SBD questions.

[Tyrannis]

Been flying the spd a bit in AvA, and so far ive been able to hold my own against the Zeros&Ki84's of the IAF.(Even shot a ki84 down).

And it makes me wonder, was there ever any plans to create a fighter version of the sbd?

It just seems that maybe, with a better engine, no gunner, and 2x.50 cals in the wings, It could of been a nice early war fighter.
 

[Karnak]

Been flying the spd a bit in AvA, and so far ive been able to hold my own against the Zeros&Ki84's of the IAF.(Even shot a ki84 down).

And it makes me wonder, was there ever any plans to create a fighter version of the sbd?

It just seems that maybe, with a better engine, no gunner, and 2x.50 cals in the wings, It could of been a nice early war fighter.
 

Both the SBD and D3A were used to fly CAP due to insufficient numbers of F4Fs and A6Ms.  That said, I've never heard of any intention to turn either into a full blown fighter.

[Ack-Ack]

Been flying the spd a bit in AvA, and so far ive been able to hold my own against the Zeros&Ki84's of the IAF.(Even shot a ki84 down).

And it makes me wonder, was there ever any plans to create a fighter version of the sbd?

It just seems that maybe, with a better engine, no gunner, and 2x.50 cals in the wings, It could of been a nice early war fighter.
 

No plans at all for a fighter version of the SBD.  As noted by Karnak, in some cases SBDs and TBMs were sometimes pressed into service as a DEFCAP over a field or CV when no other planes were available.  On the whole, with some exceptions the SBD was cannon fodder when it ran up against fighters.

ack-ack

[Tyrannis]

No plans at all for a fighter version of the SBD.  As noted by Karnak, in some cases SBDs and TBMs were sometimes pressed into service as a DEFCAP over a field or CV when no other planes were available.  On the whole, with some exceptions the SBD was cannon fodder when it ran up against fighters.

ack-ack

Which is why i think with a better engine and armament, it could have maybe of been a good full-blown fighter.

Just my opinion.

[Tank-Ace]

Maybe. Remove the tail gunner, perhaps clean up the airframe a bit.


But I don't really see why they would do it, when an up-engined F4F would probably be just as effective.

[Baumer]

Douglas was never asked to develop fighters for the Navy and it's a good thing they stuck with attack aircraft.

The Navy awarded Curtiss the contrat to replace the SBD during the summer of 1939 believe it or not. But things did not go will for the SB2C almost from the start. The Navy awarded a backup contract (just like the contract with Grumman for the F6F) to Douglas in June of 1940 for the development of two XSB2D's just in case.

XSB2D-1


The XSB2D-1 first flew in April of 1943 and performed extremely well, it was much faster than the SB2C and could carry twice the bomb load.

With the additional time and a better understanding of how the dive bombing requirement was changing, the Navy changed to a single seat requirement for attack aircraft. This lead Douglas to modify the XSB2D to a single seat design that was called the XBTD-1.

XBTD-1


The XBTD-1 first flew in March of 1944 and testing was moving ahead well but was facing stiff competition from the Martin Mauler. With the end of World War II nearing the Navy started to slow down development and cancel many contracts.

Martin AM-1


So Douglas went back to the drawing boards and started over with a single seat attack aircraft design called the BT2D and we all know what plane by it's more common attack designation;

A Attack
D Douglas
-1 first design

Here's a photo of the XBT2D-1 prototype.



So, in essence a single seat SBD can be linked to one of the best attack aircraft ever designed.

 

[MAINER]

Douglas was never asked to develop fighters for the Navy and it's a good thing they stuck with attack aircraft.

The Navy awarded Curtiss the contrat to replace the SBD during the summer of 1939 believe it or not. But things did not go will for the SB2C almost from the start. The Navy awarded a backup contract (just like the contract with Grumman for the F6F) to Douglas in June of 1940 for the development of two XSB2D's just in case.

XSB2D-1
(Image removed from quote.)

The XSB2D-1 first flew in April of 1943 and performed extremely well, it was much faster than the SB2C and could carry twice the bomb load.

With the additional time and a better understanding of how the dive bombing requirement was changing, the Navy changed to a single seat requirement for attack aircraft. This lead Douglas to modify the XSB2D to a single seat design that was called the XBTD-1.

XBTD-1
(Image removed from quote.)

The XBTD-1 first flew in March of 1944 and testing was moving ahead well but was facing stiff competition from the Martin Mauler. With the end of World War II nearing the Navy started to slow down development and cancel many contracts.

Martin AM-1
(Image removed from quote.)

So Douglas went back to the drawing boards and started over with a single seat attack aircraft design called the BT2D and we all know what plane by it's more common attack designation;

A Attack
D Douglas
-1 first design

Here's a photo of the XBT2D-1 prototype.

(Image removed from quote.)

So, in essence a single seat SBD can be linked to one of the best attack aircraft ever designed.

 

Its an A-1 Skyraider!

[icepac]

Without the drag of the bomb racks and other launchers, it was a very good turn fighter and had a pretty good climb.

I think all the performance stats for it are with the racks in place.

[SmokinLoon]

The SBD was a dive bomber.  It had attributes in the early war that were later designed in to the newer aircraft.  The F6F is an example of what happens when an F4F and SBD were mated. 

[Krusty]

Pretty good climber....   

F6F is compared to SBD.... 


Neither one of those sentences should ever have been uttered.... 


EDIT: On second thought I think I should add something to this topic. The SBD is a throwback design from before WW2. At the time slow stall speed was the main criteria. Performance and capability weren't tops early on, it was functionality. The need to actually launch and retrieve craft and stow them under decks took precedence. This meant emphasis was put into light weight, small airframes, with slow stalling speeds for easier takeoff and landings. As it was, they still often had to take off into the wind. Remember in WW2 you took off from the front of the deck only, all the deck behind you being full of your neighboring squads and pilots wating for you to get out of the way. Now try doing it with a bomb onboard!

The reason the SBD is "nimble" (and I think that's a wrong claim... It's not very nimble, it only has a small turning radius -- there is a difference) is because it is light weight and has a low stalling speed.

HOWEVER much like the Japanese aircraft this light weight and low stall speed was achieved by sacrificing engine power and weight. You cannot increase performance on the SBD without increasing weight of the engine, which then raises stall speed and all of a sudden it can't turn, can't carry bombs off a deck, and can't do its job.

It's a balance. There is a very fine line between weight, size, engine power, and actual performance. The solution to get a better plane wasn't to stick a R2800 onto the SBD, but rather re-evaluate the ever changing needs of war and come up with a modern design that properly fits those needs.

[PR3D4TOR]

Those XSB2D-1/XBTD-1 are eerily similar in appearance to the Aichi B7A.

[icepac]

Pretty good climber....  

F6F is compared to SBD....  


Neither one of those sentences should ever have been uttered....  

I was referencing the skyraider pictured above my post.

It has been known to own a Bearcat in a knife fight.

http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/Grishamwarstor.htm#anchor279778

[Krusty]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the Skyraider was a good climber, either, but that's a bit more understandable 

[Stoney]

Lt. "Swede" Vejtasa got 3 kills in the SBD against Zeros in a big dogfight involving his squadron and 8 Zeros.  I think something like half of his squadron made it back to the ship.  So, obviously capable of defending itself, but not necessarily a great fighter platform.

[Krusty]

Quite so. More a tribute to the determined pilots than the intended mission role, I think.