Douglas SBD Dauntless Bomber: When Speed ​​Is Really Not Important

56

Continuing the theme of airplanes that did things during World War II, answering one of the questions, I want to say just a few words.

Well, Flying Fortresses are not interesting to me as objects of consideration. Well, what a merit: they gathered in the 500-1000 planes, took a couple of hundred fighters with them, flew and turned another city into rubble?



Sorry, the flying club from 1000 Fortresses - weapon Pithecanthropus. You can criticize Ju-87 and Pe-2 as much as you like, but these were swords for accurate work. Therefore, all these B-17, B-24 and B-29 will be left for a very distant future.

And our hero today was from a completely different opera. Douglas SBD "Dauntless" (will go further in Russian transcription), perhaps this is the most famous naval US bomber.


History it is very noteworthy in that it was decommissioned before the start of the war, and it turned out that the plane took part in all the major naval battles. Moreover, it was the “Fearless” who drowned the cream of the Japanese fleet throughout the war, and in the 1942 year it was the crews of these aircraft who sentenced more Japanese ships than all other sea aircraft combined.

I would translate Dauntless as Reckless. Firstly, there were no towers, and secondly, in order to fight on this bomber, one had to be a little less titanium guy than the Swordfish pilot.


So, the story of the hero of the Battle of Midway begins, which became the Pacific Battle of Kursk and after which the Japanese imperial fleet, by and large, said: 終 то り, that is, "everything."

It all started in 1932, when a certain John Northrop left Douglas Aircraft to establish his own company in El Segundo (California).

Douglas SBD Dauntless Bomber: When Speed ​​Is Really Not Important

The Douglas were practical guys, and considering Northrop a genius in terms of aviation engineering, helped with money and generally tried to make friends, since it happened.

Looking ahead, I’ll say that it was worth it. Northrop really was a cool engineer who created truly advanced aircraft. Only sometimes they were very expensive. And so - P-61 "Black Widow" and B-2, who went into the series after the death of Northrop - as an example.



During his time in his own company, Northrop created several really successful aircraft that differed in very decent characteristics (Gamma and Delta), which worked for a long time on US mail lines.

But Northrop's finest hour came in 1934, when the Naval Bureau of Aeronautics announced a competition to develop a new specialized dive bomber. It's time to change a bunch of old biplanes of different brands for something more modern.

Brewster, Martin and Vout proposed biplanes for the competition, because the Northrop draft submitted by the all-metal monoplane with load-bearing skin and lower wing position was recognized as the best.

The prototype was called XBT-1 and went up the test steps up.


The aircraft had many innovations and advanced solutions that had not been applied before when designing aircraft. The aircraft was an all-metal low-wing, the main landing gear retracted into fairly large fairings on the lower part of the wing, leaving the lower parts of the wheels half open.

For the sake of the strength that a diving bomber needs, the lead designer Heinemann used a honeycomb-free wingless wing structure. This is not an innovation, such a wing was on Northrop’s first Alpha postal plane, and then it was successfully used by Douglas in its DC.

But a problem arose: the honeycomb design of the wing did not allow the wing folding mechanism to be placed, but ordered a sea-based aircraft!

Oddly enough, but the XBT-1 was the only aircraft with a wing of this design, adopted by the US Navy. In order to somehow compensate for the lack of folding wings, Heinemann reduced the size of the aircraft as much as possible. As a result, it was one of the most compact bombers in the world.


Then there were tests, as a result of which in the 1936 year the US Navy ordered a series of fifty-four vehicles under the designation BT-1. New dive bombers became part of the air groups of the new aircraft carriers "Yorktown" and "Enterprise".

And then the trouble started. The new bombers simply showed a bunch of problems that had to be taken more than seriously. Exchange rate instability at low speeds, low ailerons and rudders at low speeds, and the aircraft’s ability to spontaneously start spinning a barrel with a sharp increase in engine speed, generally led to several fatalities.

In general, the Naval Bureau decided not to order the BT-1 anymore.

Everything seemed to be? But no. The pragmatism of the Americans played a certain role here, and the contract included the costs of creating the next prototype. This saved everything, and while the bureau was feverishly thinking about what to do with the suddenly flightless happiness of BT-1, Northrop calmly analyzed what had happened, made conclusions and began work, fortunately, the funds for this were also laid down in the contract.


The engine was replaced (Twin Wosp Junior with the more powerful 1000-strong Wright XR-1820-32 Cyclone), the two-blade propeller was replaced with a three-blade, and even variable pitch. And nothing! XBT-2 did not show anything different from its predecessor. The problems remained at the same level.

Northrop did not give up, and after agreeing with NASA, he drove the plane into the wind tunnel. And finally, the source of the problems was found.

The bomber was aerodynamically ennobled. The main achievement in this regard was the fully retractable chassis. The hefty fairings of the semi-retractable landing gear disappeared from the lower surface of the wings and the main pillars now completely folded in the transverse plane, removing the wheels in the niches of the lower fuselage. The cabin light has also been redesigned. Heinemann went over the 21 version of the tail and 12 different aileron profiles before a satisfactory configuration was found.


While the lead designer fought with the machine, Northrop lost to Douglas and surrendered. And the seemingly independent Northrop company has become part of Douglas, from which, in fact, has budged.

But the plane passed all the tests and in 1938, a new order for 144 of the aircraft, called SBD-1 (scout bomber Douglas - Douglas reconnaissance bomber) followed. The change from B to SB was due to the fact that the abbreviation "B" was assigned to multi-engine bombers.

Although the renaming did not at all entail a review of combat missions.


However, the plane was "damp." Weapons (two directional synchronized 12,7-mm machine guns and one for protecting the rear hemisphere 7,62-mm machine gun) took place, bombing weapons too (one bomb weighing up to 726 kg on the fuselage pylon, and two bombs weighing up to 45 kg or two depth charges on wing pylons) was also present, but there was no reservation at all.

Despite the lack of armor protection for the crew and some other jambs, the aircraft was put into service and the first SBD-2 received aircraft carriers Enterprise and Lexington.

They were the first to receive a baptism of fire, since on the fateful morning of December 7 on December 1941 the Enterprise was in the Pearl Harbor area, returning after the delivery of six Wildcats to Wake Island.


Eighteen SBD-2s were lifted into the air for reconnaissance in the area west of the aircraft carrier before approaching Pearl Harbor and fell into a nightmare arranged by Japanese aircraft.

Seven SBDs were shot down, but the Americans shot down two Zeros. So the bomber opened his combat account in that war.

And just three days later, on December 10, Lieutenant Dixon destroyed the submarine of the Japanese Imperial Navy I-70. The first enemy warship sunk by the United States in World War II was sunk by the Downtless. And - I note - far from the last.

Further more. After Pearl Harbor, Americans mostly raided Japanese positions, rather of an alarming plan. But in the spring of 1942 of the year, protecting Australia from a possible attack by the Japanese fleet, the Americans staged a battle called the Battle of the Coral Sea.


And here "Reckless" for the first time showed their temper. On May 7 they drowned the light aircraft carrier “Shoe”, and on May 8 they very seriously hung a full-fledged strike aircraft carrier “Sekak”. Three bombs disabled the aircraft carrier, and he went for repairs.

Yes, the Japanese did not stay to cry in the corners and drowned the Lexington, but they refused to conquer New Guinea and Australia.


At the end of the spring of 1942, the SBD-3 appeared, which was a finally brought to mind prototype. All tanks were protected, bulletproof glass appeared in the cockpit light, crew armor protection, an 7,62-mm machine gun that protected the rear hemisphere was replaced by a pair of the same machine guns.

Next was the battle of Midway.


Everyone, in general, is aware of how Admiral Nagumo made a mistake (and more than once), everyone is already aware, we should focus on the tactics of the work of the Americans.


Yes, without fighter cover, the Devastator torpedo bombers suffered catastrophic losses from Zero attacks and anti-aircraft artillery fire. Of the forty-one torpedo bombers participating in the attack, only four returned to their ships.

But while the Japanese fighters were busy finishing off the latest TBDs, fifty Dountlesss approached at a height. Fighters that worked on torpedo bombers flying at low altitude simply did not have time to do anything. And the diving "Reckless" did their job.


“Akagi”, “Kaga” and “Soryu”, whose decks were filled with planes preparing for take-off, loaded and equipped with bombs and torpedoes, turned into flaming ruins.

The Hiru, which was walking somewhat away from the main forces, remained intact and fired all its planes against Yorktown, which could not withstand the attacks and was left by the crew.

But the Downtowns from the Enterprise and the already failed Yorktown butchered Hiru as the god of the tortoise.


The Japanese ship burned for a long time and was eventually flooded by the crew the next day.

What is it? Not the most advanced and modern bomber in the company with the far from the most advanced and modern torpedo bombers (we will talk about the “Devastators” in the next article) drowned almost half of Japan’s aircraft carrier fleet in a few hours.

Many historians consider the Battle of Midway to be a turning point in the war in the Pacific Ocean. And they do it quite rightly.

Despite the status of a maritime aircraft, the Dountlesss, due to the lack of folding wings, could not be used on escort and light aircraft carriers, which the United States began to produce in awesome quantities.

In the 1943 year, the fleet command decided to replace the Dountlesss with the new SB2C Helldiver, but delays in the production of the Helldiver left the old men in service not only for the entire 1943 year, but also for half of the 1944.

But even when the Helldiver confidently registered on the decks of aircraft carriers, the Dauntlesses didn’t cut, but were handed over to the Marine Corps and fought from ground airfields as if nothing had happened until the end of the war.

What about the plane? The plane was good. When the handling problems were resolved, everything was just fine.


Yes, SBD did not shine, it is. But he didn’t really need it, since if enemy fighters were taken for the Dountlesss, a second volley of airborne weapons and the ability to maneuver would be more valuable.

The tail part of the fuselage and the center section were airtight, which ensured long unsinkability of the aircraft when landing on water. At least enough to have time to pull out a rubber raft with a supply of water and food from the cockpit of a radio operator. By the way, the pilot had a standard boat compass in the cockpit, which could be easily removed if necessary.

In general, a very well-deserved aircraft that has passed its combat path with flying colors and most importantly - efficiently.


LTX SBD-6
Wing span, m: 12,65;
Length, m: 10,06;
Height, m: 3,94;
Wing Area, m2: 30,19.

Weight, kg:
- empty aircraft: 2 964;
- normal takeoff: 4 318.

Engine: 1 x Wright R-1820-66 Cyclone 9 x 1350;
Maximum speed, km / h: 410;
Cruising speed, km / h: 298;
Practical range, km: 1 244;
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 518;
Practical ceiling, m: 7 680.

Crew, prs: 2

Armament:
- two 12,7-mm synchronous machine guns;
- Two turret 7,62-mm machine guns;
- ventral mounts for bombs weighing up to 726 kg and underwing to 295 kg.

A total of 5 936 SBD "Dauntless" aircraft of all variants were produced.
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    5 December 2019 18: 08
    I don’t know what about the naval bomber, but, most likely, for us, the Soviet people, another naval attack aircraft, the Avenger, is better known. Thanks in part to the frog model. But thanks for the article.
    1. +1
      5 December 2019 19: 04
      Eugener is a torpedo bomber and not a dive bomber for a single engine good bomb load
      1. +3
        5 December 2019 19: 07
        That's why I wrote "naval strike aircraft".)
  2. +7
    5 December 2019 18: 27
    It looks like our Bunshu (Su-2) ...
    1. 0
      5 December 2019 18: 45
      Quote: mark1
      It looks like our Bunshu (Su-2) ...

      A stump that looks like is clear, almost "classmates", damn it!)
      1. +2
        5 December 2019 20: 34
        Quote: Alt-Right
        A stump that looks like is clear, almost "classmates", damn it!)

        Precisely what are not "classmates". Su-2 could not bomb from a dive, and the bomb load is half that.
        1. +3
          5 December 2019 21: 43
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          and the bomb load is half as much

          600 and 816 kg maximum. 900 and 1020 on suspension points.
        2. -1
          6 December 2019 01: 36
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Precisely what are not "classmates". Su-2 could not bomb from a dive, and the bomb load is half that.

          They are very similar in terms of layout!
          Both fighter-bombers, in fact.
          One dives, the second does not.
          And there was no need for the union to create a naval dive. wassat
          1. +1
            6 December 2019 09: 07
            Quote: Alt-Right
            Yes, and there was no need for the union to create a naval dive

            And how does "naval" differ from "land"? In terms of shock capabilities, I mean. The same SBD successfully operated both from the shore and along the shore.
            And the need for a "dive bomber in general" was considerable, and not to say that the Pe-2 closed it satisfactorily. The car is twin-engine, expensive, of suboptimal design (alteration from a fighter), such steep dive angles as SBD or Ju-87 does not allow. On the other hand, there is a single-engine Su-2, which seems to be the most massive strike aircraft, but its strike potential is low due to the small bomb load, which cannot be dropped with sufficient accuracy from a dive.
            1. -1
              6 December 2019 16: 41
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              And how does "naval" differ from "land"?

              The fact that the "naval" needs to work in the absence of space for takeoff, isn't it?)
              Or maybe the lack of aircraft carriers in the alliance?
              In any case, it’s good that no one tried to cast a car similar to He177 as a divelaughing
              1. -1
                6 December 2019 19: 51
                Quote: Alt-Right
                The fact that the "naval" needs to work in the absence of space for takeoff, isn't it?)

                And what exactly is the difference at the level of aircraft construction?
                The SBD has a normal take-off weight of 4318 kg with a take-off engine power of 1350 hp. I did not find data on the take-off length. Su-2 with 4 FAB-100 on the internal suspension weighed 4335 kg. At the same time, with an M-88B engine, take-off power of 1100 hp the take-off run was 460 m., and from 6 FAB-100 it increased to 800 m. However, with the installation of the M-82 (take-off power of 1700 hp), the take-off run should be significantly reduced.
                In addition, for a front-line bomber, the ability to take off from a limited area (a hastily built jump airfield, etc.) is no less important than for a deck. Because no one guarantees two-kilometer concrete there, but there is guaranteed thaw in the spring and autumn. On the other hand, an aircraft carrier at full speed even at calm provided 1/3 of the separation speed of aircraft of those years.
                That is, the difference between the deck and the land machine came down to folding wing consoles (and even then not always, as described in the article) and to the aerofinisher with the corresponding power elements in the fuselage.
                In general, the presence of different types of aircraft in the army and navy aviation of the United States and Japan is largely due not to technical reasons, but departmental. Other countries used (Great Britain) or planned to use (Germany) as decks for modification of land vehicles - Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Bf-109, Ju-87.
                Quote: Alt-Right
                Or maybe the lack of aircraft carriers in the alliance?

                There were no aircraft carriers, but there was an understanding that they would not interfere. Project development was carried out: https://topwar.ru/25495-sovetskie-dovoennye-avianoscy-neosuschestvlennye-proekty.html
                And it is unlikely that the country could afford the luxury of having decks not unified with land vehicles.
                Quote: Alt-Right
                It’s good that no one tried to cast a car similar to He177 as a dive

                They tried. They really wanted to. The impracticability of the project became clear at the development stage. Google "PB 4M-105TK".
                1. -3
                  6 December 2019 20: 25
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  Quote: Alt-Right
                  It’s good that no one tried to cast a car similar to He177 as a dive

                  They tried. They really wanted to. The impracticability of the project became clear at the development stage. Google "PB 4M-105TK".

                  I meant that unlike the He177, there was no "Soviet four-engined dive bomber" in the "metal".
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  And what exactly is the difference at the level of aircraft construction?

                  1) Deck boats have a proportionally longer wing length and more developed flaps (up to the use of the so-called "Fowler flap")!
                  In addition, the landing hook, as well as the aerofinisher, came to aircraft carriers only in the "jet era", with the advent of the so-called. "oblique deck".
                  2) The deck space on an aircraft carrier is even more constricted than any "primer"! Accordingly, the wing is required to create more lift, all other things being equal.
                  Otherwise, call me at least 1 aircraft carrier 500 meters long or more (in the context of that time, of course) ... laughing
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  There were no aircraft carriers, but there was an understanding that they would not interfere. The development of projects was carried out:

                  It was carried out, it was carried out. Even the trophy "Graf Zeppelin" took place. However, the aircraft carrier theme in the fleet of our strange "in metal" has not really been disclosed until now ((
                  What can we say about the likelihood of the appearance of a deck in those years ...
                  PS Data about the run and are not required! It is enough to compare this matter with the size of those aircraft carriers with which they operated.
                  For example, the Yorktown type was only up to 246 meters long.
                  1. +3
                    6 December 2019 23: 20
                    Quote: Alt-Right
                    Deck boats have a proportionally longer wing length and more developed flaps (up to the use of the so-called "Fowler flap")

                    Proportional to what? For SBD (according to airwar.ru) curb weight is 4318 kg, wing span is 12,65 m, area is 30,19 m2specific wing load 143,03 kg / m2. For Su-2 (from there), respectively 4700 kg, 14,30 m, 29,00 m2 and 162,07 kg / m2. Alas, I did not find the wing lengthening coefficients.
                    That is, judging by the load on the wing, the Su-2 had worse takeoff and landing characteristics than the SBD. But if you compare it with another deck dive - SB2C Helldiver (6203 kg, 15,16 m, 39,20 m2, 158,24 kg / m2), taking off exactly from the same decks, the difference is not so big. The increase in the specific load (and its compensation by an increasingly developed wing mechanization) was a general trend in the development of aviation, and I do not understand what developed flaps would damage a land plane.
                    Quote: Alt-Right
                    PS Data about the run and are not required! It is enough to compare this matter with the size of those aircraft carriers with which they operated.

                    Very much required. Because in order to compare in detail, you need to know the take-off run and the separation speed of both aircraft when taking off from a land airport.
                    By the way, the takeoff and landing characteristics of SBD on the go did not work on google. And this is a stone in the author’s garden. If we are to deal with such a topic, then instead of rewrite the airvar, it would be nice to go through the literature and reveal such important details to readers.
                    Quote: Alt-Right
                    On an aircraft carrier, the deck space is even more constricted than any "primer"! Accordingly, the wing is required to create more lift, all other things being equal.

                    The wing, which, "all other things being equal," provides greater lift, has a greater drag, which worsens the speed characteristics of the machine. They were not ready to put up with this anywhere - the load on the wing grew everywhere, and the profile became more and more thin.
                    Quote: Alt-Right
                    Otherwise, call me at least 1 aircraft carrier 500 meters long or more (in the context of that time, of course) ...

                    The aircraft carrier during takeoff and landing operations turns against the wind and is in full swing. At 30 knots (55,6 km / h), this, depending on the strength of the wind, is from one third to one half of the liftoff speed. For those machines that lacked this, catapults were used (they certainly were on the British aircraft carriers of the "Illastries" type) and powder boosters
                    Quote: Alt-Right
                    In addition, the landing hook, as well as the aerofinisher, came to aircraft carriers only in the "jet era", with the advent of the so-called. "oblique deck".

                    Know comments.
                    Watch carefully: https://youtu.be/uTautVreExs?t=74
                    1. 0
                      7 December 2019 03: 43
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      The wing, which, "all other things being equal," provides greater lift, has a greater drag, which worsens the speed characteristics of the machine. They were not ready to put up with this anywhere - the load on the wing grew everywhere, and the profile became more and more thin.

                      Fowler Flaps to the rescue! good
                      And what does this unwillingness to put up mean !? An airplane is always a search for a balance of characteristics.
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      than developed flaps would damage a land plane, I don’t understand.

                      I do not say that they would hurt. Just for the deck, they are more critical.
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      Very much required. Because in order to compare in detail, you need to know the take-off run and the separation speed of both aircraft when taking off from a land airport.

                      Such accuracy, of course, does not hurt, but what if there are problems with finding such details? Here we have to somehow think of the residual principle. Although this is not entirely true.
            2. Alf
              +1
              6 December 2019 19: 34
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              , steep diving angles such as SBD or Ju-87 are not allowed.

              PE-2 dived with angles of 79-80%. Where is even cooler?
              1. +4
                6 December 2019 19: 58
                Quote: Alf
                PE-2 dived with angles of 79-80%. Where is even cooler?

                Dive about could. But he couldn’t drop the main bomb load (those same 600 kg from the bomb bay) at such angles. There was no device leading the bombs out of the fuselage. Only with external suspension. And they avoided taking bombs to the outside in combat units, because speed was falling, making it easier to intercept enemy fighters.
                By the way, if anyone saw the footage of the chronicle, which shows the Pe-2 bombing from a dive, discard the link, I will be grateful. Because everywhere only from horizontal flight do bombs sprinkle.
                1. Alf
                  +1
                  6 December 2019 20: 00
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  Quote: Alf
                  PE-2 dived with angles of 79-80%. Where is even cooler?

                  Dive about could. But at these angles, it was impossible to drop the main bomb load (those same 600 kg from the bomb bay could not). There was no device leading the bombs out of the fuselage. Only with external suspension. And they avoided taking bombs to the outside in combat units, because speed was falling, making it easier to intercept enemy fighters.

                  It is truth too.
    2. +1
      6 December 2019 21: 22
      The plans of the Sukhoi Design Bureau for 41-42 were to develop a ship version of the SU-2, for light aircraft carriers, which were 2 pieces in the program for the construction of a large fleet. The aircraft carriers were brought to the stage of the preliminary design, the air group of 30 aircraft, SU and Yak. So if not for war .....
  3. +4
    5 December 2019 18: 38
    Comrade Skomorokhov, calm down already! I don’t have time to read wassat
    1. +1
      6 December 2019 15: 39
      Aleksandre
      You won’t lose much, even if you don’t have time to read at all ...
  4. 0
    5 December 2019 18: 49
    I remember this car according to Wartander, no matter how funny it sounds)
    After the clumsy and ridiculous "Laptezhnik" - just a "fire" machine!)
  5. 0
    5 December 2019 18: 55
    6000 were released, but I didn’t even know such a plane, how many Americans collected all the flying machines in WWII?
    1. ABM
      +2
      5 December 2019 19: 51
      in 1941-45 305778
  6. +12
    5 December 2019 18: 57
    It all started in 1932 when a certain John Northrop left Douglas Aircraft.
    John Norton could not leave Douglas Aircraft in 1932. He left Lockheed Aircraft Manufacturing Company in 1927, founded Avion Corporation in 1928, which he sold in 1930, two years later founded Northrop with Donald Douglas.
  7. +3
    5 December 2019 19: 03
    Ooh, Roman, thanks for the article! I was waiting for her!
  8. +1
    5 December 2019 19: 16
    Roman, interestingly you will write about p 51 mustang?
    I would really like to read about you from him
  9. Alf
    +3
    5 December 2019 19: 17
    Board with the number 42-S-17 is not Dontless, but Windiktor.

    But even when the Helldiver confidently registered on the decks of aircraft carriers, the Dauntlesses didn’t cut,

    Because as a plane, the Helldiver was, to put it mildly, crap.
    1. +2
      5 December 2019 22: 39
      That's right. This is the Vought SB2U Vindicator, the first dive monoplane bomber adopted by the U.S. Navy. And the author is mistaken when he claims that the fleet had only biplanes. And with the selection of photos you can be more accurate. The photo clearly shows the linen sheathing of the rear of the fuselage, while the hero of the article was all-metal.
      By the way, the Vindicators also took part in the Battle of Midway. True, to no avail, and they were already based on the atoll itself.
    2. +2
      6 December 2019 00: 03
      Board with the number 42-S-17 is not Dontless, but Windiktor.
      Moreover, this is the Atlantic, December 1941. Below, the old Ranger aircraft carrier accompanies one of the Atlantic convoys.
    3. Alf
      +2
      6 December 2019 19: 25
      I wonder which "expert" in US aviation put a minus?
  10. 0
    5 December 2019 19: 30
    The plane is a fighter. Pilots are young. Even with the enemy in mind, really well done.
  11. +9
    5 December 2019 19: 57
    Again reprint Ayrvara with a minimum of changes consisting in the casualization of the language?
    Skomorokhov:
    The engine was replaced (Twin Wosp Junior with the more powerful 1000-strong Wright XR-1820-32 Cyclone), the two-blade propeller was replaced with a three-blade, and even variable pitch. And nothing! XBT-2 did not show anything different from its predecessor. The problems remained at the same level.

    Northrop did not give up, and after agreeing with NASA, he drove the plane into the wind tunnel. And finally, the source of the problems was found.

    The bomber was aerodynamically ennobled. The main achievement in this regard was the fully retractable chassis. The hefty fairings of the semi-retractable landing gear disappeared from the lower surface of the wings and the main pillars now completely folded in the transverse plane, removing the wheels in the niches of the lower fuselage. The cabin light has also been redesigned. Heinemann went over the 21 version of the tail and 12 different aileron profiles before a satisfactory configuration was found.


    Ayrvar:
    The Twin Wasp Junior was replaced with a 1000 hp Wright XR-1820-32 Cyclone engine. The BT-1 two-bladed propeller was also replaced by a variable-pitch three-bladed propeller. A completely redesigned instrument panel and new gauges were also supposed to help solve the problem of low-speed handling. Flight tests of the XBT-2 in this configuration began on April 25, 1938 and showed only a slight superiority of the new prototype over the BT-1.

    Frustrated by the results, Northrop drove the XBT-2 to Langley, where NASA had a wind tunnel at its disposal, large enough to purge a full-size aircraft. As a result of the research, NASA issued a series of recommendations for improving the machine, recommending, in particular, to convert the chassis into fully retractable, make an unregulated gap in the wing to increase the effectiveness of the ailerons and increase the area of ​​the keel and stabilizer. Over the next six months, Heinemann conducted a series of intensive tests of 21 tail units and 12 different aileron profiles before a satisfactory configuration was found.

    Before the redesigned XBT-2 came out of the shop gate, John Northrop finally surrendered to Douglas (until then, for several years, his company worked as an independent aircraft manufacturing company, but was completely controlled by Douglas). XBT-2 returned to Douglas and was renamed XSBD-1.

    According to the recommendations of NASA, the dive bomber was aerodynamically refined. The main achievement in this regard was the fully retractable chassis. The hefty fairings of the semi-retractable landing gear disappeared from the lower surface of the wings and the main struts were now fully folded in the transverse plane, removing the wheels in the niches of the lower fuselage. The cockpit canopy has also been redesigned. The upgraded prototype was accepted by the Bureau of Aeronautics in February 1939, followed by an order for 8 SBD-144s on April 1. The change in designation from B (bomber) to SB (scout bomber - reconnaissance bomber) was due to the desire of the Bureau of Aeronautics to retain the designation "bomber" for multi-engine vehicles. However, the redesignation did not change the range of proposed tasks in any way.

    Find what is called, than the text "from Skomorokhov" became better than the text of Ayrvar?
    1. +3
      5 December 2019 22: 58
      by the fact that he is here.
    2. -4
      6 December 2019 08: 56
      Find what is called, than the text "from Skomorokhov" became better than the text of Ayrvar?

      enough to do nonsense already. If you are so advanced that you’re not only subscribed to all 2MB military public forums, but also sit in them day and night, then you should be praised. I personally have enough VO and what is published here. And do not play the trackers again here. The past was enough.
      1. +3
        6 December 2019 09: 02
        And do not again arrange an investigation here. The past was enough.

        To carry out an "investigation", it is enough to take a piece of Roman's text, where there are numbers or some names, and fill them in a search engine. And, voila! The source for the "presentation from Skomorokhov" is in front of you. You don't have to "sit day and night" for this. There would be no questions if in the column to the material titled "Author" Roman honestly indicated the source, and not "Author: Roman Skomorokhov". What is in this material from the authorship of Roman?
        1. -4
          6 December 2019 11: 24
          To carry out an "investigation", it is enough to take a piece of Roman's text, where there are numbers or some names, and fill them in a search engine. And, voila! The source for the "presentation from Skomorokhov" is in front of you. You don't have to "sit day and night" for this. There would be no questions if in the column to the material titled "Author" Roman honestly indicated the source, and not "Author: Roman Skomorokhov". What is in this material from the authorship of Roman?

          Once again I urge you to stop doing stupidity. Covert investigations are enough on NTV. Skomorokhov is already big + for the fact that he does not publish stupid gossip and fan news, but rather useful material.
          1. +3
            6 December 2019 11: 30
            but very suitable material.
            as a result, it loses its "validity". Roman would be engaged in pure journalism, there his emotions are in place. And it turns out not bad. It's good. And "replication" of materials on the history of aviation and on aviation itself requires at least an understanding of what, and most importantly, HOW you "replicate".
            1. +5
              6 December 2019 12: 33
              PS. "Good" work on aviation at Kotelnikov, Ivanov, Maslov, Khazanov, Rastrenin. Not everything is indisputable, but these are people who work in archives with documents and primary sources, and not "popularizers" who grab the top of the publications on the network and broadcast these top in the same place through the prism of their incompetence.
              1. -3
                9 December 2019 04: 47
                And "replication" of materials on the history of aviation and on aviation itself requires at least an understanding of what, and most importantly, HOW you "replicate".

                well, critics like you are always more writable, more advanced, more comprehensive. Comrade demagogue, what you poke me
                "Good" work on aviation at Kotelnikov, Ivanov, Maslov, Khazanov, Rastrenin.

                I did not read the data of the authors. For reasons of lack of time and desire to plunge far into the topic.
                Do you have a claim to the merits? You disagree with the facts described by the author of the material? Or you style warps? If the first - and write: they say here and here the author ran into nonsense. And if the second - then you are just a populist and a demagogue.
                I already wrote that the fact that the author torn the material from somewhere does not bother me personally (if the truth does not suffer). Infringed copyrights may be bothered by the source. And you should stop this booth. Read your list of respected authors, no problems
                1. +1
                  9 December 2019 05: 18
                  Do you have a claim to the merits? Do you disagree with the facts described by the author of the material? Or is your style jarring? If the first - and write: they say here and here the author ran into nonsense. And if the second - then you are just a populist and a demagogue.
                  - I have a claim to the first. The creature, as you put it, is tattered. And, as Undecim's colleague noted above in the posts, with gross errors. The truth is suffering. Therefore, you should be worried.
                  What about the style? We leave the style to the conscience of the artist. As he wants, so wounded (this is your expression!) And binds. hi
                2. 0
                  9 December 2019 05: 31
                  I did not read the data of the authors. For reasons of lack of time and desire to plunge far into the topic.
                  Then Skomorokhov Roman found his reader in you. It is a pity that you found your "writer" in Novel. If you still have interest in the topic. For the novel on this topic is clearly not special.
      2. +3
        6 December 2019 09: 49
        Here is an example of conscientious work (also IN, by the way!) By Yuferev:
        https://topwar.ru/108500-htz-16-samyy-massovyy-sovetskiy-bronetraktor.html
        Here is the list of sources indicated by the author of this work:
        Information sources:
        http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/tractor/bronetr3.php
        http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tractors/ussr/htz16.htm
        http://warspot.ru/6466-improvizatsiya-v-promyshlennyh-masshtabah
        Open source materials

        Everything is fair and transparent. And, most importantly, it is competent and interesting. The Douglas SBD Dauntless Bomber: When Speed ​​Really Doesn't Matter hi
  12. 0
    6 December 2019 04: 51
    The article is interesting, but although I am not particularly keen on this topic, it is clear even to me that it is not without flaws.
    1. +3
      6 December 2019 05: 47
      This is not an article. At school this, I remember, was called "presentation". The teacher reads the text, and the students reproduce it in their own words.
      1. +5
        6 December 2019 05: 48
        Well then, the author is an honest turban! )))
        1. +4
          6 December 2019 08: 12
          Yes, the presentation clearly falls short of the original source. But there is still a mass of materials on the network on which Roman can raise his "qualifications".
  13. 0
    6 December 2019 08: 47
    Thank you for the article. I do not agree with the statement that Dontless was slightly superior to Swordfish. I would look at the sheer diving Briton, but I know that he is a torpedo bomber. Plus, the superiority in the LTX is very obvious, the design of the airplane is progressive.
  14. +3
    6 December 2019 11: 30
    Ha, it's funny to see slightly revised materials from other articles in the text. We pay tribute to Kodratiev (or who wrote these lines? " , Downtless sank more enemy ships in 1942 than all other naval aircraft combined. Slow But Deadly destroyed the cream of the Japanese carrier forces at the Battle of Midway, inflicting damage from which the Japanese Imperial Navy was never able to recover ... ") ... laughing good drinks
    And so, yes - one of the least hyped airplanes. Even the Japanese Tamiyya has a whole bunch of plastic models of American planes from the Pacific War. For example, "Corsairs" is darkness. But Dountles - not a single one ...
    1. Alf
      0
      6 December 2019 19: 48
      Quote: DimanC
      But Downtlesov - not a single ...

      The grandchildren of Japanese naval pilots cannot forget Midway's shame. laughing
  15. +3
    6 December 2019 14: 16
    In order of observation. The monoplane has one wing, the biplane has two, etc. When translating, one must apply the term plane, i.e. folding planes or detachable parts of the wing. This time. The second one. The prototype (let's say the result of research) in our terminology is a product that served as the basis for the development of another product (OCD). And so it should be called a prototype, pre-production sample, installation (pilot) batch, upgraded model. If translated from English into the forehead, it turns crooked.
  16. +3
    6 December 2019 16: 50
    The novel is in its repertoire. "Works" tirelessly. It's not so easy to scribble your own articles from other people's articles.
  17. 0
    7 December 2019 11: 01
    Yu-87 in the American interpretation.
    1. 0
      8 December 2019 15: 47
      Quote: Pavel57
      Yu-87 in the American interpretation.


      The idea of ​​creating such dive bombers "got" to Germany from the United States. Back in the late 20s, the United States became convinced that dive bombers are quite capable of striking warships moving at high speed.
  18. +1
    8 December 2019 16: 06
    That’s what amers had was great with the engines. So on this dive was a 9 cylinder Wright cyclone. He is in our performance known as m-62/63 but it is only 1000/1100 horses. There was a version of m-64 at 1200. But they did not finish it. And here is a wright like 1350 fillies from a bush. Moreover, having a wild resource by our standards.
    1. +3
      9 December 2019 15: 39
      Quote: dgonni
      That’s what amers had was great with the engines. So on this dive was a 9 cylinder Wright cyclone. He is in our performance known as m-62/63 but it is only 1000/1100 horses. There was a version of m-64 at 1200. But they did not finish it. And here is a wright like 1350 fillies from a bush. Moreover, having a wild resource by our standards.


      The Americans, and with aviation gasoline and engine oil, everything was fine.
  19. 0
    16 January 2020 18: 46
    New details about this plane. Interesting. Thanks for the details.