Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
Yes and Yes. The RAF even managed to sink a ship or two in the Aegean in early '43.
But the experiment was short lived. Soon the Marauder Is were repurposed for maritime recon.
Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?
- Thread starter fliger747
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But the experiment was short lived. Soon the Marauder Is were repurposed for maritime recon.
- Thread starter
- #302
Might much of the reason the F5F never got off the bench be below rather than above the deck? It would have had to have come while the F4F was at bat. Might not one of the reasons the F6F rather than the F5F was put in that batter's circle have been because the engineering in the F6F wasn't as radically-unfamiliar to the F4F mechanics as was that in the F5F? Additionally, consider flying familiarity and practice. Both the F4F and F6F were very similar. The pilots that trained on one didn't need much training if at all on the other, outside of the specials associated with the F6F.
The F6Fs did quite a lot of bombing practice. Look at the training logs and see. They got as much bombing practice in three months as the SBDs got in two months. Certainly going down from the F6F to the F4F or FM2, the pilots needed no familiarity and practice training. All this I think has to play into the reason we kept these F5F sluggers in the dugout, and off the carriers. The unfamiliar engineering I'm thinking had to have been a factor.
We were fighting a war, boys, not playing a video game...
The F6Fs did quite a lot of bombing practice. Look at the training logs and see. They got as much bombing practice in three months as the SBDs got in two months. Certainly going down from the F6F to the F4F or FM2, the pilots needed no familiarity and practice training. All this I think has to play into the reason we kept these F5F sluggers in the dugout, and off the carriers. The unfamiliar engineering I'm thinking had to have been a factor.
We were fighting a war, boys, not playing a video game...
Last edited:
Personally I think it was
1. it had 2 engines, so they would have had to carry more parts
2. They thought it was too heavy at 10,892 overload so they instead bought an F4F-4 that I think hit 8,800 with drop tanks on 1200 hp, and then an F6F and F4U that were 12,500 or more
3. Grumman was too busy with F4F to work on it
4. They built the center section as a single large fuel tank but evidently it had internal bracing and couldn't hold a self sealing bladder. Of course they could have built a different one but I assume neither the military nor Grumman wanted to pay for it
5. The extremely good performance numbers I give at 20,000 feet are for one with turbochargers which we know they won't do. (2 turbocharged 9 cylinder radials are too complicated so they build 10 fast climbing Corsairs to combat kamakazis with 28 cylinder R4860's because 28 cylinder engines are super simple)
6. They simply didn't understand what it might be capable of
7. They underestimated the japanese
8. Maybe training pilots for 2 engine planes was a problem
Remember, the US government let the prototype P51 sit on a runway for a year because they said it was a bad plane
1. it had 2 engines, so they would have had to carry more parts
2. They thought it was too heavy at 10,892 overload so they instead bought an F4F-4 that I think hit 8,800 with drop tanks on 1200 hp, and then an F6F and F4U that were 12,500 or more
3. Grumman was too busy with F4F to work on it
4. They built the center section as a single large fuel tank but evidently it had internal bracing and couldn't hold a self sealing bladder. Of course they could have built a different one but I assume neither the military nor Grumman wanted to pay for it
5. The extremely good performance numbers I give at 20,000 feet are for one with turbochargers which we know they won't do. (2 turbocharged 9 cylinder radials are too complicated so they build 10 fast climbing Corsairs to combat kamakazis with 28 cylinder R4860's because 28 cylinder engines are super simple)
6. They simply didn't understand what it might be capable of
7. They underestimated the japanese
8. Maybe training pilots for 2 engine planes was a problem
Remember, the US government let the prototype P51 sit on a runway for a year because they said it was a bad plane
The maintainers don't give a crap about "radically unfamiliar engineering" in the aerodynamic sense, unless it brings with it exotic materials with troublesome fabrication techniques, weird mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical systems, or particularly complicated and fussy accessories and appliances. Tin bending is tin bending, gasoline engines are a known quantity, wiring is wiring, and plumbing is plumbing. The Skyrocket may have seemed radical in concept and appearance, but dimes to dollars it was made of the same kinds of pieces as its contemporaries. Learning on the shop floor is an eternal process.
Cheers,
Wes
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The concept of a twin engined fighter seemed to be popular in the late 30's, so the XF5F/XP-50 wasn't all that radical.
The Whirlwind, the Fw187 and P-38 were all real emulations of this and of course, once we take a step up to the "Heavy Fighter", the list becomes much, much longer.
But all that might be great for another thread, since none of this has anything to do with the SBD
The Whirlwind, the Fw187 and P-38 were all real emulations of this and of course, once we take a step up to the "Heavy Fighter", the list becomes much, much longer.
But all that might be great for another thread, since none of this has anything to do with the SBD
fubar57
General
buffnut453
Captain
We should stop calling these "threads" and start calling them "tangles".
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Ya' think?
fubar57
General
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Kevin J
Banned
The concept of a twin engined fighter seemed to be popular in the late 30's, so the XF5F/XP-50 wasn't all that radical.
The Whirlwind, the Fw187 and P-38 were all real emulations of this and of course, once we take a step up to the "Heavy Fighter", the list becomes much, much longer.
But all that might be great for another thread, since none of this has anything to do with the SBD
Overall dimensions of the SBD and the Skyrocket are about the same and since we were talking about a fighter SBD then just for comparison's sake, what you could do with two engines on an SBD size air frame?
According to wiki, Grumman XF5F Skyrocket - Wikipedia testing wasn't completed until Jan 15 1942 so any production models would have been too late for the first year of war in the Pacific. So I guess its either the Wildcat, the Buffalo or the CC&F Sea Hurricane, the choice is yours.
Kevin J
Banned
And if you really do want a fighter SBD then why not ask the Brits for a single seat Fulmar with a Merlin 32?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Or...perhaps we go with what happened historically by the people who were there at the time to make the informed decisions based on what they knew at the time.
The SBD was designed as a dive-bomber, not a fighter. As a dive-bomber, it delivered on it's promise above and beyond the expectations of the designers, builders and the US Navy.
As for fighters, there were a plethora of naval fighters either in the works or being considered by the USN by the late 30's.
As for the Sea Hurricane...wasn't going to happen. The USN had an aversion to liquid-cooled engines ...and foreign built aircraft.
F4F would be the baseline in terms of a USN fighter, so whatever hypothetical improvement was fielded would have to have better range and better capability against Japanese fighters, not worse on both fronts. In the event it was the Royal Navy that needed the F4F.
Last edited:
"Maybe?" Really? Look at the aviators flight logs on the F6 in late 1944 and early 1945. Many of these pilots had no formal training on the F4 and yet they were able to switch to the F4 or FM without any formal familiarity or practice training whatsoever. These designs were what enabled that switch-hitting.
Last edited:
Kevin, we had a fighter SBD, it was the F6.
When you're right, you're right, cadet.
Getting back to the question in this thread that has since been snapped, "Why was the SBD such an effective aircraft?," the second chair I think hasn't got the attention here it should. It was there for defense. That was its primary function. We knew these "Speedy Ds" could be caught as they were making their escape. We put that heavy gunnery in there for that reason, alone. It was for the swifter fighters harassing them, to get those off of their backs.
Last edited:
