Yes, I know this is an odd topic but the fact is that while we typically think of small aircraft as dive-bombers such as the
.
- Northrop A-17 Nomad
- Junkers Ju-87 Stuka
- Chance Vought SB2U Vindicator
- Douglass SBD Dauntless
- Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
- Vultee A-31/-35 Vengeance
- North American A-36 Apache
- Martin BTM/AM Mauler
- Douglas BT2D Destoryer/AD/A-1 Skyraider
.
But there were large aircraft that were capable of dive-bombing as well such as...
.
- Junkers Ju-88
- Douglas A-20 Havoc
- Martin XA-23 Baltimore
- Douglas A-26 Invader
/
I'm curious how any of them did in terms of accuracy to their smaller single engined brethren
If you're looking for a REALLY big aircraft that was intended to be capable of dive bombing go for the He 117!
Yes, the He 177 had that requirement, though not the structural strength to carry it out! The dive bombing requirement was later removed.
I thought I heard of a B-24 used for dive bombing. Must have been a pretty shallow dive angle!
Umm...I had a stupid Idea, and the Kit will give you an idea. I still have an unbuilt B-17...
(Structural Integrety? What's that?)
PR19_Kit
1. While the He-177 was supposed to be able to be able to do dive-bombing, it turned out to be a miserable failure in this role.
2. I'm largely talking about the twin-engined designs I listed such as the Ju-88, A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader, and XA-23 Baltimore versus the single engined designs more traditionally used for dive bombing which include all the designs I outlined
Kerick
For the purposes of dive bombing, true dive bombers are required to have a dive-angle of at least 45-degrees.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 23, 2013, 02:19:55 PM
2. I'm largely talking about the twin-engined designs I listed such as the Ju-88, A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader, and XA-23 Baltimore versus the single engined designs more traditionally used for dive bombing which include all the designs I outlined
Apart from the Ju 88, I don't think any of them were designed for dive bombing, certainly not for the 45°+ angles which you specify.
Quote from: wuzak on December 23, 2013, 05:40:17 PMApart from the Ju 88, I don't think any of them were designed for dive bombing, certainly not for the 45°+ angles which you specify.
Well, the XA-23 did do at least some impressive dives. The wings were good to at least 0.74 mach and they achieved that speed in a dive. 450 mph was done at least at another time with a successful release.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 23, 2013, 05:47:01 PM
Quote from: wuzak on December 23, 2013, 05:40:17 PMApart from the Ju 88, I don't think any of them were designed for dive bombing, certainly not for the 45°+ angles which you specify.
Well, the XA-23 did do at least some impressive dives. The wings were good to at least 0.74 mach and they achieved that speed in a dive. 450 mph was done at least at another time with a successful release.
Speed in the dive is no the most important thing. Controlability is more important, as is the ability to pull out of the dive.
The obvious guys and the PFF used dive-bombing techniques with Lancasters. Some with flares and some with something heavier :)
Quote from: Runway ? ... on December 23, 2013, 07:12:08 PM
The obvious guys and the PFF used dive-bombing techniques with Lancasters. Some with flares and some with something heavier :)
Shallow dives.
617 Squadron did its own target marking, first with Mossies and then with Mustangs - which were better able to perform dives.
Leonard Cheshire , tooling about in a P-51. "bomb me".
Balls, huge balls.
Shallow dives.
"Desperate to evade the lights, Coulombe put the big Lancaster into a steep dive, soon exceeding the 350-mph dive-limit speed at 450 mph. At the last moment, feet on the instrument panel, he muscled the shuddering bomber out of its death-defying dive and slipped anonymously into the comforting darkness, away from the insidious searchlights."
I can't find the quote I'm after but 617 "fans" will know what stupidity they tried.
Edit: as 60 degrees and 350mph is good for a corkskrew then with a potential 22,000 lbs of bomb on board, who's your daddy?
Quote from: Runway ? ... on December 23, 2013, 08:08:26 PM
Shallow dives.
"Desperate to evade the lights, Coulombe put the big Lancaster into a steep dive, soon exceeding the 350-mph dive-limit speed at 450 mph. At the last moment, feet on the instrument panel, he muscled the shuddering bomber out of its death-defying dive and slipped anonymously into the comforting darkness, away from the insidious searchlights."
I can't find the quote I'm after but 617 "fans" will know what stupidity they tried.
That was a corkscrew manoeuvre, designed to evade the search lights and their associated flak guns. It was not dive bombing. It was a common tactic for Lancasters, not just for 617 squadron.
A documentary by Ewan McGregor and his brother Colin, who flew with 617 in the Gulf War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnzNJ-RXIi8
One of the veterans describes the corkscrew manoeuvre, and how it was repeated 3 or 4 times in a row.
WuzakQuoteSpeed in the dive is no the most important thing. Controlability is more important, as is the ability to pull out of the dive.
Okay, let me rephrase, they could do 0.74 and pull out of the dive...
Quote617 Squadron did its own target marking, first with Mossies and then with Mustangs - which were better able to perform dives.
They were a composite squadron?
Runway ? ...
QuoteLeonard Cheshire , tooling about in a P-51. "bomb me".
He actually called the plane "Bomb Me"?
QuoteBalls, huge balls.
Yeah he did.
BTW: Isn't he the same guy that did a lot of work with charity?
Quote"Desperate to evade the lights, Coulombe put the big Lancaster into a steep dive, soon exceeding the 350-mph dive-limit speed at 450 mph.
Yeah the Corkscrew maneuver was something you'd never expect a big bomber to do, if I recall right you'd
- Wing it over and put it into a 60-degree dive
- You'd reverse your turn half way down the 1,000 foot drop
- Pull out of the dive and take her 60-degrees nose up about 500 feet
- You'd reverse your turn over the top
- Put her down 60-degrees again and drop 500 feet
- Reverse the turn at the bottom and take her back up
- Rinse and repeat
This was actually a routine tactic for the Lancasters. The problem with it was that it was fairly repetitive and predictable. Particularly as you came out the top of the maneuver you'd be barely flying and the plane would have poor roll-response at that point and an enemy plane could come up and put a shitload of bullets into it right then.
This actually was demonstrated with something called fighter affiliation, whatever that is.
QuoteAt the last moment, feet on the instrument panel, he muscled the shuddering bomber out of its death-defying dive
You know I've always wondered if somebody ever did that in real life *laughs*
Any idea how it came about / was invented , and did the Luftwaffe know about it? It can't have done the bombers' airframes much good ....?
I'd think the larger the aero the more stable in a dive ? As long as it didn't exceed it's speed/g ratings. Also, holding a large aeroplane in one position for accuracy sounds dangerous.....
:tornado:
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 24, 2013, 05:22:56 PM
Quote617 Squadron did its own target marking, first with Mossies and then with Mustangs - which were better able to perform dives.
They were a composite squadron?
Runway ? ...
Sort of, they made up their own rules as they went along, and the Mosquito/Mustang target marker idea was a natural extension of the 'get down low to mark more accurately' philosophy.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 24, 2013, 05:22:56 PM
BTW: Isn't he the same guy that did a lot of work with charity?
Yes, he started the Cheshire Homes for the disabled. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Home)
He was awarded the VC, was the youngest Group Captain in RAF history, flew as an observer on the Nagasaki raid and was made a Baron in 1991 for his charity work, an amazing guy. [You can tell I'm a fan....]
astonQuoteAny idea how it came about / was invented , and did the Luftwaffe know about it? It can't have done the bombers' airframes much good ....?
I don't know exactly the origins of it, but the Luftwaffe knew about it and sometimes developed tactics to counter it
QuoteIt can't have done the bombers' airframes much good ....?
Yes, but a whole bunch of 30 calibur and 20mm rounds are way worse...
PR19 KitQuoteYes, he started the Cheshire Homes for the disabled. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Home
Didn't also did stuff on conflict management?
QuoteHe was awarded the VC, was the youngest Group Captain in RAF history
He was about 25 right?
Quoteflew as an observer on the Nagasaki raid
Yeah, the B-29 with him on it sat a couple thousand feet higher than everybody else. He thought they were being overly cautious -- admittedly after serving in Bomber Command anything is cautious!
Quotewas made a Baron
What is a baron exactly?
QuoteSort of, they made up their own rules as they went along, and the Mosquito/Mustang target marker idea was a natural extension of the 'get down low to mark more accurately' philosophy.
How big was a typical RAF Bomber and FIghter squadron?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 25, 2013, 01:36:21 PM
QuoteYes, he started the Cheshire Homes for the disabled. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Home
Didn't also did stuff on conflict management?
Cheshire did all sorts of stuff in that sort of field.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 25, 2013, 01:36:21 PM
QuoteHe was awarded the VC, was the youngest Group Captain in RAF history
He was about 25 right?
Could be but I don't know for sure. See more on Cheshire here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire)
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 25, 2013, 01:36:21 PM
Quotewas made a Baron
What is a baron exactly?
It's a rank in the peerage of the UK, and other European countries, but you guys over there wouldn't know about things like that of course. ;D
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 25, 2013, 01:36:21 PM
How big was a typical RAF Bomber and FIghter squadron?
In WWII around 12-16 aircraft, but could be almost anything these days. XV Sqdn, the Tornado training unit at Lossiemouth, is the current largest RAF squadron with twenty six aircraft.
Quote617 Squadron did its own target marking, first with Mossies and then with Mustangs - which were better able to perform dives.
QuoteThey were a composite squadron?
They shared a base (Scampton?) with a Mosquito squadron at one point from whence things were "Borrowed".
I don't think the Mustang('s there may have been two) ever had a real home.
Quote from: Runway ? ... on December 26, 2013, 12:46:55 AM
Quote617 Squadron did its own target marking, first with Mossies and then with Mustangs - which were better able to perform dives.
QuoteThey were a composite squadron?
They shared a base (Scampton?) with a Mosquito squadron at one point from whence things were "Borrowed".
I don't think the Mustang('s there may have been two) ever had a real home.
One was a personal "gift" to Cheshire from an 8th Air Force fighter squadron. The other was "acquired", I believe. I doubt either were ever officially on the books.
Quote from: aston on December 24, 2013, 07:15:46 PM
Any idea how it came about / was invented , and did the Luftwaffe know about it? It can't have done the bombers' airframes much good ....?
The corkscrew?
I am not sure where it began, or who invented it. It may have just evolved as a way to try to get out of the searchlights. Or evade trailing fighters.
In either case, a heavy laden bomber was not going to be able to turn or climb to get out of trouble. So diving was the only choice.
No doubt it was stressful for the airframe (not to mention the crew), but the Lancaster was quite sturdy, having been designed for catapult launching.
I'm sure that the Luftwaffe would have known about it, as their night fighters would have experienced a few of them when they were creeping up from behind.
Once again, Paul Brickhill's "The Dambusters" contains details of marking with Mossie and Mustang. Including some stuff about jerry rigging bomb racks on the 'stang.
It's definitely worth a read.
PR19_KitQuoteCould be but I don't know for sure. See more on Cheshire here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire)
25 going on 26...
QuoteIt's a rank in the peerage of the UK, and other European countries, but you guys over there wouldn't know about things like that of course. ;D
I know it's a peerage, I don't know what it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron#United_Kingdom_and_the_Commonwealth
QuoteIn the Peerage of England, Peerage of Ireland, Peerage of Great Britain and the Peerage of the United Kingdom, barons form the lowest rank, placed immediately below viscounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage
QuoteThe peerage is a legal system of largely hereditary titles in the United Kingdom, which is constituted by the ranks of British nobility and is part of the British honours system. The term is used both collectively to refer to the entire body of noble titles (or a subdivision thereof), and individually to refer to a specific title (and generally has an initial capital in the former case and not the latter). The holder of a peerage is termed a peer.
Wuzak
And only some are for those who were not born as nobility?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 28, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
Wuzak
And only some are for those who were not born as nobility?
Those are Life Peers, much more common these days.
.............and, honestly, there is a lavatory in the Houses of Parliament labelled "PEE'RS ONLY"
:rolleyes: