Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,641
- 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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.I'm looking at it's actual combat range and endurance in 1942. The TBD was being forced to TO at ~10400lb in 1942 with an 850hp engine...it was already problematic for TO even on the USN's large flight decks and fast carriers. If we add ASB radar, then we have to delete the torpedo to TO and if we find a target at night we can't attack it.
OK, we add a bigger engine (and even more weight) and then it will burn more fuel and range decreases even further. The airframe was lightly stressed and just not capable of handling more weight or higher performance; Just take a look at it's G and Vmax limits.
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.I'm looking at it's actual combat range and endurance in 1942. The TBD was being forced to TO at ~10400lb in 1942 with an 850hp engine...it was already problematic for TO even on the USN's large flight decks and fast carriers. If we add ASB radar, then we have to delete the torpedo to TO and if we find a target at night we can't attack it.
OK, we add a bigger engine (and even more weight) and then it will burn more fuel and range decreases even further. The airframe was lightly stressed and just not capable of handling more weight or higher performance; Just take a look at it's G and Vmax limits.
Why bother repurposing the TBD with ASV when the same equipment fit in the superior SBD which was already tasked with ASW duties.
We can always count on you to provide a pithy, accurate and focused post that's entirely irrelevant to anything.The TBD was too good looking a plane to interest Blackburn.
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?)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 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 10176lbF. Provisional Overload Restrictions
1. Throughout this handbook all weight,
range and endurence figures, given in con-
nection with the MK XIII Torpedo or the
3-500lb bomb condition, are in consideration
of a normal gross weight of 9300lb.
2, In order to increase the effectiveness
of the airplane while carrying a MK XIII
Torpedo or 3-500lb bombs, overloading (in ex-
cess of 9300lb gross) is permissible whereby
full fuel (180 gal.) and full oil (12 gal.)
may be carried with flight restrictions.
Maximum allowable gross weight is 10176lb.
3. Overload Flight Restrictions
a. When overloaded, applied accelera-
tions must be reduced. At 10176lb gross,
the acceleration loads sre restricted to
+3.52 g and -1.76 g as compared to +4 g
and -2 g at 9300# gross.
b. For further data on flight re-
strictions, including permissible weights
for landing, refer to Technical Order No.
superseding T.0. No. 78-37.
The Grumman Hellcat, one of the strongest carrier aircraft, had a 6.6G load limit at overload weight.3. Overload Flight Restrictions
a. When overloaded, applied accelera-
tions must be reduced. At 10176lb gross,
the acceleration loads sre restricted to
+3.52 g and -1.76 g as compared to +4 g
and -2 g at 9300# gross.
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
Why bother repurposing the TBD with ASV when the same equipment fit in the superior SBD which was already tasked with ASW duties.
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.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.
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.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
And we all KNOW that WW II aircraft could not be developed without complete redesign.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.
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.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.
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?C'mon this should be obvious.
Is that poor take off (low powered engine) or poor landing?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.
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.I suppose the question here is which would win in a fight, the Skua or the TBD...
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? Yes, 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, for example.
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.Yet, the Skua was too slow to catch a B5N, G3M, G4M, SM.79, He 111 or TBF.
good point and there are the other considerations.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
Yes, often meeting with them when they are at loaded cruising speed.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.