- Thread starter
- #21
TBF Avenger obsolete in light of SBD Dauntless SB2C Helldiver?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
Shortround6
Major General
Kind of leaves you short a plane for all the other roles the Avenger did though 
Other thread on bombers is interesting. R-3350 was good for 2200hp on take-off and 2000hp max continuous in WW II. The engine used in the first Skyraiders was good for 2500hp take-off and a max continuous rating of 2100hp, later Skyraiders got even more powerful engines. 2700hp for take-off and 2300hp max continuous. Engines used in early B-26s were good for 1850hp take off and 1500hp at 7500ft max continuous. We have either a very under-powered Skyraider or a 3/4-2/3rds Skyraider. What do you want to give up, speed? Load? range? some of all three?
Other thread on bombers is interesting. R-3350 was good for 2200hp on take-off and 2000hp max continuous in WW II. The engine used in the first Skyraiders was good for 2500hp take-off and a max continuous rating of 2100hp, later Skyraiders got even more powerful engines. 2700hp for take-off and 2300hp max continuous. Engines used in early B-26s were good for 1850hp take off and 1500hp at 7500ft max continuous. We have either a very under-powered Skyraider or a 3/4-2/3rds Skyraider. What do you want to give up, speed? Load? range? some of all three?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #24
Shortround6
Major General
effective how?
Avenger held 335 US gallons in internal tanks. Early Skyraider 325? Carrying ordnance externally has more drag (shorter range) than internal stowage. With more power you can lift drop tanks in addition to weapons but that doesn't change actual strike radius that much if you are burning some of the extra fuel to fight the drag of the drop tanks and external ordnance. A 1942/43 Skyraider is going to carry four .50s or two 20mm cannon at best. If it is carrying more guns it isn't doing it's job of carrying bombs/torpedo. More likely is a pair of .50 cal guns on the 1850hp model.
Avenger had a bigger wing than the Skyraider. Helped keep take-off and landing speeds down and allowed operations of both the USS Independence class carriers and the smaller CVEs. Of course both those classes were not thought of when the initial specification was written.
Avengers often did "armed reconnaissance" A couple of 500lb bombs in the bomb bay while a small group of planes (2 or 4?) performed searches. Avenger has three sets of eyes as search gear early in the war. Skyraider minus has one pair?
Single seat Skyraider minus will be a better ASW aircraft?
GregP
Major
If they went with an R-2800 for the Shyraider, it would need to scaled down for teh power to weight ratio accordingly. I don't see taht as a quick thing and would eeject a full-size Skyraider with an R-2800.
But ... the Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK might have proven useful in the extreme.
But ... the Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK might have proven useful in the extreme.
Shortround6
Major General
The Fleetwings XBTK might have been very useful.
It also used the same engine as the F8F Bearcat. A 1942 version with 1850hp for take-off instead of 2100hp ( and 2300-3400 with water injection) might not have been quite as useful. The later engine also picked up 200hp at max continuous setting.
Did a Plane that started design in Jan 1944 use any different aerodynamics (airfoil, cowl, etc) than a 1939-40 aircraft?
Did a Plane that started design in Jan 1944 use any different knowledge of structure/s than a 1939-40 aircraft?
It also used the same engine as the F8F Bearcat. A 1942 version with 1850hp for take-off instead of 2100hp ( and 2300-3400 with water injection) might not have been quite as useful. The later engine also picked up 200hp at max continuous setting.
Did a Plane that started design in Jan 1944 use any different aerodynamics (airfoil, cowl, etc) than a 1939-40 aircraft?
Did a Plane that started design in Jan 1944 use any different knowledge of structure/s than a 1939-40 aircraft?
The 1942 version should have had 2000 HP for take off, at least by Midway.
Re. adrodynamics - Grumman, for example, stood with NACA 230 series of profiles during all of ww2. An earlier adoption of Fowler flaps might've helped.
Re. adrodynamics - Grumman, for example, stood with NACA 230 series of profiles during all of ww2. An earlier adoption of Fowler flaps might've helped.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Maybe. The 2000hp engines don't start to make it to the engine factory loading docks until Jan 1942.(aside form a 1/2 dozen or so). Now you have to get them to the airframe factory. Get them installed in the airframes. Test fly the plane. Prepare the plane for shipment, load it on a ship and get it to Hawaii (and if an east coast Manufacturer you have send the ship by way of the Panama Canal.) Unload it, un-crate or un-cocoon it and prep for flight and test fly.
They had six Avengers at Midway and they started rolling Avengers out the door in Dec 1941. Maybe not the full six
and granted they had dozens more by August. The engines for those Avengers may have left Paterson NJ in Nov/Dec of 41. A lot of people underestimate how long it took for a lot of American war material to reach combat theaters.
It is about 4950 miles (7980km ?)direct route by air from Paterson to Hawaii, by ship?????
Found cool site
Sea route distance - ports.com
it is 7428NM for New York to Pearl harbor and 30.9 days on a 10 Knot ship.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #31
Shortround6
Major General
A lot depends on the Navy requirement and how much they were were willing to bend.
Initial specification for the Avenger gave speed (over 300mph), landing speed with torpedo (one reason for that big wing), Service ceiling of 30,000ft ( why has never been explained) length of fuselage to fit existing carrier lifts. Range with load and so on and so on.
Without hind sight they didn't know how much of problem the MK 13 Torpedo had which lead to the Avengers carrying bombs. However that ridicules drop speed should have been a red flag by 1939.
Once you stick a bomb bay capable of holding a MK 13 torpedo in a plane, making it (the bay) a little longer and putting in a rear lower gunner station isn't so bad. AN avenger had more wing area than an A-20, Sticking another 150hp into that fat fuselage and with that big wing wasn't going to give you enough speed to matter over the 1700hp engine.
Trouble is if you hang the torpedo (and more especially four 500lb bombs) out in the open with all the drag, will even a skinnier fuselage and smaller wing give you the range/radius you need? The Navy wanted a bench mark range of over 1000 miles with ordnance. Not with drop tanks. The ideal was to be able to hit the enemy fleet (carriers) at a longer range than he could hit you from. It didn't wind up working that way but.......
There are a lot of trade offs with older carrier planes and just because a certain type of aircraft could do a few certain, selected missions better than a different type of aircraft doesn't mean it would have been a better overall choice considering all missions.
Initial specification for the Avenger gave speed (over 300mph), landing speed with torpedo (one reason for that big wing), Service ceiling of 30,000ft ( why has never been explained) length of fuselage to fit existing carrier lifts. Range with load and so on and so on.
Without hind sight they didn't know how much of problem the MK 13 Torpedo had which lead to the Avengers carrying bombs. However that ridicules drop speed should have been a red flag by 1939.
Once you stick a bomb bay capable of holding a MK 13 torpedo in a plane, making it (the bay) a little longer and putting in a rear lower gunner station isn't so bad. AN avenger had more wing area than an A-20, Sticking another 150hp into that fat fuselage and with that big wing wasn't going to give you enough speed to matter over the 1700hp engine.
Trouble is if you hang the torpedo (and more especially four 500lb bombs) out in the open with all the drag, will even a skinnier fuselage and smaller wing give you the range/radius you need? The Navy wanted a bench mark range of over 1000 miles with ordnance. Not with drop tanks. The ideal was to be able to hit the enemy fleet (carriers) at a longer range than he could hit you from. It didn't wind up working that way but.......
There are a lot of trade offs with older carrier planes and just because a certain type of aircraft could do a few certain, selected missions better than a different type of aircraft doesn't mean it would have been a better overall choice considering all missions.
- Thread starter
- #33
Shortround6
Major General
They did but we are backwards projecting. They were also using brute force (engines over 2000hp) to get the range they wanted. And the range didn't increase much.
Figures for the TBF-1/TBM-3 vary a bit but the planes topped out at just over 270mph, they would 'cruise' at 145/163 and could carry a torpedo 1215/1065miles. The TBM-3 use a 1900hp R-2600.
The Fleetwings topped out at 373mph but speed with torpedo is is given as 258-297. Cruise is given as 158mph and range with torpedo as 1250 miles.
The Prototype Skyraider topped out at 375 but with torpedo 303mph is given, cruise 185mph and range with torpedo 1427miles.
No mention of drop tanks is made one way or the other.
BTW the Boeing XF8F had an internal bay that would hold four 500lb bombs (?)
so internal vs external was still a bit open.
Here is picture of the Fleetwings with large bomb, radar pod (?) and drop tank.
Figures for the TBF-1/TBM-3 vary a bit but the planes topped out at just over 270mph, they would 'cruise' at 145/163 and could carry a torpedo 1215/1065miles. The TBM-3 use a 1900hp R-2600.
The Fleetwings topped out at 373mph but speed with torpedo is is given as 258-297. Cruise is given as 158mph and range with torpedo as 1250 miles.
The Prototype Skyraider topped out at 375 but with torpedo 303mph is given, cruise 185mph and range with torpedo 1427miles.
No mention of drop tanks is made one way or the other.
BTW the Boeing XF8F had an internal bay that would hold four 500lb bombs (?)
so internal vs external was still a bit open.
Here is picture of the Fleetwings with large bomb, radar pod (?) and drop tank.
Last edited:
Conslaw
Senior Airman
The Avenger was a very effective naval attack plane in World War II. It was not a great torpedo bomber because of deficiencies in American torpedoes combined with the fact that the role was gradually rendered obsolete by increased effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns. As it turned out, the Avenger became crucial to the US Navy and Royal Navy as a place to put its stuff. With the Avenger, they had a plane that could carry radar and a radar operator. It could carry sonar buoys and fido Mk 24 anti-submarine torpedoes, depth charges, rockets, extra gas tanks for overnight patrols, It could seat 6 and still land on an aircraft carrier when outfitted for carrier on-board delivery. It could carry 2,000 lb bombs. It could carry napalm. It could carry searchlights and magnetic anomaly detectors. Late in the war, they even experimented with the Avenger in electronic countermeasures and distant early warning. The Avenger may have been the successor to the TBD, but it was the predecessor to all of the anti-submarine and all the specialty aircraft that have succeeded it on American carriers.
Shortround6
Major General
The trouble with focusing on the attack mission in the original posting is that it ignores all the other missions the the Avenger wound up doing, mostly unintended to start with it is true. Although the 'scout' mission was not.
A better bet would would have to come up with a back up to the Helldiver. Unfortunately, historically, the Navy thought they had that covered with the Brewster Buccaneer. The cure turned out to be worse than the disease.
A better bet would would have to come up with a back up to the Helldiver. Unfortunately, historically, the Navy thought they had that covered with the Brewster Buccaneer. The cure turned out to be worse than the disease.
- Thread starter
- #37
How many of those "other" tasks/missions you listed by performed by the SB2C Helldiver?
(Not arguing for/against either aircraft, just curious)
- Thread starter
- #39
Thought the (US) low, steady and slow torpedo bombers almost always got shellacked - the dive bombers got better results, so that's where the effort went.
Shortround6
Major General
It's kind of a chicken and egg thing.
They found out the torpedoes weren't working well and tried different bombing tactics. Level bombing didn't work well either. Glide (shallow dive) and skip bombing worked better but Avengers were a bit more vulnerable to AA fire (due to speed of approach). By the time the torpedoes were straightened out and modified for higher speed/higher altitude dropping a fair number of Japanese ships had been sunk.
Of course you still needed torpedoes for the big ships. Accounts of the sinking of Musashi describe up to 22 torpedo hits. (over claiming?)
Yamato was hit by 11-13 torpedoes. 500 and 1000lb bombs can certainly damage the topsides and put even large turrets out of action but they needed torpedoes for the actual sinking.
The difference in results between skip bombing and torpedoing a 3-5000 ton freighter are going to rather small. It is going to sink, just how fast.
And please remember that while the MK number of the torpedo stayed the same there were a number of mods, some minor and some major that greatly changed the drop envelope (speed and altitude of the aircraft).
