Planes that just were not needed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You will notice that I did not say anything about 'Sea Battle' replacing Swordfish in all of it's roles
Any fold would be outside the centre section, near enough 8 ft across. I'm sure it could have been done. The undercarriage only had a 9'9" track, which might need thinking about for carrier operations.
Do we actually think that a loaded Battle would be able to take off from a carrier deck? I'd like to see a figure for its take off run at, say 10,000lb auw. That may be optimistic. Typically navalising any aircraft required substantial reinforcement, and a consequent increase in weight.
Slightly off topic, there are some interesting memories of taking the Battle to war in this journal.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/EEABC5E8_5056_A318_A8B68CCFE33793A2.pdf
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Thanks for the link.
Fulmar have had no problems taking off with it's much smaller wing, being at max T.O. weight of 10200 lbs. The SBD-2, with also a smaller wing, was taking off with 1000 HP and 10360 lbs (includes 1600 lbs AP bomb and 205 US gals of fuel).
Fulmar have had no problems taking off with it's much smaller wing, being at max T.O. weight of 10200 lbs. The SBD-2, with also a smaller wing, was taking off with 1000 HP and 10360 lbs (includes 1600 lbs AP bomb and 205 US gals of fuel).
But it's not just about wing area, all sorts of other factors come into this. Just look at the saga of the Stirling and the radical alterations made to it (incidence etc.) in an effort to get it airborne off the airfields of the day.
At the time of the specification to which the Battle was built 'airfield performance' had not become the issue that it would do in later specifications, but still clearing 50', both on take off and landing, within 500 yards was the expected requirement. I'm not sure that would get you off a carrier, but I can't find the actual figures for the Battle.
Cheers
Steve
At the time of the specification to which the Battle was built 'airfield performance' had not become the issue that it would do in later specifications, but still clearing 50', both on take off and landing, within 500 yards was the expected requirement. I'm not sure that would get you off a carrier, but I can't find the actual figures for the Battle.
Cheers
Steve
Stirling was too much of a fuselage (= too heavy) mated with proportionally too small a wing. Short Stirling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not just that take off was problematic, the service ceiling when loaded was too low. Yes, wing loading was that much of the factor, and proportionally big wing helps. Let's recall that Germans installed a bigger wing on the Bf 109T.
Now that we're at it, let's install the Merlin VIII on it, it has greater take off power than Merlin III.
Not just that take off was problematic, the service ceiling when loaded was too low. Yes, wing loading was that much of the factor, and proportionally big wing helps. Let's recall that Germans installed a bigger wing on the Bf 109T.
Now that we're at it, let's install the Merlin VIII on it, it has greater take off power than Merlin III.
The excerpt from Bombs Gone is a good one.
"Few of those involved survived the war to see both their aircraft and bombs deemed ineffectual. The members of the nine Battle squadrons in action considered they were doing their very best with what was available and paid scant attention if any to the rights and wrongs of aircraft design and bomb development. In any case, few had ever seen a live bomb till a few months earlier, much less dropped one."
It's an excellent book which I would recommend, if you can find one at a sensible price.
Cheers
Steve
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The SB2C was a handful to operate until some bugs were ironed out, but it's warload was greater than the SBD as was it's range.
It was involved in quite a few successful actions from the middle of the war to the end, and a few notable examples of it's effectiveness would be the attacks and sinking of the Musashi and the Yamato. Both of which required a great deal of effort between Helldivers and Avengers.
Shortround6
Major General
Before too many people wax lyrical (talk in a highly enthusiastic and effusive way) about the SBD they might want to check out the pilot's manual here Pilots Handbook SBD-3.pdfSBD made it redundant
Basically the early versions were good for 100 gal of gas with a 1000lb bomb and 140 gals with a 500lb bomb, when used as scouts they could put in 260-310 gallons of fuel. (310 gals is for tanks without selfsealing) The 1200hp versions could probably do better but the ability of even a late model SBD to go very far with a 2000lb plus bomb load is highly suspect. Even range with 1000lb bomb may be limited.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
only 40 more gallons if they lose 500 lbs of bomb? that is only 240 more lbs more of gas. must have been a weight and balance problem. and a 140 gallons isn't going to take them very far. military engines weren't known for fuel efficiency.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
Why does the "non-combat" version have the same useful load as the "combat" version even with the added weight of armor & self sealing tanks?
Seems that the listed charts are only suggestions.
Seems that the listed charts are only suggestions.
Shortround6
Major General
They accepted the hit to performance. Speed is only off by 1-2 knots but climb, ceiling and take-off all took a hit at the higher weights.
With the 1000lb bomb the combat version took 854ft for take off instead of 701, it took 12.3 minutes to climb to 15,000ft instead of 11.0 minutes and it lost about 1500ft in ceiling. There is no free lunch.
With the 1000lb bomb the combat version took 854ft for take off instead of 701, it took 12.3 minutes to climb to 15,000ft instead of 11.0 minutes and it lost about 1500ft in ceiling. There is no free lunch.
The CO of my first Permanent Duty Station NAS had started out as a Helldiver pilot early in that plane's career. He said it was the only plane he ever flew operationally that he positively hated. Awkward and uncomfortable, numerous operating restrictions, treacherous on the approach, and squirrelly in the dive. "Typical Curtiss product!" "A bastard to maintain." But it had the power, the speed and the endurance to get the job done. On a number of the early strikes they were accompanied by Dauntless squadrons, and had to fly slower than their most economic cruise to stay with them. They were carrying heavier bomb loads (nearly twice) and made two drop passes to the SBDs one, then passed the Dauntlesses on the way home and had to orbit off the starboard beam while the SBDs trapped aboard "sucking on fumes". The old timers in the squadron, all ex-SBD pilots had a hard time finding good things to say about "the Brick". But it got the job done; faster, further, and heavier, AND you could pack more of them on deck 'cause their wings folded.SBD made it redundant
Sure, you could have just built more SBDs and skipped the Helldiver, but it would have required more carrier decks, more squadrons, more sorties, and more exposure of task forces closer in to Japanese bases.
You will notice that I did not say anything about 'Sea Battle' replacing Swordfish in all of it's roles
Mmmm, but you do want it to take off with a torpedo
The Admiralty did seriously consider equipping its aircraft carriers only with strike aircraft. The realisation that this was not a brilliant idea led to the scrabble for a carrier borne fighter, the interim Sea Gladiator orders and then the Fulmar.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
Barracuda didn't show up on a carrier until 1943, 827 squadron got them in Jan of 1943 but the Barracuda didn't see action until July of 1943. This despite being the result of a 1937 Specification. Fairey, like many other British companies, seems to have had too much design/development work on it's plate and fooling around with a "Sea Battle" would only have delayed 1 or more other projects.
The Barracuda, despite being slightly smaller than a Battle was 2700lbs heavier empty. While all that weight might not have been necessary a good deal of it probably was. How much wing redesign was needed on the Battle to get a decent fold? The Albacore could fold wings.
Any torpedo bomber with partially folding wings would be looked at as a temporary solution.
Barracuda on lift (aft?) of the HMS Illustrious with Corsairs, Please note Barracuda was 2ft 7in shorter than a Battle and Barracuda's rudder line was designed to be just about vertical with the plane on it's landing gear
also please note windows in sides of the fuselage for the navigator and radio-operator/gunner for search visibility.
Yes the Battle had a bombsight hatch in the floor but required the bomb aimer to lay prone.
Another picture of the HMS Illustrious
Apparently forward and aft lifts were the same size. And parking more than a handful of aircraft on the deck while flight operations were going on wasn't going to happen.
Old Wizard
2nd Lieutenant
