Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

For a reality check on the whole turn the Dauntless into a fighter thing just look at the Brewster Buffalo and the Wright powered Curtiss Hawk 75s/Mohawks which used the same basic engine. See how much smaller the wings and fuselages were.
Douglas may have been able to design a fighter using the R-1820 engine, it just wouldn't have used many Duatless parts except screws and rivets.
 
I'm sure that the USN would be much better off having a single seat Fulmar with a Merlin 32 in it so 1620 hp.

 
Shortround6 said:
For a reality check on the whole turn the Dauntless into a fighter thing just look at the Brewster Buffalo and the Wright powered Curtiss Hawk 75s/Mohawks which used the same basic engine. See how much smaller the wings and fuselages were.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, if they could make a Na-6 or T-6 or whatever into a 300 mph fighter with the same engine and the (similar but less extensive) removal of parts you could probably have made the SBD 300 mph, maybe a little more since you would actually be taking more weight out. Which would have been decent performance for an early Carrier fighter though it wouldn't have been enough for long.

The SBD is probably a bit more aerodynamic than the Buffalo which is really fat. But even that plane got up to 320 mph with a 1,200 hp engine.

P-36 / Hawk 75s also got up to 320+ mph with the 1200 hp engines.

Douglas may have been able to design a fighter using the R-1820 engine, it just wouldn't have used many Duatless parts except screws and rivets.
Click to expand...

You have a knack for making very categorical statements without actually knowing if what you are saying is true.
 
We all have our opinions, that is part of the fun, but most seem to try not to confuse their opinions for facts about things as remote as WW2 air combat. Others like to try to shut down other conversations by throwing out opinions as indisputable natural laws.
 
Well we all (or most of us, anyway) sometimes forget to explicitly state the understood IMHO when making appraisals or conjectures, and most of us let it slide without escalating an omission into a confrontation.
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
As for the Fulmar, that has to be one of the most disappointing planes in Naval history. The Fleet Air Arm seemed to have the worst procurement policies of any major military bureaucracy in WW2.
Click to expand...
You're wrong there, it was the right choice for the role it was needed for at the time it operated. 600 built, IIRC 133 aerial victories, so far better than the Merlin powered Seafire, IIRC 1560 built but only 99 aerial victories. So produced to victories on a par with the Corsair and Thunderbolt. However, I doubt that even the Fulmar which was a far cleaner design than the Dauntless could reach 300 mph even with a Merlin 32, its top speed would probably be the same as an FM-1 but only at low altitude, so clearly the FM-1 wins.
 
Schweik said:
As for the Fulmar, that has to be one of the most disappointing planes in Naval history.
Click to expand...

It wasnt designed to be a fighter that job just got tacked on to a light bomber because the FAA was desperate for anything that flew. It was ordered as a stop gap because the Admiralty couldnt get any of the fighter they wanted the Seafire. As a fighter it did pretty well it shot down more aircraft than any other FAA plane and had a win/loss ratio in air combat of around 10 to 1. From reading it seemed to be very manouverable and easy to take off/land on a deck, what it really needed was about 500hp extra and then it would have been a stellar performer in 1940.
 
fastmongrel said:
It wasnt designed to be a fighter that job just got tacked on to a light bomber
Click to expand...
Once again, that large, high lift wing, so essential to a bomber and granting great agility in combat, becomes a liability in the quest for speed in a fighter. And for every airframe, there's that zone of diminishing returns, beyond which larger and larger power increases result in smaller and smaller speed gains and drag reduction is the only arrow in your quiver.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:

Just an edit on the record for the Fulmar.
Victories 122, losses in air combat 16
so not 10 to 1 but 7.6 to 1 still a very respectable ratio. Only 3 Fulmars were lost to single engine fighters 13 to Bomber defensive armament. Most of the victories were against bombers but it could mix it with Italian fighters and with its flaps in the combat position it could turn inside a CR42.
Fulmar operational history
 

As a reconnaissance plane that big wing was an advantage allowing the Fulmar to take off and land in the dark and loiter for a long time when searching for or tracking a ship. Fulmars from HMS Victorious kept Bismark under watch.
The Story of the Torpedoing of the Bismarck
 
The first production G-36A Martlet fighters ordered by France and accepted by GB had the 1000 hp R-1820. And that airplane is smaller than an SBD but still did not have what you would call sparkling performance.

One reason the Mustang Mk I elicited so little official interest from the USAAF was that it came out at a time in which everyone "knew" that a fighter that with a single engine of less than around 2000 cubic inches was a waste of time. The P-39 and P-40 were not going to cut the mustard but were all that was available and the P-43 was only a little better. Even the RAF had concluded that the future lay not with the Spitfire and Hurricane but with the Typhoon and Beaufighter. The Germans started out with engines of over 2000 cu in and were going up from there. The Japanese bought the DB-601 for the Ki61 in an attempt to get into the big cube league; the Italians did the same for the Macchi and Fiat fighters. The Russians started out with over 2000 cu in engines and went up from there. In the US the future was with the R-2800, multiple V-1710's like the P-38 and P-49, and the V-3420 for the P-58 and P-75. The R-2600 was too small for the F6F and they built only one with that.

But Sir Stanley Hooker more or less accidentally figured out how to make the SMALLEST DISPLACEMENT FRONT LINE FIGHTER ENGINE OF THE WAR perform like a much bigger engine while developing an ALTERNATIVE engine for very high altitude RAF bombers and twin engined very high altitude fighters to combat and emulate the JU-86R. Surprise! The answer was not getting bigger and bigger engines - and airplanes - but getting more power out of an engine even smaller in displacement than a V-1710! Knight him? They should have made him King!

According to a book by a former RN officer the Fulmar was ordered at a time when the RN had to use RAF pilots for its airplanes and thus needed an extra seat so an RN officer could keep an eye on the interloping landlubber and also make sure he did not get too badly lost.
 
Shortround6 said:
See how much smaller the wings and fuselages were.
Douglas may have been able to design a fighter using the R-1820 engine, it just wouldn't have used many Duatless parts except screws and rivets.
Click to expand...
The SFD Fauntless doesn't go away so easy! IMHO it may not be a speed demon, but it could be an effective fighter in a "Hurricane and Spitfire" type scenario, and without an extensive airframe redesign. It's contemporary, the F4F, was essentially a boom and zoom fighter, while historically the SBD succeeded in the turn and burn mode.
Close attention to drag and weight reduction, elimination of the "dive bomber stuff", addition of a combat flap, and replacing the 1820 with a smaller diameter 1830 with better altitude performance and a cleaner cowling and hydromatic prop, would, IMO, give you a 300+ mph fighter that could fly rings around a Wildcat in a turn, but probably not catch it in a dive. A pair of fifties added in the wings probably wouldn't hurt, either.
Cheers,
Wes
 

Good points about all the heavy fighter and giant engine designs. We do tend to look back with the benefit of hindsight, what is obvious to us now wasn't so clear back then.

The solution to fighter speed wasn't necessarily just horsepower it was to a large extent low drag, that is the other part of the success of the Bf 109, the Spitfire, and the Mustang.

My favorite of the ridiculous heavy fighter designs was the Airacuda. A big part of these not succeeding, aside from fundamental design flaws, was the failure of the early US turbocharger designs. Love the look though, very "Buck Rogers".







Perhaps one of the few to somewhat realize the potential of course was the Pfiel
 

This is basically the point I was making. The tight turning would help evade fighters, while it should be fast enough to catch bombers. Basically like a Hurricane in the BoB. And you probably still got a lot of lift-benefit even with a shortened wing (especially at ~1,000 lighter weight), and especially if you added combat flaps (or just ordinary flaps that could be used with a partial / combat setting like a lot of fighters had). I'm not sure I'd add the wing guns though that would depend on the performance of the early version. Two .50 cals in the nose is pretty good for taking on Japanese naval aircraft.
 

I stand corrected on the "Bat" - I knew about it but didn't realize it had been used operationally, albeit only very late in the game (April 1945). It could kill from 20 miles away, very impressive for the time period. Apparently also used to destroy bridges in Burma.

ASM-N-2 Bat - Wikipedia



The Mk 24 torpedo was to me an air dropped torpedo, or an ASW mine or whatever, albeit a sophisticated one. To me a missile implies flight through the air to the target as in the old meaning attributed to rocks, darts and javelins in pre-industrial times

Frankly I had thought all guided missiles in WW2 were basically experimental or desperation weapons. I was surprised to learn in Mediterranean Air War IV that the German anti-shipping ones (Fritz X and HS 293) were being used fairly routinely and with quite a bit of success in the Med around the time of the invasion of Sicily in 1943 through the Anzio landings in 1944. They were posing quite a problem, the launch aircraft such as Do 217 were vulnerable but if they managed to launch a missile the ship was often doomed or at least in bad trouble.
 
the Airacuda looks straight out of Central Casting of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
745
Jabberwocky
J
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
EwenS
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register