I know the SB2U often comes up on lists of "worst aircraft"... but was it as bad as its reputation? Here's what the pilot with probably the most combat experience on the type thought of it:
As a whole, the V.156 was an excellent aircraft - fast, reliable, stable, with a good bomb load and capable of operating from very small airfields, but very vulnerable.
As a carrier scout-bomber, it was one of the best of its time. As a dive bomber, it was superior in all respects (except for the machine gun armament) to the JU87. It had a significant speed advantage carrying the same bomb load, and could dive at all angles up to the vertical, thanks to its very effective dive brakes which allowed it to slow down and drop its bombs at low altitude. (...)
It enjoyed good maneouvrability, though inferior to that of a single-seat fighter like the Morane. The fuselage and engine were of very robust construction. During 10 months of operations, we experienced not a single serious mechanical incident. (...)
In summary, in 1940 the V.156 was a capable but still rudimentary precursor to the much more powerful fighter-bomber types that achieved excellent results from 1944 onwards, using the doctrine that we helped to establish.
Lieutenant Mesny, squadron leader of the Aeronavale's AB.1
Sort of busts the myth that the SB2U was a terrible dive-bomber, doesn't it? He goes into more details, which I'll post later.
As a whole, the V.156 was an excellent aircraft - fast, reliable, stable, with a good bomb load and capable of operating from very small airfields, but very vulnerable.
As a carrier scout-bomber, it was one of the best of its time. As a dive bomber, it was superior in all respects (except for the machine gun armament) to the JU87. It had a significant speed advantage carrying the same bomb load, and could dive at all angles up to the vertical, thanks to its very effective dive brakes which allowed it to slow down and drop its bombs at low altitude. (...)
It enjoyed good maneouvrability, though inferior to that of a single-seat fighter like the Morane. The fuselage and engine were of very robust construction. During 10 months of operations, we experienced not a single serious mechanical incident. (...)
In summary, in 1940 the V.156 was a capable but still rudimentary precursor to the much more powerful fighter-bomber types that achieved excellent results from 1944 onwards, using the doctrine that we helped to establish.
Lieutenant Mesny, squadron leader of the Aeronavale's AB.1
Sort of busts the myth that the SB2U was a terrible dive-bomber, doesn't it? He goes into more details, which I'll post later.
Last edited: