- Thread starter
-
- #261
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not trying to be confrontational, but the Albacore did benefit from a 30% higher empty weight. That gives you a lot more to play with. (And yes, I understand that the combination of the monoplane and a weaker motor meant that the Devastator wasn't going to get off the deck with an empty weight 30% higher.What can the TBD do that the Albacore can't? If the FAA said to Fairey; remove the need for divebombing and a high G high Vne airframe, reduce the fuel capacity, strip out the armour and SS tanks do you think they could deliver a TBD? Probably, but why would the FAA want that?
The Albacore (and Swordfish) was stressed for vertical divebombing with a 2000lb bomb load. The requirement for vertical divebombing, large internal fuel capacity, armour and SS fuel tanks mandated a larger and stronger airframe. The STOL requirement, with the available engines, meant that a biplane with a larger wing area was required. However, the Albacore with full internal fuel (no aux tanks) and a torpedo weighed about 10% more than a TBD and with max weapons load and max internal fuel it was about 20% heavier (~12500lb) than the TBD at ~10400lb.Not trying to be confrontational, but the Albacore did benefit from a 30% higher empty weight. That gives you a lot more to play with. (And yes, I understand that the combination of the monoplane and a weaker motor meant that the Devastator wasn't going to get off the deck with an empty weight 30% higher.
My bad, I did not intended to suggest a one for one swap, as indeed the Skua and SBD do not overlap, and the non-folding SBD won't fit on Ark Royal (had she survived) nor the Illustrious class. No, my intended point was that if one wanted to use a dive bomber as a stand-in fighter within its service period, the Dauntless does remarkably well considering that unlike the Skua, the SBD was never intended to operate in the fighter role. Online sources report the SBD shot down 138 enemy aircraft, not bad for a divebomber.In May of 1940 when the Skuas are performing successful interceptions off the coast of Norway the SBD was not in service.
The SBD of which thousands were built made many kill claims most of which cannot be verified via reference to IJN records. The Skua seems to have shot down more EAs (verified by Axis records) in 1940 than the SBD in 1942...My bad, I did not intended to suggest a one for one swap, as indeed the Skua and SBD do not overlap, and the non-folding SBD won't fit on Ark Royal (had she survived) nor the Illustrious class. No, my intended point was that if one wanted to use a dive bomber as a stand-in fighter within its service period, the Dauntless does remarkably well considering that unlike the Skua, the SBD was never intended to operate in the fighter role. Online sources report the SBD shot down 138 enemy aircraft, not bad for a divebomber.
One does wonder what an equal number (or greater number, what with folding wings) of Fulmar IIs could have done in the Pacific as CAP instead of Dauntless's in 1942?The SBD of which thousands were built made many kill claims most of which cannot be verified via reference to IJN records. The Skua seems to have shot down more EAs (verified by Axis records) in 1940 than the SBD in 1942...
Fairey found the rear gunner in the Battle had little chance of being effective at battle speeds with the airstream pressures and with the canopy open for the gunner the drag slowed down the Battle and impacted upon the rudder. Hence, with the later light bomber and related Fulmar and then the Firefly, they decided that it would be more effective to fair in the rear cockpit and abandon mounting any gun. It also saved some weight so assisted speed and climb. Albeit a small comparative speed increase. My old RAFVR officer in my ATC squadron was an ex Battle gunner in the Battle of France and said much the same from his experience of wrestling his VGO with a 250 mph slipstream whipping around the raised rear canopy and coming straight into his face.You giving the Fulmar's back seater any guns? Seeing as how we gave it folding wings.
I debunked the SBD claims at Coral Sea previously:My bad, I did not intended to suggest a one for one swap, as indeed the Skua and SBD do not overlap, and the non-folding SBD won't fit on Ark Royal (had she survived) nor the Illustrious class. No, my intended point was that if one wanted to use a dive bomber as a stand-in fighter within its service period, the Dauntless does remarkably well considering that unlike the Skua, the SBD was never intended to operate in the fighter role. Online sources report the SBD shot down 138 enemy aircraft, not bad for a divebomber.
The Fulmar was designed for and built with folding wings. Some were field modded to accept a Vickers GO MG on a post mount and some observers were given SMGs as a last ditch defense.You giving the Fulmar's back seater any guns? Seeing as how we gave it folding wings.
Total brain fart about the folding wings on my part.The Fulmar was designed for and built with folding wings. Some were field modded to accept a Vickers GO MG on a post mount and some observers were given SMGs as a last ditch defense.
* The one RAF aircraft that could and did dive-bomb was, of all things, the Westland Whirlwind, which dropped pairs of 250lb in an 80° dive (I think using the trim tabs to recover); why a twin-engined high-altitude interceptor was given this capability I do not know, except that it seems a very Petter thing to do. The problem with overspeeding mentioned in some sources was caused by an unsatisfactory two-pitch prop, which de Havilland solved on a wet wednesday in the Battle of Britain by clocking the blade angle round by about three degrees, but I don't think they ever got a constant-speed unit, which explains why they never met their design performance in the high-altitude interceptor role...
Very interesting. Is there some additional or mandatory reading about this phenomena happening on the Whirly?It was actually this that was the problem - the fat blades at altitude experiencing rotational wave drag at transonic speeds causing the mechanism to 'fine' to compensate to the point where no thrust was generated.
LOLIt was used for dive-bombing because it was a suitable vehicle for it, really. I don't think Petter had much to do with that decision - some might say that as it was the right one he almost certainly had no connection with it!
I will not say they never dive bombed with the Whirlwind but I think it was very, very rare. Of course it may depend on the definition of "dive-bomb" (what angle was used).It was used for dive-bombing because it was a suitable vehicle for it, really. I don't think Petter had much to do with that decision - some might say that as it was the right one he almost certainly had no connection with it!
While I have little technical understanding of this topic, I do appreciate a good "au contraire".Au contraire - the Whirlwind had a constant speed unit from the outset, controlling a bracket prop. It was actually this that was the problem - the fat blades at altitude experiencing rotational wave drag at transonic speeds causing the mechanism to 'fine' to compensate to the point where no thrust was generated.
It was used for dive-bombing because it was a suitable vehicle for it, really. I don't think Petter had much to do with that decision - some might say that as it was the right one he almost certainly had no connection with it!
In "The Aviation Historian, Issue 20" staring pg. 39 they go into the issue of thickness/profile/speed and the issues with transonic performance. On pg.44 are the references to original materials.Very interesting. Is there some additional or mandatory reading about this phenomena happening on the Whirly?
LOL
I've take a look at the article. It is certainly very informative.In "The Aviation Historian, Issue 20" staring pg. 39 they go into the issue of thickness/profile/speed and the issues with transonic performance. On pg.44 are the references to original materials.
The DH propellers on the Spitfire were having the same issues - and the article proposes that the same solution would have greatly improved the Whirly's altitude performance.
I understand - bottom line, Whirly was never tested with thin propellers, so it is a bit of a what-if. But why the author is starting from a possibility, he doesn't need to keep using "weasel words." My wind tunnel work has been at hi-way speeds, so I'm not an expert on whether a difference between 9 and 9.6% thickness would make that much difference. It seems to have for the SpitfireI've take a look at the article. It is certainly very informative.
What is puzzling to me is the usage of words like "it appears", "possibly", "in this possible condition", "whether or not", "there is little doubt", all in less than two pages - why use that kind of wording in the 1st place?
Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from.I understand - bottom line, Whirly was never tested with thin propellers, so it is a bit of a what-if. But why the author is starting from a possibility, he doesn't need to keep using "weasel words." My wind tunnel work has been at hi-way speeds, so I'm not an expert on whether a difference between 9 and 9.6% thickness would make that much difference. It seems to have for the Spitfire
All the work that NACA put into the airfoil design of propellers goes largely uncredited, but it made enormous difference in the capabilities of the USAAF and USN fighters.