerable additional drag, limiting range. (Not that the other dive bombers under consideration didn't have drag/range problems when heavily loaded, but a single 1000lb bomb is vastly less draggy than six 250s. Also, a Swordfish carrying those six bombs is going to have its ceiling forced down to about 7,500 ft (from about 11,000 ft unloaded). The SBC had an unloaded ceiling of 24,000 ft, which is a lot more comfortable.

If you read the post immediately prior to that one properly, the one to which I was responding, you will see the discussion was NOT about the Swordfish. It WAS about the Albacore.

 

[elbmc1969]

If you read the post immediately prior to that one properly, the one to which I was responding, you will see the discussion was NOT about the Swordfish. It WAS about the Albacore.

Oops, my apologies! That sub-thread started with a post about the Swordfish and Albacore, and I missed that it narrowed as it led to your post.