Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on August 26, 2002, 12:21:38 AM
-
My research shows that the correct carrier ops max bomb load for the Douglas SBD-5 is 1,600 lbs. Currently, HTC has it set at 1,200 lbs. Such sources as United States Naval Aircraft Since 1911, by Bowers and Swanborough list the 1,600 lb loadout. With strengthened wing hardpoints, bombs up to 250 lbs would be carried, along with a 1,000 lb, bomb typically on centerline. Maximum overload allowed for up to 1,600 lbs on centerline, with an additional 325 lbs permitted under each wing. Such heavy loads were restricted to land based operations only.
HTC's loadout of 1,200 lbs reflects the SBD-1 and SBD-2, not the model we now have. Most SBD-5s were fitted with the Wright R1820-60 engine of 1,200 hp. However, about 300 were built with the R1820-66 engine of 1,350 hp, which also powered all SBD-6 aircraft.
I am trying to scare up a pilots manual for the SBD-5, although I have no reason to doubt the higher figures quoted in many reliable publications.
I hope that HTC reviews this issue and makes the changes deemed necessary in the appropriate patch or release.
My regards,
Widewing
-
We shouldn't even have the SBD-5. The SBD-2 or SBD-3 should have been added as the counterpart to the D3A1. The SBD-5 didn't even enter production until Febuary, 1943, well after the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway.
If the SBD-5 was added, the D3A2 should have been added for the Japanese. The SBD-5 was built in larger numbers than was the SBD-2 and 3. Likewise, the D3A2 was built in greater numbers than was the D3A1. As it is the Japanese forces in scenarios must deal with a better SBD than they should be up against.
-
hmmmmm
-
I have found the same loadout info as you widewing, hope they change it, cause i really like that little plane :)
-
It may be that Pyro, chose that load out because it was more comonly used from CV's, does your research bear this out.
Otherwise I am going to have to side with Karnak on this issue.
Nice we get the early war Japanese Dive bomber model, and the late war US dive bomber model.
-
Widewing, I just checked on eflightmanuals.com and they don't have one either, in fact its on their current "want list" and they're offering $100 for a copy of one.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
We shouldn't even have the SBD-5. The SBD-2 or SBD-3 should have been added as the counterpart to the D3A1. The SBD-5 didn't even enter production until Febuary, 1943, well after the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway.
If the SBD-5 was added, the D3A2 should have been added for the Japanese. The SBD-5 was built in larger numbers than was the SBD-2 and 3. Likewise, the D3A2 was built in greater numbers than was the D3A1. As it is the Japanese forces in scenarios must deal with a better SBD than they should be up against.
And how about the TBM, which will no doubt be used as a sub for the historically correct TDB Devastator, a much less capable plane.
The Japanese will field a 1937 dive-bomber and a 1940 fighter against a 1943 divebomber, a 1944 torpedo bomber, and a 1942 fighter.
-
Whats an SBD?
-
a target or sorta ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
a target or sorta ;)
Keep thinking that. :D It makes it just that much easier to kill fighters when they believe that the SBD is defenseless, which is very far from the truth. It's a very dangerous aircraft to turnfight with.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Turnfight ? Why ?
I'm a good luftwaffle : I kill or I auger screaming "Horrido" :D
I'm still waiting for a Auger/landed ratio in the stats ... the day HTC implement that I will rule you all !
Well ... in fact I'll be second after Saw my Belgian squadie the master of the fine art of augering ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
We shouldn't even have the SBD-5. The SBD-2 or SBD-3 should have been added as the counterpart to the D3A1. The SBD-5 didn't even enter production until Febuary, 1943, well after the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway.
Well, if the war ended in early 1943, you would be correct. However, the SBD-5 is only marginally faster than the -3 and with the current bomb loadout, is adequate for the 1942 time frame. So, if HTC revises the -5's bomb load, it merely need be restricted to the current 1,200 lbs for early war scenarios. I don't see any issues here. As it, if mid-war scenarios are designed, the SBD-5 should have the higher bomb load.
You know, HTC may have elected to use the SBD-1, 2 & 3 bomb load specifically for early war scenarios, figuring that it fits all periods within reason.
Other issues raised:
As for the TBM, it (actually the TBF, Grumman built version) fought at Midway (6/42). So, it does not really meet the criteria of a mid-war aircraft. Modeling the TBD Devastator is unnecessary for most scenarios. All where withdrawn from combat duty shortly after Midway. It would be a nice addition for Coral Sea and Midway scenarios, but not absolutely required. What we need is a Japanese torpedo bomber.
Someone referred to the F4F-4 as a 1942 fighter. Not correct. Deliveries began in December of 1941. Moreover, the F4F-4 was generally considered a step backwards from the F4F-3. It had two more guns, but carried 30% less ammunition. The added weight of the wingfold mechanism notably effected performance, especially agility (as compared to the F4F-3). So, if anything, it's to the advantage of the Japanese in any scenario involving the early war Wildcats.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I wondered why HTC did the F4F3 as well, I often read pilots liked the F4F3 much better...
-
Hi Widewing,
SCD-5 standard aicraft characteristics:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/sbd-5.pdf
The 1600 lbs loadout is listed with a reduced fuel load for a 95 nm combat radius.
325 lbs wing bombs are confirmed but no loadout example is given.
8 rocket loadout seems to have worse aerodynamics than twin drop tanks - surprising.
(1 x 1600 lbs + 2 x 325 lbs at the same weight as the 1 x 1600 lbs loadout would have required fuel to be reduced to about 70 gal, and combat radius might have been in the region of 50 nm.)
Was there ever a torpedo-armed SBD?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I forgot that info post on the naval site. Stupid of me since I have it printed out and in my little library.
Can you imagine a combat radius of 50 nm ? At sea level you can see 26 nm, from surface to surface.
Its just a guess, but I would bet that at 50 nm from the deck of a carrier or the superstructure of a battleship you could see literally see the tops of the opposing fleet, not to mention their smoke plumes from the boilers.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
I forgot that info post on the naval site. Stupid of me since I have it printed out and in my little library.
Can you imagine a combat radius of 50 nm ? At sea level you can see 26 nm, from surface to surface.
Its just a guess, but I would bet that at 50 nm from the deck of a carrier or the superstructure of a battleship you could see literally see the tops of the opposing fleet, not to mention their smoke plumes from the boilers.
These heavy loads where generally used by the Marine Corps SBDs engaged in close support work. Typically, they operated from airfields bulldozed out of the coral, sometimes within sight of the front lines. So, flight endurance was never an issue. SBDs where used effectively for blasting bunkers and caves on several different islands during the island hopping campaigns of 1943-45. Indeed, the Jarheads liked the SBD because nothing else in their inventory could put bombs on target with accuracy even close to that attained by the Dauntless.
Such loads where not used by USN SBDs, because the required takeoff run was too great even for the Essex class CVs, much CVLs and the little CVEs. There is the possibility that overloaded SBDs could be catapulted off.
By the way, escort carriers (CVE, initially built on merchant ship hulls) would be a terrific addition to the game. Flying only Wildcats, SBDs and TBMs, (although the F6F and F4U did fly from CVEs for training purposes) they would be ideal for supplementing the current TGs. I think they would be of great value for TODs, where suicide runs are discouraged by the fact that you have just one life to lose.
My regards,
Widewing
-
SBD's did not operate from the CVE's very often (except in early war). The reason for this was the fact that the wings did not fold, thus restricting the number of planes that could be carried. The CVE's used in the PTO during the early war period were mainly used for ferrying aricraft to the combat areas.
I would like to see a CVE or CVL added to the set (maybe add an IJN CVL instead of an Independence class just to keep the country representation nazis from blowing a gasket over another US platform being added to the game).
-
Math U reealy do love me:)
-
i dont think a SBD could put all three legs on the groud w/ a tordonut tied to it's belly, otherwise i dont see why not...