Dive Bombers Big & Small

[KJ_Lesnick]

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

[PR19_Kit]

If you're looking for a REALLY big aircraft that was intended to be capable of dive bombing go for the He 117!

[wuzak]

Yes, the He 177 had that requirement, though not the structural strength to carry it out! The dive bombing requirement was later removed.

[kerick]

I thought I heard of a B-24 used for dive bombing. Must have been a pretty shallow dive angle!

[Zombolt]

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?)

[KJ_Lesnick]

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.

[wuzak]

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.

[KJ_Lesnick]

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.

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.

[wuzak]

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.

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.

[Runway ? ...]

The obvious guys and the PFF used dive-bombing techniques with Lancasters. Some with flares and some with something heavier

[wuzak]

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.

[Runway ? ...]

Leonard Cheshire , tooling about in a P-51. "bomb me".
Balls, huge balls.

[Runway ? ...]

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?

[wuzak]

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.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

Speed 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...

617 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 ? ...

Leonard Cheshire , tooling about in a P-51. "bomb me".

He actually called the plane "Bomb Me"?

Balls, huge balls.

Yeah he did. 

BTW: Isn't he the same guy that did a lot of work with charity?

"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.

At 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*