Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: hibbie2 on September 11, 2009, 04:10:30 AM
-
History: The Curtiss Helldiver, despite a reputation for being difficult to handle at low speeds, was responsible for the destruction of more Japanese targets than any other aircraft. The Curtiss SB2C single-engine dive-bomber joined the fleet late in 1943, joining the Douglas Dauntless as the primary attack/bombing planes for the US Navy. The two-man Helldiver had a top speed of 295 mph and good range, making it an essential tool in the far reaches of the Pacific war.
With underwing and bomb attachments, the Helldiver could carry 1,000 pounds of bombs or an internal torpedo; later improvements included an up-rated Wright Cyclone engine and rocket hard-points. It carried two fixed forward 20mm cannon and machine guns in the rear cockpit.
Only 26 of the 7,000 Helldivers built found their way to the other services; the plane was so valuable in the Pacific theater that the Navy absorbed nearly every plane. Postwar, the Helldiver found further use with the French, Italian, Greek and Portuguese Navies and the Royal Thai Air Force. Only one airworthy Helldiver remains -- with the Commemorative Air Force in Texas -- but at least one more is under restoration to airworthy status. [History by Jeff VanDerford]
Specifications (SB2C-4):
Engine: One 1,900-hp Wright R-2600-20 Cyclone 14 radial piston engine
Weight: Empty 10,547 lbs., Max Takeoff 16,616 lbs.
Wing Span: 49ft. 9in.
Length: 36ft. 8in.
Height: 13ft. 2in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 295 mph
Cruising Speed: 158 mph
Ceiling: 29,100 ft.
Range: 1,165 miles
Armament:
Two 20-mm wing-mounted cannon and two 7.62-mm (0.3-inch) machine guns in rear cockpit;
Up to 2,000 pounds of bombs on underwing racks and in fuselage bay.
Number Built: ~7,000
-
(http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx209/hibbie2/DSC_0725-1.jpg)
-
It's been requested several times before. I wouldn't mind seeing it eventually, as it has some value for PTO scenarios set after the Battle of the Philippine Sea, but there are MANY aircraft of higher priority.
Also, bear in mind that until the very late versions (most of which I believe were introduced post-war) the Helldiver was a dog of an airplane. Difficult to fly, very poor performance, and not much better ordinance load than the F6F and F4U-1D anyway.
-
That is one badarse plane!
Hope it becomes added to the AH plane set.
-
if im not mistaken, george bush (sr) flew in 1 of these. i say +1 :aok
-
if im not mistaken, george bush (sr) flew in 1 of these. i say +1 :aok
TBM.
-
Has been asked for. My question is, why? They had a reputation for falling apart do to structural failure. Why do you think pilots preferred to fly the slower Dauntless? (Correct me if I'm wrong, haven't researched this plane in a while)
-
with 2 20 mms or 4 50s in the wings ill bite :aok
-
+1 :aok
-
FYB, you still can't argue with numbers. The 262 had a reputation for a weak nose wheel, and you couldn't just kill the engines and glide in, you had to slowly work the throttle up or down. And I belive a lot of pilots dislike the 163 unless I'm mistaken. Look on the bright side, we aren't stuck with the TBD devestator instead of the TBM avenger.
:aok eventually, But other countries need some serious work, Italy especially. THEY HAVE TWO FRIGIN' PLANES!!!
-
FYB, you still can't argue with numbers. The 262 had a reputation for a weak nose wheel, and you couldn't just kill the engines and glide in, you had to slowly work the throttle up or down. And I belive a lot of pilots dislike the 163 unless I'm mistaken. Look on the bright side, we aren't stuck with the TBD devestator instead of the TBM avenger.
:aok eventually, But other countries need some serious work, Italy especially. THEY HAVE TWO FRIGIN' PLANES!!!
Italy's plane set in virtually every scenario can also be realistically filled out with German Iron, as the Regia Aeronautica used LARGE numbers of German aircraft. There's no gaps in the Italian plane set that really need addressing to fill holes that no other aircraft can, except just to have an Italian-designed aircraft.
I'd put the He-111, Ki-43, G4M, Ki-44 and Ki-45 WAY above any Italian bird on the priority list.
-
+1 to the 20mms!
-
FYB, you still can't argue with numbers. The 262 had a reputation for a weak nose wheel, and you couldn't just kill the engines and glide in, you had to slowly work the throttle up or down. And I belive a lot of pilots dislike the 163 unless I'm mistaken. Look on the bright side, we aren't stuck with the TBD devestator instead of the TBM avenger.
I would take the Devastator over the Kate, at least it has a forward mounted gun.
-
Yeah. And why do the jap planes carry so little ord? and come to that, some have not that great of a gun package.
-
Yeah. And why do the jap planes carry so little ord? and come to that, some have not that great of a gun package.
Gee, 750 kg of ordinance sure isn't a lot. After all, most did come from a world where they measured weights in kilograms, not pounds. Besides, a Ki-84 loaded with two 500kg bombs definitely doesn't have nearly the same destructive capacity that a P-51 with two 1,000lb bombs. Look at the numbers! 1000 is much bigger than 500!
:rolleyes:
-
Gee, 750 kg of ordinance sure isn't a lot. After all, most did come from a world where they measured weights in kilograms, not pounds. Besides, a Ki-84 loaded with two 500kg bombs definitely doesn't have nearly the same destructive capacity that a P-51 with two 1,000lb bombs. Look at the numbers! 1000 is much bigger than 500!
:rolleyes:
(sighs) by comparison. I mean the Ki67 really isn't a heavy hauler, and the A6M planes could carry like what, a 1000lb bomb? And the the dive bomber doesn't carry an uber devestating bomb load, and neither does the torpedo bomber unless I've COMPLETLY got the conversion thing wrong.
I admit some of their planes could carry a good bombload.
-
750kg on the Kate is ~1500lbs. That's roughly equivalent to the Dauntless.
Keep this in mind, Nemisis:
The Japanese carrier-borne bombers (D3A and B5N) are both pre-war designs, which ARE comparable to other carrier aircraft from their era. The A6M2 and F4F each only carry ~200lbs of bombs. However it is COMPLETELY unfair to compare those two birds to later aircraft, especially the F4U-1D/C and 4 and F6F-5 because these aircraft were in large part the result of lessons learned from combat, and a tactical shift in American aircraft development from purpose-built to multi-role aircraft (throughout the war you see American fighter designs carrying increasingly heavy ordinance loads in a manner that was NOT mimicked by the other belligerents).
-
ooops, meant to say "and neither of the dive bombers..."
True. I was unaware that both were prewar designes. I was under the impression that they were put into service around 1941.
Does anyone know why the other belligerents didn't follow this line of thinking?
-
ooops, meant to say "and neither of the dive bombers..."
True. I was unaware that both were prewar designes. I was under the impression that they were put into service around 1941.
Does anyone know why the other belligerents didn't follow this line of thinking?
We only have one Japanese dive bomber. Also, the A6M5b carries 700lbs~ of ordinance. A bit more than its contemporaries. Also, the Ki-61 carries 1000lbs~ of ordinance, about the same as what the P-39 and P-40 carry.
The Ki-67, with its approximate bomb load of 1700~ lbs is pretty good for being as fast and well defended as it is.
-
Nemisis, you have to remember that what the Allies classified as a medium
bomber the Japanese called a heavy. Other than their large patrol flying
boats, none of their bombers carried comparable loads. There was a 4 engined
land-based bomber, but I am not sure it saw service.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a15/Twitch98/G8Nrenzan.jpg)
-
We only have one Japanese dive bomber. Also, the A6M5b carries 700lbs~ of ordinance. A bit more than its contemporaries. Also, the Ki-61 carries 1000lbs~ of ordinance, about the same as what the P-39 and P-40 carry.
The Ki-67, with its approximate bomb load of 1700~ lbs is pretty good for being as fast and well defended as it is.
Enkre,
The A6M5 is a contemporary of the F4U-1/1A, both of which carry a 1000lb bomb.
-
We only have one Japanese dive bomber. Also, the A6M5b carries 700lbs~ of ordinance. A bit more than its contemporaries. Also, the Ki-61 carries 1000lbs~ of ordinance, about the same as what the P-39 and P-40 carry.
The Ki-67, with its approximate bomb load of 1700~ lbs is pretty good for being as fast and well defended as it is.
I mean both the american and Japanese dive bomber. Unless I'm wrong, the P-39, and P-40 carry only 500lbs. But my point is you would be better off taking one of the American fighters other than the F4F, or FM-2.
But all valid points. Thank you. And agian, does anyone know why the other allies didn't really shift to multi-role aircraft?
-
The Russians built light, short ranged fighters not suitable to heavy multi-role bomb loads.
The British did increase the loads their fighters carried. The Spit I and Hurri I carried no bombs, the Spit IXe and XVIe carried 1000lbs, the Typhoon carried 2,000lbs or 8-16 rockets, the Tempest carried 2,000lbs, the Mosquito VI carried 2,000lbs or eight rockets and 1,000lbs.
-
Ok, thanks.
-
Nemisis, you have to remember that what the Allies classified as a medium
bomber the Japanese called a heavy. Other than their large patrol flying
boats, none of their bombers carried comparable loads. There was a 4 engined
land-based bomber, but I am not sure it saw service.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a15/Twitch98/G8Nrenzan.jpg)
Agreed. Japanese had no thought of upgrading their bombers sense they were already sweeping through. And with the winnings they were getting over the U.S. gave them no thought of it. Remember, they thought offense made the best defense. So forth they only thought in Offense.
-
I mean both the american and Japanese dive bomber. Unless I'm wrong, the P-39, and P-40 carry only 500lbs. But my point is you would be better off taking one of the American fighters other than the F4F, or FM-2.
As I said, it also has to do with the time period. In the early period the SBD, TBM, D3A and B5N ARE the premier attack craft on the CVs because the fighters can't carry an appreciable bomb load. So in the Early War arena the carrier bombers ARE the best choice for strike capability from the CV. By the time you get into the mid and late war period the Americans had found that fighters with heavy ordinance loads were more useful than dedicated single-engine strike craft (even then the TBM did carry a heavier load, at 4x1000lbers, I believe). Accordingly, the later American fighters (particularly the F4Us) are the premier carrier-borne strike craft.
-
"even then the TBM did carry a heavier load, at 4x1000lbers, I believe"
If thats true then can someone tell me why you can only carry 2000lbs in the TBM we have now? And if the reason is "because HTC thought it would unbalance the carrier aspect of the game" then no one can EVER use the bomb**** excuse for the B-29 if we are going around changing bomb loads from their historical capacity.
-
Maybe I was wrong. I thought the TBM carried 4x1000lbers... But I've only ever carried torpedoes when I've used her.
-
I've used her as a bomber because I'm not the best dive bomber. I'm practicing but I don't have the technique combat worthy yet. But either way, its sad how it can only carry 2000lbs. Did we still have them inservice when we had planes that could carry 2000lbs and 8 rockets?