Shortround6
Major General
Cunning disinformation photo showing dive brakes under the wing to hide the secret of the Junkers flaps/alerions being the real dive brakes,
this disinformation campaign was wide spread.
Stuka vs. Dauntless vs. Val vs. Skua vs. Il-2?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Cunning disinformation photo showing dive brakes under the wing to hide the secret of the Junkers flaps/alerions being the real dive brakes,
this disinformation campaign was wide spread.
Video does not acknowledge that, by 1941, Ju 87D was in service, with an almost 4000 lb bomb load possible, or with a smaller bomb load combined with drop tanks. There is no mention of 2200 lb bomb on the Ju 87B (plus a drop tank on the Ju 87R) from 1940.
It also notes that Pe-2 should not be discussed on the account of not being used by the primary used from the day one of the conflict (??), even though the Pe-2 was used in combat before the SBD.
Granted, neither Pe-2 nor Ju 87 were much of the use from the carriers.
Out of the 3 dive bombers compared, SBD was the fastest one, and probably the most survivable.
It also notes that Pe-2 should not be discussed on the account of not being used by the primary used from the day one of the conflict (??), even though the Pe-2 was used in combat before the SBD.
Granted, neither Pe-2 nor Ju 87 were much of the use from the carriers.
Out of the 3 dive bombers compared, SBD was the fastest one, and probably the most survivable.
Attachments
Shortround6
Major General
After the fiasco with dive brakes I stopped counting.
Getting a date wrong is one thing, every body makes a mistake.
Several?
Bombs loads change with time/version but more accuracy would have been nice, not every change.
He limited himself to 3 dive bombers, his choice.
And got the dive brakes wrong on one, complete with illustration.
The Ju-88 used somewhat the same system.
More slats and fitted a little closer.
Yes the Ailerons changed as did the flaps but the neither Junkers plane used the anything on the rear of the wing as part of the dive brake. (maybe trim?)
Getting a date wrong is one thing, every body makes a mistake.
Several?
Bombs loads change with time/version but more accuracy would have been nice, not every change.
He limited himself to 3 dive bombers, his choice.
And got the dive brakes wrong on one, complete with illustration.
The Ju-88 used somewhat the same system.
More slats and fitted a little closer.
Yes the Ailerons changed as did the flaps but the neither Junkers plane used the anything on the rear of the wing as part of the dive brake. (maybe trim?)
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
And yet they dropped 1,000kg Herman's on Britain.
Glider
Captain
I think that there is a huge difference between what a bomber can carry, vs what it did carry in the real world. This applies to all bombers, not just the Ju87.
Halifax could carry approx 13,000lb but normally was around 8,000
B17 could carry more than13,000lb but the norm was around 6,000
Ju87B could carry 2,000lb but the norm was (I believe) 500lb
Halifax could carry approx 13,000lb but normally was around 8,000
B17 could carry more than13,000lb but the norm was around 6,000
Ju87B could carry 2,000lb but the norm was (I believe) 500lb
Shortround6
Major General
I don't know what they did to the SBD but they changed the gross weights quite a bit.
Manual dated 1942 (SBD-3) but no month gives a max gross weight of 9031lbs. Protected tanks/armor, 1000lb bomb and 100 gals of fuel.
By the time you get to the end of the year they were allowing well over 10,000lbs and for the SBD-5 they were allowing 10,700lbs.
Try hanging the late 1942"book" load of 2200lbs of bombs on the plane and the enemy better be within sight of the carrier or air field.
Hang a 1600lb bomb under the Jan 1942 SBD-3 and you don't have enough fuel to make it to the end of runway for take-off.
Manual dated 1942 (SBD-3) but no month gives a max gross weight of 9031lbs. Protected tanks/armor, 1000lb bomb and 100 gals of fuel.
By the time you get to the end of the year they were allowing well over 10,000lbs and for the SBD-5 they were allowing 10,700lbs.
Try hanging the late 1942"book" load of 2200lbs of bombs on the plane and the enemy better be within sight of the carrier or air field.
Hang a 1600lb bomb under the Jan 1942 SBD-3 and you don't have enough fuel to make it to the end of runway for take-off.
Video does not note that the the Ju 87D nor Ju 87R were also in service, that were better (much better in case of the 87D) bomb luggers than the 87B.
Glider
Captain
Of course your right. I am not an expert on the Ju87 but my understanding was this version would often carry 1,000lb of bombs.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
More survivable, probably, but faster?
Granted the numbers come from wikipedia, but it shows the D3A2 as 270mph at 20,000ft, vs 255mph at 14000ft for the SBD-5.
Yes, you are right, only the initial Vals were slower, but later Vals were faster than any Dauntless.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
The D3A was an older design, with the SBD almost being a contemporary of the D4Y instead, with the D4Y obviously taking longer to make into service in any substantial numbers.
The Dauntless numbers don't look great when compared to the Suisei
The Dauntless numbers don't look great when compared to the Suisei
Suisei was indeed very fast for a bomber.
Unfortunately for the crews operating those, Suiseis were also very fragile, and American opposition (both quality- and quantity-wise) was such that, by the time Suiseis were operating from carriers in numbers, they were seldom in position to make their presence felt.
What is ironic is that almost anyone was in position to make a Suisei-like bomber - ie. as fast 2-seat bomber with a bomb bay - (both for carriers and as land-based A/C) as early as 1939-40. With self-sealing tanks, of course, once that tech in known.
Shortround6
Major General
Problem was the engine power.
The manual for the SBD-3 is rather instructive.
The SBD-3 carried an array of fuel tanks. all capacities are in US gallons.
2 90 gal main tanks unprotected.
2 65 gal aux tanks unprotected.
310 gals unprotected. or
2 75 gal main tanks protected
2 55 gal aux tanks protected
260 gal protected. Now the problem.
232lbs main fuel tank protection
218lbs aux fuel tank protection
30lbs oil tank protection.
212lbs crew/armor protection.
About 700lbs of protection, and with US style fuel tank protection, a loss of 50 gallons of fuel capacity.
They raised the max GW of the SBD and allowed to fly with protection and 100 gal of fuel and 1000lb bomb, or 140 gal with a 500lb bomb both protected and unprotected. They later raised the max GW again sometime in 1942 to allow either heavier bomb load or more fuel. The total protection of the SBD was about 7.5% of it's early 1942 gross weight.
Most land planes are not going to require 260-310 US gal of fuel, no scout or recon missions?.
Later planes than the SBD with more powerful engines got to enjoy both greater payload and fuel at the same time.
Thanks for doing the math.
Problem was engine choice. A 9 cy radial that makes 800-880 HP at 15000 ft will not make a fast bomber, even for yardstick of 1939. A V12 engine that makes 1000 HP at 15000 might make a bomber go fast, provided the size and drag are not bloated, and that a bomber is of modern appearance (bomb bay, or at least a recess; monoplane with retractable U/C, encosed tandem cockpit etc). We can see the 1st D4Ys, that went 330+ mph on engine dating from 1938.
Another workaround is to have, say, 150 gals in protected tanks, and 100 in unprotected tanks (sorta the idea from 1st F4Us).
Also very much suited for recon job, since the bomb bay can house camera(s).
Problem was engine choice. A 9 cy radial that makes 800-880 HP at 15000 ft will not make a fast bomber, even for yardstick of 1939. A V12 engine that makes 1000 HP at 15000 might make a bomber go fast, provided the size and drag are not bloated, and that a bomber is of modern appearance (bomb bay, or at least a recess; monoplane with retractable U/C, encosed tandem cockpit etc). We can see the 1st D4Ys, that went 330+ mph on engine dating from 1938.
A much more streamlined bomber will need much less fuel. Even 200 gals is more than sufficient for anyone (bar Japanese?), and drop tanks are not unheard of in 1939.
Another workaround is to have, say, 150 gals in protected tanks, and 100 in unprotected tanks (sorta the idea from 1st F4Us).
Also very much suited for recon job, since the bomb bay can house camera(s).
Shortround6
Major General
The problem is not just speed, it is climb and field length. A P-40F needed an extra 450ft of ground run going from 8500lbs to 9300lbs of weight (120 US gal and clean to 157 gal internal and 500lb bomb) and that is at 0 degrees C. hotter needs more runway and a longer distance to 500ft.
Adding protection cost a lot of the early planes performace with speed being the least of the problems unless they got improved engines. SBD ended the war with 1300-1350hp engines in the last 450 built but most of just under 3000 SBD-5s got 1200hp engines.
Just used the SBD-3 to show the weight increase of protection, granted the SBD-3 used a lot of protection on a large fuel supply.
Drop tanks are not often used for bombers. Most bombers cannot fill the internal fuel with near max bomb loads. Like the SBD, even a 500lb bomb needed a fuel cut of close to 50%.
So use 150 gal for the super V-12 bomber, for about 230lbs of US style self sealing and about 220lbs of armor. 500lbs on the a "Henley" style bomber. or the entire bomb load. OK we just up the gross weight, break a few undercarriages on bad airfields but in war you have to do what you have to do. Speed only drops 1-2mph but the runway requirement and time to altitude both take hits.
Now if you biased the design too much toward speed (really small wing) the runway requirement takes a bigger hit than a larger wing airplane.
Bombers' fields were longer the these used by fighters. Good/great RoC was rarely if ever found in the specifications.
A fast bomber needs to be made from ground-up as such; a SBD with some nip and tuck will not cut it.
Protection (unless it was an ad-hoc job, like external BP glass) mattered a lot in RoC, but speed was far less affected.
I've mentioned drop tanks to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat, even if the Germans used drop tanks on their bombers extensively.
In the European production and use, a 1939 1-engined fast bomber will do just fine with 200 US gals of internal fuel.
150 gals also works.
I'd probably go with a bigger but thinner wing (under 15% t-t-c ratio at root), than cut the wing area. Play a bit with the flaps, too.
It will not be the 'super V12 bomber', but it will not be hacked from the sky either.
Trouble with the Spit is they picked up speed too fast in the dive.
Shortround6
Major General
for the 1939 Suizei class of bombers is that only 2 countries had a 1000hp/15,000ft engine. a few others had works in progress. and there were few hiccups.
Britain, got the 1000hp engine, doesn't have enough propellers or at least good ones.
France, no 1000hp engine, working on it.
Germany, Just sneaks in does have propellers.
Italy, no 1000hp engine.
Japan, no 1000 hp engine (license signed in 1938, Prototype D4Ys used imported DB 600s in 1941, production planes in 1942, a little late)
Soviet Union. M-103s or a handful of M-104s? According to one source 50 M-105s built by the end of 1940.
US, 1000hp engine in 1939? got the design, got 40 engines by New Years Day 1940. rebuilding several hundred engines in the summer/fall of 1940 to meet spec.
Now the engine programs are underway but actual 1000hp at 15,000ft engines are rather scarce. Most countries are going to take until 1941 (and France, Italy and Japan won't make it).
Bomber specs rarely gave rates of climb or at least they do not get the publicity.
Some countries added more protection than others. the SBD may have been on the high side. Things like the IL-2 excepted
You are correct, starting with an SBD for a fast bomber would be a mistake. But if the US was designing a fast bomber with protection the weights for the protection would be similar.
Also the rate of progress for somethings was rather quick in some ways and not so quick in others. It took about about 8 years for the US to go from installing flaps on the P-26 to the Douglas A-26 flying with double slotted flaps (another 2 years to go into service). Sometimes if you start too early you are stuck with old airfoils, structures and systems.
With 1000hp engines there is only so much trading off you can do. With 1300-1400hp engines you can do a lot more because a lot of you other "payload" is the same.
Two man crew (?) 200kg, cockpit structure, instruments, 50-70kg of radio gear, rear gun? crew armor.
All the same for the 1000hp plane and the 1400hp plane (or mostly) so you have more power to get the bombs and fuel off the ground even if you use a bit bigger wing.
US has the best chance at a semi fast radial engine bomber
The R-1830 offers about 1000hp at 14,500ft with a two speed supercharger and some abuse to the engine. At least the engine is under 50 in (1.27m). A 55in radial engine has about 20% more frontal area.
Again, what do you want the plane to do?
dive bombing caught peoples imagination, how practical it was for 'close support' is subject to question. Trying to spot targets in woods/forest from 10-12,000ft is not easy. It isn't easy trying to do it from under 500ft either.
Bombing stuff in the desert or in large grass lands is a lot easier.
Britain, got the 1000hp engine, doesn't have enough propellers or at least good ones.
France, no 1000hp engine, working on it.
Germany, Just sneaks in does have propellers.
Italy, no 1000hp engine.
Japan, no 1000 hp engine (license signed in 1938, Prototype D4Ys used imported DB 600s in 1941, production planes in 1942, a little late)
Soviet Union. M-103s or a handful of M-104s? According to one source 50 M-105s built by the end of 1940.
US, 1000hp engine in 1939? got the design, got 40 engines by New Years Day 1940. rebuilding several hundred engines in the summer/fall of 1940 to meet spec.
Now the engine programs are underway but actual 1000hp at 15,000ft engines are rather scarce. Most countries are going to take until 1941 (and France, Italy and Japan won't make it).
Kind of depends on country as to the fields, Tactical bombers are going to have crappier fields than strategic bombers, in theory. Good thing the Battle could operate off crappy air fields because as a "strategic" bomber, it got stuck on some really crappy airfields.
Bomber specs rarely gave rates of climb or at least they do not get the publicity.
Some countries added more protection than others. the SBD may have been on the high side. Things like the IL-2 excepted
The SBD is just an example because all the weights are in the manual, finding information on other aircraft is harder. Point is that adding "stuff" to existing aircraft has cost/s.
You are correct, starting with an SBD for a fast bomber would be a mistake. But if the US was designing a fast bomber with protection the weights for the protection would be similar.
Also the rate of progress for somethings was rather quick in some ways and not so quick in others. It took about about 8 years for the US to go from installing flaps on the P-26 to the Douglas A-26 flying with double slotted flaps (another 2 years to go into service). Sometimes if you start too early you are stuck with old airfoils, structures and systems.
Germans had screwed up and were playing catchup or make do. A little too much speed (small airframe) and not enough internal fuel capacity.
With 1000hp engines there is only so much trading off you can do. With 1300-1400hp engines you can do a lot more because a lot of you other "payload" is the same.
Two man crew (?) 200kg, cockpit structure, instruments, 50-70kg of radio gear, rear gun? crew armor.
All the same for the 1000hp plane and the 1400hp plane (or mostly) so you have more power to get the bombs and fuel off the ground even if you use a bit bigger wing.
US has the best chance at a semi fast radial engine bomber
The R-1830 offers about 1000hp at 14,500ft with a two speed supercharger and some abuse to the engine. At least the engine is under 50 in (1.27m). A 55in radial engine has about 20% more frontal area.
Again, what do you want the plane to do?
dive bombing caught peoples imagination, how practical it was for 'close support' is subject to question. Trying to spot targets in woods/forest from 10-12,000ft is not easy. It isn't easy trying to do it from under 500ft either.
Bombing stuff in the desert or in large grass lands is a lot easier.
