The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

The Vindicators, while outnumbered by Biplanes, were scouts. SB2U is Scout Bomber 2 U (U stands for Vought)

This is the SBU-1

The last 40 of 140 built were built in 1937. Notice the NACA cowl, the adjustable cowl flaps and the controllable pitch propeller ( I would hesitate to say constant speed)
BTW This plane was called the Corsair

Curtiss version

SBC-3
Scout Bomber Curtiss 3
In production in July of 1937, retractable landing gear, NACA cowl, adjustable cowl flaps and adjustable propeller.
The later -4 had a more powerful engine and could carry a 1000lb bomb, with the bomb gone it could make 234mph at 15,200 ft. One might want to check the performance against a Blackburn Skua before casting too many stones.

Shortround6 said:

The Vindicators, while outnumbered by Biplanes, were scouts. SB2U is Scout Bomber 2 U (U stands for Vought)

Curtiss version
View attachment 536042
SBC-3
Scout Bomber Curtiss 3
In production in July of 1937, retractable landing gear, NACA cowl, adjustable cowl flaps and adjustable propeller.
The later -4 had a more powerful engine and could carry a 1000lb bomb, with the bomb gone it could make 234mph at 15,200 ft. One might want to check the performance against a Blackburn Skua before casting too many stones.

Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:

The Vindicators, while outnumbered by Biplanes, were scouts. SB2U is Scout Bomber 2 U (U stands for Vought)

This is the SBU-1
View attachment 536041
The last 40 of 140 built were built in 1937. Notice the NACA cowl, the adjustable cowl flaps and the controllable pitch propeller ( I would hesitate to say constant speed)
BTW This plane was called the Corsair

Curtiss version
View attachment 536042
SBC-3
Scout Bomber Curtiss 3
In production in July of 1937, retractable landing gear, NACA cowl, adjustable cowl flaps and adjustable propeller.
The later -4 had a more powerful engine and could carry a 1000lb bomb, with the bomb gone it could make 234mph at 15,200 ft. One might want to check the performance against a Blackburn Skua before casting too many stones.

Click to expand...

I know what SB stands for. I also know that VB stands for a lighter than air bomber squadron and that VS stands for lighter than air squadron. The monoplanes equipped the VBs and the biplanes equipped the VFs.
an example
USS Ranger.
I am not trying to cast the Royal Navy as a paragon of performance but trying to illustrate the conservatism that was present in both navies.

Reluctant Poster said:

I know what SB stands for. I also know that VB stands for a lighter than air bomber squadron and that VS stands for lighter than air squadron. The monoplanes equipped the VBs and the biplanes equipped the VFs.
an example
USS Ranger.
I am not trying to cast the Royal Navy as a paragon of performance but trying to illustrate the conservatism that was present in both navies.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I think the "V" stands for "heavier than air"
U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps Aircraft Squadron Designations - Wikipedia

Yes it is wiki but a lighter than air bombing squadron on a carrier?? Blimps?

We not only have conservatism we have different budgets/priorities.

The US navy wanted monoplanes, the Devastator went to sea in late 1937 or early 1938?

In some cases the last production runs of biplanes were not because the navy really wanted them but because the new monoplanes were slow in being delivered. The US Navy was not ordering in large numbers in the late 30s and figured they had time to get a good design and do it right.
The Specifications for the Avenger and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver were both issued in 1939. and both were to use the Wright R-2600 engine. Curtiss fumbled the Helldiver badly.
Grumman designed, developed and got the Avenger into production in around 3 years.
Fairey took close to 6 years for the Barracuda. Granted Grumman was not bombed and didn't have to halt development at times to do other work.

The US/Grumman also had the incentive that there was no real alternative. Any competitor was running later than the Avenger and the likelihood of getting the Devastator back into production was probably pretty slim.

I agree with SR in terms of Britain's lengthy in service trials of prototype aircraft, to a point. Perhaps the Manchester isn't the best example of how long it took, because the aeroplane was riddled with problems, aerodynamically and electrically, not to forget its troublesome powerplant. But all of that effort put into ironing out the bugs meant that the Lancaster, i.e. Manchester III entered service relatively swiftly and without as many serious issues. The Lancaster being very much a candidate for the original premise of this thread, of course.

Shortround6 said:

I could be wrong but I think the "V" stands for "heavier than air"
U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps Aircraft Squadron Designations - Wikipedia

Yes it is wiki but a lighter than air bombing squadron on a carrier?? Blimps?

We not only have conservatism we have different budgets/priorities.

The US navy wanted monoplanes, the Devastator went to sea in late 1937 or early 1938?

In some cases the last production runs of biplanes were not because the navy really wanted them but because the new monoplanes were slow in being delivered. The US Navy was not ordering in large numbers in the late 30s and figured they had time to get a good design and do it right.
The Specifications for the Avenger and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver were both issued in 1939. and both were to use the Wright R-2600 engine. Curtiss fumbled the Helldiver badly.
Grumman designed, developed and got the Avenger into production in around 3 years.
Fairey took close to 6 years for the Barracuda. Granted Grumman was not bombed and didn't have to halt development at times to do other work.

The US/Grumman also had the incentive that there was no real alternative. Any competitor was running later than the Avenger and the likelihood of getting the Devastator back into production was probably pretty slim.

Click to expand...

I knew you jump on my mistake. Obviously I meant heavier than air.
As I said earlier Fairey had management issues that delayed both the Albacore and the Barracuda and the Firefly. The mistake wasn't the Swordfish the mistake was the Albacore. The Swordfish soldiered on longer than it should have, but in September 1939 it wasn't a terrible airplane and as a weapons system it was very effective. Unlike the TBD it had torpedoes that actually worked and worked very well. Yes it was vulnerable but all torpedo bombers were.
Also I don't think the USN was entirely wedded to the monoplane. They were ordering SB2U and SBCs at the same time.

Reluctant Poster said:

I knew you jump on my mistake. Obviously I meant heavier than air.
As I said earlier Fairey had management issues that delayed both the Albacore and the Barracuda and the Firefly. The mistake wasn't the Swordfish the mistake was the Albacore. The Swordfish soldiered on longer than it should have, but in September 1939 it wasn't a terrible airplane and as a weapons system it was very effective. Unlike the TBD it had torpedoes that actually worked and worked very well. Yes it was vulnerable but all torpedo bombers were.
Also I don't think the USN was entirely wedded to the monoplane. They were ordering SB2U and SBCs at the same time.

Click to expand...

I have had my share of brain farts, so no worries.
We can find exceptions to both sides of the argument, why did the navy order the last 27 Grumman biplane fighters? Because Brewster was late getting the Buffalo into production (and perhaps Grumman was also late getting the F4F ready, initial contract for F4Fs was because of doubts about Brewster.

Order for the SBC-4 was signed 5 January 1938? The Northrop BT-1 was just starting in production? and it was pretty much a failure (the Americans didn't always get it right either)

Shortround6 said:

Avro Manchester, requirement issued in May 1936, first flight 25 July 1939, officially entered service Nov 1940. First operation Feb 1941.

Granted the B-24 project may have been speedy even by US standards.
Consolidated was approached by the Army in 1938 about being a 2nd source for B-17s (or so the story goes) but decided they can do better. IN Jan 1939 they pitch their idea to the Army and the army encourages them to proceed (even though no money may have changed hands), Consolidated cobbles together some sort of mock up in less than a month, In feb 1939 the army issues a specification covering the proposal and in March they sign a contract covering one prototype. in the months that follow several additional contracts are placed (essentially off the drawing board) bit the Prototype flies for the first time Dec 29 1939 meeting the letter of the contract by one day.
British take delivery of their first Liberator (no turbos) in March of 1941. With no turbos and no self sealing tanks they are assigned to long range transport work. But that is about 2 1/2 years from work starting ( Consolidated thinking they could beat Boeing at the 4 engine bomber game) and planes entering limited service vs 4 1/2 years for the Avro Manchester.

as for the US navy you are part right. The Navy did have about 100 Vought Vindicators in 1939 which were monoplanes the last time I checked.

Click to expand...

Conversely the B-17 took forever to get into production but I wouldn't claim that Consolidated was superior to Boeing. The pace of development of any aircraft is not entirely in the airframe manufacturers hands. As war became more and more inevitable the pace quickened dramatically resulting in the much reduced time for the B-24..
Also Consolidated may have been quick to produce a prototype but it took a long time to produce a combat ready aircraft for its intended role. The first truly combat capable model the B-24D didn't appear until 1942, by which time the career of the Manchester was over and the Lancaster's had begun.

Reluctant Poster said:

Conversely the B-17 took forever to get into production but I wouldn't claim that Consolidated was superior to Boeing. The pace of development of any aircraft is not entirely in the airframe manufacturers hands. As war became more and more inevitable the pace quickened dramatically resulting in the much reduced time for the B-24..
Also Consolidated may have been quick to produce a prototype but it took a long time to produce a combat ready aircraft for its intended role. The first truly combat capable model the B-24D didn't appear until 1942, by which time the career of the Manchester was over and the Lancaster's had begun.

Click to expand...

A large part of getting an aircraft into production is money. If congress (in the US) only funds 13 airplanes that is what you get, 13 airplanes. However the manufacturer, plans accordingly and only invests in enough tooling, floor space and workers to build the 13 aircraft in the time span specified in the contract. Which means the follow up contracts take time to fill as more floor space, workers and tooling have to be provided in order to increase production.

We also have in the late 1930s a rather sliding scale as to what a "truly combat capable model" of an aircraft was. As neither armor or self sealing fuel tanks were specified for early models let alone the standard of armament needed/desired.


as to whether the B-24 was "better" than the B-17, we need the reality of combat to decide that one, Consolidated may have thought they had (or could) designed a better airplane.

From Joe Baugher's website.

"Early test flights proved the Davis wing to be everything that its designers had hoped for. With a full bomb load, the range of the XB-24 was 200 miles greater than that of the B-17. With extra fuel tanks mounted in the forward bomb bay, the range was 600 miles greater than that of a similarly-equipped B-17, which in such a configuration could carry no load at all. Gross weight was 38,300 pounds"

Please note that both the B-24 and B-17 models flying in 1938-40 were flying 10-20,000lb lighter than they would be flying in 1943/44.

And" A comparison between the B-24 Liberator and the B-17 Fortress is perhaps inevitable. The Liberator was slightly faster than the Fort, carried a heavier bombload and could carry it farther and higher than the Fort. It was slightly more maneuverable than the Fort, and was much more adaptable to other missions. On the debit side, the Liberator was harder to fly, less stable, and much more difficult to hold in the tight bomber formations that were mandatory in the European theatre of operations. The Liberator was not capable of absorbing nearly the same amount of battle damage that the Fortress could handle. "

You have to pay for higher performance with something and in the case of the B-24 it was structural strength or perhaps "reserve" structural strength.
A lot of the early British bombers in 1939/40 were not "truly combat capable" by the standards of 1941/early 1942.

Shortround6 said:

The Liberator was slightly faster than the Fort, carried a heavier bombload and could carry it farther and higher than the Fort. It was slightly more maneuverable than the Fort, and was much more adaptable to other missions. On the debit side, the Liberator was harder to fly, less stable, and much more difficult to hold in the tight bomber formations that were mandatory in the European theatre of operations.

Click to expand...

The Lib was a bean counter's airplane; the Fort was a combat pilot's airplane. I've had "my five minutes of fame" in the front seat of each of them, and the difference is marked. The fort trimmed up easily and flew rock steady, with tiny adjustments on #s 2 and 3 to hold position (loosely) on the plane we were flying tandem with. The Lib seemed to "hunt" all over the sky, and in my brief turn at the controls, I never did get it properly trimmed. The idea of herding one of those beasts in a combat box for eight hours through flak and fighters is downright exhausting to contemplate. My hat is off to those who did it. (and especially my late neighbor, Richard Hurd, who did it fifty times out of North Africa across the Med to such garden spots as Ploesti, Sicily, Budapest, and Monte Casino)
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr said:

My hat is off to those who did it. (and especially my late neighbor, Richard Hurd, who did it fifty times out of North Africa across the Med to such garden spots as Ploesti, Sicily, Budapest, and Monte Casino)
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

RIchard Hurd - CP to Wayne Friberg aboard "Barrel House Bessie" on Operation Tidal Wave, 376th BG. Yeah, definitely "hats off".

The B-24 was both better and worse than the B-17. Faster, better range, larger bomb bay. The quoted higher ceiling is a bit misleading as the B-24 flew at lower altitudes than the B-17 in actual combat. Higher altitudes exasperated the above noted difficulty in flying tight formations. The ditching characteristics of the B-24 were awful as the the aircraft tended to break its back as water pressure imploded the bomb bay doors. The oft quoted toughness of the B-17 vs the B-24 is also a bit misleading as the B-24 had a slightly better loss per sortie rate (1.59 to 1.61) than the B-17.

B-17 vets are certain that they had the best aircraft, just as B-24 vets are certain that the opposite is true. Both served with distinction.

IIRC in a B-17/ B-24 comparison, the B-17 was way better with an engine out. I remember a B-24 driver telling me years ago that when a B-24 lost an engine it could be a handful to fly. If anyone has any validation to that, please post.

Id be willing to bet you're right as it sounds like the B24 was a handful to fly even with all the engines working. I can only imagine with one out.

XBe02Drvr said:

The Lib was a bean counter's airplane; the Fort was a combat pilot's airplane. I've had "my five minutes of fame" in the front seat of each of them, and the difference is marked. The fort trimmed up easily and flew rock steady, with tiny adjustments on #s 2 and 3 to hold position (loosely) on the plane we were flying tandem with. The Lib seemed to "hunt" all over the sky, and in my brief turn at the controls, I never did get it properly trimmed. The idea of herding one of those beasts in a combat box for eight hours through flak and fighters is downright exhausting to contemplate. My hat is off to those who did it. (and especially my late neighbor, Richard Hurd, who did it fifty times out of North Africa across the Med to such garden spots as Ploesti, Sicily, Budapest, and Monte Casino)
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

Wes,

I spoke quite a bit with a UPS pilot who flew them with The Collins Foundation (IIRC). He much preferred the B17 for the points you brought up.

Cheers,
Biff

Seems like the B24 /B17 comparison is an example of having better stats doesn't always nescesarily make for a better plane.
Not saying one or the other was walk away better but it sounds to me like that in aggregate they were in the same balpark in spite of the 24 having almost across the board better stats on paper.

FLYBOYJ said:

IIRC in a B-17/ B-24 comparison, the B-17 was way better with an engine out. I remember a B-24 driver telling me years ago that when a B-24 lost an engine it could be a handful to fly. If anyone has any validation to that, please post.

Click to expand...

Had an aquaintance who flew B-24s tell me that they were a handful, especially with a large warload. He also said that taking off in typical English murk and climbing to the rally point was a stressful eternity occasionally interrupted with the sudden roar of engines accompanied by a dark shadow passing in front of his ship or the occasional orange flash nearby as ships collided on the overcast.
He said anything after that for the duration of the mission was a cake-walk.
In regards to the B-24 itself, it was a modern, streamlined design but that Davis wing was made for efficient cruise under ideal conditions. Once it received damage (interceptors, flak, etc.), it became a real handful.

michael rauls said:

Seems like the B24 /B17 comparison is an example of having better stats doesn't always nescesarily make for a better plane.
Not saying one or the other was walk away better but it sounds to me like that in aggregate they were in the same balpark in spite of the 24 having almost across the board better stats on paper.

Click to expand...

That's not a far off summation IMO. Another might be that the -17 was the pilot's/combat crew's plane while the -24 was the logistics/bean counter's plane. -24 had the better bomb-bay so maybe it was the better bomb loader's plane as well.

GrauGeist said:

that Davis wing was made for efficient cruise under ideal conditions. Once it received damage (interceptors, flak, etc.), it became a real handful.

Click to expand...

And the back side of its power curve became a yawning canyon. Low, slow, and dirty could very quickly become low, slow, and dead!
Cheers,
Wes

Greetings All,

This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate.

My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero. Before you all laugh me out of the forum please hear me out. It was the Zero's phenomenal range and dominance that enabled The Japanese to conceive of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While there were three types of aircraft involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese would not have taken the risk without the ability to project air superiority. The Pearl Harbor attack altered the course of the war not just in the Pacific, but in every theater. Pre-Pearl Harbor the United States had adopted the concept of Arsenal of Democracy, but public opinion was solidly against entering the fight. After December 7th, the United States was an enraged combatant committed to fully entering the war and rapidly transitioning to a war time economy. Lend-lease was accelerated and the vast quantities of materials delivered to Great Britain and the USSR were essential to the war effort. Lend lease to the USSR was especially important, not for planes and tanks, but for the raw materials and food that kept industry productive and the country from starving. Without the Zero and Pearl Harbor it is unlikely that the US enters the war and the risk of USSR collapse due to resource starvation rises significantly. It's a different take on the discussion, but I think the argument has merit.

NevadaK said:

Greetings All,

This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate.

My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero. Before you all laugh me out of the forum please hear me out. It was the Zero's phenomenal range and dominance that enabled The Japanese to conceive of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While there were three types of aircraft involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese would not have taken the risk without the ability to project air superiority. The Pearl Harbor attack altered the course of the war not just in the Pacific, but in every theater. Pre-Pearl Harbor the United States had adopted the concept of Arsenal of Democracy, but public opinion was solidly against entering the fight. After December 7th, the United States was an enraged combatant committed to fully entering the war and rapidly transitioning to a war time economy. Lend-lease was accelerated and the vast quantities of materials delivered to Great Britain and the USSR were essential to the war effort. Lend lease to the USSR was especially important, not for planes and tanks, but for the raw materials and food that kept industry productive and the country from starving. Without the Zero and Pearl Harbor it is unlikely that the US enters the war and the risk of USSR collapse due to resource starvation rises significantly. It's a different take on the discussion, but I think the argument has merit.

Click to expand...

I like your thinking on this. Deeper than the first imediatly appearant layer. Considering the war was well underway before Pearl Harbor you may just have a point. My pic was the SBD( which of course had nothing to do with the fact my grandfather built them) but I'll have to think this over.

NevadaK said:

Greetings All,

This has been a fascinating thread. So much so that I finally joined this forum to add my candidate.

My candidate for the plane that turned the tide of the war is the A6M Zero...

Click to expand...

First of all, welcome to the forums.

And in regard to the A6M, this is a valid point. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor (and concerted attacks on the Philippines) were done without advanced warning and air superiority was not achieved by the A6M, but rather the element of surprise.

As it happens, it was a P-36 that first downed an A6M during the Hawaii attack, but the reputation of the Zero preceded it, so it did have an effect on the urgency of a "new threat upgrade" in the U.S. (and Allied) circles.