The AD-1 Skyraider

[JeffroK]

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/ad-5.pdf

For the AD-5

Page 3, under ordnance

[sandman455]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/ad-5.pdf

For the AD-5

Page 3, under ordnance

[&o] [&o] [&o]


Incredible aircraft!
Navy should have ditch the Skyraider name - They should have simply called it
"THE BEAST"

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, seems I was wrong about the torpedo thing. Still sounds a bit of a one-shot deal, though, and not worth giving them that general capability.

[JeffroK]

The specs are for the AD-5 of roughly 1950 vintage, I think the engine is almost 50% larger than the AD-1 of late 45, early46.

[Shark7]

Wow, nice find there sandman. Nice to see some actual specs. Though I tend to agree with T on the actual mission thing. 3 is possible, 1 is more probable.

[Mundy]

The AM Mauler (see avatar) could carry three plus bombs, but I doubt the range would have been useful.

The XTB2D Skypirate, could haul four.

I've always had a soft spot for these two. The AM had more brute force than the AD, but it didn't behave very well on carriers. [:(].

If things had gone badly and the USN had really started losing carriers, the 'Pirate might have been rushed through development more quickly.

Ed-

[Commander Stormwolf]

shows what you can do when you replace fuel with ordnance

IJN could have learned that lesson but they didn't.

[Shark7]

of course with that many torpedos, you are talking a really short range mission, and with the limited torpedo stores on a ship, you are also talking only 1 mission. It's basically putting all your eggs in 1 basket.

Also, I assume you'd have to launch the 1 center torpedo or both outboard torpedos on the attack, as launching just 1 outboard would through the aircraft off balance.

1 torpedo and additional non-torpedo ordnance with extra fuel sounds more like a plausible standard loadout.

[Commander Stormwolf]

Well if it were modeled in WITP i would say 2 torpedoes + external fuel

or if there was a dive-bmr version, pack 8 x 500lb + external fuel

would be pretty effective against non-capital ships .. and it means you can use 20 exp raw recruits and still win battles

(like putting an AK-47 in the hands of an african kid)

quantity has the quality all its own,
and the ability to achieve results with inexperienced crews
is the mark of an excellent plane

[Dili]

Thanks guys. Amazing it could carry 4, even if it was only 'around the block'. Very few planes could carry 2 torpedoes, much less 4!

Any of them could carry 4 torpedos if they have the pylons for that and have a comparable weight. Reduce the fuel in torpedo weight level and that is it. Now you go slow due to drag and be carefull with low speed.

Skyraider was my first kit, Airfix: http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/a1h.htm

All that stuff under wings was super cool for a kid.

[Commander Stormwolf]

Any of them could carry 4 torpedos if they have the pylons for that and have a comparable weight. Reduce the fuel in torpedo weight level and that is it.

Yes, in particular the larger planes like the Seiku (H8K Emily)

could have easily carried 4 torpedoes if they removed some of the fuel

[Ian R]

Bump.

Modeling the AD-1 for use in 1946-8, after doing a fair bit of reading, I have come up with the following range/load parameters. This is with two 300 gallon drop tanks on the inner wing hard points, for shipborne ops:

1. 1208 nmi carrying 4500lb of ordnance. (Radius of 15 hexes)

2. 1686 nmi carrying 2000lb of ordnance. (Extended radius of 21 hexes).

(To put this in context, the AD on drop tanks at normal range outranges a PBJ flying at extended range, while carrying 3 x the bomb load)

Note that with the 2 x 300 gal DT attached, there is only one hard point left that can take a torpedo, or a 2K lb bomb.

Obviously it would be imprudent to fly your ADs off out of escort range (The F8F Bearcat, and some of the Corsair variants, have DT XR of 14).

That led to a consideration of assigning a lower range to the aircraft, if that meant it could haul more explosives.

The first consideration is what can the hard points take? There are 15 of them, but load limits for the outboard wing points are limited individually and collectively. It looks like this individually, in pounds:

|500|500|500|500|500|500| ||| 3000 ||| 3600 ||| 3000 ||| 500|500|500|500|500|500|

That picture is misleading in isolation, because the six outer hard points on each wing are collectively limited to 2500lb max, not 3000, and there is insufficient clearance, and overall lift capacity, to hang 500lb bombs on all of them anyway*.

The second consideration is that the advertised 8000lb max load (which would include the drop tanks, which have 0 load cost in the game) is not practicable for carrier operations. Sources vary, but you are looking at ~6000 lb max, with a war load of 4500-4800 lbs. So you can't really trade any more fuel for ordnance, flying off a carrier deck. Maybe without DTs you could load 3 x 2000lb to go "round the block". The torpedo load cost is similar at 2216 lbs.

So, using the 12 outer-wing hard points for either 5" HVARS (12 x 150 lb = 1800lb) or 250lb bombs (hooking up less than 12 x 250 = 3000 lb), and the inner wing hard points for the DT (2 x zero load value), you can haul 1 x torpedo or 1 x 2000lb bomb on the centre hard point and that is it, just within the 4500lb payload. For extended range DT ops its simply a torpedo/2000lb bomb centreline and nothing on the outer points. So there is no point playing around with the drop tank normal range/loads, but .... for extended DT ops the option is to reduce the range to, say 1440 nmi with a 3000 lb load, spread between a 1000 lb SAP centreline, and 1000lbs worth of 250lb/ HVARs under each outer wing.

Thoughts?



[*but not toilets]

[Ian R]

AD-1 Load/range analysis, Part 2.

The analysis in the previous post was based on the 2 x 300gal DT + ordnance load. The AD-1 only carried 365 US gallons in its one (1) internal tank. The soon to follow AD-2 increased internal fuel to 380 gallons.

As can be seen from the toilet bomber photo, both the two inner wing hard points and the centreline point were "wet", i.e. plumbed for external fuel. The AD could also hook up a single DT centre, freeing up the two inner wing points for 2000lb bombs. (I'm ignoring the theoretical possibility of two Mk13 torpedoes). That centreline tank is said to be limited to 150 gallons.

The combat range of later mark ADs is often quoted at 1143 nmi, but they were heavier and slower, albeit with more powerful engines. Joe Baugher quotes a figure for the prototype XBT2D-1 of 'Range 1430 [1243 nmi] miles carrying 1 torpedo'. For the AD-2 he says "Normal range 1390 miles" [1208 nmi]. I infer this means carrying a torpedo, or a 2000lb bomb, centreline, with no external fuel. Many years later the AD-4 would have combat range 1250 nautical miles with 2000 lbs of bombs and 21 rockets plus 2 150 gallon drop tanks, but that model, and its engine, are well past the end date of this mod. Interestingly, though, the -4 could lift a maximum of 9900 pounds of ordnance in land-based operations, but only 6500 pounds if shipboard. The much later, slower, and heavier AD-6 is stated to have a combat radius 275 miles with 2000 lbs of bombs, meaning a range of only 478 nmi; the AD-7 a combat range of 1300 nautical miles with 2000 lbs of bombs, 12 HVAR and 2 150 gallon drop tanks.

Mr Baugher also says of the AD-2 "The ability to carry an external fuel tank was added. Two additional underwing racks were provided." Airvectors disagree: " Some sources claim the AD-2 introduced external tank carriage, but that's puzzling since pictures of AD-1s show them with external tanks, and it is hard to understand why the AD-1 wouldn't have been built with that capability." Also see this photo of an XBT2D, at Dave's warbirds:



As the changes were made based on initial operational experience, for the purpose of mod, where the the AD gets accelerated war-time production (only by a few months), the AD-1 production run (initial order was 548, reduced to 277 after VJ day, even then production rate was 60/month) is getting these changes as block modifications/reto-fits. At this stage to keep it simple I only intend to put in one model, effectively the AD-2, but I might review that and include the allegedly less capable AD-1 (limited to part of the initial contract for 548 to be produced first) followed by open ended production of the AD-2, both at 90 per month.

Taking the AD-2 as the mass production standard model, that leaves the question - is there anyway to tweak the specifications in the editor so the exe will give the option of flying shorter range, with the centreline drop tank, that frees the two inboard hard points to each take a 2000lb bomb, with war load rounded out by either 1 500lbr, or 2 x 250lbr, on the outboard racks on each wing?

[Ian R]

A-1 Skyraider - part 3 - No drop tanks.

The basic specs, no drop tanks, are:

Performance:
Range: 1900 miles (so ferry range = 1651 nmi)
Cruise Speed: 204 mph
Max Speed: 366 mph
Ceiling: 33,000 ft

2 x 20mm cannon

up to (carrier ops) 6,000 k stores, but working with typical war loads of 4500lbs, 2000 flying extended:

57% extended range with 2k load - 941 nmi

48% normal range with 4.5k load - 793 nmi


To adjust for setting extended range load at 3k vice 2k, extended range drops to 867.

[I am using treespiders rule of thumb here, which is not optimised for aircraft with external stores, so subject to correction].

Max load remains at 6k.

The loads do not change from DT load outs, as noted in part 1 above, due to the multiplicity of hard points. Only the range changes.

Subject to some sort of SNAFU (like the exe substituting bombs in the drop tank slot, or not swapping in HVARs for the 250lbrs), there it is.

[Ian R]

[Ian R]

No-one wants to disagree? Surely not [:'(]

[Odin]

What about THIS load?[:D]

[Ian R]

Looks like a 2 seater AD-5 with a drop tank port, and a nuke starboard. Bit beyond our scenario. [:D]

[Odin]

Thats an aerosol bomb...BLU-72 somewhat.

Ugly.[:D]

[Ian R]

Could the US have produced thermobaric weapons in 1946/47, under wartime timetables? Apparently Mario Zippermayr was available, but Paperclip missed him.