Most valuable Carrier Fighter Of WWII

[GrauGeist]

...if the P/F-51 was such a stellar ground attack aircraft, then why was it pulled from that duty before the end of the Korean conflict...

The P-51's days were numbered, though, as advances in aircraft technology were quickly changing the playing field..
We've seen clear examples of this in WWII, as Biplanes gave way to Jets.
Korea was no exception and we shouldn't be surprised by this.

The F-51, F-80 and F-82 gave way to the F-84, F-86 and F-94.

The Navy had the A-1, F4U and the F7F, which saw limited service. Otherwise, they had the F9F and F2H.

 

[RCAFson]

Hi guys, I am out of time tonight so I do not have time to elaborate all
that I would like to, but if anyone still doubts (or challenges) the SBD's
capabilities, well then compare it to a UK's flattop fighter of 1940-1943,
The Fairey Fulmar and tell me what you think.

A fairer comparison would be to the Skua II.

The SBD-3 was a 9400lb aircraft with 950hp (at 5000ft) available and no WEP rating. The Fulmar II was a 9800lb aircraft with 1360hp (WEP at 6800ft) and after Jan 1942 boost was increased to 16lb and HP to about 1500 at ~4000ft.

The SBD 3 had 2 x .5in BMGs (and twin .3mgs with 1000rpg) and 180rpg while the Fulmar II had 8 x .303 BMGs and 1000rpg or 4 x .5in BMGs and 370rpg.

So if the SBD 3 was a big bad Zero killer then the Fulmar would be King of the Pacfic...

 

[michael rauls]

A fairer comparison would be to the Skua II.

The SBD-3 was a 9400lb aircraft with 950hp (at 5000ft) available and no WEP rating. The Fulmar II was a 9800lb aircraft with 1360hp (WEP at 6800ft) and after Jan 1942 boost was increased to 16lb and HP to about 1500 at ~4000ft.

The SBD 3 had 2 x .5in BMGs (and twin .3mgs with 1000rpg) and 180rpg while the Fulmar II had 8 x .303 BMGs and 1000rpg or 4 x .5in BMGs and 370rpg.

So if the SBD 3 was a big bad Zero killer then the Fulmar would be King of the Pacfic...

Well with a positive kill ratio against mostly fighters I think the numbers say that the SBD was a zero killer. As much so as a the F6F or other later fighter designs? No of course not but more so than some of its contemporaries that were designed as fighters. When you consider that killing Zeros was a side gig for the SBD( it was designed as and its main mission was as a dive bomber) seems like thats pretty impressive to me..
Also I think, at least from what I've read, the SBDs strengths in areal combat did not rest uppon a power to wieght ratio but more in excellent handling caracteristics and a sturdy air frame able to withstand 9 g moaenuvers or better.

 

[GrauGeist]

Might help to put out some acurate specs on the Dauntless:
SBD-3 (from March '41 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-52 - 1,000hp.
Empty weight: 6,345 lbs.
Max. weight: 10,400 lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 250mph.
Cruise speed: 152mph.

SBD-5 (from May '43 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-60 - 1,200hp.
Empty weight: 6,533lbs.
Max. weight: 10,700lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 252mph.
Cruise speed: 139mph.

It's interesting how some people seem to play down the fact that the SBD did what it did. But there had to be one type that sits at the top and the SBD happens to be it - every class of aircraft has one that rises to the top - for example: the Bv222 happens to be the largest aircraft of the war to engage and down an enemy aircraft. Everyone can run to the books and hunt for an altenative champion or start saying "but it didn't have this or it was lacking that", but in the end, the Bv222 is the champ of it's class.

By the way, the closest the TBF/TBM did, was 98 and most of those kills were by defensive fire.

 

[michael rauls]

The most produced SBD was the SBD-5, weighing 6,400 pounds empty with a 1,200hp Wright R-1820-60 (improved from the SBD-3's 1,000hp Wright R-1820-52).

Might help to put out some acturate specs:
SBD-3 (from March '41 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-52 - 1,000hp.
Empty weight: 6,345 lbs.
Max. weight: 10,400 lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 250mph.
Cruise speed: 152mph.

SBD-5 (from May '43 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-60 - 1,200hp.
Empty weight: 6,533lbs.
Max. weight: 10,700lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 252mph.
Cruise speed: 139mph.

It's interesting how some people seem to play down the fact that the SBD did what it did. But there had to be one type that sits at the top and the SBD happens to be it - every class of aircraft has one that rises to the top - for example: the Bv222 happens to be the largest aircraft of the war to engage and down an enemy aircraft. Everyone can run to the books and hunt for an altenative champion or start saying "but it didn't have this or it was lacking that", but in the end, the Bv222 is the champ of it's class.

By the way, the closest the TBF/TBM did, was 98 and most of those kills were by defensive fire.

Dave do you know if the 252 mph top speed is loaded with bombs or without?
The reason I ask is twofold. One I've read in a couple articles over the years that the top speed of the SBD without bombload was 288 mph.( this may be also without rear gunner and associated ammo as they may have been configured on those few occasions they were intentionally used as fighters) not sure the articles just said i think unlaiden or something like that.
The other reason I ask is in the SBD-5 you've got a aproxamitly 6000 lb plane empty with 1200 hp. The same hp as the F4f and only slightly heavier(500 lbs or so I think). Admittedly the Dauntless was not the most aerodynamic design but niether was the F4F so with similar empty wieght,(save 500 lbs),the same power, and at least from eyeballing it not to dissimilar drag caracteristics it's hard to see an 80 mph top speed differential unless one is carrying bombs and one is not but maybe thats the case. Just always wondered about this.

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe that the max. speed is with a loadout (pilot & RO, ammunition stores, full fuel, etc.) but I'm not sure at what altitude this was rated at.
Another thing that has to be taken into consideration, is the draggy design of the SBD, it was certainly not a streamlined machine, with the radial up front, the greenhouse canopy and even the "basketball" holes in the flaps (retracted) creating turbulence.

The speed of the SBD would certainly increase if it were "clean", meaning no warload, limited fuel and favorable conditions.

In the world of WWII debates, you always see people coming to the discussion with stacks of figures, numbers and so on, but what's always missed, is what was the condition of the adversaries?
Was one (or the other) previously damaged? How much fuel remaining did each have? What was the weather like (i.e.: tailwinds, cross winds, etc.), What was the air temp at the altitude of the engagement? What was the skill level of the aggressor versus the defender (or visa-versa)? And so on.

 

[RCAFson]

I believe that the max. speed is with a loadout (pilot & RO, ammunition stores, full fuel, etc.) but I'm not sure at what altitude this was rated at.
Another thing that has to be taken into consideration, is the draggy design of the SBD, it was certainly not a streamlined machine, with the radial up front, the greenhouse canopy and even the "basketball" holes in the flaps (retracted) creating turbulence.

The speed of the SBD would certainly increase if it were "clean", meaning no warload, limited fuel and favorable conditions.

In the world of WWII debates, you always see people coming to the discussion with stacks of figures, numbers and so on, but what's always missed, is what was the condition of the adversaries?
Was one (or the other) previously damaged? How much fuel remaining did each have? What was the weather like (i.e.: tailwinds, cross winds, etc.), What was the air temp at the altitude of the engagement? What was the skill level of the aggressor versus the defender (or visa-versa)? And so on.

Might help to put out some acurate specs on the Dauntless:
SBD-3 (from March '41 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-52 - 1,000hp.
Empty weight: 6,345 lbs.
Max. weight: 10,400 lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 250mph.
Cruise speed: 152mph.

SBD-5 (from May '43 onward)
Engine: Wright R-1820-60 - 1,200hp.
Empty weight: 6,533lbs.
Max. weight: 10,700lbs.
2 x .50 MG fixed forward
2 x .30 MG flexible rearward
Max. speed: 252mph.
Cruise speed: 139mph.

It's interesting how some people seem to play down the fact that the SBD did what it did. But there had to be one type that sits at the top and the SBD happens to be it - every class of aircraft has one that rises to the top - for example: the Bv222 happens to be the largest aircraft of the war to engage and down an enemy aircraft. Everyone can run to the books and hunt for an altenative champion or start saying "but it didn't have this or it was lacking that", but in the end, the Bv222 is the champ of it's class.

By the way, the closest the TBF/TBM did, was 98 and most of those kills were by defensive fire.

Lundstrom's First Team books, looked closely at SBD kill claims during 1942 and couldn't verify very many of them.

SBD-3/SBD5/Skua II (SBD3/5 = No bombs and 260/254usg internal fuel - 2 crew). 9407lb/9352lb/8228lb (7700lb with no bomb)
Altitude - VMAX
0 - 231/229 (~250 with military rating) / 204 (with 500lb bomb + standard engine rating).
5000 - 243
6700 - / / / 225 (with 500lb bomb)
9600 - 235
16000 - 250/255 (ACA)

Skua II 905hp at 6500ft (military), 199usg, 4 x .303BMG and 600rpg and 1 x .303 Lewis and 600rpg.
Data from USN Standard Aircraft Characteristics and Friedman, British Carrier Aviation.

 

[GrauGeist]

Lundstrom's First Team books, looked closely at SBD kill claims during 1942 and couldn't verify very many of them.

Yet most of the claims occurred within sight of every ship in the Fleet that the SBDs were defending...

 

[parsifal]

Well with a positive kill ratio against mostly fighters I think the numbers say that the SBD was a zero killer. As much so as a the F6F or other later fighter designs? No of course not but more so than some of its contemporaries that were designed as fighters. When you consider that killing Zeros was a side gig for the SBD( it was designed as and its main mission was as a dive bomber) seems like thats pretty impressive to me..
Also I think, at least from what I've read, the SBDs strengths in areal combat did not rest uppon a power to wieght ratio but more in excellent handling caracteristics and a sturdy air frame able to withstand 9 g moaenuvers or better.

You jest, surely

 

[michael rauls]

You jest, surely

Ok I'll bite. What part of that is wrong?

 

[Shortround6]

Performance of the SBD-3 can be found here.

Pilots Handbook SBD-3.pdf

speeds/perfrormance are given for 1000lb bomb, 180 gallon scout and 310 gallon scout.
However both the last two are for planes without self sealing tanks.
The inner 90 gallon tanks were changed to 75 gallon self-sealing and the out 65 gallon tanks became 55 gallon self sealing. Weights for both non combat planes (no armor and no self-sealing tanks) and combat planes are given.
Lots of other range/performance charts are included.

A lot of the success of the dual purpose (or dive bombers acting as fighter) depended on the opposition. And it also depended on pilot quality. The US and Japanese Navy flyers were mostly long term pilots in 1942. Japanese Vals with pilots of number of years experience could be successful against a number of recon planes, float planes/flying boats, torpedo planes and the like flown by less experienced pilots despite using two Vickers guns for armament.
Dauntlesses could likewise be successful against similar aircraft of the Japanese forces. ANd consider that the Dauntless did have protection and the Japanese aircraft did not (especially in 1942) and the Japanese defensive guns were ussually single guns firing much slower than the American .30 cals protecting the rear of the Dauntless.

SOmebody has mentioned the Dauntless vs Zero kill ratio of 0.7 to 1?
Basically means you lose 3 Dauntlesses for every two zeros?
Better than many dive or torpedo bombers could do but hardly "Zero killer"

 

[CORSNING]

The DBD-5 being used as a scout (clean condition) could
reach 260 mph or more at 13,800 ft. Wind resistance kept
it from flying faster on 1,000 hp. It was a very maneuverable aircraft.

Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive
scroll down to the SBD.

 

[michael rauls]

Performance of the SBD-3 can be found here.

Pilots Handbook SBD-3.pdf

speeds/perfrormance are given for 1000lb bomb, 180 gallon scout and 310 gallon scout.
However both the last two are for planes without self sealing tanks.
The inner 90 gallon tanks were changed to 75 gallon self-sealing and the out 65 gallon tanks became 55 gallon self sealing. Weights for both non combat planes (no armor and no self-sealing tanks) and combat planes are given.
Lots of other range/performance charts are included.

A lot of the success of the dual purpose (or dive bombers acting as fighter) depended on the opposition. And it also depended on pilot quality. The US and Japanese Navy flyers were mostly long term pilots in 1942. Japanese Vals with pilots of number of years experience could be successful against a number of recon planes, float planes/flying boats, torpedo planes and the like flown by less experienced pilots despite using two Vickers guns for armament.
Dauntlesses could likewise be successful against similar aircraft of the Japanese forces. ANd consider that the Dauntless did have protection and the Japanese aircraft did not (especially in 1942) and the Japanese defensive guns were ussually single guns firing much slower than the American .30 cals protecting the rear of the Dauntless.

SOmebody has mentioned the Dauntless vs Zero kill ratio of 0.7 to 1?
Basically means you lose 3 Dauntlesses for every two zeros?
Better than many dive or torpedo bombers could do but hardly "Zero killer"

No the ratio I have read is either 1.3 to1 or 1.1 to 1 depending on which articles/book one believes. I was grantiing the other poster that even if one were to knock of 30 or 40 % for overclaiming that is still pretty impressive foe a dive bomber but then to be fair you would have to knock of the same amount off all types for the same reason( overclaiming) so you would still be bback at a positive kill ratio and if your killing more of them than they are of you I think you've been successful.

 

[CORSNING]

Performance of the SBD-3 can be found here.

Pilots Handbook SBD-3.pdf

Thank you for posting that SR6.

A lot of the success of the dual purpose (or dive bombers acting as fighter) depended on the opposition. And it also depended on pilot quality. The US and Japanese Navy flyers were mostly long term pilots in 1942. Japanese Vals with pilots of number of years experience could be successful against a number of recon planes, float planes/flying boats, torpedo planes and the like flown by less experienced pilots despite using two Vickers guns for armament.

I have seen the 360 degree sustained turn for the D3A2 Val as 328 ft. radius
in 14.1 seconds at a speed of 100 mph. not using maneuvering
flaps., and 287 ft. radius in 13.7 seconds at a speed of 90 mph.
using flaps.
Corner Velocity Times and Radii
That is a sustained cornering ability that is better than the A6M3 or A6M5.


Dauntlesses could likewise be successful against similar aircraft of the Japanese forces. ANd consider that the Dauntless did have protection and the Japanese aircraft did not (especially in 1942) and the Japanese defensive guns were ussually single guns firing much slower than the American .30 cals protecting the rear of the Dauntless.

Excellent point sir.

SOmebody has mentioned the Dauntless vs Zero kill ratio of 0.7 to 1?
Basically means you lose 3 Dauntlesses for every two zeros?
Better than many dive or torpedo bombers could do but hardly "Zero killer"

Interesting, you got me thinking Shortround.
If I was in a top of the line front line fighter feared by all at the time, and I
was intercepting a bomber that was known to be able to take out 2 fighters for
every three knocked down, I believe I would be just a little edgy. I would damn
well give that aircraft respect.

Didn't Saburo Sakai get shot up by an SBD pretty bad once?

 

[pinsog]

SOmebody has mentioned the Dauntless vs Zero kill ratio of 0.7 to 1?
Basically means you lose 3 Dauntlesses for every two zeros?
Better than many dive or torpedo bombers could do but hardly "Zero killer"

It is infinitely better than the Spitfire V/Zero kill ratio over Australia of 27-4.

(Digging slit trench as Spitfire fans form up for attack)

 

[michael rauls]

Interesting, you got me thinking Shortround.
If I was in a top of the line front line fighter feared by all at the time, and I
was intercepting a bomber that was known to be able to take out 2 fighters for
every three knocked down, I believe I would be just a little edgy. I would damn
well give that aircraft respect.

Didn't Saburo Sakai get shot up by an SBD pretty bad once?

Verry good point and all the more so that the SDBs kill/ loss ratio was actually slightly positive. The 0.7 to number was something I said to point out that even if the other poster(whos name escapes me at the moment) wanted to discount a huge portion of the claims for the SBD ,say 30 or 40%, it would still have quite the impressive record for a dive bomber.
And in actuality I believe those are verified claims, certainly total claims were much higher.
Aditionally if we are going to compare evenly here we would have to compare kill/ loss ratios from the time on each mission after theSBD had droped its bombload and when it was being used as a fighter to contemporary fighters. What would happen to the ratio then? Obviously it would go up in favor of the SBD. How much is probably unknowable at this point but its going to be be way into positive territory for sure.

 

[RCAFson]

Interesting, you got me thinking Shortround.
If I was in a top of the line front line fighter feared by all at the time, and I
was intercepting a bomber that was known to be able to take out 2 fighters for
every three knocked down, I believe I would be just a little edgy. I would damn
well give that aircraft respect.

Didn't Saburo Sakai get shot up by an SBD pretty bad once?

Sakai attacked a formation of SBDs and got tagged by a rear gunner.

SBD front gun kills are far and few between.

 

[michael rauls]

It is infinitely better than the Spitfire V/Zero kill ratio over Australia of 27-4.

(Digging slit trench as Spitfire fans form up for attack)

I apreciate the humor but nobody, certainly not me iis making the case that the SBD was a premier fighter. Only that for a dive bomber or any kind of bomber for that matter it was exceptional even outscoring many of its contemporary fighter designs.

 

[michael rauls]

Sakai attacked a formation of SBDs and got tagged by a rear gunner.

SBD front gun kills are far and few between.

What do you base that last sentence on. All I have read indicates otherwise. I dont mean this to be confrontational. I am honestly interested in perhaps a few other books I should read.

 

[pinsog]

Sakai attacked a formation of SBDs and got tagged by a rear gunner.

SBD front gun kills are far and few between.

Does it matter which end of the plane got the kill?

In Lundstrums 2nd volume of The First Team, Dauntless's shot down so many Japanese 4 engine flying boat scouts that wildcat squadron was getting mad. In the attacks that damaged Enterprise and crippled Hornet, the returning SBD's piled right into the fight and picked off a good number of enemy aircraft, several after they had dropped their bombs so they weren't exactly picking off bombed up sitting ducks. The only aircraft that seemed to have a chance around an SBD was in fact a Zero, anything else was in serious trouble.