Author Topic: Dauntless ........ (Read 815 times)

Smut · « **Reply #45 on:** May 24, 2002, 05:45:52 AM »

Great job Superfly.

I have a question though...what squadron is the aircraft you modeled from? Having researched / built one of the AM SBD 1/48 kits (which build up into gems, BTW), the tri color scheme you used seems a bit atypical from what I've seen. This is not a flame...I'm honestly curious that there may be a better source for SBD info out there (still have a couple of kits left to build).

Most SBD-5's that I've seen pictures of show the sea blue (the darker blue) continuing from the top of the upper wings onto to fuselage sides, in effect breaking the intermediate blue (the lighter shade) into a forward section (side of engine cowling to wing leading edge) and an aft section (fuselage side from wing trailing edge aft to tail). Your SBD has the intermediate blue running in a stripe down the entire side of the fuselage.

Again, not saying yours is wrong, only that I've never seen it. I freely admit my SBD references are thin, so it's very possible your scheme is historically accurate.

-Smut

Kweassa · « **Reply #46 on:** May 24, 2002, 08:08:00 AM »

Fat lot of good Vals and Daunties would do against ships in current conditions.

Look how the TBM fares against CV task groups in torpedo runs, and the Avenger was expected to be one of the most distinguished anti-shipping aircraft when it was announced to be included in AH, too.

If an Avie, renowned for its ruggedness, is like a moth into a virtual webbing of ack, I doubt Vals and Daunties would do much.

...

On the other hand, I have a glimmer of hope with me

The particular [interruption gear concept + AA fire effected a lot according to the position of each guns] scheduled for buffs in 1.10 may be a universal thing, not just for buffs

In that case, fighting CVs with Vals, Daunties and Avies is gonna be a LOT of fun

Oh yeah, sure, park your ships right next to field in Ndisles! You in for a lot of trouble!

K West · « **Reply #47 on:** May 24, 2002, 08:13:51 AM »

Good eyes Karnak.

Same for Cit on noting the engine being exposed too much. I love the whole work and the cowling just looks rounder than all proviuos radial jobs. Now that I keep looking at it the engine does look too prominate. Still, it's a fantastic model!

Westy

MuadDib of Dune · « **Reply #48 on:** May 24, 2002, 08:27:36 AM »

The TBM is a mid-late war torpedo and level bomber.
====
If memory serves me correctly I believe six TBMs (or TBFs) were used during the Battle of Midway. Only one surviving and none responsible for the destruction of the enemy.

That would put them in service in early June of 1942. Is this what you would consider "mid-late" ?

Perhaps the TBM/F moniker is what would make the distinction but Im not entirely sure what the difference is, please advise.

And Yes, the SBD paint scheme is new to me as well. Still, love that old workhouse. Many a dive bomber pilot wanted his old SBD back upon assignment to the SB2C.

Looks very nice.

Superfly · « **Reply #49 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:02:48 AM »

There is a pic of the paint scheme on this page.

K West · « **Reply #50 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:06:46 AM »

Ah. The tri-color scheme got lost somewhat due to the angle the SBD was in the screen shot. Thanks Superfly.

Westy

Gorf · « **Reply #51 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:30:19 AM »

Your best work YET Superfly!

(S)

Karnak · « **Reply #52 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:38:26 AM »

MuadDib,

You are correct that some TBM's were used at Midway.
The main US torpedo bombers at Midway were not TBM Avengers, they were TBD Devastators. The TBD is an entiely different beast and completely outclassed by the SBD and its own replacement, the TBM.
TBD Devastator:

The TBM was just entering service when Midway happened, and it served through the rest of the war and into 1952. So yes, that is what I menat by mid-late war.

The early war stuff was in service before the US was directly involved in hostilities, things like the SBD, TBD, F4F, P-40E, B-17D.

On another note, its kind of too bad that we're getting the D3A1 istead of the D3A2. While the bombload of both versions is fully outclassed by the SBD's bombload, the D3A2 at least has a performance edge on the SBD. The D3A1 has the same top speed (241mph), is vastly more fragile, has a smaller bombload (250kg + 30kg under each wing) and weaker guns. The D3A2 was produced in greater numbers than was the D3A1, had a slightly greater payload (250kg + 60kg under each wing) and was significantly faster (281mph).

With the D3A1 the Japanese will be working from a even greater disadvantage than the would with the D3A2. The SBD-5 is vastly superior in all ways save turning radius.

NOD2000 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:40:59 AM »

I WANT THE A-20

i'll use it for my diver and the daunghtless will be a backup one

Baine · « **Reply #54 on:** May 24, 2002, 12:14:49 PM »

Anti-ship radar? Any chance of subs to use it on?

cajun · « **Reply #55 on:** May 24, 2002, 02:13:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The D3A1 has the same top speed (241mph),

Hey that means the Gloster Gladiator would out run it by 11MPH and the CR42 would out run it by 40 MPH!

Smut · « **Reply #56 on:** May 24, 2002, 04:31:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SUPERFLY
There is a pic of the paint scheme on this page.

Thank you sir! That page looks very interesting!

-Smut