Which variant of the Curtiss Helldiver participated in the Marshall Islands?

[Skyediamonds]

Have a modeling friend who is starting his R/C building project honoring his grandfather's exploits as a Curtiss Helldiver pilot during the Pacific Theater. His grandfather now suffers from dementia & can't respond to questions about his past. Which version of Helldiver ( SB2C-3 or -4 ) was used there? Can anyone help?

 

[DarrenW]

That would be the SB2C-1C. The -3 and -4 variants came out well after the invasion of the Marshall Islands.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Great! Thank you very much! Are there any (obvious) external differences between the 1-C & say the 4 or 5? I'd say offhand would be the prop spinner with the earlier variant/s having the more bulbous version. I was fortunate enough to be able to take a good detailed walk-around if the SB2C-5 at the Nat'l Museum if Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Fl. & it's from many of my pictures the modeler will be replicating. However, I'm sure he'd like to be able to make his model more close to the version his grandfather flew.
Would there be any color or paint schemes that distinguish this -1?
Again, thanking you for that info.

Skye

 

[DarrenW]

The -1C model had a three-bladed propeller with a large spinner. At the time of the Marshall campaigns Helldivers were painted using non-specular Sea Blue for the upper fuselage, non-specular Intermediate Blue for the fuselage sides and vertical stabilizer & rudder, Dark Sea Blue for upper surfaces of the wings and tailplane, and non-specular Insignia White for the undersides. Unlike later models the dive brakes on the -1C were non-slotted. This model's box art shows what one normally looked like in early 1944. Hope this helps some.

 

[Skyediamonds]

DarrenW:
Excellent! Thank you very much. I'll pass on this information to him. He says his father is a machinist & is going to try to replicate the unique landing gears to the Helldiver. I've taken many photos & hoping that they will suffice. If you should have any drawings of the landing gear, or any details please let us know.
Full disclosure: this is going to be a long term project as he has to work full time & balance out his obligations. I told him that I'm sure through his grandfather's eyes, that someday he would recognize "his" plane.

Again, thank you very much. I'm currently modeling a P-51 from a Guillow's Kit. I've been posting my build on this site. I'm super-detailing it far beyond the stick-n-tissue framework using simple household tools & lots of imagination. It's got a long ways to go but I'm getting there.
Sincerely,
Skye

 

[Skyediamonds]

Btw: I noticed your avatar is a Hellcat. By any chance are you mostly into naval aircraft? Pilot? If so, I've always wanted to know why the Hellcat did not need extended landing gears or bent wings to accommodate to propeller clearance like the Corsair or Bearcat.

 

[DarrenW]

Btw: I noticed your avatar is a Hellcat. By any chance are you mostly into naval aircraft? Pilot? If so, I've always wanted to know why the Hellcat did not need extended landing gears or bent wings to accommodate to propeller clearance like the Corsair or Bearcat.

I like all military aircraft but my favorite is the F6F Hellcat. I've studied it since I was a child.

My belief is that the Corsair's bent wings were chosen primarily for reducing interference drag at the wing root and fuselage (Vought was focused on an ambitious 400 mph top speed after all), the design being only one option out of several available to get adequate clearance for the propeller. Placing the landing gear at the bend also allowed the landing gear to be shorter and less complex, which is definitely good a good thing, especially for carrier aircraft. So in the end there were several benefits for utilizing the bent wing design and that's why it was chosen.

This article more than any other most accurately explains the reasoning behind the wing design. It was written by Mr. Sibila, Vought's Chief of Aerodynamics:

Designing the Bent-Wing Bird

The Hellcat and Bearcat were designed with their particular style of landing gear for many reasons and having different type propellers they had different clearance issues. The Hellcat is quite a bit larger than the Bearcat too so I'm sure this factored into how the landing gear was designed and why they are so different. The placement along the wing and the way the gear swung was critical to the length as well. Engineers also understood that the Pratt & Whitney was a large engine and required a rather large propeller so they had that in mind from the start when determining the overall dimensions of each aircraft and what landing gear would be required for safe and efficient operation. So as you can see, propeller clearance is one variable considered when designing landing gear but there are many more.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Darren,
Good morning & thank you for your response to my query on differences of landing gears between the Hellcat & Corsair. I was aware of interference drag between the wings & fuselage but I also figured there must be other overriding factors such as the landing gear's ability to withstand the rigors of carrier landings that influenced the engineer's overall designs. With specific regards to the Corsair, that's interesting you mentioned the wings-to-fuselage had more to do with the overall aerodynamics of the aircraft, rather than the main focus of the landing gears. It seems to contradict all writings about why the Corsair's wings were bent in the first place. At least that's how I'm interpreting your reply.
All (almost, anyway) writings started out with P&W first coming up with a double row engine of massive power. Like the proverbial flywheel needed to absorb that power, the engineers at Vought designed the Corsair to accommodate such a large propeller/engine combination by coming up with a novel idea of bending the wings down to allow for a more sturdy landing gear to take the abuse of carrier landings, & the rest we say, is history.

 

[DarrenW]

Good afternoon Skye,

Yes, that little nugget has been around for quite some time and refuses to die. I always thought that clearance was the main reason too but of course we have the Hellcat without gull-wings using basically the same engine and propeller and it had ample propeller clearance. It also had sturdy non-telescopic landing gear which swung backwards, allowing the wings to fold at a closer point in relation to the fuselage (thereby taking up less carrier deck space). I'm quite certain that if Vought wanted a straight wing for the Corsair they would have been able to create sturdy effective landing gear that also allowed good propeller clearance, just like Grumman did. Though it probably would have been more complex, most likely utilzing telescopic landing gear.

The Thunderbolt also had a large propeller and was designed with eight guns in mind. Telescopic landing gear was utilized to solve both issues. Because of this Republic was able to place the landing gear closer to the fuselage which then freed up room in the wing for the extra two guns. Of course it wasn't a carrier aircraft but I'm sure it's landing gear was quite strong and could take ample abuse.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Agreed. I've seen the video footage where the camera was placed inside the wheel well of the Thunderbolt & one could see the telescopic landing gear in action during retraction.
When I was young (many decades ago) I initially thought the video was just a novelty to show the gear retracting into the wheel well as the P-47 roared off to combat & thought nothing of it until years later when it was called to my attention about the telescopic features. That's when I had to pay closer attention to the slow collapse of the oleo strut.

I live here in Reno, Nevada. Home of the Nat'l Championship Air Races. A Grumman Hellcat was seen here for several years both on display & as a novelty, participate in the races around the pylons. It invariably came in last, but the crowds loved it.

Prior to our conversation, for years I was speculating to myself that perhaps the Hellcat was equipped with a less powerful version of the P&W 2800 which meant not needing such a large propeller to absorb that energy & thereby eliminating the necessity of concerns for special landing gear arrangements for carrier operations.

As an aside note: I was fortunate to see ( & climb onboard) Rare Bear. I also knew both Lyle Shelton & John Penney. Both were great guys & were well-grounded & easily approachable. You may find this a bit amusing. In the cockpit right by the throttle controls is a small placard that says: "Fly fast. Turn left." I took a good close up picture.

 

[DarrenW]

You must have seen some amazing things in Reno over the years! And making a pylon racer out of a Hellcat would only work if it were competing against Texans and most homebuilts, but souped up Mustangs, Bearcats, Lightnings, and Corsairs NO WAY!

 

[Skyediamonds]

Rare Bear. That's me in front. My son took that picture. Up close, it's an amazing machine. John Penney said, up at altitude, he tried to see what the plane's reaction would be during a stall. He said he'll never do that again!! I'll try to find the cockpit shots. Not gonna be easy.

 

[Skyediamonds]

I found the cockpit shots of Rare Bear!!. Wow. You can easily see the placard just besides the throttle. Gotta love that sense of humor. Looking closely of the 2nd picture, on the left side of the main instrument panel just below the oil pressure gauge, you can see the carbon monoxide sticker. To the immediate right, is the A.D.I. switch. Nothing fancy here. They removed all non-essential stuff. Landing gear is allowed to free-fall during extension. These pictures were taken about fifteen years ago. Before I got my first digital camera. At that time I was shooting in b+w film.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Here's some more shots of Rare Bear during its early years. You can see the old paint scheme of overall white with gold trim. I also included the right side cockpit view. The words: "Experimental" is clearly seen. FAA says the letters must be 2" in height.

In response to your reply..... Oh yeah, they raced the Hellcat against the other warbirds. But they were in the Bronze race and almost all of the other warbird racers were stock save for the racing numbers painted on their tails and maybe some fancy paint schemes. . You could almost close your eyes, and hear the distinctive whine of the Merlins and a couple of Tempest's P+W 4360's. Then there's the unmistakable throaty roar of the Hellcat, giving chase on their tails....

Was the Hellcat eventually overtaken? Yep. Even then, everyone in the audience had a big smile on their collective faces. They really enjoyed that "Cat."

Don't know if you're familiar with the categories of racers in the warbirds class. There are three classifications: Gold -for the unlimiteds where almost anything goes so long as its piston powered. Then there's the Silver for those who didn't qualify for the Gold. Then there's the Bronze race. Of course, we have the jets, Goodyears, T-6's, Sports and biplanes. I can't remember the rest, if there are any.

About fifteen years ago, there was a great uproar between two T-6 camps. They had such a rivalry that the losing team demanded that the winning team tear down their engine to show they were not cheating (engines and airframes must be stock, but they can save weight by removing the back seat, sealing up the panels and polishing the finishes). They complied, but not before things almost came to blows. The Air Race Committee kicked both teams off the field for that season.

Of course there are many other things that happen; both tragic and funny. Never a dull moment.. The Committee decided to amend the qualifications of racers and pilots such that safety overruled everything which is a good thing. Still, the unlimiteds were almost stock in all three categories.

 

[DarrenW]

Wow what a beautiful machine! Thanks for the pictures. I really need to make it out to Reno one of these days to see the action. I'll be in Vegas this coming September, what does the racing schedule look like then?

 

[Skyediamonds]

Glad you enjoyed the photos. Least I can do for your excellent response to my query on the Helldiver.
Races are scheduled for Sept. 16-20, 2020. They're promising a new class in the jet racing called X-Class. They will also host the annual American Heritage Awards to the best restored aircraft be it warbirds or biplanes. Should be very interesting show. Tickets can be purchased online & can be either-or both for general admission - pit passes. Pits give you access to the racers & crews up close. Tickets get more expensive as the dates get closer to Sunday, which is the Gold race in all classes. In beteeen races will be airshows & demos of different aircraft/performers & dozens of vendors selling great foods from chefs at outdoor kitchens to souvenirs.

 

[DarrenW]

Bummer, I'm traveling to Vegas a little after that but I still may visit the course and see what's happening during periods when no races are being held. Are there activities to be had there during those times?

 

[Skyediamonds]

Reno has activities almost all year round. Too numerous to list here but balloon air races, 50's cars on Hot August Nights, Street Vibrations for all kinds of motorcycles from antiques to out of this world, Italian festivals with lots of foods, various concerts and more. Insofar as at the Stead Airport after the races are over, its pretty much dead. It once served as a military training base during the Second World War and shortly thereafter (now) as Nat'l Guards, but other than that, it's basically an uncontrolled airfield for private planes. You can still see surrounding military houses all over the immediate area that are still being occupied by tenants and owners alike.

Vacationing in Vegas?

 

[chuter]

I like all military aircraft but my favorite is the F6F Hellcat. I've studied it since I was a child.

I believe that the Corsair's bent wings were chosen primarily for reducing interference drag at the wing root and fuselage and had little to do with propeller clearance (though it was an added benefit towards this goal). And placing the landing gear at the bend allowed the landing gear to be shorter and less complex, which is definitely good a good thing, especially for carrier aircraft.

...

I'm very much in the camp of "the wings were bent to shorten the gear". Sure, longer gear could be made to work on a more conventional wing but would be heavier and the supporting structure would be heavier as well, not just because of the additional landing gear weight but to support the much larger load moments as well. As for the aerodynamics being the all important driver, not having an open (or near open) wing to fuselage junction angle is, itself, rather easily corrected (---> Spitfire) so, in other words, not having baked-in wing/fuselage interference simply meant they didn't have to develop fillet fairings (and making a bent wing is WAY more expensive than making fillet fairings - lol). Also, the inverted gull gives the lowest possible wing-fold point allowing Vought to not have to resort to using Grumman's patented Sto-Wing or moving the wing fold further outboard for vertical clearance which would also add some weight and create a larger deck footprint.

Just my take.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Chuter:
Thanks. You've really helped shed some light here in this topic. So it appears that driving factors are 1) aerodynamic the reduction of interference drag without the use of wing fillets 2) economics, sort of a trade off between the added expense of the wing fillets & the manufacture of the bent wing 3) practicality i,e, landing gear shorten & wing fold clearance & finally 4) propeller clearance. One would think that propeller clearance would be the primary driving factor for the overall design in the first place, since it was originally postulated by books, magazines & journals for years.