thats the best way i can think to make it a better bomber
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
thats the best way i can think to make it a better bomberThe SBD could already deliver 2,250 pounds to it's target. Why try and turbosupercharge it?
Dive bombers had to limit their speed in a dive (the SBD's limit was 250mph) so they could recover from the dive. One of the fastest divers was the Stuka at a duve speed of a little over 300mph.
Stuffing a monster engine in it won't change that.
You can't fix perfection - the SBD broke the back of the Imperial Japanese Navy by sinking 4 fleet carriers and 2 light carriers, not to mention other warships.thats the best way i can think to make it a better bomber
You need to learn a little more about engines and aerodynamics.thats the best way i can think to make it a better bomber
Guess I shouldn't trust my memory. According to the drawings on page 304 and 306 of P51B Mustang by our very own drgondog, the two stage Merlin supercharger has two coolers, an intercooler between stages, which is integral to the supercharger housing, and an aftercooler after the second stage, which is plumbed to a radiator adjacent to the glycol radiator in the belly scoop. The oil cooler is mounted in a separate duct in the belly scoop forward of and below the glycol/aftercooler radiator.That's not what my infalliblememory says, but I've got the book handy and will look it up tomorrow.
Given the circumstances of thirty-one USN dive-bombers arriving at the ideal time, location and altitude with zero HA CAP to counter them and IJN CVs in disarray with vulnerable aircraft and unsecured fuel and bombs, I would argue that pretty much any dive bomber could have done the job. Replace those Dauntless with Vought SB2U Vindicator or Blackburn Skuas and the results should be about the same.You can't fix perfection - the SBD broke the back of the Imperial Japanese Navy by sinking 4 fleet carriers and 2 light carriers, not to mention other warships.
That is not how history works.Given the circumstances of thirty-one USN dive-bomber squadrons arriving at the ideal time, location and altitude with zero HA CAP to counter them and IJN CVs in disarray with vulnerable aircraft and unsecured fuel and bombs, I would argue that pretty much any dive bomber could have done the job. Replace those Dauntless with Vought SB2U Vindicator or Blackburn Skuas and the results should be about the same.
(just a head's-up: you might want to fix that "31 squadrons" thing)Given the circumstances of thirty-one USN dive-bomber squadrons arriving at the ideal time, location and altitude with zero HA CAP to counter them and IJN CVs in disarray with vulnerable aircraft and unsecured fuel and bombs, I would argue that pretty much any dive bomber could have done the job. Replace those Dauntless with Vought SB2U Vindicator or Blackburn Skuas and the results should be about the same.
Huh? Where did you come up with thirty-one squadrons of SBDs?? Each carrier had two SBD squadrons, a bombing (VB) and a scouting (VS), which was also a trained dive bombing squadron. Hornet's two SBD squadrons never made the scene, but one from Midway did. The Midway squadron were rookies, new to dive bombing and new to the aircraft, with predictable results. Adds up to five squadrons in my book.Given the circumstances of thirty-one USN dive-bomber squadrons arriving at the ideal time, location and altitude with zero HA CAP to counter them
It was merely the first aircraft that I knew it flew on, though I'm not sure the exact timeframe.I'm sure it flew in a test bed before it made its way into the XB-19A.
That's good to know. Honestly, I'm curious to know how hard it would have been for US Army to have simply changed the hyper-engine from single to monoblock construction?If needs must, that factory could have been converted to production of the V-1710 and V-3420.
What advantages come with direct injection vs. the pressure carburetor?The original scheme was for the X-3420, which was an X engine, using four V-1710 cylinder banks and heads on a crankcase that had a single crankshaft. Each bank had 6 cylinders. The angles between the banks were not 90° like the Vulture, but I can't recall what the angle were.
The X-3420 was also to be direct injected, as was the goal at the time for the V-1710 as well.
I'm guessing having an X-cylinder with 2-sets of 60-degrees between them top and bottom would be more difficult to pull off? What's a master and slave type rod, and what would make it weaker than the twin-crankshafts of the X-3420?It may have been due to a change in personnel that saw Allison counter-propose the V-3420. The reasoning was that using twin crankshafts, and 60° between two banks either side there were more components that could be carried over from the V-1710. It was also though that more power would be available, due to stronger crankshafts and connection rods - which would be the master and slave type for the X-3420.
How much earlier would you have guessed?The V-3420 was expected to be cheaper and easier to build, and be available for production sooner, due to the higher number of shared components.
Maj. Henderson USMC (Henderson field was named in his honor)It may have been lack of training. I recall reading that the Midway based SBD's were new pilots and their CO (It's bugging me that I can't remember his name) did a glide bombing attack due to their inexperience. I'm going to have to some reading.
Yeah, almost all WWII engines had an integral supercharger built into them.The SBD already had a supercharger built right into its engine.
I'd stipulate to the argument that, later in the war, with proposed single-engined dive-bomber/attack aircraft (like the XA-41), that an improved supercharger would have been useful since the fighters were now able to go higher, the attack planes should be able to cruise higher too, as it'd give them better performance.Adding a turbo to it won't give you more performance at the altitudes a WWII dive bomber operated at, only at higher altitudes where it has no need to go.
Generally speaking, land-based dive-bombers usually tended to have multiple smaller bombs (ranging from about 110-500 lb. typically), whereas naval dive-bombers usually were built around carrying larger bombs (500 lb. to 1600 lb., maybe 2000 lb.) because land-based dive-bombers would probably be aiming at things like tanks, pill-boxes, and people (with the occasional bridge). People are, for better or worse, soft and squishy and, while tanks are armored, they seem easier to destroy than ships.There's not much value in carrying multiple bombs, as the plane normally gets only one pass on a defended target. One 2,000 pound bomb is more effective against a hardened target than two 1,000 pounders.
And that's why it was bugging me. Senility sucks.Maj. Henderson USMC (Henderson field was named in his honor)
That's your contribution?Huh? Where did you come up with thirty-one squadrons of SBDs??
Thanks Grau. I had started as three squadrons but edited to the number of aircraft instead.(just a head's-up: you might want to fix that "31 squadrons" thing)
The SBDs were diving at between 80 and 70 degrees in the Midway attack.
Any other dive-bomber (Stuka excluded) would have a higher chance of being spotted on it's approach due to a shallower dive angle.
That being said, the SBD sank two carriers that did have CAP as well as protected troop transports, Cruiser and so on.
The fact that all got through was due to the lack of CAP and they proceeded to overkill the carriers. It would have only taken several of them to do the job and the A6Ms, no matter how hard they tried, would not have been able to stop all of them.
Obviously not, you edited out the rest of his contribution? Here it is, " Each carrier had two SBD squadrons, a bombing (VB) and a scouting (VS), which was also a trained dive bombing squadron. Hornet's two SBD squadrons never made the scene, but one from Midway did. The Midway squadron were rookies, new to dive bombing and new to the aircraft, with predictable results. Adds up to five squadrons in my book.That's your contribution?
.