Nice shot of the paddle blade prop too!
Corsair as Dive Bomber?
- Thread starter Freebird
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nice shot of the paddle blade prop too!
Of course you're right.
Just going with wing-only bombs on the P-47, plus the drop tank under centreline if dive bomb attack is planned will negate any fear that bomb will hit the prop during the attack. The centreline bomb is also further away from the prop center than it will be the case with a bomb attached to the Corsair's centreline rack.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Thanks!
That P-47D belonged to the 356th FS, flown by Lt. Davis, taken in 1944.
Once the "Jug" has reached it's objective, the drop-tank will have been jettisoned as it would be a huge liability in the event it's struck by ground fire.
I have found the relevant page in the 8th AF history.
Cheers
Steve
This technique appears to be essentially a split-S with bomb release at vertical. This could, depending on how tight the pilot holds the maneuver ("pulling through sharply" or not), induce likely no less than two Gs. The result being the bomb would accelerate away from the aircraft faster than it would accelerate forward (down) relative to the aircraft. If one were to try a sustained vertical dive release there is very little doubt (in the reality that is my mind - lol) the bomb would strike the prop.
Related thoughts in general:
Terminal velocity is based on the relationship between mass of object, surface area of object and air density (and temperature, for Mach effects).
The Hellcat had the same landing gear dive brake function as the Corsair. In both cases the tailwheels were left retracted because they a) didn't create much useful drag and b) the tailwheel doors were less durable. If dive brakes were activated at excess speed they simply didn't extend all the way.
[QUOTE="chuter, ]
Terminal velocity is based on the relationship between mass of object, surface area of object and air density (and temperature, for Mach effects).
[/QUOTE]
You left out one critical item: the drag co-efficient of the object's shape. A modern low drag bomb will have a higher terminal velocity than a chunky WWII era bomb of the same diameter/frontal area. 32 ft/sec/sec is the same regardless of mass, so mass doesn't enter into it.
Cheers
Terminal velocity is based on the relationship between mass of object, surface area of object and air density (and temperature, for Mach effects).
[/QUOTE]
You left out one critical item: the drag co-efficient of the object's shape. A modern low drag bomb will have a higher terminal velocity than a chunky WWII era bomb of the same diameter/frontal area. 32 ft/sec/sec is the same regardless of mass, so mass doesn't enter into it.
Cheers
32 ft/sec/sec is the same regardless of mass, so mass doesn't enter into it.
[/QUOTE]
OOPS! That was a Delta Sierra on my part. What passes for my brain is a little foggy at 4 AM. Serves me right, shoulda been snoring, not posting!
Essentially yes.
The pilot pulling through vertical simply has the same effect as, in a purpose built dive bomber, the automatic dive recovery system would as it activated on bomb release.
I appreciate some might not have the entire document to put the page I reproduced into context, but there are a couple of important points which I will quote
"The P-47s were equipped with a B-7 type bomb shackle (the belly tank release mechanism). No other sighting device was used except the 100 mile reflector gun sight. No lines were drawn on the canopy to give angle of dive as this is not practical and of no great help."
The bombs were carried under the belly of the aircraft in these trials.
The vertical bombing technique described in the excerpt previously posted was developed because of the P-47s rapid acceleration in a dive. The report noted that there is a happy medium for accuracy between angle of dive (the steeper the better) and bomb release altitude (lower being better, with certain limits). A 60 degree dive from 10,000 ft with a pull out at 4,000 ft gave best results, though a 70 degree dive from 20,000-22,000 ft with a pull out at 16,000 ft gave reasonable results too. The technique for near vertical release could be started as low as 7,000 ft and ,given a loss of 4,000 ft, completed at 3,000 ft. For defended targets it would be started at 20,000 ft.
"It is superior to dive bombing from a lesser angle of dive because it offers a much higher degree of accuracy with no accompanying disadvantages."
The tactics developed were for a flight of four aircraft to attack in 'string formation', which I assume is American for in line astern, at 30 second intervals and with each pilot aiming independently.
Cheers
Steve
.
- Thread starter
- #48
Freebird
Master Sergeant
An aircraft had to be able to bomb at an angle greater than 60 deg. to be considered a dive bomber correct?
So did the Corsair attack at 60-85 deg. angle, or was it limited to 60 deg. "glide bombing"?
Was the limited area (and braking capacity) of the landing gear flaps enough to permit high angle dives, or was it just used for braking capability in shallow angle (<60 deg) dives?
If you read carefully all the previous posts, you'll realize that in practical terms the USN, which was then operating primarily F6Fs and F4Us had determined that prop strike was not an issue up to 85 degrees dive angle. We can argue theory till the cows come home, but fact is, they were there, they figured it out, and it worked for them.
I can easily see how a fighter pulling into a 70-80 degree dive from a moderate altitude at low cruise power and <200 KIAS with dive brakes extended would have plenty of time to acquire the target, correct for drift and dive angle, and release the bomb while still accelerating and well before terminal velocity.
From personal experience (unauthorized simulated dive bombing experiments in a T-34 in the days of young and foolish!), I can vouch for the fact that in the dive you're going to be holding a lot of forward pressure on the stick. (Unless you've retrimmed for dive speed, which would make the pullout kind of chancy.) Therefore the moment you relax that pressure the plane is going to snatch itself away from the bomb's trajectory.
I found I could roll in at 10,000 ft, terminal at about 6, (boxy, draggy, crate!), stabilized dive to 4, and consume 3,000 feet in a 3-4 G pullout. If one had a stronger airframe, better G tolerance, and larger gonads, obviously they could accomplish this profile from a lower initial altitude.
Cheers,
Wes
I can easily see how a fighter pulling into a 70-80 degree dive from a moderate altitude at low cruise power and <200 KIAS with dive brakes extended would have plenty of time to acquire the target, correct for drift and dive angle, and release the bomb while still accelerating and well before terminal velocity.
From personal experience (unauthorized simulated dive bombing experiments in a T-34 in the days of young and foolish!), I can vouch for the fact that in the dive you're going to be holding a lot of forward pressure on the stick. (Unless you've retrimmed for dive speed, which would make the pullout kind of chancy.) Therefore the moment you relax that pressure the plane is going to snatch itself away from the bomb's trajectory.
I found I could roll in at 10,000 ft, terminal at about 6, (boxy, draggy, crate!), stabilized dive to 4, and consume 3,000 feet in a 3-4 G pullout. If one had a stronger airframe, better G tolerance, and larger gonads, obviously they could accomplish this profile from a lower initial altitude.
Cheers,
Wes
Actually the USAF taught running nose down trim on downwind or base for your pass. The reason is at bomb release you want the plane on dive angle, on release speed, at release altitude in trim so there are no adverse forces at pickle. From roll in to pickle is usually a max of five seconds or you are predictable to long for triple A.
Cheers,
Biff
Navy taught likewise - in jets - with top hat trim controls - and ejector racks. I wasn't going to risk fumbling around for the manual trim wheel while pulling G at low altitude with no G suit. Nor did I want to be committed to a heavy stick-force pullout while possibly greyed out down low. Besides, I found stick forces were manageable and I could hold my grease pencil "bombsight" steady "on target" with the necessary offsets. Needless to say the "Teenie-Weenie" would not be the weapon of choice against a defended target.
We had a retired former SPAD driver in the club, who went with me a couple times and said they did pretty much the same thing in the A-1.
Cheers
Wes
When the British started to hang bombs on Spitfires Flight Lieutenant Len Thorne of the AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit) was given the task of devising suitable tactics. He later recalled:
"When they first started hanging bombs on Spitfires, we were given the job of the best way of ensuring accuracy. Obviously, the most effective way was to get enough altitude, point the nose straight at the target in a very steep dive and let the bomb go. However, when we proposed this method of attack to the squadrons, they wouldn't have it as they were concerned that the bombs would hit the aircraft after release. To find out one way or the other, 'Wimpy' Wade [Squadron Leader T S Wade DFC, later chief test pilot at Hawker Aircraft] and myself flew two Spitfires, one of which was carrying a bomb, while the other had a camera fitted behind the pilots seat, pointing sideways. The camera aircraft had a white dot on the end of the wing and the pilot lined up the dot with the bomb on the other aircraft. By such means we got the actual moment of release on film.
'Wimpy' Wade, who was an excellent pilot, did the bomb dropping and I had to remain tucked in tight with whatever he did. We evolved the method that you overflew the target, then looked back behind the trailing edge of the wing and as soon as you could see the target you pulled up into a wing over to the inverted and then pulled back on the stick until you were headed for the target in a dive of almost exactly 70 degrees. I filmed right through the sequence and it was discovered that the bomb never went anywhere near the aircraft. In the dive you were fairly screaming down at 480 mph so the first thing you did was to commence your pull out and as a result quickly left the bomb behind. This method was eventually adopted for all high level bombing attacks. I did quite a lot of this type of work over the Holbeach range in the Wash, but I absolutely hated it, in my opinion bombing was a complete misuse of a fighter!"
These did become standard tactics as he says, I have seen them described exactly as this in a manual for Typhoon pilots.The AFDU had to develop tactics acceptable to the squadrons AND in which the average service pilot could be easily trained. There would have been no point in developing a tactic which a test pilot like Squadron Leader Wade could fly but which the average Pilot Officer could not.
Thorne's opinion of fighter-bombing was shared by many experienced RAF fighter pilots, although a young man still in his early twenties, he had joined the RAF in 1940 and had plenty of operational experience.
You'll also notice that the film revealed, at least for a 480 mph Spitfire, that the bomb was quickly left behind.
Cheers
Steve
"When they first started hanging bombs on Spitfires, we were given the job of the best way of ensuring accuracy. Obviously, the most effective way was to get enough altitude, point the nose straight at the target in a very steep dive and let the bomb go. However, when we proposed this method of attack to the squadrons, they wouldn't have it as they were concerned that the bombs would hit the aircraft after release. To find out one way or the other, 'Wimpy' Wade [Squadron Leader T S Wade DFC, later chief test pilot at Hawker Aircraft] and myself flew two Spitfires, one of which was carrying a bomb, while the other had a camera fitted behind the pilots seat, pointing sideways. The camera aircraft had a white dot on the end of the wing and the pilot lined up the dot with the bomb on the other aircraft. By such means we got the actual moment of release on film.
'Wimpy' Wade, who was an excellent pilot, did the bomb dropping and I had to remain tucked in tight with whatever he did. We evolved the method that you overflew the target, then looked back behind the trailing edge of the wing and as soon as you could see the target you pulled up into a wing over to the inverted and then pulled back on the stick until you were headed for the target in a dive of almost exactly 70 degrees. I filmed right through the sequence and it was discovered that the bomb never went anywhere near the aircraft. In the dive you were fairly screaming down at 480 mph so the first thing you did was to commence your pull out and as a result quickly left the bomb behind. This method was eventually adopted for all high level bombing attacks. I did quite a lot of this type of work over the Holbeach range in the Wash, but I absolutely hated it, in my opinion bombing was a complete misuse of a fighter!"
These did become standard tactics as he says, I have seen them described exactly as this in a manual for Typhoon pilots.The AFDU had to develop tactics acceptable to the squadrons AND in which the average service pilot could be easily trained. There would have been no point in developing a tactic which a test pilot like Squadron Leader Wade could fly but which the average Pilot Officer could not.
Thorne's opinion of fighter-bombing was shared by many experienced RAF fighter pilots, although a young man still in his early twenties, he had joined the RAF in 1940 and had plenty of operational experience.
You'll also notice that the film revealed, at least for a 480 mph Spitfire, that the bomb was quickly left behind.
Cheers
Steve
