Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Waynos]

Compared to the Fairey Swordfish the TBD was bang up to date!

[Venganza]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Compared to the Fairey Swordfish the TBD was bang up to date!

Luckily for the Swordfish the Germans (and Italians) didn't have any operational aircraft carriers. Just goes to show how the situation can make the plane. Change the situations, and the TBD cripples the Bismarck and destroys the Italian fleet at Taranto and the Swordfish gets slaughtered at Midway.

Venganza

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Venganza

Luckily for the Swordfish the Germans (and Italians) didn't have any operational aircraft carriers. Just goes to show how the situation can make the plane. Change the situations, and the TBD cripples the Bismarck and destroys the Italian fleet at Taranto and the Swordfish gets slaughtered at Midway.

Venganza

I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.

If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.

It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason

[Venganza]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.

If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.

It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason

Parsifal, no disrepect meant towards the Stringbag, one of my all time favorite planes. You make some valid points about the good flying characteristics of the Swordfish. I've read about escort carriers in the North Atlantic, not the most hospitable of places, heaving up and down with the waves, and the only plane that could take off was the Swordfish, with that 3-bladed Fairey-Reed biting into the wind and that huge wing area giving the plane enough lift to take off. I still think my point is a valid one in general - change the situation, and a "bad" plane can become a good one and vice-versa. The TBD could have been equipped to fly at night, and could have been given the rockets and radar that the later Swordfish were. It might not have been the success that the Stringbag certainly was, but history might have treated it a little more kindly (which isn't saying much - it might as well have had the nickname "Disaster" instead of "Devastator").

Venganza

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I have to disagree with that...the swordfish differed from the TBD fundamentally in a number of ways. From very early it was configured to operate at Night, and always had such docile flying characteristics as to enable it to fly in very rough weather conditions. US Carriers could not operate in the Arctic effectively, whereas the Swordfish on british jeep carriers did so on a routine basis.

If it had been TBDs operating from the british carriers in 1941 against the Bismarck, and the italians at taranto and matapan, none of these operations could have come off. Simply because the TBD was not equipped to operate at night, and the Swordfish was, and also because the Swordfish could operate in conditions that would leave the American aircraft grounded.

It would have been intersting to see the Axis carriers trying to operate against night capable british aircrews. i think they wouldnt have stood a chance to be honest, for that very reason

While there is no argument about the Swordfish's combat record, even comparing it technically to the TBD, it was a half generation behind.

Equipping an aircraft to fly at night is very simple to do and in reality I don’t see what the TBD lacked to enable it to operate at night (the minimum needed is a landing light and nav lights and it did have those). As far as flying in rough weather conditions, I would want to see what kind of navigation equipment I had on the aircraft, but even if I was equipped with GPS in the early 1940s, I'd pass on the open cockpit. I don’t think the Swordfish had anything on it that special that made it a better adverse weather (IFR) machine than the TBD, except those that were used for ASW work, I know they had radar onboard.

I can't see any condition that would prevent a TDB from flying when compared to the Swordfish.

Jeep carrier ops - the Swordfish would probably have it because of its landing speeds and distance but I think the adverse weather condition operations are a mute point, except if you're the poor sod who has to fly in an open cockpit.

The Swordfish, despite being obsolete was in the right place at the right time. It was the perfect aircraft in the theaters it operated from and one cannot forget that it carried far better quality torpedoes than the US. Had it served in the Pacific IMO it would of suffered as badly as the Vickers Vildebeest did in Malaya, or perhaps the Japanese would of had a harder time shooting at it because it was actually slower!

[parsifal]

No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).

It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots per year), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.

With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war. They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).

Again this "rough weather" handling is rather vague - usually the larger and heavier plane will handle "rough weather" better if we're talking flying through turbulence. I think the TBD will have that hands down as it out weighs the Swoardfish by over 2000 pounds when fully loaded. If we're talking IFR operations (flying in the soup) the only advantage I could see is if the Swoardfish aircraft in question had radar.

Originally Posted by parsifal

It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots per year), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.

And agree, it excelled in its ASW role

Originally Posted by parsifal

With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war.

Are we talking operational or aircraft specific - you said the aircraft couldn't fly at night and I beg to differ. Now if the operator chooses not to operate the aircraft in night time sorties, that's a whole other story - bottom line the TBD could be flon at night.

Originally Posted by parsifal

They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.

Again I see nothing there addressing the hardware - remember we operated in the Aleutian Islands through 1943. Although not pretty, the mission went on.

[parsifal]

I dont know about the rough weather either, but I have read that the Stringbag could land an take off in a sixty foot swell. A sea state o that magnitude means that the deck is heaving and broaching pretty heavily, with a lot of green coming over the bowws....the launches had to be timed ust right so as to avoid pushing the aircraft into that broaching ocean....if that anecdotal info is correct, its is pretty amazing to me and Ill bet there werent that many aircraft around that could do the same. Id have to think that heavier in those conditions is a disadvantage....wouldnt heavier mean longer to get air under your wings????

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I dont know about the rough weather either, but I have read that the Stringbag could land an take off in a sixty foot swell. A sea state o that magnitude means that the deck is heaving and broaching pretty heavily, with a lot of green coming over the bowws....the launches had to be timed ust right so as to avoid pushing the aircraft into that broaching ocean....if that anecdotal info is correct, its is pretty amazing to me and Ill bet there werent that many aircraft around that could do the same. Id have to think that heavier in those conditions is a disadvantage....wouldnt heavier mean longer to get air under your wings????

I'd think I'd attribute that more to pilot skill than the aircraft, but as stated earlier, the Stringbag would have better slow speed characteristic than the heavier TBD, no doubt.

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by parsifal

No argument that performance wise the Devastator was superior to the Stringbag. I can only regurgitate what i have read about the exceptional handling characteristics of the swordfish in rough weather. I dont actually know what the Devastator could do in rough conditions, but I expect it would be less than the Stringbag (perhaps due to the monoplane configuration, as opposed to the biplane config???).

It was the Stringbags obvious obsolescence that made it unique. Because of its poor performance, the british realized that it simply could not operate in a conventional daytime role. So they began to train their aircrews, from a point pre-war, in the techniques of attacking a pinpoint target using flares and ASV radar (the radar occurred later, but the Stringbag was unique in that in 1941 it was the only carrier aircraft in the world, as far as I know that possessed this capability) The combination of slow speed, special equipment (like flares, and radar), and highly specialised crew training (the British in 1939 were training the grand total of 16 carrier pilots per year), enabled them to do things with these archaic aircraft that no-one else in the world could do at that time.

With the TBD, its a case of coulda, shoulda but didnt. The US never attained the night capability that the brits possessed, at any stage of the war. They acquired night fighter capability at the end of the war (with their F6F-5N and the Corsairs converted for the purpose) , but not the night strike capabilities (I'll stand corrected if you have contrary evidence, but as far as I know, they didnt) As far as rough weather conditions are concerned, the American skill in this area does seem to have improved in this area, as the CVE operations in the Atlantic attest. However, I would just point out that the majority of their Hunter Killer groups operated in the more southerly latitudes (where I assume the weather is less severe). Richard Woodman "Arctic Convoys - 1941-5" John Murray Publishers (2004), advises that the Americans were simply unable to operate in the Arctic because of the limits on their training in this area, and to some extent on the fitouts to their aircraft types...I cant comment further than that, but thats what he says. British Carriers provided the aircover to these Murmansk convoys from '43 onward, and were able to operate in the most appalling conditions.

I think you are confusing the skills and training of the operators with the qualities of the AC. With the same British operators and all of their training the TBD would have had many advantages over the Swordfish.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Captain Dunsel

3. Don't underestimate the rivalry between the Army and the Navy. The Navy wanted nothing to do with the Army's liquid-cooled Allisons. Instead, the Navy preferred the lighter, more reliable radials. It was hard, too, to get the Army to accept the R2800 for the P-47, because it was pushing the Allison so much.

CD

Its my understanding that the Navy liked radial engines so much because they were capable of making lots of power in a more compact and lighter-weight design, compared to a more "normal" engine lay-out.

You have to remember, each and every carrier on the high seas is really a floating "company town".

What's a "company town", you ask? Its any town that centralizes its prosperity around a single business.
I grew up near such a town. Port Gamble, Washington, which was built around the Pope & Talbot lumber mill.

What you have with an aircraft carrier is an entire "town" built around a floating airport.
The whole reason for its existence is to utilize and maintain that airport and the vehicles that use it, just like any "company town".

The problem with any ship is that you have limited space in which all the "support industries" can exist, so efficient use of that space quickly becomes a #1 priority.

If my "airport" can house 50 airplanes with inline engines, and each airplane is 40 feet long, think how many more it can house if they're powered by equally powerful radial engines that cut the length of that airplane by 9 feet (Its ok, I did the math for you ).
That's roughly an extra 14 planes my airport can now house.
If a flight is 5 planes, that's two more flights (maybe one fighter and one bomber?), plus extra room for another repair / maintenance facility.
This means fewer planes down for a lesser amount of time.

Folding wings aside, I think you start to see the Navy's high regard for the radial engine powered airplane, considering how they were utilizing said planes.

I think it always had more to do with a more efficient use of space in a limited space area, than any reliability issues that may exist between air-cooled radial engines and liquid-cooled inline engines.




Elvis

[Elvis]

I wanted to touch on another debate that I saw happening, although I hope I'm not a day late and a dollar short on this one.

This was the debate between the TBD and the P-38.

Aside from everything else that I read (granted, I only went back a page), there's a design / structure / balance issue here that I saw no one address.

Ok, so you've got a cross, "+" (TBD), and a square "[]" ( P-38 ).

If you have to load a torpedo that's 13.5' long and about 2100 lbs. onto one of those shapes, which would it be?

At first you'd think, "oh, the square would work much better, structually, because it can spread the load over more points, more equally and it has more surface area to support that load.

...however....

If you do that on a P-38, then you have to support part of the torpedo with the horizontal stabilizer and rig some kind of quick release sling to hold it in place.
Even if you made that a four line affair, with each line attaching at the fore and aft parts of the booms, is that really practical?
...and then you have all that darn "string" hanging out from under the plane after the torpedo's dropped.
If you're going to use the plane as a fighter after dropping the torpedo, I'm sure you wouldn't want that flopping around in the wind.
So you're left with the other "logical" place to set the torpedo - under the fuselage.

...and where's the fuselage on a P-38?

My point exactly.
Seems like it would make, not only for a rather unwieldly airplane, from a balance standpoint, because the fuselange (or most of it anyway) actually sticks out ahead of the wing.
This places the torpedo (especially the heaviest part) ahead of the wing, meaning the pilot would seem to have to constantly pull back on the stick, to keep the plane on a level attitude. It would also be much better to place the load out on the wing, where the natural lift tendency would work more to your favour, but then, the torpedo would laying across the plane that then how are you supposed to deliver it.
Additionally, from a structural standpoint, placing all that weight on one "axis" (if you will) of the square would seem to make the point of using the square moot to begin with.

With the cross, you actually have more "points" from which to support the torpedo and its easier to position its weight under the central line of the airplane, making balance of the added weight less of an issue.
Thus, you actually have less plane that better supports your load, making for a more practical application of the shape.



Elvis

[parsifal]

something further I recently uncovered. The two squadrons emabarked on Victorious Nos 800 (with 6 Fulmars) and 825 (with 9 Swordfish) were actually land based units hastily embarked without adequate deck landing qualifications (they had received their basic carrier qualifications, but were not actually cleared at the time of emabarkation). A further squadron of land based Albacores located in the orkneys could have been embarked but the station commander (an RAF man) refused to release them.

These essentially untrained crews launched the first of their raids at midnight on the 24th May. To quote my source " All nine swordfish found their quarry and despite their lack of training and experience the squadron succeeded in scoring a single hit amidships . All nine aircrew made it back to the carrier safely, despite the appalling weather conditions".

During the preceding battle with the Hood and the Prince Of Wales, the weather had been a force 5 gale. The subsequent strikes by Ark Royal were undertaken in force 6 conditions, so my guess is this strike was delivered in some sea state of between 5 and 6....in other words attrocious.....

[BombTaxi]

However, the specialist training and equipment of the Stringbag crews didn't always pay off - at 1550 on 26th May 1941, 14 Stringbags from HMS Ark Royal launched 11 torpedoes at a radar contact the believed to be Bismarck. My source implies that visibility was so poor that visual verification of the contact was impossible. The contact was in fact the Town class light cruiser HMS Sheffield, which had failed to inform Ark Royal that she had been detached to shadow Bismarck. Sheer luck saved the cruiser - of the 11 torpedoes launched, two exploded on contact with the water, three as they crossed the cruisers wake, and the remainder were evaded by Sheffield combing their tracks. I'm not sure which is the scarier prospect - that the Swordfish tried to kill one of their own cruisers, or that had the target really been Bismarck, equipment malfunction might have given her a temporary stay of execution.

Source is Correli Barnett's Engage The Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy In The Second World War, p.307.

[parsifal]

The premature detonations witnessed by the Sheffield did assist however. Sheffield passed on her observations to Somerville, who wqas already preparing another strike. The defective magnetic pistols that had caused this malfunction were quickly replaced with contact pistols. The change allowed the second strike to be a success