Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,490
- Dec 6, 2006
Why bother repurposing the TBD with ASV when the same equipment fit in the superior SBD which was already tasked with ASW duties.
Why the Skua Only Carried a 500lb Bomb
- Thread starter elbmc1969
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
It was carrying a 2200lb torpedo instead of a 1600-1700lb British torpedo. Granted the British torpedo actually worked but the US didn't have the option of a lighter torpedo. 1700;b torpedo meant you could have put over 400lb more fuel the thing for more range.
The R-1830-64 used in the TBD weighed 1295lbs and gave 900hp for take-off at 2500rpm and 850hp at 2450rpm at 8,000ft max continuous. also ran on US 87 octane gas.
The R-1830-66 used in the PBY-3 weighed 1370lbs and gave 1050hp for take-off at 2700rpm and 900hp at 2550rpm at 12,000ft max continuous. Ran on US 100 octane gas.
The -66 engine got a new supercharger in addition to a number of other changes. USN type numbers have no relation to US Army type numbers.
Army P-36 engines were allowed 1200hp for take off from a 1403lb engine.
They sure weren't going to come close to an Avenger but they never tried to update anything from 1937-38 production specification.
Weight from a early R-1830 to a later two Speed Single Stage was not great difference. SFC was better on the later engines as well.
If doing a night Torpedo mission, you don't really need the 3rd crewman. He stays home, like when the Swordfish had the extra fuel tank fitted.
And like that craft, not every aircraft for a strike mission needs to carry a torpedo, like ones that drop flares to illuminate the ships for aiding others to attack if a Night attack is in the works.
It's a thought experiment.
There were far more SBDs produced, and had that important 'S'
Navy policy typically had the Bombers double as Scouts, since the Carriers carried more Scout Bombers than Torpedo planes at the start of the War.
But there is nothing preventing other craft from doing the 'Scout' mission with Radar, had it been around in say, 1940 in place of 1943
As the War went on. the TBF did more scouting than the later replacement for the SBD, the SB2C Helldiver, despite not officially designated at 'S', because Curtiss made a truly awful aircraft. Both types gained Radar sets.
So the TBD could have had Radar, had there been enough of them around flying from Carriers by time airborne Radar was introduced to USN aircraft.
But when a Third of all TBDs ever produced were lost at Midway, that type was done. No replacements, Douglas ended production years before. So survivors were pulled back, and replaced with the new TBFs
Shortround6
Major General
At least one or two TBDs showing up in Britain in early 1938 might have spurred interest in monoplane torpedo bomber. Folded wing took 26 ft so perhaps that could have changed.
The Albacore didn't even fly until Dec 1938, which is over a year after the TBD was in squadron service and over 3 years after it first flew.
It might have helped light a fire under the people working on the Barracuda.
The Albacore didn't even fly until Dec 1938, which is over a year after the TBD was in squadron service and over 3 years after it first flew.
It might have helped light a fire under the people working on the Barracuda.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
The TBD was too good looking a plane to interest Blackburn.
buffnut453
Captain
We can always count on you to provide a pithy, accurate and focused post that's entirely irrelevant to anything.
I'm only jealous, BTW! Love your posts, brother.
Note that the XTBD-1 was ordered on 30 June 1934, flew on 15 April 1935 for the first time but did not enter squadron service until 1937. A development time of 3 years from prototype order (But how much development time was there before the prototype contract was placed?)
Not sure how you believe that the appearance of a TBD in Britain would have speeded up Barracuda development by Fairey. Look at the development timescale (with some added background):-
Mid-1937 - Inskip Report recommends passing control of the FAA to the RN. The rest of the year is spent thrashing out the details.
6/1/38 - Spec S.24/37 (for what became the Barracuda) issued by the Air Ministry
3/38 - Tender Design Conference to begin selection process. Fairey the preferred option from the start but Supermarine Type 322 with its variable incidence wing worth considering. Blackburn resubmitted as late as June.
30/1/39 - Air Ministry issue contract for 2 prototypes.
24/5/39 - Control of the FAA passes back to the RN.
8/6/39 - Admiralty meeting to discuss aircraft procurement reported in ADM 10/10114, dated 20/6/39. S.24/37 production expected to begin in March 1941 at Fairey's Stockport factory on completion of Fulmar production. Expected to be completed one year later.
21/6/39 - Air Ministry issue a production contract for the aircraft "off the drawing board" to be equipped in accordance with relevant standard instructions etc (I've not seen the detail of these).
8/39 - Rolls Royce request suspension of the Boreas 24 cylinder inline (X layout) air cooled engine (aka the Exe engine) intended to power the Barracuda (at that point the only customer airframe). This had been test flown in a Battle in Nov 1938 with the only problem noted being its high oil consumption (a product of the sleeve valve design)
1/9/39 - WW2 breaks out in Europe.
7/9/39 - Hives of RR informs MAP that production 275 Boreas engines cost 1,200 Merlins due to need to tool up to produce it. The Boreas gets suspended and then cancelled altogether in late 1940/early 1941.
9/39 - Barracuda design was then at an advanced stage but the aircraft had a low priority due to the requirements for the expansion of Fighter and Bomber Commands. It now needed substantially redesigned to take a new engine with consideration given to Bristol Taurus, Wright Cyclone, Fairey P.24 Monarch and Napier Sabre. Eventually the Merlin 30 engine was chosen in consultation with the Air Ministry. Weight begins to rise due to the need to provide radiators etc for the liquid cooled Merlin.
12/39 - Fairey receive a Merlin 30 for installation in a revised mock-up.
1940 - construction of prototypes proceeds slowly at Fairey Hayes while plant gets Albacore production underway.
5/40 - the expected first flight date passes due to redesign
Mid-1940 - BoB means programme stopped temporarily.
9/40 - limitations on supplies lifted.
7/12/40 - Prototype flies for the first time.
5/41 - Prototype bypassed A&AEE and went for deck landing trials. It was at this point the various handling problems began to appear leading to changes to the tailplane on the second prototype from the start.
7/41 - first prototype crashes and repairs delay delivery to A&AEE until 10/41.
2/4/42 - first production aircraft flew with second on 16 May. Note this is a more than a full year behind what was expected in June 1939. But handling problems persisted.
5/42 - Service trials begin.
8/12/42 - first full production, built at the Fairey Stockport plant as intended, Mk.II flew.
1/43 - 827 squadron became the first unit to fully re-equip with the Barracuda. By the end of 1943 some 10 squadrons had re-equipped. It received its operational debut on Illustrious later that year.
In the 1938 timeframe responsibility for any delay lies with the Air Ministry not Fairey. Had the original schedule been adhered to service entry would have been mid-late 1941 or 3.5-4 years from issue of the Spec or 2.5-3 years from issue of the order for the prototypes with the prototype flying within 18 months of contract.
The TBF Avenger development process began in 1939 with prototypes ordered in April 1940, first flight on 7 Aug 1941 (16 months from placing the order) and service entry at the beginning of 1942.
[Edit:- the TBF design process started with a request from BuAer on 25 March 1939. They received 13 design proposals from 6 companies on 24 Aug. Narrowed down to 2 by 3 Nov. There was then a delay in ordering prototypes until 8 April 1940. Mock up inspected 6 July 1940. Production contract awarded 30 Dec 1940 before first flight on 7 Aug 1941. First prototype lost 28 Nov 1941 after 25 flying hours. Second prototype ready to fly 3 weeks later with first production machine flying on 3 Jan 1942. The first unit, VT-8, began receiving its aircraft in March/April 1942.]
So in comparison, had it not been for the delays brought about by the opening of WW2, Barracuda development would not have been excessive compared to US types.
Last edited:
Here's the thing about the TBD: it nearly reached Vne at full throttle in level flight. Vmax was 206mph at 8000ft and Vne was 205 knots (235mph) it's G limits were so low that it was basically limited to straight and level flight when fully loaded. it was a very limited design with no growth potential. From the Aircraft manual:
The TBD was restricted from dives steeper than 45degs. This was for a new aircraft. By 1942 the addition of armour, additional avionics and armament had increased gross weight to well above 10176lb
Last edited:
The Grumman Hellcat, one of the strongest carrier aircraft, had a 6.6G load limit at overload weight.
I believe the early A6M Zeros had 4G limit at overload weight. Normal load, the wings could still damage at 6G
The early Mk 13 was somewhat lighter (~1950lb) than the later versions which had a 600lb, rather than a 400lb warhead and other improvements. As I pointed out above the airframe was already maxed out in terms of weight capacity, power and airframe strength.
Last edited:
The TDB was already surpassing even it's overload limits in 1942, so the G and dive angle limits were even less than the manual states. It simply had no further capacity for development without a complete redesign.
Shortround6
Major General
And we all KNOW that WW II aircraft could not be developed without complete redesign.
Like the P-36.
A-20
B-17
B-25
B-26
P-38
P-39
and so on.
I am very interested in what Douglas did during the complete redesign of the SPD-3 that allowed to go from 9031lbs (1000lb bomb/100 US gallons) in 1941 to 11770lbs (1000lb bomb, 8 5"HVAR/284 US gal) as the SPD-6 in 1945. Or the often quoted 1600lb AP bomb plus two 325 depth charges.
British 18in torpedo was under 1500lbs in the early/mid 30s???
The MK VIII used the same same charge as the MK VII (neither was dropped in WW II)
The MK IX went to sea in 1936. had a 440lb charge but it was not satisfactory.
MK XII showed up in 1937. There were also MK XII* and MK XII** versions
Mid WW II saw the MK XV torpedo and there were several variations of this.
MTBs and land based torpedo planes used heavier warheads than carrier based torpedo bombers.
Just like the Skua never got a MK III version the TBD-1 stayed as it was, never a -2 version.
The SBD managed to go from a 1000hp to a 1350hp engine by the end of the war
Not saying the British should have adopted the TBD in 1938. Just that it could have pushed some people to think that perhaps the Albacore was not really that good and idea and they needed to get moving on what would become the Barracuda.
planespotting
Airman
- 31
- Apr 16, 2023
I suppose the question here is which would win in a fight, the Skua or the TBD...
The Skua and SBD were monoplane divebombers that had much higher G and Vne limits than the TBD and the same is true for many of the aircraft on your list. Consequently there was more potential in the airframe for development; C'mon this should be obvious.
The Albacore was stressed for vertical divebombing with up to 2000lb of bombs and had divebrakes (flaps) rated for deployment up to Vne, and had a Vne of 215 knots vs 206* for the TBD. The Albacore was designed for internal and external aux fuel tanks. There is absolutely no way that the FAA would have considered the TBD to be a replacement for the Albacore or in anyway comparable to the Albacore. The TBD had none of the attributes that the FAA wanted in a strike aircraft and was not operable from most FAA carriers available in 1939 due to it's poor STOL characteristics.
*Swordfish Vne was 205 knots!
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
What is obvious was that the P-36 had problems with skin buckling and weak landing gear attachment points. And yet, after adding about 250lbs to the wing structure, they were operating the later P-40s at weights that well over 33% heavier gross weight clean at the same G load limits. Complete redesign? or partial?
A-20 went from the R-1830 engines and a 15,200lb gross weight to the R-2600 engines and a gross weight of 21,095lbs on the A-20C and 23,977lbs on the A-20J and max combat take-off of 27,000lbs. Yes they strengthen the spars and stuck the bigger tail on it. But total redesign??
Same for the rest of them
It is obvious.
Is that poor take off (low powered engine) or poor landing?
One might compare the TBD to the Nakajima B5N1 (entered production in Nov 1937) and the modifications to the B5N2 (entered production in early 1940).
The western powers were not going to get a good look (or any look?) at the B5N1/2 before the war so looking at the TBD is the best the British can do.
The B5N1 prototype used powered wing fold and fowler flaps. They were taken off to lighten/simplify the plane for both production and maintenance.
The B5N1 managed to fold it's 50' 11" wing down to 23' 8" with an absence of elegance but also an absence of origami skills.
Stick a more powerful engine in the TBD, fold the wing a bit shorter, cut down the Crystal Palace canopy and see what that gets you?
Not saying the British should put in the TBD into production. What I am saying is that comparing the TDB (flying for over two years) to the Albacore (still on paper, mostly) and having somebody besides C.G. Grey look at it, maybe somebody could have looked at the Fairey team and told them (in a disappointed headmaster voice) "you can do better".
Admiral Beez
Major
Skua wins against Devastator. The Skua is faster and has four times the forward armament. Yokosuka B4Y aside, the TBD is about the only non-British torpedo-bomber the Skua can defeat.
Who else makes a fleet defence fighter that's slower than every torpedo bomber? Yet, the Skua was too slow to catch a B5N, G3M, G4M, SM.79, He 111 or TBF. Even the Fulmar is lacking in speed against some of these - it won't catch an Avenger or B6N, for example.
buffnut453
Captain
And yet the Skua shot down 17 He111s and even 5 Ju88s (all kills confirmed against Luftwaffe recorded losses) during the Norwegian campaign. I'm not saying the Skua was fast enough...but top speeds are seldom attainable by heavily-loaded bombers.
Shortround6
Major General
It helps to compare speeds at torpedo dropping height instead of speeds at 12-15,000ft and it also helps to compare planes that were actually in service at the same time.
good point and there are the other considerations.
A. as above, the speed at 150ft was not the best speed of the bombers ( it wasn't the best for the Skua either but the best altitude was a lot closer)
B. you can't drop the torpedo at the maximum speed of the bombers, at least not when the Skua was in service.
The Skua was replaced in 800 squadron in March/April 1941, 806 got Fulmar when(1940?), 803 got Sea Hurricanes in May 1941 and 801 got Sea Hurricanes in August 1941.
Different sources will give different dates as a number of months could pass between first issue of aircraft and being declared operational on them.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Yes, often meeting with them when they are at loaded cruising speed.
