Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All that buying a couple of BT-1s would have done is confirmed to the FAA that the USN was well behind the curve in DB design...:Just to do what the Japanese did, buy a couple, to see what other were doing.
UK was kind of ignoring what others were doing, and didn't help that the RAF was choosing for FAA
'That's good enough for you, old chap'
Douglas was always improving their product, and helped that they had gained that promising young man, Ed Heinemann as Chief Engineer in 1936, after the takeover of Northrop.
Blackburn, OTOH.....
Northrop, and then Douglas after the buyout, had been trying to sell attack aircraft to fill that role since the early '30s, military version of the Gamma, gradually improved, until the SBD was reached
View attachment 717208Gamma 2E
View attachment 717209BT-1 first flight 1935
View attachment 717210 XBT-1 with R-1535 and XBT-2 with R-1820, both with retractable gear. The XBT-2 flew in 1938, and had designation changed to SBD in 1939.
If the Chinese and Spanish could buy the Gamma in 1937, so could the FAA, and keep up with the improved models.
Just to do what the Japanese did, buy a couple, to see what other were doing.
UK was kind of ignoring what others were doing, and didn't help that the RAF was choosing for FAA
'That's good enough for you, old chap'
Douglas was always improving their product, and helped that they had gained that promising young man, Ed Heinemann as Chief Engineer in 1936, after the takeover of Northrop.
Blackburn, OTOH.....
This is close but not quite right.It's also much easier to plan out a procurement effort when you're not fighting a war. The US had over 2 years in which it could see what was happening in Europe (and elsewhere) and adjust its force structure and aircraft capabilities accordingly. In many respects, the US was learning from the Brits, not the other way round.
This is close but not quite right.
In Early 1939 the USN was putting out the requirement for the SB2C. It took quite a while to get that thing to even be half way right.
March of 1939 was when they issued the requirement that lead to the Avenger. They got 13 proposals and by late summer had whittled the field down considerably. By Nov 1939 it was down to two prototypes from Grumman and one form Vought although contracts wouldn't be signed for another 6 months.
The Navy had ordered the XF4U in June of 1938, inspected a mock up in Feb of 1939 and had a flying prototype in May of 1940. Yes it needed hundreds of changes.
Grumman had done a couple of designs in 1938 for fighters to use the Wright R-2600 engine but put them aside to work on the F4F and the TBF, Grumman started work again in Sept 1940, because as you say, the war in Europe was showing that better aircraft than the F4F were going to be needed in the near future.
This is leaving out some of the other prototypes and also rans. The Force structure was tweaked and the aircraft capacities were adjusted bit but the USN fought the war in 1943/44 with the aircraft they had planned in 1938-40.
They had several advantages, The R-2600 was in small scale production in 1939 with 163 made and with 1925 built in 1940 the Navy was somewhat assured they had a decent powerplant for the intended aircraft. The R-2800 was flying in XF4U-1 in the summer of 1940 with an 1800hp engine (it went through several).
The USN was not learning much from the RN. Perhaps they should have so their torpedoes wouldn't be so bad?
Now the US was not trying to fight the war at the same time so development of prototypes went a bit faster than in Britain. The TBF went fast, the SB2C which started earlier finished later, good thing we had the SBD
The USAAC maybe could have used some more/better lessons. But the order for the P-47 was placed in 1940 and the P-43 orders were only intended to help fund factory expansion and to keep the work force together and enlarge it and train it so it would be ready to make the P-47s when the time came.
A-20, B-25, B-26 and B-24 were all prewar designs although a lot tweaking to the armament (adding power turrets) went on.
No, but they were keeping track.Are you back to the old trope that the Japanese "copied" Western designs? Show me how Japanese procurement of ANY US aircraft significantly informed the design of its own aircraft.
Devastator was better than the Shark or Swordfish.However, the aircraft the USN had in-service in the 1930s weren't exactly world leaders. That's the key point I was trying to make. I just got a little over-excited.
No, but they were keeping track.
A lot of us do tend to forget how long it took for aircraft to go from the planning/design stage to actual squadron useAgreed...my comment about the US learning from the RN was over-the-top. However, the aircraft the USN had in-service in the 1930s weren't exactly world leaders. That's the key point I was trying to make. I just got a little over-excited.
Val wasn't better than the Vindicator. A5M wasn't as good as the Grumman F3F. Kate was slightly better than the Devastator, and no comparison with the torpedoes.No...the IJN was largely AHEAD of the USN in aircraft development during the mid/late 1930s, not just keeping track.
The US was rather spotty.No...the IJN was largely AHEAD of the USN in aircraft development during the mid/late 1930s, not just keeping track.
Val wasn't better than the Vindicator. A5M wasn't as good as the Grumman F3F. Kate was slightly better than the Devastator, and no comparison with the torpedoes.
Zero was a 1940 aircraft, however.
Not really.Zero was a 1940 aircraft, however.
The Devastator had less range than the Swordfish, wasn't stressed for divebombing, and it's STOL and wing fold characteristics meant it wasn't operable from RN carriers, much less escort/MAC carriers, where the Swordfish soldiered on until 1945. The Swordfish was intended for replacement by the Albacore in 1939, but had to carry on as the Albacore was delayed into service by engine production problems. By May 1941 the Swordfish was fitted with ASV radar, and yet could still carry a full weapons load including the much superior RN Mk12 torpedo. The Devastator would have been completely useless for the FAA.Devastator was better than the Shark or Swordfish.
F2A-1 Buffalo was better than the Sea Gladiator
Vindicator was better than the Skua. Hell, the Curtiss SBC Helldiver Biplane was better than the Skua
I'd argue that the A5M was better than the F3F
| F3F | A5M4 | |
| Engine | Wright Cyclone 950HP | Nakajima 41 710HP |
| empty weight | 3307 | 2874 |
| Max TO | 4797 | 4017 |
| Max Fuel | 130 gallons | 87 gallons, 42 gallon drop tank |
| Speed | 264mph@15000ft ??mph@S.L. | 270mph@9800ft 225mph@S.L. |
| Climb | 2,800 ft/min | 3m35s to 9800ft =2735 ft/min |
| Range | 980 miles | 658 miles internal 870 drop tank |
| Armament | 1 0.30 M1919 500 rnds 1 0.50 M2 200rds | (2) 7.7mm Type 89 MGs 500 rounds |
| Notes | Enclosed Cockpit, Reliable Radio | Open: Type 96 Radio not as reliable |
Worked against Soviet Bombers over Finland. But the FAA main task wasn't to be participating in the Battle of Britain, but to protect CarriersIt's difficult to imagine how the F2A-1, with it's completely inadequate armament, would have faired against Luftwaffe bombers in 1940.
That's a good point.Worked against Soviet Bombers over Finland. But the FAA main task wasn't to be participating in the Battle of Britain, but to protect Carriers
Quote:Worked against Soviet Bombers over Finland. But the FAA main task wasn't to be participating in the Battle of Britain, but to protect Carriers