FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[Spindash64]

I'm just saying, not many dive bombers out there can boast an air to air W/L ratio of greater than 1:1. The SBD, meanwhile, could

Also, yes I'm aware that doesn't mean much in regards to actual effectiveness as a Dive Bomber, AND that those numbers are somewhat inflated by the USN desperately using them to fill in with killing Japanese torpedo bombers and dive bombers due to a lack of Wildcats, but that still speaks volumes about survivability.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm just saying, not many dive bombers out there can boast an air to air W/L ratio of greater than 1:1. The SBD, meanwhile, could

Also, yes I'm aware that doesn't mean much in regards to actual effectiveness as a Dive Bomber, AND that those numbers are somewhat inflated by the USN desperately using them to fill in with killing Japanese torpedo bombers and dive bombers due to a lack of Wildcats, but that still speaks volumes about survivability.

only if you believe the old claims and not the research of the Japanese records that showed a significant different number of actual losses.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm just saying, not many dive bombers out there can boast an air to air W/L ratio of greater than 1:1. The SBD, meanwhile, could

I suspect that this is apocryphal, based on pilot claims rather than enemy loss-sheets. I could well be wrong and accept well-founded correction. Not to say it wasn't one hell of an aircraft.

 

[DarrenW]

The Bf 109 K-4 is supposed to have been able to hit 440 mph @ 24,600 feet and 1,850 PS (1,825 hp) @ 1.8 ata (52.1 in Hg) boost, so it really couldn't be all that bad. drag-wise.

They didn't fix the stick mechanical advantage issue, so it wasn't exactly easy the throw around, and didn't have rudder trim, either. If it was actually going 440 mph, it was running to or from a fight; it wasn't fighting. But, it was within a hair of being as fast as a P-51D (at least for a short time) no matter how you cut if, using slightly more HP.

According to one article actual flight test data does not exist for the Bf 109K. What we see quoted these days are mere calculations produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau:

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K performance comparison, wartime flight trials and data analysis.

www.spitfireperformance.com

The article goes on to say that by January 1945 the chief engineer of the Luftwaffe was not happy with manufacturing quality, stating that the 109 airframe was "extraordinarily bad and performance outrageously low". Daimler-Benz noted that there was no point in continually increasing engine power when the airframes were getting worse due to sloppy manufacturing They even went so far as to admit that any performance comparison between the 109 and the Mustang was "devastating".

 

[NevadaK]

Seems like a good place to share this:

 

[drgondog]

Me-109 series "G" produced in 1944: Dr.-Ing S. F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag

Mike, Hoerner missed the memo. Bf 109G-1 thru G-6 operational 1942, although G-6 appearing in numbers at end of 1942/early 1943.Look to e.) Results of Me 109 Analysis for more discussion of Wind Tunnel values of 1941 for what I recall, was a Bf 109E.

What Hoerner said was "Bf 109G was most produced in 1944". True

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

30 mph speed is nothing to sneeze at, the SBD also had about 30% more range, which is extremely important for carrier strike aircraft. SBD could also carry a larger (1,000 lb) bomb and / or more bombs. I also don't think the Skua had real self sealing fuel tanks and I'm not sure how much armor.

To me the Skua is just one of those many aircraft from the 30's which just got hit hard with the ugly stick mid-transition between biplanes and monoplanes. How the Spitfire and 109 emerged so beautiful from that era I can only guess (especially the Spitfire).

 

[33k in the air]

According to the Airplane Characteristics and Performance document for the SBD-5 the combat radius was:

240 nautical miles with 1 x 1,000-lb bomb
260 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb
420 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 2 x 58-gallon drop tanks
215 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 8 x 5-inch rockets

The scout radius:

305 nautical miles (no bomb carried)
400 nautical miles with 2 x 58-gallon drop tanks (no bomb carried)

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

215 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 8 x 5-inch rockets

See, I'm liking this. That's pretty badass.

 

[yulzari]

According to the Airplane Characteristics and Performance document for the SBD-5 the combat radius was:

240 nautical miles with 1 x 1,000-lb bomb
260 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb
420 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 2 x 58-gallon drop tanks
215 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 8 x 5-inch rockets

The scout radius:

305 nautical miles (no bomb carried)
400 nautical miles with 2 x 58-gallon drop tanks (no bomb carried)

I observe that the document reminds us of the critical issue of airspeed over the deck with consequences for ambient wind, carrier speed and carrier risk and delay of turning out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind.It reminds us that the load depends upon this airspeed and the length of the deck as well as the engine/airframe. So, on one day a squadron can operate with a maximum load and/or range but, from another carrier on another day, the same squadron and aeroplanes can barely get off the deck with a reduced fuel load and lighter bomb load. Top Trumps it is not. A carrier due for boiler clean or refit and hull fouled may not be able to deploy the same strike power as it could when new, clean and fresh from trials.

I was amused to note that the ferry cruising speed of the SBD-5 is about the same as a Fairey Albacore.

 

[EwenS]

I observe that the document reminds us of the critical issue of airspeed over the deck with consequences for ambient wind, carrier speed and carrier risk and delay of turning out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind.It reminds us that the load depends upon this airspeed and the length of the deck as well as the engine/airframe. So, on one day a squadron can operate with a maximum load and/or range but, from another carrier on another day, the same squadron and aeroplanes can barely get off the deck with a reduced fuel load and lighter bomb load. Top Trumps it is not. A carrier due for boiler clean or refit and hull fouled may not be able to deploy the same strike power as it could when new, clean and fresh from trials.

I was amused to note that the ferry cruising speed of the SBD-5 is about the same as a Fairey Albacore.

By late 1943, when the USN began operating multi carrier task groups, a system of procedures had been worked out and laid out in fleet instructions.

So Carrier groups generally operated at speeds in the 15-25 knot region. There was a series of ship formations set out to cover various eventualities. These generally placed the carriers at the centre of the task group with concentric rings of escorting Battleships, cruisers and destroyers around them. The diameter of the task group varied depending on whether the risk was submarines or aircraft.

Carriers did not "turn out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind". The instructions provided for either:-

1. The whole task group changing direction and/or speed, as for example where the carriers might be launching the favoured the deck load strike which would take some time; OR
2. Where a single carrier of the group had to operate outwith the normal strike sequence, it would position itself as far down wind as possible, while remaining within the outer ring of escorts. It would then run into wind for the shortest time possible at whatever speed it required, launch/land on its aircraft before returning to its designated position at the centre of the group. At no time would it leave that outer ring of escorts. More often used for landing the regular CAP and ASP rotations or emergency recoveries where only a handful of aircraft on a single carrier in the group were involved.

Which option was chosen was determined by the task group commander taking account of all the circumstances of the time.

But yes, the rest of your comments are entirely correct. Until late in the war catapults were rarely used on the fleet carriers. By 1945 with increasing aircraft weights, the first few aircraft of what today would be termed a "strike package" would be catapulted with the rest having free take offs. But by then the SBD was gone from the carrier decks.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

30 mph speed is nothing to sneeze at, the SBD also had about 30% more range, which is extremely important for carrier strike aircraft. SBD could also carry a larger (1,000 lb) bomb and / or more bombs. I also don't think the Skua had real self sealing fuel tanks and I'm not sure how much armor.

To me the Skua is just one of those many aircraft from the 30's which just got hit hard with the ugly stick mid-transition between biplanes and monoplanes. How the Spitfire and 109 emerged so beautiful from that era I can only guess (especially the Spitfire).

The statement that the Skua didn't have self sealing tanks whereas the SBD did is not true. The early production SBDs did not have seal sealing tanks The SBD-3 was the first model to include them (and additional armor) The SBD-3 was issued to the fleet on March 18, 1941 while the Skua flew its last operational mission on April 5, 1941 i.e. 19 days later.
During the time the Skua was in frontline service very few American aircraft had self sealing tanks. To criticize the Skua for this deficiency is clearly unfair.
The US only adopted self sealing tanks after observing the British experience in the first year or so of the war, The Skua obviously didn't have that advantage.
As to the range advantage the SBD -1 and 2 weren't particularly long ranged.
When comparing British to American aircraft (usually unfavorably for the British) it is important to understand the chronology. This brings up the question of why the Skua is being compared to the SBD in the first place. Their careers had very little overlap. The true contemporaries of the Skua as a dive bomber were the Vought SB2U and the Curtiss SBC. When the Skua was sinking the Konigsburg on April 10, 1940 those aircraft were the front line dive bombers of the USN
When the Skua scored its first aerial victory on September 26, 1939, the USN was largely a biplane navy. In fact all its fighters were Grumman F3Fs. Again, the Skua wasn't totally outclassed, in fact it was more heavily armed than Grumman or its Japanese competitor the Mitsubishi AM5.
The late 30's was a time of extraordinarily rapid change in aircraft design. In particular, naval aircraft of that era had very short shelf lives. The Skua accomplished quite a lot in its short career, more than most of its contemporaries.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I suspect that this is apocryphal, based on pilot claims rather than enemy loss-sheets. I could well be wrong and accept well-founded correction. Not to say it wasn't one hell of an aircraft.

See my previous posts on claims vs actual losses for Coral Sea, Santa Cruz and Eastern Solmons

Based on Lundstrom out of 31 claims made by SBDs only 6 were actual kills. Thats over claiming by a factor of more than 5. I am confident that an analysis of the data for the other battles of 1942 would show significant over claiming as well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

See my previous posts on claims vs actual losses for Coral Sea, Santa Cruz and Eastern Solmons

Based on Lundstrom out of 31 claims made by SBDs only 6 were actual kills. Thats over claiming by a factor of more than 5. I am confident that an analysis of the data for the other battles of 1942 would show significant over claiming as well.

I really need to get a couple of Lundstrom's books. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Shortround6]

At some point the SBD-3 was up-graded from 9031lbs gross to 10400lbs gross.

Somewhere in there they added about 690lbs worth of protection for the fuel tanks and the oil tanks and armor for the crew.

The 9031lb weight is for a plane with a 1000lb bomb and 100 US gallons of fuel in a manual dated 1942 with protection.

The 10400lb weight is from performance Data sheet dated 8-6-1942.

This is were a large part of the difference between the Skua and the SBD comes from. I don't know what was involved in raising the Gross weight of the SBD-3, the engine stayed the same. I don't know if anything in the wing was changed or heavier duty tires or anything else.

I do know that the manual calls for a take-off distance of 853 at 9031lbs with the 1000lb bomb and the 100 US gallons of fuel while the Performance Data sheet calls for 1250ft for take-off at 10400lbs, both zero wind.

The SBD-3 without protection and with a 500lb bomb and 140 Us gallons of fuel could take off in under 700ft.

An SBD at the later full load (10400lbs) needed 580ft to take-off with a 25kt head wind.


As has been said by others, please compare planes at similar points in time.

The SBD-1/2 didn't have protection as built, had a single .30 cal gun out the back and one .50 cal and one 30 cal out the front. The two .50s didn't show up until the SBD-3.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The statement that the Skua didn't have self sealing tanks whereas the SBD did is not true.

Ok lets talk about this part for a minute. I admit, I'm not an expert on the Skua. However, I read this on the internets:

Blackburn Skua description

dingeraviation.net

"The Skua had a major disadvantage in that it been designed without any armour protection for the crew or self-sealing fuel tanks to cope with bullet and shrapnel holes. An armoured windscreen and some armour plate behind the pilot was provided for combat squadrons in late 1940, but the poor TAG in the rear seat had no such protection and faced being roasted alive by the blow-torch flames of a burning fuel tank blown back by the airflow. It is reported that before each combat mission the TAG had to sign for a small bag which contained corks of various sizes with which he was expected to plug any bullet holes in the fuel tank! ³"

The author of that page gives his source as:

³ An account of the "bag of corks" is found in Chapter 1 of Stuart E. Sowards book about R.E. Bartlett "One Mans War". ISBN 0-9697229-3-1, Published by Neptune in Canada.

So that sounds like marginal armor and no self sealing fuel tanks. Now if this is wrong, I'd be glad to learn so. Do you have another source which contradicts this?

The early production SBDs did not have seal sealing tanks The SBD-3 was the first model to include them (and additional armor)

Right, but the 57 SBD-1 which were made, so far as I know, never went into combat. The 87 SBD-2 I'm not sure about, some may have been used as Recon birds.

But the other 99.7% of the production run which were completed during the war did all have self sealing fuel tanks and armor.

The SBD-3 was issued to the fleet on March 18, 1941 while the Skua flew its last operational mission on April 5, 1941 i.e. 19 days later.
During the time the Skua was in frontline service very few American aircraft had self sealing tanks. To criticize the Skua for this deficiency is clearly unfair.

First, I did not initiate this comparison, I just commented on it. I'm very glad for the Royal Navy that the Skua was rapidly phased out, it's too bad they didn't have much to replace it with until they got Avengers.

Second, can we please stop pretending that every single criticism of any Fleet Air Arm or RAF aircraft is 1) an attack on the British way of life, 2) a comparison between the entire wartime experience of the Americans with that of the British? I'm just discussing the comparison of two Naval aircraft aircraft used in the same war, which was already underway when I chimed in. The Skua wasn't that good. The SBD was, by contrast, pretty good.

Thank God Skua crews did not have to tangle with A6Ms

The US only adopted self sealing tanks after observing the British experience in the first year or so of the war, The Skua obviously didn't have that advantage.
As to the range advantage the SBD -1 and 2 weren't particularly long ranged.
When comparing British to American aircraft (usually unfavorably for the British) it is important to understand the chronology. This brings up the question of why the Skua is being compared to the SBD in the first place. Their careers had very little overlap. The true contemporaries of the Skua as a dive bomber were the Vought SB2U and the Curtiss SBC. When the Skua was sinking the Konigsburg on April 10, 1940 those aircraft were the front line dive bombers of the USN

Well... maybe? The US was fielding a bunch of other aircraft which compared very favorably for the most part to their British equivalents, but the Navy didn't get their gear in order until right before the war started for the Americans. Luckily for them, they were ready by then.

The British got into war much earlier but were also aware of that fact earlier. The procurement / design problems suffered by the FAA cannot simply be attributed to starting the war earlier. The Chinese started the war two years before the British did, but that doesn't say much about their aircraft industry or lack thereof.

When the Skua scored its first aerial victory on September 26, 1939, the USN was largely a biplane navy. In fact all its fighters were Grumman F3Fs. Again, the Skua wasn't totally outclassed, in fact it was more heavily armed than Grumman or its Japanese competitor the Mitsubishi AM5.
The late 30's was a time of extraordinarily rapid change in aircraft design. In particular, naval aircraft of that era had very short shelf lives. The Skua accomplished quite a lot in its short career, more than most of its contemporaries.

I think the F3F could handle a Skua. An A5M would eat it alive.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Ok lets talk about this part for a minute. I admit, I'm not an expert on the Skua. However, I read this on the internets:

Blackburn Skua description

dingeraviation.net

"The Skua had a major disadvantage in that it been designed without any armour protection for the crew or self-sealing fuel tanks to cope with bullet and shrapnel holes. An armoured windscreen and some armour plate behind the pilot was provided for combat squadrons in late 1940, but the poor TAG in the rear seat had no such protection and faced being roasted alive by the blow-torch flames of a burning fuel tank blown back by the airflow. It is reported that before each combat mission the TAG had to sign for a small bag which contained corks of various sizes with which he was expected to plug any bullet holes in the fuel tank! ³"

The author of that page gives his source as:

³ An account of the "bag of corks" is found in Chapter 1 of Stuart E. Sowards book about R.E. Bartlett "One Mans War". ISBN 0-9697229-3-1, Published by Neptune in Canada.

So that sounds like no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. Now if this is wrong, I'd be glad to learn so. Do you have another source which contradicts this?



Right, but the 57 SBD-1 which were made, so far as I know, never went into combat. The 87 SBD-2 I'm not sure about, some may have been used as Recon birds.

But the other 99.7% of the production run which were completed during the war did all have self sealing fuel tanks and armor.


First, I did not initiate this comparison, I just commented on it. I'm very glad for the Royal Navy that the Skua was rapidly phased out, it's too bad they didn't have much to replace it with until they got Avengers.

Second, can we please stop pretending that every single criticism of any Fleet Air Arm or RAF aircraft is 1) an attack on the British way of life, 2) a comparison between the entire wartime experience of the Americans with that of the British? I'm just discussing the comparison of two Naval aircraft aircraft used in the same war, which was already underway when I chimed in. The Skua wasn't that good. The SBD was, by contrast, pretty good.

Thank God Skua crews did not have to tangle with A6Ms


Well... maybe? The US was fielding a bunch of other aircraft which compared very favorably for the most part to their British equivalents, but the Navy didn't get their gear in order until right before the war started for the Americans. Luckily for them, they were ready by then.

The British got into war much earlier but were also aware of that fact earlier. The procurement / design problems suffered by the FAA cannot simply be attributed to starting the war earlier. The Chinese started the war two years before the British did, but that doesn't say much about their aircraft industry or lack thereof.

I think the F3F could handle a Skua. An A5M would eat it alive.

You're missing the point. Name the aircraft that had self-sealing tanks when the Skua was in service. They are not common. Or name any American naval aircraft that had armor when the Skua served. The 99.7% of SBD that had self-sealing tanks were made after the Skua left service.
The Vindicators and Devastators at Midway didn't have self-sealing tanks and that was over a year after the Skua left service. Early production F4Fs didn't have self-sealing tanks.

In fact you are comparing the entie wartime experience of the US with early war expience of the British.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the F3F could handle a Skua. An A5M would eat it alive.

Who is flying and what's the tactical situation?!? Case in point;

Air Warfare: an International Encyclopedia: A-L
edited by Walter J. Boyne, Michael Fopp

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You will never see me defending the Devastator or the Vindicator. But I was chiming in on a discussion of the Skua vs. the SBD which was already ongoing. Pointing out that the Skua was a terrible aircraft by comparison to the SBD, in contrary to what some were claiming, may be low hanging fruit, but it apparently needed to be pointed out.

By the time the Skua was retired, most front line combat aircraft flying on both sides in the Battle of Britain had already been fitted with some armor and some kind of self sealing fuel tanks. So the necessity of doing this had been recognized and implemented with other aircraft. Nor were the British the only people to realize that these were needed. The French also had several aircraft with these protective features flying and fighting during the Battle of France - the D.520 fighter, Br 693 fast bomber and Potez 63.11 had armor and self sealing tanks. Many Soviet aircraft, like the later variants of the I-16 fighter and Su-2 bomber were already being fitted with armor before the Battle of Britain even started, based on combat experience in the Spanish Civil War and in Manchuria. The LaGG-3 and Yak 1 fighters and the Il-2 and Pe 2 bombers (all introduced in 1941) all had at least some armor, which was later enhanced.

Armor and self sealing fuel tanks were not necessary for training flights in the US in 1940, but the Americans were already starting to fit armor, bullet proof glass and self sealing tanks to aircraft being sent to France and Britain before the Skua was retired. Once the war started, most of the USN and USAAF combat aircraft had both fairly heavy armor and self sealing tanks, (considerably better protection in fact than the aluminum "armor" on the fuselage fuel tank of a Hurricane or Spitfire at the time). Important export aircraft such as the Tomahawk IIB, in action with the RAF in 1941, had both armor and self sealing tanks.

Most Skua units were equipped with the Fairy Fulmar when the Skua was retired. According to "armouredcarriers.com", the Fulmar had at least one armored and self sealing fuel tank between the two crew positions, and the pilot had a bullet proof glass windscreen, but no armor behind his seat, and the navigator also had no armor of any kind. If that is correct, I would call that inadequate for a combat aircraft at that time. Did the Fairey Swordfish have armor or self sealing tanks? I was unable to find any reference to it. Same for the Fairey Albacore.

I would say that luckily for the servicemen of the FAA, the Skua was quickly retired, and though the Fulmar, Swordfish and Albacore soldiered on, they were soon augmented by more capable aircraft such as Martlets and Avengers which were better equipped for positive outcomes during encounters with enemy aircraft.

 

[GregP]

I observe that the document reminds us of the critical issue of airspeed over the deck with consequences for ambient wind, carrier speed and carrier risk and delay of turning out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind.It reminds us that the load depends upon this airspeed and the length of the deck as well as the engine/airframe. So, on one day a squadron can operate with a maximum load and/or range but, from another carrier on another day, the same squadron and aeroplanes can barely get off the deck with a reduced fuel load and lighter bomb load. Top Trumps it is not. A carrier due for boiler clean or refit and hull fouled may not be able to deploy the same strike power as it could when new, clean and fresh from trials.

I was amused to note that the ferry cruising speed of the SBD-5 is about the same as a Fairey Albacore.

With regard to ferry speed, almost all radial aircraft cruise at WAY lower airspeeds than maximum. Inline aircraft, on the other hand tend to cruise at a significantly higher percent of top speed. If usually has to do with specific fuel consumption. The big radials CAN cruise fast, but they eat up a lot of fuel doing it. Inlines, however, tend to have lower drag and cruise faster by virtue to having better SFC numbers versus % power produced at cruise.

Naturally, there are exceptions to the generalization above. The P-40 cruised best at about 170 mph.

An F8F-2 could make 455 mph at critical altitude. It cruised at about 185 mph TAS.
A P-51D could make 437 mph at critical altitude and could cruise at 280 - 300 mph TAS.

When you push the throttle, the F8F outperforms the P51D in almost every category except range. But you want to be near the fuel if you have to use a lot of performance ... say ... within 250 miles or less.

The P-51D, on the other hand, is perfectly happy fighting 500 miles away from home at 350 mph and won't have any trouble flying home if undamaged after the combat.