SBD Dauntless Discussion Group

[trackend]

I find this info really interesting guys If you go back in history from ancient times to the current state of affairs ask any guy who has been in a scrap and although the technology changes the feelings and emotions that the participants have remain almost unchanged including how long an action or event took.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Forget a low energy state, have you ever turned in an aircraft with full flaps?

Actually I have. And fact is when the flaps go down, you slow down. Slow speed means a low energy level. Then the SBD had better speed up quite quick or its doomed. Only way to do that is to dive downward which means its not heading into the fighters.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

He wasn't the gunner though, he was the pilot and he was on his own.

There we go, hes all alone and claims three zero's! I wonder if he was telling tall tales at the officers club and someone took him at his word....
"and there I was....."

[lesofprimus]

No his gunner was with him... Ur confusing 2 seperate incidents...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Actually I have. And fact is when the flaps go down, you slow down. Slow speed means a low energy level. Then the SBD had better speed up quite quick or its doomed. Only way to do that is to dive downward which means its not heading into the fighters.

It also means you're increasing wing area and you turn tighter - look at those dive flaps on the SBD. I'd bet dollars to donuts that with flaps deployed the SBD could easily turn inside a Zero. As the flaps were perforated(also used as dive brakes), I would also guess there were no limitations on speed deployed.....

[lesofprimus]

ACtually what Swede did was he used a zoom climb, flaps out and pulled a bunch of G's, came around and dove slightly, full throttle, and on each successive pass, peppered each of the 3 Zeros with a bunch of rounds... Each one burst into flames, the 3rd Zero also had his wing ripped off.....

U see, Swede was a hell of a gunner and taught gunnery to new pilots... He sustained no damage to his craft in this engagement, although his windscreen was covered with oil from the 2nd Zero...

[syscom3]

Did anyone witness this?

And does anyone have turn data for the SBD with flaps down?

Also, wasnt it fowler flaps that increased wing area? I thought the SBD flaps were the more traditional types that changed the shape of the wing, not wing area.

[lesofprimus]

His gunner witnessed all 3, his wingman saw 2 and confirmed another large splash for the 3rd...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

ACtually what Swede did was he used a zoom climb, flaps out and pulled a bunch of G's, came around and dove slightly, full throttle, and on each successive pass, peppered each of the 3 Zeros with a bunch of rounds... Each one burst into flames, the 3rd Zero also had his wing ripped off.....

U see, Swede was a hell of a gunner and taught gunnery to new pilots... He sustained no damage to his craft in this engagement, although his windscreen was covered with oil from the 2nd Zero...

Maybe mentioned earlier, I think his gunner would of confirmed the kills as well. I do know that majority of SDB gunners were ARMs (Aviation Radioman). It would seem that once the battle was over and the crew gained their composure, Swede's gunner would of been on the radio immediately, either on frequency to the carrier or attempting to communicate with the other aircraft in his flight. I'm sure flaming 3 Zeros might of been a topic of discussion......

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Also, wasnt it fowler flaps that increased wing area?.

All flaps increase wing area when deployed - fowler, split, zap, or slat.....

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

All flaps increase wing area when deployed - fowler, split, zap, or slat.....

Only the Fowlers, since they extend backwards when extended. Split flaps are hinged and only drop down. They change the camber of the lower wing airfoil.

Slats are not really flaps, in my book.

What is a zap?

[lesofprimus]

The opposite of a zip???

[syscom3]

"zip flaps"..... hehehehe

They were named after Northrop engineer Edward Zap, who invented them.

I think they were retractable flaps that extended the whole span.

Im probably wrong on this, so someone correct me.

[R Leonard]

And If I had left out the times what happens to your argument?
- If you left out the times, I would have asked you if you had more evidence.

-- Presuming, of course, that you knew I had the times.

And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
- Actaually yes. All pilots were asked to give the best estimate of time of events as it happened. The pilots actually had clocks in the cockpit for them to look at from time to time. If the AAF could do it, the surface ships do it (when they were shooting at enemy planes and ships) then I think it would be resonable for the naval Air Arm to request the same things from their pilots.

-- Oh gee, I didn’t know instrument panels had clocks! Who would have thought; what a clever idea. In you own words “best estimate of time of events as it happened” and maybe that’s the best they could have done under some circumstances. Also we’re not discussing pilots.

And the fact that some of these only gives a range of time in which an action occurs makes them "unbelievable"?
- Yes. to say "i shot down a plane sometime between the following 30 minutes in the air. I cant remember it though." would be a flag for anyone to question the validity of the claim.

-- Evidently the debriefers don’t share your august opinion; especially since they rated 7 other gunners claims as only probables and another 13 as only damaged.

And the fact that several of the credits occurred in the same area makes the unbelievable?
- The fact several gunners made claims at the same time at the same location is most probably the result of them all shooting at the same plane

-- And you can make this determination without any knowledge of the engagement itself?

And how do you draw that conclusion?
- Logical conclusion as proven many times in tallying up the results at the end of the war. The gunners of the planes in formation did not all talk amongst themselves on who was going to shoot at which plane.

-- Ahh, I see, logic, but not based on any actual knowledge of the circumstances.

Do you know with what other aircraft these were operating?
- Irrelevent to this discussion

-- Ummm, well, I suppose I can see how the number of aircraft involved on both sides of an engagement would be irrelevant to how many were shot down; especially since it is equally obvious that it is apparently, in your world, impossible for than one plane to be shot down in any one engagement. Give me a break.

Do you know who may have witnessed the events?
- the ones that had precise times of their kill, or of shared kills I counted as valid. That is good evidence there were multiple witness's

-- And so anyone else who witnessed an action is dismissed out of hand, right?

Are you aware of the circumstances of the action?
- Irrelevent to this discussion ‘

-- The circumstances of an action would seem to drive the results. Certainly more relevant than your opinion.

Please describe the action so that we may share your insight.
- Irrelevent to this discussion

-- You don’t mean you have no idea what occurred? And you presume to pass judgment?

What makes you think a credit is shared when it is not so noted, were you there?
- When the times matched at the same location, that was a shared kill, with all gunners shooting at the same plane. By the way, were you there too?

-- See above regarding circumstances surrounding the action. Here you sit in front of your PC 60 years later with apparently no knowledge of the events and pontificate and pass judgment on what has been recorded. Must be nice to be omniscient.

And when were you certified as an ACIO?
- Did you get yours over the internet? I have a CCNA and a white chevy. Do you?

-- Apparently you have no idea what is an ACIO, which probably explains a lot. Wouldn’t drive a chevy if you paid me.

Facts, not opinion. Show me some evidence.
- Im questioning the evidence in that the kills claimed were exagerated. It's perfectly valid to interject personal opinion into an argument, as long as you dont declare it fact. You seem to be attacking me for asking questions. Are you hiding something?

-- Hardly can be hiding if I can provide you with information you obviously do not have yourself in the first place. Glad to see that you aren’t declaring anything as fact, merely your opinion to which you certainly entitled, regardless how uninformed.

Oh, you have none?
- Your evidence sounds mighty slim. Attack the questioneer, not discuss the facts as you see them.

-- If I can cite the instances of the claims and you cannot, that seems that I have evidence of the claims and you have naught but your self esteemed opinion.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' evidence do you?
- Im asking the questions. I dont need evidence. Im just pointing out some area's of the claims that need further clarification and study.

-- No actually, you do need the evidence. You are the one challenging the established record. In order for your challenge to stand you must offer something beyond your opinion which would effect a change to the record. You, since you are questioning their validity, must examine the claims “that need further clarification and study.” Anything else is just BS.

Your considered opinion means nothing without something to back it up.
- I dont think youre helping your argument by continuing to attack me, and not expanding on your evidence. Ive already stated that some of those claims didnt sound "kosher". Others did make sense.

-- If challenging your opinion as having no basis in fact or research is attacking you, then so be it. I am questioning an obvious inability to offer any concrete refutation of the record beyond just your opinion. Opinions don’t count.

Lawd, lawd, I've seen folks grasp at straws before, but this is prime.
- Ive seen some of the Luftwaffe experts in the other threads do a professionally good job backing up their claims. I dont think youre doing a good job at all. Its like youre not sure of the evidence.

-- If you are expecting me to do your research for your contention, you can guess again. If you’re nice, I might consider citing the reports where you could find the info, but don’t hold your breath and, somehow, I just don’t think you’d bother to follow up.

-- You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I’ve said, but you should take care to couch it as such, rather than as some vaguely disguised fact. Always helps to start out with “I don’t know for certain because I wasn’t there and haven’t read the reports, but in my opinion . . .” That’s a little easier to digest and then all you’d hear from me is “my, that is certainly interesting . . . I think, on the basis of the record, you are perhaps mistaken, but it’s not my job to change your mind.”

Regards,

Rich

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by syscom3

"zip flaps"..... hehehehe

They were named after Northrop engineer Edward Zap, who invented them.

I think they were retractable flaps that extended the whole span.

Im probably wrong on this, so someone correct me.

There spoilers on the surface of the wing usualy about 1/3 to 1/4 of the outer span. They "spoil" the lift on that wing and are very effective in terms of roll effectiveness. A great shot of how they work is on the F-14s in "Top Gun", note the elevators are also linked in modern aircraft which is only possible in computer assisted/controlled aircraft.

By the way the ailerons were only used on the P-61 because the Spoliers were not accepted by conventional pilots.

wmaxt