Carrier capable bomber: you are in charge

[oldcrowcv63]

First, I would take the Naval chief of armament and march him to a firing squad for criminal incompetence.

William R. Furlong, Chief of USN BuOrd, you've heard of Furlongs per fortnight? A very slow coach.

Vought TBU-1 was apparently faster than a TBF!

 

[davebender]

Ok. Germany will develop the He-118 as a CV capable dive / torpedo bomber during the 1930s. The He-112 will be developed as a CV fighter aircraft. The low stall speed of these aircraft should work well on an aircraft carrier.

1940 Germany now has the most capable CV air fleet in the world. And still no operational aircraft carriers.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Ok. Germany will develop the He-118 as a CV capable dive / torpedo bomber during the 1930s. The He-112 will be developed as a CV fighter aircraft. The low stall speed of these aircraft should work well on an aircraft carrier.

1940 Germany now has the most capable CV air fleet in the world. And still no operational aircraft carriers.

Wondering how many of the He-118 can be carried aboard a Graf Zepplin... original airwing with something like 30 Me-109 or He-112 and room for only 12 Ju-87s...

To paraphrase Richard Dreyfuss: "[I think] they're gonna need a bigger boat!"

Definitely out-of-the box thinking!

They could buy an Ark Royal from their British cousins or a Yorktown from the USA! It could happen!

Late thought: Forgot the most likely option, buy a Zuikaku class from the IJN! That might have actually been a more likely option.

 

[davebender]

Germany would almost certainly license build it at Blohm Voss. That way communications equipment, AA, auxiliary machinery etc. would all be German navy standard.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Don't forget to put in appropriately sized elevators and if possible incorporate folding wings on all aircraft models!

 

[Shortround6]

Hercules of 1940 was managing 1400 (87 oct fuel) -1500 HP, R-2600 was good for 1600 HP (1700 in 1941). I'd say that's decent power.

We still have a big spread in time here. The 50th 1700hp R-2600 wasn't built until Sept 1941. While that may mean your plane makes the very end of 1941 it missed all of 1940 and a good part of 1941.

My plane of choice for 1940/41 would have wing area of some 350-400 sq ft, Fowler flaps, 35-40 st long, with the most powerful engine available, no bomb bay (to save on weight complexity).

Your plane of choice uses a wing smaller than either the TBF or SB2C while using the same engine, combines both roles and yet goes into service 1- 1 1/2 years earlier?

Skipping the bomb bay may help but it speaks to the expected performance. External ordnance creates a great deal of drag. Drag goes up with the square of the speed. Power needed actually goes up with cube of the speed. A plane with cruise of 150mph may be able to get away with hanging the bombs/torp outside and still get a decent range. Trying for a 212 mph cruise doubles the drag. If the plane needed 600hp to cruise at 150mph it would need 1404hp to cruise at 212 mph. At what point does the improved streamlining of the bomb bay pay off in better cruise speed and range?
Bomb bay won't do much for a Swordfish

 

[Shortround6]

Germany would almost certainly license build it at Blohm Voss. That way communications equipment, AA, auxiliary machinery etc. would all be German navy standard.

And if the power plant is changed to German navy standard (high pressure steam) that will help insure the carrier stays in port or breaks down on first or second cruise.

 

[davebender]

It would probably get the same propulsion system as the historical KM Graf Zeppelin.

http://www.bobhenneman.info/grafzeppelin.htm

Graf Zeppelin had four shafts, each with a four bladed propellers 14.4 feet (4.4 meters) across. Each shaft was powered by turbines built by Brown, Boveri Co, producing 50,000 HP each for a total of 200,000 HP. At the time of her design there were the most powerful turbines ever built for a European ship. The two turbines powering the inner shafts shared a turbine room, while the ones on the outer shafts were separated into their own spaces. Steam was produced by 16 La Mont water-tube boilers operating at 75 atmospheres and 840 degrees F (450 degrees C). The boilers were separated into four boiler rooms. At 300 revolutions per minute, the plant was expected to drive the ship to 34.5 knots as designed. The propulsion plant weighed in at 3,850 tons, giving a power to weight ratio of about 42.4 pounds (19.25 kg) per horsepower.

Electrical power was provided by a variety of systems. 5 diesel generators of 350 kW each, 5 turbo generators of 460 kW each, and 1 turbogenerator of 230 kW with an attached 200 kVa alternating current generator were provided. Total output was 4,280 kW at 220 volts.

In addition to her main propulsion system, Graf Zeppelin was fitted with two Voith-Schneider steering/ propulsion systems. Common today on tugboats and service craft because of their ability to direct thrust in any direction, they were rather new at the time. The systems were electric of 330 kW each, mounted one in front of the other at the forward part of the ship. They were contained in pods recessed into vertical shafts, to be extended down into the water when needed, and could move the ship forward or backwards at a speed of 4.5 knots on their own in calm water with no wind.

 

[tomo pauk]

We still have a big spread in time here. The 50th 1700hp R-2600 wasn't built until Sept 1941. While that may mean your plane makes the very end of 1941 it missed all of 1940 and a good part of 1941.

Good point; guess we'll settle for the 1600 HP version then.

Your plane of choice uses a wing smaller than either the TBF or SB2C while using the same engine, combines both roles and yet goes into service 1- 1 1/2 years earlier?

My plane does not feature the bomb bay, nor the powered turret, so the 350-400 sq ft will do. I do not see anything ground-breaking in neither TBF nor SB2C basic designs, not for 1940 at least.

Skipping the bomb bay may help but it speaks to the expected performance. External ordnance creates a great deal of drag. Drag goes up with the square of the speed. Power needed actually goes up with cube of the speed. A plane with cruise of 150mph may be able to get away with hanging the bombs/torp outside and still get a decent range. Trying for a 212 mph cruise doubles the drag. If the plane needed 600hp to cruise at 150mph it would need 1404hp to cruise at 212 mph. At what point does the improved streamlining of the bomb bay pay off in better cruise speed and range?
Bomb bay won't do much for a Swordfish

Since much (most?) of the fighting from CVs was made by the planes that were carrying their loads externally, the lack of the bomb bay does not seem to hampered them in a practical way. After the torpedo/bombs are thrown, the smaller plane (no bomb bay) is more streamlined than a bigger plane (the one with comfortable bomb bay).

The plane with bomb bay can be a good candidate for the 1943/44 design. Engine power rise to anything between 1700 and 2000 HP (depending on country), so the plane can be bigger, with greater fuel armament load.

 

[davparlr]

while I was there I would also get a type 91 for our destroyers, and copy them.

oops, I meant the type 93, long lance, for the destroyers.

 

[davebender]

IMO the best feature of Japanese torpedoes was reliability. You don't need a 24" UBER torpedo to get the job done. Just spend enough money on development of existing 21" torpedoes to make them work as advertised.

 

[Juha]

Hello
one plus for internal bomb bay was less drag during outward journey, for ex the cruise speed of SB2C was near of that of fighters, so fighters didn't need need zig zag on the way to target, or if the target was far out to fly separately and hopefully met their charges near the target, a big tactical plus.

Juha

 

[andy2012]

What about a modified FW 190A-4/U8? It could do both the torpedoing and dive bombing, the landing gear would have to be improved for carrier landing though.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

What about a modified FW 190A-4/U8? It could do both the torpedoing and dive bombing, the landing gear would have to be improved for carrier landing though.

Andy, I think two things would have been detrimental to its effectiveness. It's helpful to include a surface search radar set and an operator (after 1942 they were standard) and any CV-based naval aircraft needs very long legs; At least twice that of the FW model you suggested, even with drop tanks. The operator eases the pilot's work load which becomes important under a variety of circumstances but especially during the terminal portion of the search phase and the return to home plate when pilot may be concentrating on both navigation and fuel management.

Doesn't hurt to think outside the box though!

 

[tomo pauk]

Hello
one plus for internal bomb bay was less drag during outward journey, for ex the cruise speed of SB2C was near of that of fighters, so fighters didn't need need zig zag on the way to target, or if the target was far out to fly separately and hopefully met their charges near the target, a big tactical plus.

Juha

Good point about escort 'compatibility'.
The SB2C was escorted with fighters capable to cruise perhaps at 300-350 mph (F6F, F4U, Seafire), ie. as fast as the shipborne fighters' max speed prior 1943 (unless we upgrade them ). The 'early' CV bomber would cruise at 200-250 mph ideally, not far slower than the early fighters.

What about a modified FW 190A-4/U8? It could do both the torpedoing and dive bombing, the landing gear would have to be improved for carrier landing though.

The engine is there (power-wise), but wing area seem lacking for CV operations? The wing loading looks much greater than for IJN Judy dive bomber, and that one was to carry normally only 500 kg bomb.

 

[Piper106]

I have wondered a long time about a attack version of the Grumman F6F fighter.
Instead of the R-2800 two stage engine in the fighter, install a single stage R-2800 engine optimized for low altitude. The empty weight would be less due to not installling the intercoolers and their ductwork associated with the two stage high altitude supercharger system. I would guess a F6F could carry a torpedo every bit as well as a Fw190A-4/U8. I was thinking more day attack, but the -3N and -5N versions had radar, though not the second crewman for the radar. Might be able to find space for a second crewman behind and below the pilot same as some of the AD Skyraiders.

Piper106

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I have wondered a long time about a attack version of the Grumman F6F fighter.
Instead of the R-2800 two stage engine in the fighter, install a single stage R-2800 engine optimized for low altitude. The empty weight would be less due to not installling the intercoolers and their ductwork associated with the two stage high altitude supercharger system. I would guess a F6F could carry a torpedo every bit as well as a Fw190A-4/U8. I was thinking more day attack, but the -3N and -5N versions had radar, though not the second crewman for the radar. Might be able to find space for a second crewman behind and below the pilot same as some of the AD Skyraiders. Piper106

Piper,

I think you have created my favorite post since joining this forum! Welcome to the 1939-40 Grumman design team. You've just created/improved the plans for the prototype of the finest torpedo carrying dive bomber of the second world war, the XTBF-1-A Seriously, that's Brilliant!

Moreover, you've improved it by upgrading the engine and deleting that damned ball turret and the third crewman (I hope he had a parachute before you pushed him out the side door! ) . I am changing my signature line to celebrate! I am not sure about how the engine mods played out but it's using an engine in roughly the same class as the F6F which of course reached production AFTER the TBF but was designed by the same company so it certainly bears more than a superficial resemblence. Look at the classic Grumman wing-fold, sturdy pins, squared and clipped wings and tail. I think it bears a closer resemblence to its actual progenitor, the F4F but its all the same family and the result of a thousand trades that resulted in the actual naval aviation classic!

The prototypes of both aircraft were designed to use the Wright 2600 but the production F6F of course used the more powerful P W 2800...It seems reasonable to suppose that the updated TBF you've designed with one less crewman, would have been a superior aircraft. Unless there were reasons the P W couldn't be used in this application and of which I am unaware.

Of course, I am assuming you'd have no objection to incorporating an enclosed bomb bay to reduce drag.

Thanks, You've made my day!

OC

 

[barney]

Tillman reports Charles A. Lindbergh's testing and combat experiences with the Corsair. Lindbergh was denied military service by the Roosevelt Administration, but the 42-year-old pilot was then assigned to testing and evaluation and succeeded in flying a number of combat missions in the Corsair. Tillman states that Lindbergh "had probably done more than anyone else to make the Corsair into a true fighter-bomber." He successfully carried a 2,000-pound bomb on his Corsair in one mission and designed a hook-up and carried three 1,000-pound bombs on another strike in the Marshalls. He attempted a takeoff with 4,000 pounds of bombs, but had to abort the mission due to wind conditions.

I learned the Corsair could dive bomb so why not carry a torpedo. Aerial torpedoes weighed about 1500 lbs.

 

[andy2012]

What about an attack version of a Corsair, there examples of 2 seat F4U's. The problem would be, would it be to heavy? What did a radar set of the time weigh? I think it could have been a feasible option.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Without knowing the range of either an F6F or an F4U carrying an external Mark 13 weighing 1,600 #, I can tell you that the SBD's range with an equivalent 1,600# load was reduced to 95 miles from over 200!. If you are carrying a torpedo, you are most probably hunting ships. That calls for extended range ops. I would expect an F6F or F4U in that role to be a very poor solution to the problem.