Spindash64
Airman
- 82
- Oct 21, 2021
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
only if you believe the old claims and not the research of the Japanese records that showed a significant different number of actual losses.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.
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
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: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.
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.Me-109 series "G" produced in 1944: Dr.-Ing S. F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag
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.
215 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 8 x 5-inch rockets
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.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)
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.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.
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.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).
See my previous posts on claims vs actual losses for Coral Sea, Santa Cruz and Eastern SolmonsI 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.
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)
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.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.
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 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
I think the F3F could handle a Skua. An A5M would eat it alive.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.
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.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:
"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.
Who is flying and what's the tactical situation?!? Case in point;I think the F3F could handle a Skua. An A5M would eat it alive.
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.