F6Fs dive-bombing capability

davebender said:

.....No dive brakes.
.....No dive bomber sight.
.....Could not carry bombs larger then 500 lbs.
.....Cockpit not armored to protect pilot against ground fire.
.....No automatic device to assist with pull out from dive.

What makes you think F6F was designed for dive bombing?

Click to expand...

Did any dive bomber other than the Ju87 have an automatic dive recovery device?

Incidentally, there are ways to make the propeller a quite effective air brake. I do not know if this could be done with the F6F, but it can be done (occasionally by accident....)

swampyankee said:

Did any dive bomber other than the Ju87 have an automatic dive recovery device?

Click to expand...

Yes, up to the Me 410. Even the He 177 was supposed to have had one!

Cheers

Steve

From "Pilots Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions for Navy Models F6F-3, F6F-3N,
F6F-5, F6F-5N Airplanes"

Page 6:

"4. PILOT PROTECTION
"The pilot is protected forward and aft by armor plate, also by a bullet proof windshield. Enemy gunfire originating in the areas illustrated in Appendix I should not reach the pilot."

Diagram found in Appendix I, page 55:


Now back to page 6

"5. ARMAMENT
"The armament consists of six .50 calibre machine guns located in the outer wing panels with a maximum of 2400 rds. of ammunition. Two 1000# bombs can be carried under the center section of one full sized torpedo under the belly. When the airplane is operating with the torpedo or 1000# bomb under the belly, 100 gallon droppable fue1 tanks can be carried under the wing center section."

Thus is can be seen that not only could the F6F carry a 1000# bomb, it could carry two of them if the mission profile so required! This capability aside, however, one should remember that statistically the most often carried bomb by USN carrier aircraft was the 500# GP. The F6F was no exception to that trend. For the entire war 47.95% of bombs dropped by carrier aircraft were the 500# GP. And also remembering that the F6F did not participate in large scale bombing profile missions until 1945, a quick look at deliveries by F6F carrier squadrons from 1 Jan 45 through 15 Aug 45 shows the following; format is Ordnance type || Tonnage || %:
100# GP || 33 || 0.9%
250# GP @ || 97 || 2.6%
500# GP || 2,402 || 65.1%
1000# GP || 455 || 12.3%
500# SAP || 12 || 0.3%
1000# SAP || 7 || 0.2%
Armor Piercing || 1 || 0.0%
Napalm (Tank) || 373 || 10.1%
Other Incendiary || 2 || 0.1%
Fragmentation || 300 || 8.1%
Depth Bombs || 7 || 0.2%
TOTAL || 3,689 || 100.0%

So while, again, the F6F could and did carry and deliver the 1000# GP or SAP, the bomb of choice was the 500# GP. Perhaps this preponderance obscures the use of the 1000# varieties from common observation.

Moving on . . .

Now on page 43

"16. RULE FOR DIVING
"Before retarding throttle to enter dive, shift to NEUTRAL blower regardless of your altitude. Set propeller control for 2050 to 2250 RPM, and adjust throttle to 15" to 20" manifold pressure. During the dive, do not allow manifold pressure to build up over 34" before retarding throttle. The maximum allowable diving RPM is 3060 for not more than 30 seconds. NOTE - Before retarding throttle to enter a steep and extended dive, it is desirable to shift to AUTO RICH in order to avoid backfiring which may otherwise result from lag of the automatic mixture control during rapid loss of altitude

And on page 44 under section "18 GENERAL FLYING CHARACTERISTICS" there is:
"f. DIVING. - The maximum permissible diving speed below 15000 feet is 391 IAS. The engine RPM shall not exceed 3060 and manifold pressure shall not exceed 34 inches Hg. Before entering dive
"(1) Adjust trim.
(2) Cabin hood FULLY CLOSED.
(3) Cowl Flaps CLOSED.
(4) Intercooler and oil cooler shutters CLOSED.
(5) Supercharger control NEUTRAL.
(6) Propeller control 2050-2250 RPM.
(7) See Paragraph 16 - RULE FOR DIVING
WARNING - Never drive with supercharger control in either LOW or HIGH position.

And last but not least, on page 51 in "Section V OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT", paragraph "1. - ARMAMENT"
"d. BOMBS.
"(1) This airplane is provided with two bomb rack supports located under the wing center section. left and right of the center line of the fuselage. These racks can accommodate bombs up to 1000 pounds.
"(2) The bombs are released by pressing the button located on top of the surface control stick/ The bomb selector switches and fusing switch are located on the armament panel. When operating the F6F-3N as a bomber the right hand bomb should be released first as this plane is right wing heavy because of the antenna nacelle."

This manual makes no comment or restriction on angle of attack in the diving mode.

And just as an aside, the USN experimented with and perfected an auto-recovery device for its dive bombers in the early to mid 1930's. The pilots reportedly roundly detested the thing as they believed it deprived them of the control they wished to exercise, not unlike the auto-landing equipment on modern aircraft, apparently what we would call today a device for "wussies". The device simply became another "golly-gee-whiz" piece of equipment that was never used or even installed.

R Leonard said:

And just as an aside, the USN experimented with and perfected an auto-recovery device for its dive bombers in the early to mid 1930's. The pilots reportedly roundly detested the thing as they believed it deprived them of the control they wished to exercise, not unlike the auto-landing equipment on modern aircraft, apparently what we would call today a device for "wussies". The device simply became another "golly-gee-whiz" piece of equipment that was never used or even installed.

Click to expand...

Great post. I'm not referencing it all. I just want to say, based on everything I've been told, these pilots didn't want any help going into a blackout. In fact, think about it, you're relying on the darn thing, and it jams. No way. They control that aircraft. That's what they were trained to do. That's exactly right.

I know this is a very old thread, but I was flicking through the 'Report of Joint Fighter Conference' looking for the often partially quoted bit about 20mm versus .50 calibre, when I came across this, also from Commander Monroe. It is from the same 21st October '44 meeting as the 20mm v .50 calibre talk.

"Of course our fighter also carry a large assortment of bombs, ranging from 100-pounders to 2,000-pounders. We have one fighter - the F6F - which can carry a torpedo. We acquired sets for torpedo carrying and sent them out to the Fleet, but from investigations about six months later, we found that the Fleet had no interest in them at all. They had lost all the gear; in fact, ComAirPac had never heard of the F6F carrying a torpedo. So apparently they don't want to do that, but it can be done. Our fighters are authorized to dive up to 85 degrees. Of course they have no displacing gear. Careful investigation down here shows absolutely no danger of the bomb hitting the propeller. At least the airplane and the bomb keep their relative pressures fore and aft, and the bomb drops away from the airplane, which was a great relief to everybody."

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

I know this is a very old thread, but I was flicking through the 'Report of Joint Fighter Conference' looking for the often partially quoted bit about 20mm versus .50 calibre, when I came across this, also from Commander Monroe. It is from the same 21st October '44 meeting as the 20mm v .50 calibre talk.

"Of course our fighter also carry a large assortment of bombs, ranging from 100-pounders to 2,000-pounders. We have one fighter - the F6F - which can carry a torpedo. We acquired sets for torpedo carrying and sent them out to the Fleet, but from investigations about six months later, we found that the Fleet had no interest in them at all. They had lost all the gear; in fact, ComAirPac had never heard of the F6F carrying a torpedo. So apparently they don't want to do that, but it can be done. Our fighters are authorized to dive up to 85 degrees. Of course they have no displacing gear. Careful investigation down here shows absolutely no danger of the bomb hitting the propeller. At least the airplane and the bomb keep their relative pressures fore and aft, and the bomb drops away from the airplane, which was a great relief to everybody."

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

The F6F Wikipedia page mentions the torpedo:

Armament
Guns:
6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, with 400 rounds per gun, (All F6F-3, and most F6F-5) or
2 × 0.79 in (20 mm) An/M2 cannon, with 225 rounds per gun and 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) Browning machine guns with 400 rounds per gun (F6F-5N only)
Rockets:
6 × 5 in (127 mm) HVARs or
2 × 11¾ in (298 mm) Tiny Tim unguided rockets
Bombs: up to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) full load, including:
Bombs or Torpedoes: (Fuselage mounted on centreline rack)
1 × 2,000 lb (907 kg) bomb or
1 × Mk.13-3 torpedo;
Underwing bombs: (F6F-5 had two additional weapons racks either side of fuselage on wing centre-section)
2 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) or
4 × 500 lb (227 kg)
8 × 250 lb (110 kg)

But clearly it was never used.

Cheers

Steve

From Detail & Scale #26 by Bert Kinzey



Caption says "....because bombs were more successful, the torpedo was never used...."

And yet without torpedoes would they have sunk the Yamato and Musashi?
Not saying the Hellcats dropped torpedoes, just saying that the torpedoes did have a use and an important one, it just took too long to straighten out the problems.

fubar57 said:

Caption says "....because bombs were more successful, the torpedo was never used...."

Click to expand...

Maybe it should have read.

"Because Fleet lost all the gear, and no one at ComAirPac had ever heard of the F6F carrying a torpedo, it was never used"


Cheers

Steve

Shortround6 said:

And yet without torpedoes would they have sunk the Yamato and Musashi?
Not saying the Hellcats dropped torpedoes, just saying that the torpedoes did have a use and an important one, it just took too long to straighten out the problems.

Click to expand...

The Musashi took a hell of a mauling at Leyte and it's hard to separate which was more effective, the bombing or the torpedoes, but the Avengers and the Helldivers carried the battle - the few Hellcats directly involved, raking the Musashi's decks with gunfire.

Well, Wiki says

"estimated 19 torpedo and 17 bomb hits"
and a MK 13 Torpedo had 400lbs of Torpex in it's 600-625lb war head. A 1000lb GP bomb had around 500lbs of HE and a 1000lb SAP bomb had a lot less. Chances of either of those bombs making it through the Musashi's armor are slim although the upper decks/superstructure would certainly be destroyed. The 1600lb AP bomb had a good chance id dropped from the right height or dive but they were rare weapons.
Even if the claimed hits are way off in number letting water into the hull was a way to sink big ships and the normal aircraft bombs would only work in rare circumstances for that job on Battleships.

VBF-13 said:

But name me one fighter that spends half its training hours dive-bombing.

Click to expand...

McD F-4. In the Nav I worked in support of an F-4 RAG Squadron ACM training detachment. The nuggets came to us right out of a lengthy session of ordnance delivery training, and thought the (somewhat shorter) ACM syllabus would be a breeze, then on to Carrier Quals. They usually left saying ACM seemed like the longest three weeks of their lives.

gjs238 said:

The F6F Wikipedia page mentions the torpedo:

Click to expand...

What do they know? Maybe in their little video games they play with them, the F6 pilots never bothered to even train on them.

Shortround6 said:

Did the dive brakes on the SBD disrupt the air flow to the tail control surfaces?
Stability in the dive, no porpoising or snaking?

Click to expand...

A major design problem with dive bombers (or any tactical aircraft for that matter) is coming up with a speed brake that doesn't impact aircraft stability or control response and doesn't add too much structural weight. This has been accomplished with varying levels of success. The JU-87 was reputed to be rock steady in the dive, while the Curtiss SB2C was described to me by a pilot as "squirrelly as an electric eel" in a dive.

The SBD was said to be very steady in a dive.

It could enter and sustain a near vertical dive, much like the Stuka, too.

The flaps on an SBD-5:

When you deploy the SBD speed brakes, it feels like you just flew into a tub of Elmer's glue. Things slow down RIGHT NOW.

In formation with a Bonanza, deployed them, Bonanza was GONE, almost smacked the headrest too hard, saw stars. That's how my friend Bob described it when they tried them in level flight while in formation. He was in the back seat and lost a camera. The strap saved it.

The genius of Ed Heineman! "Simplicate and add lightness."
1. Far enough out on the wing to not ruffle the tailfeathers.
2. Balanced stresses up and down so as to not torque the wing structure.
3. Remote actuators to keep the weight of the mechanical bits out of the outer wing panel.
4. Fixed (not folding) wing avoids weight, complexity, and extra structure required of a folding wing, and allows a thinner but equally strong wing for a better L/D (spell: payload/range).

GregP said:

When you deploy the SBD speed brakes, it feels like you just flew into a tub of Elmer's glue. Things slow down RIGHT NOW.

Click to expand...

Had a similar experience during an orientation ride in an F-4J. Doing mach 1.2 in full burner when the pilot killed the burners and backed off the throttles. Oofff! That must be what an arrested landing feels like. He warned me to brace, but I still wound up with my arms wrapped around the scope, my oxygen mask digging into my chest, my helmet trying to come off over my head, and a crick in my neck that didn't go away for a week. Awesome ride in an awesome plane!