SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Re: Mr Heineman's Destroyer looking cool.
Remember, I REALLY like the Buffalo.
Remember, I REALLY like the Buffalo.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
exactlyIn 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.
View attachment 610288
View attachment 610289
Near never heard of the TBY Sea Wolf ... seems like it never got into action until 1944. Pretty good performance & well armed, if it had come a bit earlier.
Consolidated TBY Sea Wolf - Wikipedia
Summer of 1960 we were driving over the pass between Yosemite and Reno and found ourselves in the path of a fast moving wildfire. They didn't get the roadblock up until we were already past the checkpoint, and Dad was scurrying to get us out of zone when one of CalFire's Avengers flew 100 feet over us, just closing its dump doors after dropping on the other side of the ridge the road was on. He couldn't have cleared the ridge by more than 50 feet. Size of a bus for sure. A very sudden and VERY LOUD bus! Dad almost drove off the road. And borate and cinders raise hell with your car's paint.I've seen one in the New Orleans D-Day museum. It's shocking how big they are. It looks like a twin engined aircraft, like the size of a bus.
Summer of 1960 we were driving over the pass between Yosemite and Reno and found ourselves in the path of a fast moving wildfire. They didn't get the roadblock up until we were already past the checkpoint, and Dad was scurrying to get us out of zone when one of CalFire's Avengers flew 100 feet over us, just closing its dump doors after dropping on the other side of the ridge the road was on. He couldn't have cleared the ridge by more than 50 feet. Size of a bus for sure. A very sudden and VERY LOUD bus! Dad almost drove off the road. And borate and cinders raise hell with your car's paint.
Back in the '70s New York DEC had an Avenger that was used for fish stocking, acid rain amelioration experiments, and the occasional fire drop. It could be seen from time to time prowling around the Adirondacks, and one day at SLK with a student, we each got to climb up the wing and sit in the cockpit. Talk about the catbird seat!
We're getting pretty far afield now, but there was also the Kaiser-Fleetwings_XBTK, which made it to prototype stage but was cancelled in 1946. It looked _a lot_ like the Douglas Skyraider.
Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK - Wikipedia
Stand next to a TBF when you get a chance. It's a plane you can truly look UP to.
I really don't condemn the TBD on the basis of Midway, that situation was impossible.
You might want to check out a video on YouTube about the TBD. It's by Military Aviation History. The video is entitled "In defense of the worst airplane of WW2" (or thereabouts, you might wind up with his piece on the Defiant).You mean like this?
View attachment 610312DSC_7831
Now, I confess to not knowing much about the Devastator and this discussion has got me intrigued as to where I can get more in-depth information other than standard reference sources, Schweik. What is a good reference source? You speak of the pilots not liking it, and it's been spoken of here as being lightly constructed and other faults that are not common knowledge. Where does this come from, or, where might I find a better insight into the TBD and all its faults?
Someone compared the TBD and the Fairey Battle, which is intriguing and a probable thing to do, but the two are different from the fact that the Battle had room to grow and could have been a far more useful airframe given its size and performance, which was better than the Devastator, but the issue with the Battle was that its role, which defined it, naturally, was flawed. The single-engined day bomber as the RAF saw it, was at fault by the time the war breaks out - said with a HUGE dose of hindsight though, which is what we are doing with the Devastator, I fear. The TBD was designed as a carrier based topedo bomber and did that job as intended, albeit with a few snags along the way and I'm led to believe it was a bad aircraft, whereas the Battle was not. It handled well, flew well, it was modern and, like the TBD was technologically advanced at the time of its debut.
The one thing that surprises me about the Battle is its sheer size. Okay, this is a photo of a Mosquito, but compare the Battle alongside it...
View attachment 610313Royal Museum 66
View attachment 610314Royal Museum 65
Those pics are from Belgium, right?
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.
IIRC by Midway there were only 100 operational due to attrition and I think the writing was on the wall when the TBF was starting to be delivered. It seems the Navy just drug it's feet for one reason or another getting the TBD removed from the fleet, and as we all know with disasterous results.For a crappy, poor handling airplane there were certainly a fair number of the 130 built still flying in 1942, three years after the last one left the production line.