The "Wannabe" Skyraiders

[Thud-Dud89]

Of the USN single-engined bomber aircraft that were NOT the Douglas AD/A-1, which do you think might have been the next best choice for the role? I'm including the Martin AM Mauler and Grumman AF Guardian in this, though they DID see service, the others, not so much...

 

[GrauGeist]

If not the Skyraider, then it would have to be the F4U...forget the rest.

 

[Thud-Dud89]

If not the Skyraider, then it would have to be the F4U...forget the rest.

Sorry, I really should have made what I meant clear... Nothing against the Corsair, but it was a fighter turned into a bomber/attacker. I also meant to include only the Late WWII attackers and early Postwar attack aircraft, ie only the planes that could have or were entering service alongside the Skyraider. Again, nothing against planes from before that time period, like the F4U or the SB2C.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Martin Mauler was the only one up there that was actually deployed in an attack role. It looked good on paper but was troublesome IIRC

The Grumman Guardian was an ASW aircraft

 

[Shortround6]

Sorry, I really should have made what I meant clear... Nothing against the Corsair, but it was a fighter turned into a bomber/attacker. I also meant to include only the Late WWII attackers and early Postwar attack aircraft, ie only the planes that could have or were entering service alongside the Skyraider. Again, nothing against planes from before that time period, like the F4U or the SB2C.

Actually there was a Corsair variant specifically meant for ground attack

The F4U-6 was re-designated the AU-1. It used a single stage two speed engine of the "C" series and performance at altitude was well below that of some of the older Corsairs.
If it had 115/145 it looks like an exciting ride at low altitude.

According to this: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AU-1_Corsair_SAC_-_1_June_1953.pdf

the often quoted 238mph is while it was carrying TWO 1000lb bombs, TEN 260(250?)lb bombs and one 150 gal drop tank. It was slightly faster carrying TWO 150 gal drop tanks, ONE 1000lb bomb and SIX 500lb bombs.

A bit late for this poll being built in 1952.

 

[Thud-Dud89]

Actually there was a Corsair variant specifically meant for ground attack

The F4U-6 was re-designated the AU-1. It used a single stage two speed engine of the "C" series and performance at altitude was well below that of some of the older Corsairs.
If it had 115/145 it looks like an exciting ride at low altitude.

According to this: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AU-1_Corsair_SAC_-_1_June_1953.pdf

the often quoted 238mph is while it was carrying TWO 1000lb bombs, TEN 260(250?)lb bombs and one 150 gal drop tank. It was slightly faster carrying TWO 150 gal drop tanks, ONE 1000lb bomb and SIX 500lb bombs.

A bit late for this poll being built in 1952.

Thanks, learn something new every day!

 

[swampyankee]

The Martin AM-1 Mauler was certainly a highly capable aircraft, but it was also, reputedly, clumsy and difficult to operate from a carrier. Still, it was the only one to get built.

 

[wuzak]

The XF8B was also, technically, a fighter. Hence the designation

Xperimental Fighter 8 Boeing.

 

[swampyankee]

Sorry, I really should have made what I meant clear... Nothing against the Corsair, but it was a fighter turned into a bomber/attacker. I also meant to include only the Late WWII attackers and early Postwar attack aircraft, ie only the planes that could have or were entering service alongside the Skyraider. Again, nothing against planes from before that time period, like the F4U or the SB2C.

The USN and USMC, certainly by mid -WW2, were regularly using their fighters in close air support, and continued to do so post-war. The USAAF was doing the same in Europe and the Med. That said, you do get to set the parameters of your poll. We just get to disagree (and I picked the Martin Mauler).

 

[Zipper730]

The Martin Mauler was the only one up there that was actually deployed in an attack role. It looked good on paper but was troublesome IIRC

Out of curiosity what was wrong with it?

 

[swampyankee]

Out of curiosity what was wrong with it?

What I've read is that the Mauler was far from nimble, and more difficult to get onto and off the smaller carriers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Out of curiosity what was wrong with it?

It was a maintenance nightmare.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Out of curiosity what was wrong with it?

It was heavy and fast to land, had clumsy slow speed handling, was a bastard to work on, and tried to do too many things. I remember as a kid seeing a photo of "the Navy's latest and greatest new attack bomber, the Martin Mauler". It had three torpedoes, two napalm canisters, a drop tank, and EIGHT iron bombs hung on it! Can you imagine getting that off a carrier deck?

 

[Zipper730]

XBe02Drvr,

I think that covers it pretty good...

 

[swampyankee]

It was heavy and fast to land, had clumsy slow speed handling, was a bastard to work on, and tried to do too many things. I remember as a kid seeing a photo of "the Navy's latest and greatest new attack bomber, the Martin Mauler". It had three torpedoes, two napalm canisters, a drop tank, and EIGHT iron bombs hung on it! Can you imagine getting that off a carrier deck?

I think that particular load was a stunt, more than a typical operational load.

 

[Shortround6]

True but the Navy sure put some effort into "promotional" photos.

One of a series showing what seem to be the same two planes on the ground and in the air taken at a variety of angles.
Plane in the rear has one big bomb, two Tiny Tim rockets and 12 5in rockets.