Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MiloMorai on July 23, 2010, 11:30:59 AM
-
The Brits and Americans preferred fighter bombers over dive bombers. Dive bombers (A-36 and Vengeance) were quite successful in the MTO and SEA theatres.
I contend that if in the ETO that the f/bs were dumped and replaced by dive bombers the war in Europe could have ended earlier. F/bs were notoriously inaccurate but the dive bomber could take out any enemy strong points that were holding up the advance of the army.
-
Disagree, and you're assessment totally disregards the effects of strategic bombing. Combined operations where air superiority could be gained with fighters had more to do with the success of attack aircraft than what you give credit as well. That aside, if the Allied dive bombers success was that great, the Germans would never have gotten as far as they did in the MTO.
-
The Brits and Americans preferred fighter bombers over dive bombers. Dive bombers (A-36 and Vengeance) were quite successful in the MTO and SEA theatres.
I contend that if in the ETO that the f/bs were dumped and replaced by dive bombers the war in Europe could have ended earlier. F/bs were notoriously inaccurate but the dive bomber could take out any enemy strong points that were holding up the advance of the army.
In reality the A36 was really a fighter bomber. They often wired shut the dive brakes on them. The Vengeance can hardly be considered a successful bird.
The ground attack guys got quite good at their jobs, at a price with the ack they had to fly through. I think survivability in the ETO in a dive bomber would have been a huge issue. Don't have to look much further then the Stuka to see that :)
So in this case Milo I have to disagree with you :)
-
The Brits and Americans preferred fighter bombers over dive bombers. Dive bombers (A-36 and Vengeance) were quite successful in the MTO and SEA theatres.
I contend that if in the ETO that the f/bs were dumped and replaced by dive bombers the war in Europe could have ended earlier. F/bs were notoriously inaccurate but the dive bomber could take out any enemy strong points that were holding up the advance of the army.
ETO had higher concentrations of ack, as such the divebombers would have been slaughtered wholesale. The Allies would have had a longer time if they "followed your post".
-
No I don't think it would have had any more effect. Dive bombers made sense in naval warfare because they represented one of the more accurate ways of delivering ordinance to a moving high value target, losing a few planes with the possibility of getting a capital ship in return isn't a bad trade off in war's cruel math.
Conversely when the army deployed the SBD to the SW Pacific Theater (as the A-24)the plane did not do nearly as well, the loses vs results no longer were acceptable. I believe that while the army understood the need for an aircraft to strike a specific target they found that a fighter aircraft loaded with bombs was accurate enough to take out a fixed positions.
-
Dive bombers made sense in naval warfare because they represented one of the more accurate ways of delivering ordinance
Perhaps I'm simply misinformed. I thought the only reason for producing dedicated dive bombers at the beginning of the war (and before the war) was that the fighters of that period weren't able to carry heavy ordnance loads (1000 lbs or more) for any meaningful distance. Once better performing fighters became operational - the Hellcats and Corsairs in the Pacific, the 38s, 47s, 51s and Typhoons in the ETO - there was no longer any need for a purpose-built dive bomber. Certainly there was nothing unique about dive bombers other than their ability to carry loads over long distances. The delivery technique was the same.
What have I missed?
- oldman
-
Perhaps I'm simply misinformed. I thought the only reason for producing dedicated dive bombers at the beginning of the war (and before the war) was that the fighters of that period weren't able to carry heavy ordnance loads (1000 lbs or more) for any meaningful distance. Once better performing fighters became operational - the Hellcats and Corsairs in the Pacific, the 38s, 47s, 51s and Typhoons in the ETO - there was no longer any need for a purpose-built dive bomber. Certainly there was nothing unique about dive bombers other than their ability to carry loads over long distances. The delivery technique was the same.
What have I missed?
- oldman
There's probably some truth to that, however I think that the dive bomber would have been able to hold a steeper dive angle and hold it longer than a bomb laden fighter due to the air brakes. The lower airspeed would also allow for a lower drop and pull out which are all important things when attacking maneuvering warships.
I'm not sure if you can take it as evidence supporting that theory or not, but the Navy kept ongoing development of the SB2C going despite initial problems and the Helldiver proved useful in battles later in the war. Although dive bombers also tended to have longer ranges and were used as scout planes which were critical in carrier battles so that may have had an influence on events as well.
-
Ever wondered why even the most famous of all dive-bombers, the Ju 87 Stuka, wasn't employed as such much after mid-1942?
The dive-bomber's main asset was its ability to hit a small or otherwise difficult target, such as a moving one - and its main weakness was its predictable and easily-tracked dive-path. In the early days of the war, the shock to morale of those beng dive-bombed was such that they often ducked for cover instead of shooting back, and the frequent lack of effective close-range mobile AAA meant they didn't have much to reply with anyway. Where those conditions remained the same later in the war, dive-bombers still had their place, not least the Lend-Lease Vengeances operated by the RAF over Burma, where the type was highly regarded - but when AAA and fire-control improved, particularly with the arrival of radar-control and improved ship AA armament, the Stukas and Vals fell in droves.
Allied dive-bombers remained effective a while longer against Japanese ships with little or no radar and weak CAPs, but the dedicated dive-bomber's day was really done by 1944, even the Curtiss SB2 Helldiver often bombing at a shallower angle than that regarded as true dive-bombing.
:cool:
-
Once better performing fighters became operational - the Hellcats and Corsairs in the Pacific, the 38s, 47s, 51s and Typhoons in the ETO - there was no longer any need for a purpose-built dive bomber.
- oldman
That's pretty much what did in the dive bombers for the US.
ack-ack
-
There's probably some truth to that, however I think that the dive bomber would have been able to hold a steeper dive angle and hold it longer than a bomb laden fighter due to the air brakes. The lower airspeed would also allow for a lower drop and pull out which are all important things when attacking maneuvering warships.
I'm not sure if you can take it as evidence supporting that theory or not, but the Navy kept ongoing development of the SB2C going despite initial problems and the Helldiver proved useful in battles later in the war. Although dive bombers also tended to have longer ranges and were used as scout planes which were critical in carrier battles so that may have had an influence on events as well.
In regards to the Helldiver, operational experience showed the US Navy that the Hellcat and Corsair were able to carry just as heavy of a bomb load and were better able to defend themselves against fighters once the bombs were dropped. The use of air to ground rockets allowed the attack of ships and shore based targets without the stress and weight/performance issues that dive bombers had to endure. This led to the US Navy's ultimate decision not to develop the Helldiver further and became the last purpose build dive bomber for the USN.
ack-ack
-
OK guys, I was playing devil's advocate on this. :devil
Please take a look at this thread, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=21746
-
I think that the dive bomber would have been able to hold a steeper dive angle and hold it longer than a bomb laden fighter due to the air brakes. The lower airspeed would also allow for a lower drop and pull out which are all important things when attacking maneuvering warships.
Guppy can back me up (or not), but Earl Miller, who flew P-47s in Italy, told us that he always did his dive bombing at full throttle. We were a bit surprised by this, but he was firm.
- oldman
-
Guppy can back me up (or not), but Earl Miller, who flew P-47s in Italy, told us that he always did his dive bombing at full throttle. We were a bit surprised by this, but he was firm.
- oldman
I remember a discussion on the BigWeek forums when Earl was talking about that, got a chuckle when some tried to tell Earl he was mistaken.
Speaking of which, I heard he had passed away, anyone know if this is true?
ack-ack
-
I figure Dan would know Ack. I sure hope he is still with us.
I do remember a couple things that Earl told us about his bombing. First they always
carried 500 lb bombs, second that they usually released at 3000 feet. He would set his
trim so that the airplane would "unload" at a certain speed <forget what that was now>
they would then start their dive at a specified altitude.
He said the system worked very well and was very reliable accuracy wise.
-
Would that be dive bombing or high angle attack bombing? There is no way a P-47 could do a near vertical dive and survive becoming a lawn dart.
-
Would that be dive bombing or high angle attack bombing? There is no way a P-47 could do a near vertical dive and survive becoming a lawn dart.
And your source for this is what?
- oldman
-
I remember a discussion on the BigWeek forums when Earl was talking about that, got a chuckle when some tried to tell Earl he was mistaken.
Speaking of which, I heard he had passed away, anyone know if this is true?
ack-ack
I haven't talked to Earl in a while. His wife passed away a few years ago now. The son of another 345th FS pilot is the historian for the 350th FG and he always shoots out an e-mail if anyone passes away. Nothing on Earl. I'll try and give him a call this week.
The blog for the 350th FG is a great spot with a ton of photos and info. Good photos of Earl there.
http://web.me.com/vizcarraguitars/350th_Fighter_Group_Blog/350th_FG_Blog/350th_FG_Blog.html
-
They often wired shut the dive brakes on them.
Urban legend and you should know better.
-
Once better performing fighters became operational - the Hellcats and Corsairs in the Pacific, the 38s, 47s, 51s and Typhoons in the ETO - there was no longer any need for a purpose-built dive bomber.
It wasnt that the need had suddenly vanished but because "close air support" was difficult to reliably coordinate with so much bad weather in the ETO. In the PTO CAS was used frequently and accept it or not the few dedicated attack aircraft the USAAF had were used throughout the war (MTO). North American had tried to fill a gap that they could see the military would have a need for but the appropriations channel in Washington decided to go a different route which was pushing all fighters into multi-role aircraft. This proved to be a better in execution than the British for instance (early in the war) that produced so many outstanding multi-role aircraft (for carriers) that were nothing of the sort (better at one than the other or great at one and disastrous at the other). You should note that the British and American navies thought that carriers would never be susceptible to dive-bombing attacks and yet that is exactly what happened.
I can think of at least one campaign in the Pacific that very definitely could have used the A-36.
-
Urban legend and you should know better.
LOL OK. Well my mistake. Robert Grunhagen's book on the Mustang, Roger Freeman's "Mustang at War" and William Hess's book on the Mustang, all reference the problems in stateside training units and with the A36 in the MTO where the dive brakes were not deploying equally on each side or at all causing problems that resulted in the A36 having the highest stateside loss rate in training and guys missing targets in the MTO due to being thrown off by the brakes not working correctly. Wiring them shut was the recommendation. One unit in the MTO quit using the dive brakes. The 27th FG I believe finally solved the problem.
I figured that three fairly decent Mustang historians were worth referencing.
-
I have Gruenhagens book on the P-51 and that isnt in there. In fact quite to the contrary Gruenhagen states that the dive brakes proved to be succesful and the aircraft was a very accurate dive bomber. Now Im beginning to doubt the other two books have that in there except I know I read it 'somewhere' myself. It isnt true though.
The training accidents stemmed from personnel deploying the brakes while at high speed (or at least trying to). Thats not proper procedure and if you have ever flown a Mustang in AH you would know what happens if you come in at a steep angle and on the power. Procedures were reinforced in the pilots training and no further problems were encountered until they got to Africa. In Africa the problem was fear of AAA and not the dive brakes and the problem wasnt flying into the ground but releasing too high and missing.
Dive brakes were never wired shut and if thats in a book and suggested to be gospel I would reconsider its authors credibility.
By the way there is now a Friedkin Family Warbirds A-36A Mustang (featured in Challenge Publications July/August 2010 Warbirds International pg 38-39 ... its nearly the centerfold) flying. You might consider asking them about the legend and I am sure you will get straightened out quickly.
-
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/A-36A_Mustang.jpg)
Looks dangerous alright. :confused:
-
Jerry Scutts writes about the "American Stuka" and no mention of extra wires on the wing (admittedly its a short segment in the book):
http://books.google.com/books?id=U2OU-T8-s94C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=American+Stuka&source=bl&ots=OUGnFKV0Nw&sig=A7i2H1ga7I23-wxn2kAJBIRvhUw&hl=en&ei=jZ5KTOL8B8XgnAfok7yCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=American%20Stuka&f=false
-
Dan, the dive brake were to be extended before the dive began. If they were extend once the dive had begun then there was the possibility of them not extended equally.
In the MTO, the A-36s were in such demand to fly missions that proper maintainance of the a/c could not be done. It would have been much easier to disable the hydraulic lines that operated the dive brakes.
@ oldman,
if the much lighter A-36 required dive brakes to keep it dive speed under 390mph, how did the P-47 keep its speed down? Level, the P-47 would do over 400kph so what would it be doing in a FULL power vertical, or near vertical, dive? The P-47 would descending at an angle near to which the Spit did, that is 60*, which is not dive bombing.
Who took the time to read the thread in the link I posted?
-
@ oldman,
if the much lighter A-36 required dive brakes to keep it dive speed under 390mph, how did the P-47 keep its speed down? Level, the P-47 would do over 400kph so what would it be doing in a FULL power vertical, or near vertical, dive? The P-47 would descending at an angle near to which the Spit did, that is 60*, which is not dive bombing.
My question was directed to your conclusion that "There is no way a P-47 could do a near vertical dive and survive becoming a lawn dart." So far as I know it was not uncommon for P-47s do do vertical dives and survive. I know a WWII P-47 pilot who at least claims he dive-bombed at full throttle in his P-47, and who survived that war and Viet Nam (where he flew SPADs) without becoming a lawn dart. Persuing other literature, including P-47 manuals such as the one reprinted in Len Morgan's old book on the P-47, suggests that near-vertical bombing was commonly practiced in P-47s.
- oldman
-
I have Gruenhagens book on the P-51 and that isnt in there. In fact quite to the contrary Gruenhagen states that the dive brakes proved to be succesful and the aircraft was a very accurate dive bomber. Now Im beginning to doubt the other two books have that in there except I know I read it 'somewhere' myself. It isnt true though.
The training accidents stemmed from personnel deploying the brakes while at high speed (or at least trying to). Thats not proper procedure and if you have ever flown a Mustang in AH you would know what happens if you come in at a steep angle and on the power. Procedures were reinforced in the pilots training and no further problems were encountered until they got to Africa. In Africa the problem was fear of AAA and not the dive brakes and the problem wasnt flying into the ground but releasing too high and missing.
Dive brakes were never wired shut and if thats in a book and suggested to be gospel I would reconsider its authors credibility.
By the way there is now a Friedkin Family Warbirds A-36A Mustang (featured in Challenge Publications July/August 2010 Warbirds International pg 38-39 ... its nearly the centerfold) flying. You might consider asking them about the legend and I am sure you will get straightened out quickly.
Go read Grunhagen again. I'll find the page numbers for ya later. Daughter getting married today. No time to argue with ya right now :)
-
Oldman, the pilot might have though he was doing a vertical dive.
Anyways read some reports by fighter pilots. They had to be VERY careful when diving after enemy a/c > terminal velocity was reached very quickly.
-
LOL OK. Well my mistake. Robert Grunhagen's book on the Mustang, Roger Freeman's "Mustang at War" and William Hess's book on the Mustang, all reference the problems in stateside training units and with the A36 in the MTO where the dive brakes were not deploying equally on each side or at all causing problems that resulted in the A36 having the highest stateside loss rate in training and guys missing targets in the MTO due to being thrown off by the brakes not working correctly. Wiring them shut was the recommendation. One unit in the MTO quit using the dive brakes. The 27th FG I believe finally solved the problem.
I figured that three fairly decent Mustang historians were worth referencing.
Apparently a very popular urban legend, Challenge should know better :D
-
Go read Grunhagen again. I'll find the page numbers for ya later. Daughter getting married today. No time to argue with ya right now :)
It isn't worth arguing with him.
-
Go read Grunhagen again. I'll find the page numbers for ya later. Daughter getting married today. No time to argue with ya right now :)
Congrats on the daughter getting married :)
-
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/A-36A_Mustang.jpg)
Looks dangerous alright. :confused:
That's your mustang right?
-
Apparently a very popular urban legend, Challenge should know better :D
Go look at an A36 sometime and you will see that there is nothing to wire the dive brake to except the other dive brake and since they move in unison there would be no reason to add wire. Not only is this urban legend its ignorant.
-
Dan, the dive brake were to be extended before the dive began. If they were extend once the dive had begun then there was the possibility of them not extended equally.
I dont think thats right either. Airflow alone isnt going to stop these dive brakes from extending. The problem is that the procedure needed to be followed properly or too much speed would build up making it a problem to pull out of the dive at all. In the same book 'Dan' is trying to quote (and its not in there) he describes the affect the first military pilots had during gun trials of the Mustang. Diving the plane from 12k took the airplane to speeds they had never flown before (this was the "hey we need this plane in the war" moment). If you follow procedures you dont crash its that simple.
-
I dont think thats right either. Airflow alone isnt going to stop these dive brakes from extending. The problem is that the procedure needed to be followed properly or too much speed would build up making it a problem to pull out of the dive at all. In the same book 'Dan' is trying to quote (and its not in there) he describes the affect the first military pilots had during gun trials of the Mustang. Diving the plane from 12k took the airplane to speeds they had never flown before (this was the "hey we need this plane in the war" moment). If you follow procedures you dont crash its that simple.
See the bottom of pg 61 of the Gruenhagen book.
-
Daughter getting married today.
Congratulations Dan!
ack-ack
-
Go look at an A36 sometime and you will see that there is nothing to wire the dive brake to except the other dive brake and since they move in unison there would be no reason to add wire. Not only is this urban legend its ignorant.
The problem with the dive brakes is that due to the hydraulics they would sometimes not deploy in unision, which as Dan explained, led to some units to wire them shut and not use them. Other units continued to use them and the problem was eventually found to be caused mostly when the dive brakes were deployed "after peel off".
ack-ack
-
The problem with the dive brakes is that due to the hydraulics they would sometimes not deploy in unision, which as Dan explained, led to some units to wire them shut and not use them. Other units continued to use them and the problem was eventually found to be caused mostly when the dive brakes were deployed "after peel off".
ack-ack
Incorrect. The problem was that after high speed was developed and they were deployed they would not always extend in unison (necessarily) which is true enough but the rolling motion would throw off accuracy (which is what Gruenhagen says). At high speed the dive brakes do nothing to slow the airplane down but they do prevent further speed to build. The problem occurs only if you are already too fast. Gruenhagen also correctly states that the proper procedure is to climb to 12-15k deploy the brakes and then initiate the dive. Throwing off accuracy is not going to panic pilots into asking for the brakes to be wired shut. However... the Mustang at this point in the war did have the highest accident rate in the war. The reason was that pilots were shedding wings from excessive speed buildup (450 mph**)... the A-36 units were ordered not to exceed 70 degrees*** in a dive for that reason.
Capt. Charles E. Dills, 27th Fighter-Bomber Group, 522d Fighter Squadron, XIIth Air Force emphatically stated in a postwar interview:
"I flew the A-36 for 39 of my 94 missions, from 11/43 to 3/44. They were never wired shut in Italy in combat. This 'wired shut' story apparently came from the training group at Harding Field, Baton Rouge, LA."
*
At Harding Field the P-51s and A-36 aircraft were repaired and maintained (Hardings purpose in WWII). Harding Field was not a training facility for the Mustang types.
The first thing you will ever learn about the legend of the Mustang is the two mistruths. One is the dive brakes of the A-36 and the other is that the A-36 was named the Invader which was never accepted officially. Just because a few men in the field named it that doesnt make it official.
Just because one mechanic says "they should wire those things shut" doesnt mean there was a terrible problem with them.
Myth and urban legend busted.
* Hess, William N. Fighting Mustang: The Chronicle of the P-51. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1970. ISBN 0-912173-04-1 p. 13
** Freeman, Roger A. Mustang at War. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1974. ISBN 0-385-06644-9 p. 45
*** Grinsell, Robert. "P-51 Mustang". Great Book of World War II Airplanes. New York: Wing & Anchor Press, 1984. ISBN 0-517-45993-0 p. 69
-
Incorrect. The problem was that after high speed was developed and they were deployed they would not always extend in unison (necessarily) which is true enough but the rolling motion would throw off accuracy (which is what Gruenhagen says). At high speed the dive brakes do nothing to slow the airplane down but they do prevent further speed to build. The problem occurs only if you are already too fast. Gruenhagen also correctly states that the proper procedure is to climb to 12-15k deploy the brakes and then initiate the dive. Throwing off accuracy is not going to panic pilots into asking for the brakes to be wired shut. However... the Mustang at this point in the war did have the highest accident rate in the war. The reason was that pilots were shedding wings from excessive speed buildup (450 mph**)... the A-36 units were ordered not to exceed 70 degrees*** in a dive for that reason.
Capt. Charles E. Dills, 27th Fighter-Bomber Group, 522d Fighter Squadron, XIIth Air Force emphatically stated in a postwar interview: *
At Harding Field the P-51s and A-36 aircraft were repaired and maintained (Hardings purpose in WWII). Harding Field was not a training facility for the Mustang types.
The first thing you will ever learn about the legend of the Mustang is the two mistruths. One is the dive brakes of the A-36 and the other is that the A-36 was named the Invader which was never accepted officially. Just because a few men in the field named it that doesnt make it official.
Just because one mechanic says "they should wire those things shut" doesnt mean there was a terrible problem with them.
Myth and urban legend busted.
* Hess, William N. Fighting Mustang: The Chronicle of the P-51. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1970. ISBN 0-912173-04-1 p. 13
** Freeman, Roger A. Mustang at War. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1974. ISBN 0-385-06644-9 p. 45
*** Grinsell, Robert. "P-51 Mustang". Great Book of World War II Airplanes. New York: Wing & Anchor Press, 1984. ISBN 0-517-45993-0 p. 69
Hey know it all, Milo beat me to it...
See the bottom of pg 61 of the Gruenhagen book.
-
Hey know it all, Milo beat me to it...
Yo! Read what I just posted.
Obviously what happened was the pilots were reporting to maintenance: "the hydraulics are dropping power and throwing off my aim" to which the mechaincs (after many such complaints) replied: "The stupid things should be wired shut."
The brakes were never wired shut bloviator.
By the way... most of the experienced pilots ignored the order to limit their dive angles.
-
Chalenge, I was going to point out how 1 pilot agreed with you (Charles Dills) and that it wasn't common for them to be wired shut.
HOWEVER
You have once again shown the AMAZING ability to twist a few statements around and draw ridiculous conclusions. It's astounding what you think is obvious from your imagined pilot to mechanic discussion.
And if, as us say, the experienced pilots ignored the limits they OBVIOUSLY didn't do it for long, given how many shed parts and crashed. There's a reason the old saying goes, "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there aren't many old bold pilots." If you read anything from Mr. Dills website you'd pickup on the fact that the A-36 was tricky to handle in a bomb run. Speed would build up faster than you'd anticipate making the pull out very challenging.
Here's Mr. Dills website for anyone that cares to read it, some pretty interesting stuff. http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/index.html (http://www.charlies-web.com/WWII_med/index.html)
-
Incorrect. The problem was that after high speed was developed and they were deployed they would not always extend in unison (necessarily) which is true enough but the rolling motion would throw off accuracy (which is what Gruenhagen says). At high speed the dive brakes do nothing to slow the airplane down but they do prevent further speed to build. The problem occurs only if you are already too fast. Gruenhagen also correctly states that the proper procedure is to climb to 12-15k deploy the brakes and then initiate the dive. Throwing off accuracy is not going to panic pilots into asking for the brakes to be wired shut. However... the Mustang at this point in the war did have the highest accident rate in the war. The reason was that pilots were shedding wings from excessive speed buildup (450 mph**)... the A-36 units were ordered not to exceed 70 degrees*** in a dive for that reason.
Dah. Isn't that what I said?
the dive brake were to be extended before the dive began. If they were extend once the dive had begun then there was the possibility of them not extended equally.
Now lets look at what Ack-Ack said:
they would sometimes not deploy in unison
And now what you said:
Incorrect. The problem was that after high speed was developed and they were deployed they would not always extend in unison
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Baumer: No... the experienced pilots ignored the orders because they were doing things the right way. If you deploy the dive brakes before you initiate the dive there is not a problem with assymetric deployment. AGAIN: assymetric deployment does not cause a problem in itself. It does cause inaccuracies in bombing ONLY.
Milo: Im sorry if you were in agreement with me all along. It seemed (seems) to me that you are implying there was a problem with the dive brakes and that THEY were the cause of broken/crashing A36s and WERE wired shut.
Again: All I am saying in all of this is the the dive brakes WERE NEVER wired shut. Problems with the Mustang did occur. Wired dive brakes was never a solution.
Tricky does not make an airplane (or its dive brakes) fatal.
-
I can not find you mentioning anything about the the deployment procedure of the dive brakes before I did. But, I can see how you arrived at that conclusion. (see below)
I dont think thats right either. Airflow alone isnt going to stop these dive brakes from extending.
This totally opposite to what Greunhagen said on pg 61 of his book.
"Hydraulic control systems had not been developed sufficiently to allow extension of the brakes after high speed had been attained. In this configuration it was possible to achieve unequal extension of the brakes........"
-
What he is saying is the dive brakes do not extend simultaneously if excessive speed has already been met. This causes a rolling motion that can be countermanded by the joystick but that will still throw off the bomb aim point. If the brakes are extended by procedure (before the dive) there is no problem. The hydraulics of the system was not quite up to pushing both out once speed had built up but that didnt stop them from coming out all the way (or at all). Once one was fully extended the other would extend also.
You see the pilots would be in training on the A36 and be required to complete a certain level of competency in their dive bombing before they could move forward to deployment. If they could not make the grade they would be dropped or reassigned. The dive brakes gave them a target of their anxieties and so they complained to maintenance about the hydraulics. The fact remains that proper procedure led to zero problems.
If you ever make a trip to Chino and meet Steve Hinton ask him what he has experienced in the A36A and he will confirm this (and tell you that modern hydraulics cured the problem).
-
I'm just going to assume Chalenge is wrong because he is Voss.
-
Quiet the adults are having a discussion about history.
-
Quiet the adults are having a discussion about history.
Until you are proven wrong and you bolt from the discussion...per usual...like this ---> :bolt:
-
Is that what you think? Next you will claim the entire world revolves around you and everyone cares only what you think.
Dream on little boy.
-
OK wedding is done, it went well, life is good etc :)
It appears that the 'wired shut' comment comes from William Hess's book "Fighting Mustang" Chapter 2, "The Invader"
"The men of the A-36s had been told in the United States that their dive brakes would be all but useless and the best thing they could do was to wire them closed"
Roger Freeman's book "Mustang at War also references the not using the dive brakes.
"The air brakes restricted speed built up in the dive but had a nasty habit of not extending equally due to imbalance of hydraulic pressures. When this happened it was difficult to keep the aircraft aimed true at its target and there were instances of complete loss of control."
"At one time A-36 training was resulting in the highest accident rate per hours flying time of any other major combat aircraft in the USAAF."
"Although a calamitous test in the United States had resulted in recommendations that in dive bombing A36As that angle of descent be reduced to 70 degrees and because of inconsistency of operation, the brakes should not be used, the 27th Group kept very much to the original concept of attack."
"Modifications had largely overcome the dive-brake problems and the brakes were always extended for a near vertical dive."
Robert Gruenhagen "Mustang-The Story of the P51 Fighter"
"Hydraulic control systems had not been developed sufficiently to allow extension of the brakes after high speed was attained. In this configuration it was possible to achieve unequal extension of the brakes and some aircraft to roll which detracted from the pilots aiming procedure. In service this created some difficulty when using dive brakes until pilot technique was developed."
"During the island campaigns, some of the units experienced difficulty with the dive brake systems on the A-36 and as a result, the airplane was reported to be unsatisfactory. This was not a true evaluation however and when time was available for maintenance to rig and adjust the systems and pilot operating techniques were developed,, the dive brakes performed satisfactorily."
It would seem a fair assessment of things would be that initially there were problems, both in the States and when the A-36 first got into combat in the MTO, and that over time they were resolved.
It appears the 'wired shut' comment comes from Hess. Where his source for this was, I don't know. It also appears the recommendation to not used the dive brakes was based on official testing that resulted in the loss of the test A-36 based on what Freeman writes. Greunhagen refers to initial problems in the MTO. All three talk about the problem being solved in time and the A-36 using them successfully.
I think it fair to say that the 'wired shut' comment as urban legend was a bit strong. There seems to be some basis in the actual experiences of the A-36 from it's growing pains to combat. In terms of the comments of the 27th FG pilot, Freeman supports that in his comment about the 27th FG staying the course, so to speak in terms of the dive bombing technique.
-
BTW, nothing in any discussion here is ever worth my lying about just to prove someone wrong. None of this is that serious. If you are that bent out of shape about the 'wired shut' comment. I suggest talking to Bill Hess :aok
-
BTW, nothing in any discussion here is ever worth my lying about just to prove someone wrong. None of this is that serious. If you are that bent out of shape about the 'wired shut' comment. I suggest talking to Bill Hess :aok
My comment wasnt to imply you were lying but to say (which I think was clear) that the 'wired shut' statement is not in that book.
Hess is an obvious armchair historian since he even named the Mustang "Invader" which is something one unit did and no one officially did. Thats how urban legends get started you know.
-
I think it's fair to say that I'm an armchair historian.
I do believe Mr. Hess's credentials are a bit better :)
William Hess is the official historian for the American Fighter Aces Association, and is one of the most highly respected aviation writers of his generation. A B-17 crewman during World War 2, Hess has written over 40 books during his long and distinguished career.
-
I'm just going to assume Chalenge is wrong because he is Voss.
:lol
-
@ oldman
I think this will cover the proof you asked for.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/47dive.jpg)
-
@ oldman
I think this will cover the proof you asked for.
Not unless someone explains it to me first. Especially the values along the bottom of the graph.
- oldman
-
The numbers along the bottom are altitude.
-
I think it's fair to say that I'm an armchair historian.
I do believe Mr. Hess's credentials are a bit better :)
William Hess is the official historian for the American Fighter Aces Association, and is one of the most highly respected aviation writers of his generation. A B-17 crewman during World War 2, Hess has written over 40 books during his long and distinguished career.
And yet he never flew the A-36A and cannot claim that they were wired shut from first hand experience. One man who did fly A-36As in combat speaks up and his testimony is ignored.
Somethings wrong with that picture.
-
The numbers along the bottom are altitude.
I don't mean to be deliberately obtuse, but it seems to me that this graph says that a P47 which starts a dive from 25k will reach terminal velocity at 22k and pull out at 14k. Is it instructive for anything else, such as dive entry at 10k? Am I completely missing it?
- oldman
-
And yet he never flew the A-36A and cannot claim that they were wired shut from first hand experience. One man who did fly A-36As in combat speaks up and his testimony is ignored.
Somethings wrong with that picture.
No one said he was ignored. I mentioned that Freeman states the 27th stuck to the initial dive bombing philosophy. Your vet was a 27th FG guy correct? So the 27th always used the dive brakes. Could be the reports of problems came from the 86th FG. Your vet didn't fly with the 86th. Clearly the Wright field test where the A36A shed it's wings caused concerns enough that heading out to the MTO the A36 guys were told to not used the Dive Brakes. Greunhagen states that initial reports out of the MTO said the dive brake problems caused the A36 to be rated as unsatisfactory initially in combat. They all also state that over time the problems were overcome.
This doesn't have to be a black or white answer here. That the problem was overcome is the bottom line and the A36s ended up using the dive brakes once maintenance and pilot technique was refined. LOL, I kinda wish I'd never used the phrase 'wired shut'. I'll be sure to have exact quotes next time and will not go from memory ever again! :)
In the end the A36s got replaced by Jugs anyway and the ground attack bird of choice ended up being the P47. We can speculate all we want about what might have been, but in the end, the powers that be didn't see enough to order more A36s, or any other dedicated dive bomber for the USAAF.
-
In the end the A36s got replaced by Jugs anyway and the ground attack bird of choice ended up being the P47. We can speculate all we want about what might have been, but in the end, the powers that be didn't see enough to order more A36s, or any other dedicated dive bomber for the USAAF.
How about the A-25 or did the USAAF cancel the order once they realized they didn't need the Shrike anymore?
ack-ack
-
Clearly the Wright field test where the A36A shed it's wings caused concerns enough that heading out to the MTO the A36 guys were told to not used the Dive Brakes.
The unsatisfactory rating was due to improper procedures in the dive and the aim point moving during asymmetrical deployment. This was fixed by reinforcing procedures which I think you should know very well by now.
You are aware of the real problem with the wing sheddings? I mean it cropped up again during the mass shipments of P-51Ds to England and killed two test pilots (Lt Burtie Orth and Lt Bill Clearwater) before they figured out the problem. Again it was initially thought to be a problem with the hydraulics but in this case it was discovered to be a very simple issue with the landing gear up-locks. In the case of the A-36 it was an up-lock pin that had sheared during maintenance without having been noticed. Yes there were also cases where wings were overstressed but again that was procedure and not the fault of the dive brakes.
The P-47 did not replace the A-36 due to any inadequacy of the Mustang. The A-36s went on to serve in Italy also. The US Army wanted P-51s for escort duty and thought the factories would be better utilized for their production. Its the same mentality that kept the P-40 in production.
-
The P-47 did not replace the A-36 due to any inadequacy of the Mustang. The A-36s went on to serve in Italy also. The US Army wanted P-51s for escort duty and thought the factories would be better utilized for their production. Its the same mentality that kept the P-40 in production.
One of the main weaknesses of the A-36 was the same suffered by all Mustangs, the vulnerable cooling system that led to the loss of the majority of A-36s due to ground fire. This was a major factor in removing the A-36A from the ETO and being replaced by P-40s and P-47s in the ground attack role. The 8th AF found that the P-47 and P-40 were able to perform the same job to the same level as the A-36A was able to while not being as vulnerable to ground fire as the A-36A was.
ack-ack
-
That explains why the A-36s continued to serve until they were no longer able to.
Sorry I cant find any thing to support your claim.
-
Any particular reason you want to beat this dead horse? The 27th and 86th ended up in Jugs, giving up the A36s. The A36 was not continued in production. No one has claimed it was a bad bird. But this history is what it is.
You seem to be taking this as an attack on the Mustang. No one is.
-
Thought that I would chime in with a bit of interesting aeronautic history. MiloMorai, you pointed out the terminal velocity chart from NACA ACR L5G31. I believe ACR L5G31 is actually evidence of P-47's in vertical dives (and also the difficulty with them in situations prior to dive flaps being installed).
L5G31 references that the P-47C-1-RE data in Figure 17 (the terminal mach chart) were collected from dives done by Maj. Perry Ritchie (a Capt at the time). The P-47 experienced compressibility stability and control issues like many WW2 warbirds. At the time however they didn't know the cause. P-47 pilots reported that high speed vertical dives entered from a Split S at 35,000 ft exhibited a nose tuck beyond vertical (>90 degrees nose down) and the loss of elevator effectiveness (a "control freeze"). The dive appeared unrecoverable until around 15,000 ft when control suddenly returned and if the pilot didn't break the P-47 in the process due very high maneuver loads was able then to recover (usually with bent wings!).
The cause was hotly debated among leading NACA aerodynamicists with three theories explaining the cause. However the only way to see which theory was correct was to flight test the issue and record what was happening with the elevator. NACA and Wright Field had difficulty finding a contract pilot willing to do the tests. Instead they found Maj. P. Ritchie, apparently one of the physically strongests USAAF test pilots who volunteered to do the tests for nothing. Maj. Ritchie proceeded to do some 30+ hair raising high speed vertical dives in the P-47 and his flight tests proved that the cause was due to compressibility stability & control issues. He was awarded an air medal for his bravery.
The following chart is a time history of the P-47 vertical dives and what was happening due to compressibility:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/p47dive.jpg)
In a vertical dive once the P-47 was beyond it's critical mach compressibility caused the nose of the P-47 to tuck away from pure vertical. Also the elevator lost effectiveness to change the attitude of the aircraft. As can be seen on the figure the elevator deflection angles ranged between +3 to -3 degrees. At the high airspeeds of the dive usual loads from those amount of elevator angles would have produced loads in excess of 20 to 30 g's, easily destroying the aircraft. As can be seen however due flow separation from sonic shock waves due to compressibility the elevator effectiveness only produced a 1/2 g instead which was pretty much was control freeze to a pilot diving at that speed. At about 15,000 ft the air got dense enough increasing the drag and slowing the airplane down enough to reduce or eliminate the compressibility shock separation so that elevator control came back. However if the pilot was continue to pull hard back or had the tab set to full trim up this would result in a violent recovery which could easily destroy the aircraft.
That Maj. Ritchie was able to recover the airplane said a lot about his strength, control and coolness. As Dr. Robert Gilruth describes
"Fortunately, when you get to lower and lower altitude, the drag goes up to the place where it forces your speed down below where that sharp separation takes place, and the flow reseats itself and then it's a regular airplane. But you're apt to pull the wings off because by that time you're just scared to death, afraid you're going to hit the ground. Perry Ritchie didn't do that. He did it just right."
Sadly Maj. Ritchie died later in 1944 while doing dive and recovery testing on a new B-25.
-
Any particular reason you want to beat this dead horse? The 27th and 86th ended up in Jugs, giving up the A36s. The A36 was not continued in production. No one has claimed it was a bad bird. But this history is what it is.
Im pretty sure I have seen photos of at least one of the squadrons operating both aircraft simultaneously and according to the text with that photo operating well into 1944. Not that it matters because (as you say repeatedly) these types wont do anything for the events and scenarios of AH.
-
Im pretty sure I have seen photos of at least one of the squadrons operating both aircraft simultaneously and according to the text with that photo operating well into 1944. Not that it matters because (as you say repeatedly) these types wont do anything for the events and scenarios of AH.
LOL ok where did I say the A36 would not be helpful in scenario and events? Please show me. The only 51 variant I object to is the 4 cannon bird.
I'd love to see an RAF Mustang I, P51A or the A36. I think a CBI scenario would benefit from 1st Air Commando Allison 51s. A36s for an MTO scenario would be good fun. Flying an RAF Allison Mustang to Dieppe might be fun too. I prefer early birds to late war birds any time.
I had no idea I had such power on aircraft decisions in AH. Last I checked, I don't get to decide. :)
-
Now wait a minute! The last time I brought up the Mustang (P-51) Im sure it was you that said we need other planes first and the P-51 would be much less often used (oh wait you said Mustang I not Ia). :D
-
Now wait a minute! The last time I brought up the Mustang (P-51) Im sure it was you that said we need other planes first and the P-51 would be much less often used (oh wait you said Mustang I not Ia). :D
So you aren't going to show me where I objected to the Allison Mustangs beyond the 4 cannon bird?
Just for giggles I checked, and numerous times I supported the idea of the Mustang I, P51A and A36. Funny how that works. If anything, maybe this means you've finally come off the 4 cannon 51 wish. In fact I think you should spend your time focusing on getting the A36 in game.
-
I would prefer the A36 actually but NO... the P-51 (four cannon aircraft) has the faster climb rate to 12k which is what I was after. It doesnt carry bombs or rockets which means to fly it you must be in fighter mode which I like even more. :D
A few respondants (if I remember right) were against it just because they thought noobs would HO which they already do. If someone hasnt learned to avoid a HO they need to work on that rather than argue against cannon equipped aircraft.
-
I would prefer the A36 actually but NO... the P-51 (four cannon aircraft) has the faster climb rate to 12k which is what I was after.
But which has the faster climb rate to 35k? :headscratch:
-
But which has the faster climb rate to 35k? :headscratch:
Mania in bipolar disorder is treated with lithium treatments. You should probably see a physician about that.
-
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/A-36A_Mustang.jpg)
Looks dangerous alright. :confused:
No kidding. Is that a slice of cheese on that blade?
-
http://www.history.com/shows/dogfights/videos/sbd-dauntless-naval-dive-bomber#sbd-dauntless-naval-dive-bomber
an interest clip for an opinion of one old WWII vet. :salute
-
The Brits and Americans preferred fighter bombers over dive bombers. Dive bombers (A-36 and Vengeance) were quite successful in the MTO and SEA theatres.
I contend that if in the ETO that the f/bs were dumped and replaced by dive bombers the war in Europe could have ended earlier. F/bs were notoriously inaccurate but the dive bomber could take out any enemy strong points that were holding up the advance of the army.
Take a lesson from the Battle Of Britain. In the first 3 weeks of the battle there where more Stuka crews shot down by fighter's than there where bomber's. Hence Goering actually only sent Stuka's in to battle if proper fighter escort could be provided. And on most sortie's that wasn't the case as they would all be escorting the bomber's. This is also the reason the Germans on the Eastern Front and in North Africa changed the Stuka's role to anti tank busting and bombing artillery gun emplacement's even in this role with a fighter escort they where still easy meat for fighter's. Hence allied command decreed that dive bombers where not an efficient and effective weapon. On the battlefield. We the Brits And the Americans saw the only capability of the dive bomber was against ships at sea.
As we all know of the story's from SBD crew's that on more than one occasion they had dropped their bomb straight down the funnel or dead centre on the carrier deck.
-
"This is also the reason the Germans on the Eastern Front and in North Africa changed the Stuka's role to anti tank busting and bombing artillery gun emplacement's even in this role with a fighter escort they where still easy meat for fighter's."
Not really. Many times on the eastern front there was simply not enough fighters to provide air cover and cannon armed Ju87s were accompanied by bomb carrying ones which would first take out AAA on the target area and then proceed with protecting the slow and clumsy gunships against fighters. A Ju87 D5 with MG151/20 in wings had a decent armament to do that and a Ju87 which maneuvered was a difficult target for a fighter. I have a hunch that during BoB they stupidly flew in tight formations and thought that their tail gunners would fend off the attackers. Armed with a single MG15 that was not a too realistic expectation.
-C+
-
"This is also the reason the Germans on the Eastern Front and in North Africa changed the Stuka's role to anti tank busting and bombing artillery gun emplacement's even in this role with a fighter escort they where still easy meat for fighter's."
Not really. Many times on the eastern front there was simply not enough fighters to provide air cover and cannon armed Ju87s were accompanied by bomb carrying ones which would first take out AAA on the target area and then proceed with protecting the slow and clumsy gunships against fighters. A Ju87 D5 with MG151/20 in wings had a decent armament to do that and a Ju87 which maneuvered was a difficult target for a fighter. I have a hunch that during BoB they stupidly flew in tight formations and thought that their tail gunners would fend off the attackers. Armed with a single MG15 that was not a too realistic expectation.
-C+
That is most likely true but remember the Stuka Really was outdated by 1939 and a jet replacement was asked for before they even thought 100% about a Jet Fighter. But Hitler in his thankfully mad hatter of a mind decided that Jet Fighter's where better :)
-
Just watched Battle -360* by History Channel. It's a CGI animation recreation of Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guadal-Canal ship battles. Was interesting with some heart felt testimony of the survivors or the Enterprise and it's planes pilots and gunners alike. You can take the first hand stuff pretty much to the bank, but the history channel has been criticized for their inaccuracy before. The way they portray the pacific battles there were no other dive bombers except the SBD that did any substantial damage. Yes, It had a Great set of dive grates, that living pilots say allowed a very steap angle of well controlled attack, but was it the best? Really? or did most of the SBD pilots survive to taut it's exceptional abilities. Which might in some ways make it the best, if it got ya home more often. Our early torpedo plane attacks were apparently little more than experimental suicide. That part of the clip was very sad. This was perhaps accurate, but the F6-F didn't get any air time other than as a fighter. I'm no history professor, but it sure drops a lot of bombs on the game.
-
Every pilot has to believe that his airplane is the best or there is almost no point in being a pilot.
Hitech did us all a real favor in taming down the ack in the game. IRL ack was much more severe and just like in AH it didnt care about friend or foe. SBDs very well may have had some statistical accuracy over aircraft like the F6F but for carrier planes I would put money on the F6F or F4U surviving more attacks than the SBD (not that I have seen the statistics its just an impression).