Author Topic: The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C  (Read 546 times)

Offline Rendar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« on: September 12, 2000, 10:33:00 PM »
The TBM-3E version is better, and would not be as easy to kill.  This is a late war version of the Avenger, and it would be very far from making the perk list.  

Aircraft Information

TBF/TBM-3E "Avenger"

Manufacturer: General Motors

Aircraft Model: TBM-3

Maximum Level Speed:  267mph

Engine: Wright R-2600-20 radial 1900 horsepower

Range: 1,400 Miles

Service Ceiling: 23,400 ft.

Empty Weight: 10,5451b.

Maximum Weight: 17,895 lb.

Wing Span: 54 ft. 2 in.

Length: 40 ft. 11.5 in.

Armament:  
 (2)- forward firing 0.50 in. wing guns
 (1)- 0.50 in. turret gun
 (1)- 0.30 in. ventral machine gun
 (1)- 2000 LB bomb or MK-2 torpedo

 
   

------------------
Rendar

[This message has been edited by Rendar (edited 09-12-2000).]

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2000, 10:58:00 PM »
Hehe ok, but wich are the specs of the TBF?  

Offline Rendar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2000, 11:23:00 PM »
Those are the specs for the TBM-3E.  It may have also been called the TBF-3E.  The main point is that this version should be modeled first, as opposed to the TBF-1C.

Here are the TBF-1 specs:

TBF-1:

Specifications
  Length: 40'0" 12.1 m
  Height: 16' 5" 5.0 m
  Wingspan: 54' 2" 16.5 m
  Wingarea: 490.0 sq ft 45.5 sq m
  Empty Weight: 10,555 lb 4,786 kg
  Gross Weight: 16,412 lb 7,443 kg
  Max Weight: 17,364 lb 7,874 kg

Propulsion
  No. of Engines: 1
  Powerplant: Wright R-2600-8
  Horsepower (each): 1700

Performance  
  Range: 1,105 miles 1,779 km
  Cruise Speed: 153 mph 246 km/h 132 kt
  Max Speed: 257 mph 413 km/h 223 kt
  Climb: 1,430 ft/min 435 m/min
  Ceiling: 21,400 ft 6,522 m

As you can see, there is a noticable performance increase in the TBM-3E, compared to the TBF-1

------------------
Rendar

[This message has been edited by Rendar (edited 09-12-2000).]

Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2000, 03:47:00 AM »
Well - 257 or 267 max level flight won't make any difference in survivability. Nor will a little extra altitude - TBF is a dead meat to any fighter. But it's a carrier based torpedo/"normal" bomber and would be invaluable once marine ops are introduced. And I loved the clumsy thing in WB - all those edge of the seta low level torpedo runs...  

(TBF = Grumman, TBM (identical plane) = GM, towards the end of the war Grumman built only Hellcats, and production of TBFs was shifted to GM)

p.s. and is this thing loud or what??? I'm sure, B17 makes less noise than this sucker - saw them both several times at Duxford

------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF

[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 09-13-2000).]

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2000, 06:40:00 AM »
Want to see a "real" late war torpedo bomber?  

Here is a writeup I did for one, a couple of years back

Aichi B7A-2  Ryusei (Shooting Star) Codenamed: 'Grace'

 

Type: Two Seat (Tandem) Carrier Based  Torpedo/Dive Bomber
Operational Service: late 1944
Total Aircraft Production: 114
Power Plant: One 2000 hp (1491 kW)  Nakajima Homare 23 Radial Engine
Performance: Speed: Max:  351 mph at 21,490 ft (565 km/h at 6550m)
Cruise:  230 mph at 13,120 ft (368 km/h at 4,000m)
Climb Rate: 6 min 55 sec's to 13,125ft (4000 m) {316 sec's to 10k ft}
Ceiling: 36,910 ft (11250 m)
Range: 1,889 miles (3040km)
Wing Loading: Empty:  23.27 lbs. / sq. ft.  (101.98 kg / m2)
Maximum:  34.35 lbs. / sq. ft.  (158.90 kg / m2)
 
Weights: Empty: 8,400 lbs. (3810 kg)  Maximum:  12,401 lbs. (5625 kg)
Dimensions: Wing span: 47 ft 3 in (14.40 m)
Length: 37 ft 8 in (11.49 m)
Height: 13 ft 4 in (4.075 m)
Wing Area: 381.05 sq. ft  (35.40 m2)
 
Armament: 2 Wing-mounted 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Cannons
1 Rear facing flexible mount 13mm (0.50 cal) Type 2 machine gun
1 800 kg (1,764 lbs.)  Torpedo  or 1,100 lbs. (500 kg) of Bombs

Historical Notes:
 The Aichi B7A originated from a 1941 Imperial Japanese Navy request for a torpedo/dive bomber to replace the Nakajima B5N "Kate", the Nakajima B6N "Tenzan" and the Yokosuka D4Y "Suisei".  Aichi's prototype first flew in mid-1941, but due to growing pains, didn't enter production until over 2 years after being ordered by the IJN. Only 9 B7A-1's prototypes, and 80 production aircraft were completed before the factory was destroyed by an earthquake in May 1945. Another 25 aircraft were built at the Naval Air Arsenal at Omura.  This powerful and potent aircraft could have made a significant impact in the Pacific war, but by the time it arrived, the Japanese Navy no longer had experienced pilots, or any carriers from which it could operate. Resulting in only limited ineffective use from land bases.
 
 
Comments: Calling this aircraft powerful and potent is quite descriptive.  It is not currently modeled in any of the Online sims, but would instantly become the premier torpedo plane and a favorable dive bomber if introduced.
At a maximum speed of 351 mph, only the Mosquito and the A26 Invader are faster among the bombers.  It is almost 90 mph faster than the next fastest torpedo bomber the TBF Avenger. However, most fighters would still be faster than the B7A2, with its speed comparable to the Bf-109E and the A6M5-a.

True to its Japanese design heritage, this aircraft retains its low wing loading (once its ordnance is dropped) which makes it an incredibly agile aircraft.  With an empty wing loading of 23.37 lbs./sq. ft,  it would possess sustained turning ability roughly comparable to the Spitfire IX or the N1K2 George.

With 2 20mm forward firing cannons, and 1 13mm rear mount machine gun, it is quite respectably armed, even when compared to many fighters. While the 13mm machine gun would not be suitable to solely protect the plane during  a torpedo run, it is certainly enough to make an attacking fighter think twice. When combined with its speed, agility, and maneuverability, the B7A2 would be a dangerous opponent in a furball over any target.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2000, 07:23:00 AM »
The thing never saw enough service in large numbers, it would be worthless for scenarios, Verm.

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2000, 09:03:00 AM »
*sigh* tell me something I didn't already know and state quite clearly in the writeup.

But actually your somewhat wrong. It saw combat during both the battle of Okinawa and in defense of the "Homeland".

Regardless, I was talking about its capabilities and appropriatness as an "arena" aircraft, not for scenarios.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2000, 09:17:00 AM »
   
Quote
But actually your somewhat wrong. It saw combat during both the battle of Okinawa and in defense of the "Homeland".

Regardless, I was talking about its capabilities and appropriatness as an "arena" aircraft, not for scenarios.

What I said... it didn't see enough service in large numbers, I didn't say it didnt see any service.  

It would still get slaughtered in the MA, very slow(I assume 351 without torp), and 1 7.92mm mg for defense(lol), the 13mm was planned but never on any b7a that saw service
.

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 09-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 09-13-2000).]

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2000, 09:18:00 AM »
btw your data says 13mm is .50 cal, 13mm is actually 0.51.

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2000, 09:42:00 AM »
 The Ryusei might have a hard time in a MA, like any bomber or slow airplane, but not with escort in a scenario. The TBF on the other hand WILL be butchered in either situation because the thing is plainly a pig.

 -Westy


[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 09-13-2000).]

Offline Stiglr

  • Persona non grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2000, 01:42:00 PM »
I dunno.....you take a Zeke up against it, and those twin rear-firing gun stations have a chance.

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2000, 03:19:00 PM »
Hmmm Naval bombers eh?

Bring on the Harpoon! Give it the credit it is neglected!  

PV-1's and PV-2's sure are cool lookin  
 http://www.rczone.com/harpoon/
 http://www.vpnavy.com/webdocpv2.html

- Jig

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2000, 03:33:00 PM »

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
The TBM-3E As Opposed To The TBF-1C
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2000, 10:17:00 PM »
Who needs torpedoes? How about a He 177 or Do 217 with Hs 293 instead?