Swordfish vs Devastator

[FLYBOYJ]

But the Bf 109, the Ju 87, the Hurricane, the B-17, all had their first flight in 1935. The Spitfire in 1936. Not all mid-30's aircraft turned out so dismal.

But there was growth in their design, either by virtue of the design or by the manufacturer and/or operators seeking improvements

 

[Schweik]

And because the designs were robust enough to incorporate a lot of improvements and growth.

 

[RCAFson]

So a few things (regressing back to earlier posts)

There was mention of "safe mission planning." I don't know where that taken from but depending on aircraft and operations and operators, there can be anything from a calculated fuel reserve based on time in the air (30 minutes has been a norm in many aviation communities for years) or a percentage of calculated fuel remaining. I seen B-17 flight manuals that talk about certain mission profiles that required either a 5 or 10% fuel reserve.

Since I don't have a TDB flight manual in front of me (I looked at an early SBD flight manual and it had all kind of charts except one for range calculations based on cruise settings) I'll use the internet source of 435 miles for the range of the TBD. I'll also assume that range was based on operating at cruising speed which was shown as a whopping 128 mph. Rough calculations give me about 3 hours and 10 minutes in the air. So since we don't have fuel consumption charts and just have to go off internet numbers, let's subtract 20% of the range given, this accounts for a 10% fuel reserve and 10% for higher power settings during takeoff, formation form up and combat. Take that 20% away from the google flight manual reference of 435 miles, that gives the TBD a combat radius of about 175 miles, enough range to marginally complete the Taranto raid, at last on paper.

Do I think the TBD could have done the Taranto raid? Based on the way it was actually carried out, no way!

As mentioned, the TBD, for the mid 30's was state of the art but was quickly eclipsed by development. At the end of the day it was a lumbering truck that should have been replaced before Pearl Harbor and I do think it's limited successes were based more on luck and perhaps the skill, determination and bravery of the crews that flew them.

With THAT said, do I think the Swordfish would have performed any better at Midway if deployed under the same conditions - NO. I think the results would have been the same or worse. And before someone tries to say that the Swordfish was more maneuverable than the TBD and "could have" evaded better, the Japanese pilots flying CAP that day were the best in the word and I'm sure would have had no problem adjusting firing solutions for a target moving under 100 mph.

I believe the Swordfish's ability to "grow" (take on radar) and it's low speed handling characteristics contributed to it's use well beyond it's obsolescence.

Wartime mission planning had to be extremely conservative because even short periods of combat would use fuel at a very high rate and flight deck accidents or confusion could slow TO or recovery to a crawl. The net result of this is that the TBF-1C, for example, had a rated combat radius of 225nm (range 450nm) with a torpedo versus a nominal, no reserve, range of ~960nm at 132 knots. (USN SAC data). Similarly, RN planning at Taranto provided for a strike radius and range which was ~half the nominal range of the aircraft. The standard USN formula for this was:

"The TBF-1B Avenger 1, which was the Lend-Lease equi-
valent of the initial production TBF-1 for the US Navy, had a
practical combat radius of 225 nm (417 km) with a Mk 13-2
torpedo or four 500-lb (226,8-kg) bombs and standard
internal fuel, this being based on 20 min warm-up and idling,
a minute for take-off, 10 min for rendezvous at 60 per cent
normal sea level power, climb to cruise altitude of 15,000 ft
(4 570 m), five minutes combat at 1,500 ft (457 m) with full
military power plus 10 min at full normal power, return cruise
at 1,500 ft (457 m) at 60 per cent NSP and 60 min for
rendezvous, landing and reserve..." (from Wings of the Navy but this is a near verbatim quote from the USN SAC data sheet for the TBF-1C)

 

[Schweik]

TBF got a lot more fuel added after the first mark - per the Wiki: "After hundreds of the original TBF-1 models were built, the TBF-1C began production. The allotment of space for specialized internal and wing-mounted fuel tanks doubled the Avenger's range. "

 

[RCAFson]

TBF got a lot more fuel added after the first mark - per the Wiki: "After hundreds of the original TBF-1 models were built, the TBF-1C began production. The allotment of space for specialized internal and wing-mounted fuel tanks doubled the Avenger's range. "

USN TBF-1C strike radius was 225nm with 335usg of internal fuel (same as the RN TBF-1B and later TBF-3). While the TBF-1C could carry external DTs, it was not operable from a carrier with these tanks and a full weapons load.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The net result of this is that the TBF-1C, for example, had a rated combat radius of 225nm (range 450nm) with a torpedo versus a nominal, no reserve, range of ~960nm at 132 knots. (USN SAC data). Similarly, RN planning at Taranto provided for a strike radius and range which was ~half the nominal range of the aircraft. The standard USN formula for this was:

"The TBF-1B Avenger 1, which was the Lend-Lease equi-
valent of the initial production TBF-1 for the US Navy, had a
practical combat radius of 225 nm (417 km) with a Mk 13-2
torpedo or four 500-lb (226,8-kg) bombs and standard
internal fuel, this being based on 20 min warm-up and idling,
a minute for take-off, 10 min for rendezvous at 60 per cent
normal sea level power, climb to cruise altitude of 15,000 ft
(4 570 m), five minutes combat at 1,500 ft (457 m) with full
military power plus 10 min at full normal power, return cruise
at 1,500 ft (457 m) at 60 per cent NSP and 60 min for
rendezvous, landing and reserve..." (from Wings of the Navy but this is a near verbatim quote from the USN SAC data sheet for the TBF-1C)

Yes - but did this exist at for the TBD during Midway? I've seen no rated combat radius mentioned for the TBD. As mentioned, the SBD early flight manual didn't have range/ fuel consumption charts, something that was void in many pre-war designs and then developed as the war progressed.

 

[RCAFson]

Yes - but did this exist at for the TBD during Midway? I've seen no rated combat radius mentioned for the TBD. As mentioned, the SBD early flight manual didn't have range/ fuel consumption charts, something that was void in many pre-war designs and then developed as the war progressed.

The problem with the TBD is that the fuel consumption and range data is based upon the ~1936/7 flight test data, which was suspiciously optimistic then and by 1942 was complete fiction because the aircraft were operating at much higher weights than the data had been calculated for. The SAC data sheets seem to have begun including combat radius in late 1942/early 43.

The SBD-5 calculated combat radius was 240nm with a 1000lb bomb and 254usg and SBD-3 radius/range would have been near identical.

 

[yulzari]

I do note that when the Devastator began to be replaced the Swordfish had pretty much already been replaced as a Fleet strike aeroplane by the Albacore which itself was due for replacement by the under engined Barracuda.

 

[Schweik]

Which sadly didn't happen until 1943, and even then ... not fantastic success. Definitely better than Albacore or Swordfish though IMO.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The problem with the TBD is that the fuel consumption and range data is based upon the ~1936/7 flight test data, which was suspiciously optimistic then and by 1942 was complete fiction because the aircraft were operating at much higher weights than the data had been calculated for. The SAC data sheets seem to have begun including combat radius in late 1942/early 43.

The SBD-5 calculated combat radius was 240nm with a 1000lb bomb and 254usg and SBD-3 radius/range would have been near identical.

Agree so therefore comparisons would be a little difficult to make. I believe that at Midway, with no inclusion of a "combat radius" enabled the missions to be operated at the full extent of their range (plus what ever reserve factor was planned in by mission ops or individual pilots). So to my point, the TBD did have the range to potentially complete the Taranto mission, at least on paper.

 

[Schweik]

I show very different numbers than RCAF:

---------Strike radius (heavy)---(light) ------------ Scout-------- Max Range---Bombs---Dogfight---Radar-Speed-Crusie-DB-Torp
TBD ------------ 150 ------------ 175 -------------- ??? --------- 435 ------ 1000/1600 --- Poor ------ No --- 206 - 128 - No -- Yes
TBF ------------ 259 ------------ 300 -------------- ??? --------- 1215 ----- 1600/2000 --- Marginal - 1942? - 275 - 153 - No - Yes
SBD-3---------- 250 ------------ 325 -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No
SB2C ----------- ??? ------------ 276 -------------- ??? --------- 1100 ----- 1000/1600 --- Fair -------1944? -- 281 - 158 - Yes - No

Those are from US Navy, and seem to be realistic. For example no SBDs were lost at Philippine Sea, which strike was sat 300 miles

 

[RCAFson]

I show very different numbers than RCAF:

---------Strike radius (heavy)---(light) ------------ Scout-------- Max Range---Bombs---Dogfight---Radar-Speed-Crusie-DB-Torp
TBD ------------ 150 ------------ 175 -------------- ??? --------- 435 ------ 1000/1600 --- Poor ------ No --- 206 - 128 - No -- Yes
TBF ------------ 259 ------------ 300 -------------- ??? --------- 1215 ----- 1600/2000 --- Marginal - 1942? - 275 - 153 - No - Yes
SBD-3---------- 250 ------------ 325 -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No
SB2C ----------- ??? ------------ 276 -------------- ??? --------- 1100 ----- 1000/1600 --- Fair -------1944? -- 281 - 158 - Yes - No

Those are from US Navy, and seem to be realistic. For example no SBDs were lost at Philippine Sea, which strike was sat 300 miles

What publication? Nautical miles or statute miles?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I believe the Swordfish's ability to "grow" (take on radar) and it's low speed handling characteristics contributed to it's use well beyond it's obsolescence.

AND it never faced Kido Butai in daylight. Or any other threat scenario/strike radius like the PTO regularly offered.

But the Bf 109, the Ju 87, the Hurricane, the B-17, all had their first flight in 1935. The Spitfire in 1936. Not all mid-30's aircraft turned out so dismal.

And not one of your examples was a carrier based design for a cash starved navy whose very raison d'etre was being questioned by a depressed isolationist nation feeling no threats.
The TBD suffered from a particularly anemic early version of its basic engine. Higher powered later versions could have been bolted on in 1940/41 and improved performance significantly for a modest increase in fuel consumption, and could have hauled the extra fuel.

 

[Schweik]

Wasn't everybody cash starved in the 30s?

Your suggestions for possible improvements are plausible, but I think that is a different discussion. Is there any reason to do that with TBDs instead of just switching to TBFs?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is there any reason to do that with TBDs instead of just switching to TBFs?

In looking at photos, the TBD was a dated airframe. Partially retracting landing gear, corrugated wings and a rather thin fuselage that probably couldn't accept a larger engine. As the ole saying goes, "you can't polish a turd."

The TBF was huge and complex, powered turret, bomb bay cavernous fuselage, it had room to grow and was a generation ahead although as pointed out, had it's limitations.

In the TBD aftermath, look at Douglas and their attempt to stay in the torpedo bomber race. No resemblance of the Devastator, looks like they started from scratch.

 

[SaparotRob]

In looking at photos, the TBD was a dated airframe. Partially retracting landing gear, corrugated wings and a rather thin fuselage that probably couldn't accept a larger engine. As the ole saying goes, "you can't polish a turd."

The TBF was huge and complex, powered turret, bomb bay cavernous fuselage, it had room to grow and was a generation ahead although as pointed out, had it's limitations.

In the TBD aftermath, look at Douglas and their attempt to stay in the torpedo bomber race.

View attachment 610288

View attachment 610289

Ed Heineman(?), the designer of said plane, called it a turkey. I wouldn't argue with Mr. Heineman. He said pretty much it was "designed by committee". This is how I remember his quote in the book "The World's Worst Aircraft". As pointed out earlier in this thread it did lead to the Skyraider.

 

[SaparotRob]

Looks really cool though.

 

[buffnut453]

Looks really cool though.

Is that "cool" as in "butt ugly"?

 

[SaparotRob]

maybe

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Wasn't everybody cash starved in the 30s

Yes, and the others all had nearby potentially hostile neighbors. Different sense of urgency.

Your suggestions for possible improvements are plausible, but I think that is a different discussion. Is there any reason to do that with TBDs instead of just switching to TBFs?

If Yamamoto had only adhered to Grumman's timeline, everything would have worked out just fine, but he jumped the gun and the TBD was around for one battle too many.

Ed Heineman(?), the designer of said plane, called it a turkey. I wouldn't argue with Mr. Heineman. He said pretty much it was "designed by committee".

Remind anyone of any more recent history?
This must have been early in his career, before he developed enough clout to banish kibitzers from his drafting table. It must hurt to be labeled "chief designer" of an abortion you had little actual control over. Sorta like "paternity".