FAA Seafire vs Corsair

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Actually, I'm not so sure the Skua's windscreen is really that bad. I think, in part, it's an optical illusion because the rear frame slopes forward to the top of the frame. We're so accustomed to those rear frames being vertical, that the forward slope makes the whole windscreen appear to be leaning forward when, in reality, it's not. Now...the Skua windscreen is certainly more steeply angled than most others but it still is far from vertical.

This pic shows what I'm blathering on about. Note how the forward edge of the sliding portion of the pilot's canopy slopes forward. The actual windscreen does slope back slightly. Plus it's relatively small compared to many contemporaneous windscreens.




 

Yeah, but Jack Rousch had problems safely landing a bizzjet on a LONG runway. Not too sure his analysis is anything but having flown one of each, and who is to say what condition the two airframes were in?

Lack of information is, as you pointed out, a factor to make you scratch your head.
 
There's a lot I like about the Skua. It's the RN's first all metal, folding wing, monoplane, retractable undercarriage aircraft. Those are good specs in 1938. Now, if only that list had been given to a single seat fighter instead, along with a requirement for speed and RoC competitive with the land based fighters of 1938. Had cancer not already claimed Reginald Mitchell he might have taken this design brief and made something amazing for the FAA to replace the Fulmar when/before the Seafire/Martlet/Firefly did.
 

It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Depends what details you're paying attention to.

It looks pretty good with regard to:
  • overall view over the nose
    - taxiing / take-off / landing
    - sighting for forward armament and dive-bombing
  • wet / rainy weather visibility
  • image distortion and light reflections at night
When you're dealing with a mere 225-230 mph aircraft I could easily see the above advantages beating out a very marginal gain from a lower, sleeker cockpit.
 
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus said:
It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Depends on which designers.



At least the Skua used a fully enclosed canopy/windscreen.

Getting an optically flat panel in 1937-38 may not have been that easy.

Also remember that the Skua production contract was placed in July 1935. About 1 1/2 years before the prototype even flew. It was only about 6-7 months after the contract for the Spitfire prototype.
Spitfire prototype seems to have used a single piece of curved Plexiglas (?) for the windscreen.

Production Spitfires seems to have used a variety of windscreens, in no particular order.
2 piece with flat pane and curved sides.
3 piece with flat panel and flat sides.
4 piece with flat panel and flat sides and a small top.

Some of these can be seen with both exterior BP glass and interior BP glass.

Since some MK Vs were rebuilt MK Is and IIs the canopy variations are all over the place.

Curved panels often gave poor vision in the early years.
 
The 3 XF4U-5 were accepted December 1945, March and July 1946, production of the day fighter version began in November 1947, production of the night fighter version in March 1948, there were also 30 reconnaissance versions May 1948 to November 1948. Production of the day fighter version stopped in September 1948, apart from 1 in October. Production of the night fighter version continued, with some gaps, until the third quarter of 1951. 223 day and 315 night fighters.

AU-1 production Q1 and 2/1953 then again in Q1/1953, total 111, F4U-7 production Q1 to Q3/1953, total 94.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I think they WERE paying attention to detail, at least to dive-bombing detail. The very vertical windscreen surely shows the pilot a good view of his target when he is in a near-vertical dive. Where the designer fell a bit short was not thinking about top speed and maybe cruise speed. In the task of dive bombing, the Skua is just fine, but it needs local air superiority or fighter escorts to do it.

We know the Dauntless was a pretty decent makeshift fighter after the bombs were dropped, but I have never heard tales of the Skua successfully mixing it up with fighters. Perhaps it wasn't as hopeless as I have assumed. But, if true, it seems like we SHOULD have heard of some actual events to support the contention.

The thing is, they SBD was about 30 mph faster than a Skua, but they cruised virtually at the same speed (185 - 187 mph). The armament difference was .303 versus .50 MG. I have no real idea of the comparative maneuverability or robustness between them, but the Skua doesn't look fragile in the least, and it SEEMS like they should have been able to take similar damage. Sort of perplexing that we hear great things about the SBD and not much about the Skua. The wing area was close and the Dauntless was about 1,000 lbs heavier at gross, so the Skua SHOULD have been very close to being as maneuverable as the SBD. The SBD DID have 310 more horsepower from the engine (at sea level, anyway) and perhaps that is the difference. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that, but it seems like a decent power delta in favor of the SBD.
 
Last edited:
Good points, GregP . I suspect we hear more about the Dauntless due to it being such a success in the dive-bomber role that many authors can't resist the temptation to tack on, "and it could be a CAP stand-in in an emergency" or similar verbiage.

It's odd that the Skua doesn't get credit for being the first airplane to sink a ship heavier than a destroyer in combat. That was a notable achievement at any time, but more especially in 1940, I'd think.
 

Oh, there's no accounting for taste, fo sho.

I suspect the Skua, as an early-war airplane, got mighty overshadowed by the Spit in the UK press.
 
Hi
Skuas of Nos. 800 and 803 Sqns. dived bombed and sank the German cruiser 'Konigsberg' in Bergen Fjord on the 10th April, 1940. That month the first production SBD-1 was completed, it did not fly until 1st May and was not delivered to the USN until 6th September, 1940. When comparing types it should be remembered how much later than the Skua that the SBD entered service. The SBD was not a better aircraft than the Skua in April 1940 by the time the former saw action the Skua was long gone operationally (February 1941).

Mike
 
There were only about 140 combat Skuas. The last 50 off the production line were completed as target tugs, some of the earlier ones were converted.

For the number of planes actually engaged in combat the Skua did very well. It did what had been asked of it, dealing with snoopers/recon planes and with low altitude bombers out of reach of land based fighters in much of the Norwegian campaign.

SBDs had two major advantages.
1. It had a two speed supercharger giving more power down low and a bit extra power higher up. Which is where the speed "advantage" shows up.
SBD-3 could do a smidge over 200knts at 16,000ft, engine was rated at 800hp at 15,000ft in high gear.
In lower blower the SBD-3 could do about 243mph at 5000ft but speed dropped as it climbed until it could engage high blower. Speed was down to 235mph at 9600ft.

The max speed of the Skua was at 6500ft with it's moderately supercharged engine.

2. The Skua had a two pitch prop. The SBD had a constant speed prop.

I am not saying the Skua would have been better than the SBD but things were not equal.

I would also note that some sources say the SBD's .50 cal guns had 360 rounds (180rpg).
A Skua carried 2400 rounds (600rpg) so the Skua could engage more often before needed to re-arm.
 

That certainly depends on which version/s of the SBD you are comparing and when.

The SBD-1, 2, 3 and 4 only had 1000hp for take-off so they only had about 170hp more horsepower. They were also only supposed to use 2300rpm (about 950hp) in flight as opposed to the 2350rpm limit for take-off. The engines in the Early SBDs were never given a "military rating" or at least not the early (pre Pearl Harbor) days.

The engine is Skua had 830hp for take-off and 905hp at 6500.

It took until the SBD-5 to get the 1200hp engine.


Gross weights are all over the place. The 1942 manual for the SBD-3 lists all kinds of gross weight as apparently the early SBD's didn't come with armor or self sealing fuel tanks but they could be added later (or taken out?)

An SBD-3 in combat condition (protection) and a 500lb bomb and 140US gal of fuel grossed 8786lb
An SBD-3 in combat condition (protection) in scout configuration (no bomb) and 150US gal of fuel grossed 8259lb.
The armor and self sealing tanks went almost 700lbs

At some point the gross weight of the SBD-3 was allowed to go up to 10,400lbs. but this was at some point in 1942 between publication of the manual and Aug 1942.
 

The Skua first flew in Feb 37 and was introduced in Nov 38. The SBD first flew in May 40 and was introduced in 1940.

So the SBD is perhaps 1 1/2 years newer as far as introduction goes, but its worth remembering that the U.S.A. was NOT especially ramping up for WWII.

Northrop began the design in 1935 and transferred the project to Douglas in 1937.

Blackburn started on the Skua in Apr 35 , did not transfer the design to another firm, and the UK was preparing for war WAY before the U.S.A. was.

I'd call the Skua and the SBD contemporaries with the SBD simply having a longer gestation period but, hey, that's just me. They were both Naval dive bombers, but the Skua carried one 500-pound bomb while the SBD carried up to 2,250-pounds of bombs and they both cruisd at about the same speed. The SBD had about 5,000 feet on the Skua for service ceiling, but that's likely due to the SBD's extra 350 hp or so mostly. Often, the SBD flew with one 500 pound bomb, so they were flying comparable missions a lot of the time at about the same speed and altitude.

Just rambling, so I'll stop. Cheers.
 
Last edited:
USN Performance charts,

SBD-1 as of 30 November 1942, maximum weight 9,780 pounds with 180 gallons of fuel and a 1,600 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 180 gallons protected or 210 not protected, oil 11.7 protected / 13 unprotected gallons. Empty weight 5,903 pounds. 1,000 HP for take off. First production June 1940.

SBD-2 as of 30 November 1942, maximum weight 10,360 pounds with 205 gallons of fuel and a 1,600 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 260 gallons protected or 310 not protected, oil 16.5/19.5 gallons. Empty weight 6,293 pounds. 1,000 HP for take off. First production November 1940.

SBD-3,4 as of 6 August 1942, maximum weight 10,400 pounds with 249 gallons of fuel and a 1,000 pound bomb, or with 158 gallons of fuel and a 1,600 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 260 gallons protected or 310 not protected, oil 16.5/19.5 gallons. Empty weight 6,345 pounds. 1,000 HP for take off. SBD-3 first production March 1941, SBD-4 October 1942.

SBD-5 as of 1 June 1944, maximum weight 10,701 pounds with 370 gallons of fuel and a 500 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 254 gallons protected, oil 16 gallons protected. Empty weight 6,533 pounds. 1,200 HP for take off. First production February 1943.

SBD-6 as of 1 October 1945, maximum weight 11,779 pounds with 284 gallons of fuel and a 1,000 pound bomb and 8 5 inch rockets. Fuel tankage 284 gallons protected, oil 16 gallons protected. Empty weight 6,554 pounds. 1,200 HP for take off. First production February 1944.

SBD-3,4 other configurations, Scout 9,407 pounds 260 gallons of fuel, Bomber 9,969 pounds, 260 gallons of fuel and a 500 pound bomb, Ferry, 8,574 pounds, (5,745 pounds empty), 310 gallons of fuel. All combat SBD-3,4 carrying 2x0.50 inch, 360 rounds, 2x0.30 inch, 2,000 rounds.

There are the predecessors, the Northrop BT from 1938, the 1939 Douglas 8A-3 for the Netherlands and Peru and the 15 8A-4 April to June 1940 for Iraq and the 36 8A-5/A-33 for Norway October 1940 to February 1941
 

Again, the SBD had a two speed supercharger and it had a better propeller.

the 2250lb bomb load is fiction, plan and simple.

they rated it at 2250lbs but there is no evidence what so ever that it ever flew with 1600lb from a carrier and aside from trials, probably never flew with one from a land base either.
To get to the 2250lb bomb limit they used 325lb depth charges, which do not combine well with 1600AP bombs for aiming or common drop point.

If carrying a 2250lb bomb load the fuel load would be under 100 gallons.
depending on which SBD the fuel load was could be as low as under 50 gallons to meet the max gross weight.
the under depth charges are worth over 100 gallons of fuel.


and once again, the the SBDs with over 170hp difference (let alone 350hp) don't show up until well after (several years) the Skua was taken out of front line service.
 
For it's core role one needs to compare it with peers such as the Val, early Stuka etc. in which comparison it stands out quite well. However, once the Fulmar turns up, it is no longer needed for the ancillary purpose and is speedily replaced by the Albacore for the (excuse the pun) core role which brings more range, a torpedo and far more bombs and is just as good a dive bomber.

So, on second thoughts, a more informative comparison is Skua v Albacore.
 
Hi Shortround 6.

You are correct as usual. I was jotting down the specified load, not the usual load.

A B-17 could theoretically carry a 10,000-pound bomb load but, to do so, it didn't have a lot of fuel and some bombs had to be hung externally. While they likely did that in development testing, if only to establish the rating, I'd be VERY surprised if they ever did so in actual use. Most B-17 missions were longer than a hundred miles or so.

What I was really saying is the SBD could haul a considerably heavier bomb load than a Skua. Again, it's likely down to the powerplant and maybe the airscrew. They DID fly similar missions a lot of the time, I'd think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
564
SaparotRob
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
S
Corsair
Replies
1
Views
811
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register