SB2C - How bad were they?

[Long Lance]

I do not know much aout the 'son of a bitch, second class'. Alle the books I have only state that it was not very succesfull, and crews didnt like it. Wiki mentions that it even wasn't able to divebomb[X(] I mean a dive-bomber, that is not able to dive bomb is like a lighter that con not be lighted.
Had it any success?
Would it have been better to stick with the SBD (which is a very cool plane anyway)?

[anarchyintheuk]

It may have been harder to handle but it was faster, had greater range, better armament, carried a bigger payload and (since it could fold it's wings) it may have had a smaller footprint than the SBD (don't really remember).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

It may have been harder to handle but it was faster, had greater range, better armament, carried a bigger payload and (since it could fold it's wings) it may have had a smaller footprint than the SBD (don't really remember).

I think you hit on the "key". It was a "bear" to fly, especially for people used to the more docile Dauntless. Like the Corsair, it gained a bad reputation. Unlike the Corsair, it's combat advantages weren't tested enough by late-war Japanese opposition to make it seem worth the difficulties to the crews.

[bradfordkay]

But in WITP, the extra range makes it all the more valuable - so I'm sure that came into play with the USN in the real war as well....

[mdiehl]

Harold Buell wrote very favorably of the SB2C. The chief limitation seems to be that late war replacement pilots had insufficient experience taking off with a Beast in close support role and loaded with maximum ordnance load.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

It may have been harder to handle but it was faster, had greater range, better armament, carried a bigger payload and (since it could fold it's wings) it may have had a smaller footprint than the SBD (don't really remember).

About the same footprint as I remember.

[Xxzard]

The SBD's wings were non-folding as far as I know.

I do have one question though, why were the US DB so much slower than Jap DBs, especially late war planes. I understand why they might say ok, we will stick with large radials and carrying capacity, but other radial aircraft in the inventory were far faster.

According to Witp tracker anyway, the Val with fixed landing gear is faster than the SBD, and the next generation plane for the US, the SB2C is only 30 mph faster than that. Meanwhile the Japanese D4Y shows an increase in speed of almost 100mph over the D3A, and the D7A is supposedly as fast as the Zero. Of course this does not help a whole lot since US fighters unquestionably improved so much as to negate these advantages. Of course these planes had many flaws too, but surely some sort of effort could be put in on the US side to increase speed. Payload may differ enough to possibly explain the speed difference.

[wdolson]

The problems with the SB2C stemmed from a requirement that 2 fit on a standard CV elevator.  This required the plane's fuselage to be designed dangerously short and the early models had stability problems.  There were also some strutural problems with early versions.

The problems with the plane virtually bankrupted Curtiss and they quit building aircraft after the war.

By the time the -3 was introduced, most of the problems had been worked out and it became a reliable plane.  Even the -1C had many of the worst problems worked out.  After the war, the TBF/TBMs were quickly retired from front line service (they continued in the ASW and COD role for a few years), but the SB2C stayed in front line fleet service until phased out by the Skyraider. 

The SB2C came out of a specification (in 1938 I believe) that produced the Corsair and TBF.  Of the 3, only the TBF lacked significant teething problems.  The SB2C had better range than the TBF.  It never got over its early reputation as an ensign eliminator, but the later models really were good quality planes.

Bill

[YankeeAirRat]

The SB2C were only used for about two years after the war before being completely phased out of both active and reserve units by AD Skyraiders. The TBM's were used in various roles (such as ECM birds, AEW, CODs, and ASW aircraft) until being completely phased out in the fleet and reserve units by AD Skyraiders in the 50's. The TBM's were held around the longest as ASW birds because they could effectively operate off all the escort carriers that were retained by the Navy.
 
One of the other reasons the SB2C was so hated was it was had an incredibly complex hydraulic system to operate the dive brakes, wing fold mechanism, and the bomb bay doors. From what I could remember from reading Barrett Tillman's book on the SB2C, he seem to gather from the maintainers on the carriers, the system on the SB2C just seemed rigged outside of what would be logical and simple.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

The SBD's wings were non-folding as far as I know.

I do have one question though, why were the US DB so much slower than Jap DBs, especially late war planes. I understand why they might say ok, we will stick with large radials and carrying capacity, but other radial aircraft in the inventory were far faster.

According to Witp tracker anyway, the Val with fixed landing gear is faster than the SBD, and the next generation plane for the US, the SB2C is only 30 mph faster than that. Meanwhile the Japanese D4Y shows an increase in speed of almost 100mph over the D3A, and the D7A is supposedly as fast as the Zero. Of course this does not help a whole lot since US fighters unquestionably improved so much as to negate these advantages. Of course these planes had many flaws too, but surely some sort of effort could be put in on the US side to increase speed. Payload may differ enough to possibly explain the speed difference.

Basically payload. Ever hear of the B36? Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 380 km/h) with jets off. (Wikipedia)

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Basically payload. Ever hear of the B36? Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 380 km/h) with jets off. (Wikipedia)

... which will be carrier-based in your mod, right, Harry? [X(] [:D]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: herwin

Basically payload. Ever hear of the B36? Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 380 km/h) with jets off. (Wikipedia)

... which will be carrier-based in your mod, right, Harry? [X(] [:D]

"If all engines functioned normally at full power during the pre-takeoff warm up, the lead flight engineer would say to the aircraft commander "six [engines] turning and four [engines] burning". Inconsistent engine reliability led to the wisecrack "two turning, two burning, two joking and two smoking", with two engines not accounted for." (Wikipedia)

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The problems with the SB2C stemmed from a requirement that 2 fit on a standard CV elevator.  This required the plane's fuselage to be designed dangerously short and the early models had stability problems.  There were also some strutural problems with early versions.

The problems with the plane virtually bankrupted Curtiss and they quit building aircraft after the war.

By the time the -3 was introduced, most of the problems had been worked out and it became a reliable plane.  Even the -1C had many of the worst problems worked out.  After the war, the TBF/TBMs were quickly retired from front line service (they continued in the ASW and COD role for a few years), but the SB2C stayed in front line fleet service until phased out by the Skyraider. 

The SB2C came out of a specification (in 1938 I believe) that produced the Corsair and TBF.  Of the 3, only the TBF lacked significant teething problems.  The SB2C had better range than the TBF.  It never got over its early reputation as an ensign eliminator, but the later models really were good quality planes.

Bill

Ironic how some of the best planes started with horrific "teething" problems.

The B 17 and B 29 come to mind very quickly.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

It may have been harder to handle but it was faster, had greater range, better armament, carried a bigger payload and (since it could fold it's wings) it may have had a smaller footprint than the SBD (don't really remember).

I think you hit on the "key". It was a "bear" to fly, especially for people used to the more docile Dauntless. Like the Corsair, it gained a bad reputation. Unlike the Corsair, it's combat advantages weren't tested enough by late-war Japanese opposition to make it seem worth the difficulties to the crews.

I recall talking to people who served around the SB2C, and as well as being "unforgiving" to fly, it seems to have been very unpopular with maintainers. While the SBD was a straightforward, even simple design , the SB2C , like all new advanced tech of the time (Like the B-29 , which had engines that constantly caught fire), there is a price to be paid. Harder to maintain , means less planes available for strike, which means a lower sorte rate, etc.

We tend to see things from the "game's" perspective (longer range, bigger bombload). People using it tend to view things from their dailey experinced ("the damed thing tried to kill me today!", "We spent all night trying to fix that ....", motor, gunsight,electrical system, etc).

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Long Lance
Wiki mentions that it even wasn't able to divebomb[X(] I mean a dive-bomber, that is not able to dive bomb is like a lighter that con not be lighted.

Always dubious to place too much trust in wiki! The SB2C was perfectly capable of functioning as a dive bomber.

The Helldiver was flown extensively by British air force and naval personnel. Lt Cmdr G. R. Callingham, RN noted that '... after trying out various angles of dive from between 30 and 90 degrees, we considered a release angle of 75-80 degrees to be the most satisfactory...the dive is steady and at the recommended angle of 75-80 degrees, at 2,100 rpm and 15in Hg. manifold pressure, the speed stabilizes at approximately 285 knots IAS with a 1,000lb bomb load'. The RN tried very energetically to get Helldivers for the Fleet Air Arm, but all production was reserved for the USN.

In combat the tactical situation would often determine the steepness of the dive. Attacking the Chitose during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, VB-13 attacked using a 45 degree glide from 10,000 to 3,000 ft and VB-14 attacked the Yamato in 75 degree dives from 11,000 to around 2,000 ft as AA fire was directed elsewhere until they were well into their attacks. During the Okinawa campaign VB-83's attacks on the Yamato was made at various angles between 45 and 70 degrees.

Info from Peter C. Smith's excellent book 'Curtiss SB2C Helldiver'.

[Feinder]

I would venture to say that there was a bit favoritism for the SBD, just thru familiarity and "peer observation" (won't call it pressure).  If a pilot had trained on the SBD, and had been flying it for 18 months, and then given a new aircraft that all his buddies were complaining about, you're probably very likely to find faults with it.  Whereas crews that had only known the SB2C from flight school (perhaps those on Franklin and Tico), might be less included to b_tch about it.
 
-F-

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I would venture to say that there was a bit favoritism for the SBD, just thru familiarity and "peer observation" (won't call it pressure).  If a pilot had trained on the SBD, and had been flying it for 18 months, and then given a new aircraft that all his buddies were complaining about, you're probably very likely to find faults with it.  Whereas crews that had only known the SB2C from flight school (perhaps those on Franklin and Tico), might be less included to b_tch about it.

-F-

Agreed but the SBD was one of the most successful aircraft designs of all time. It was an easy aircraft to fly, easy to maintain, incredibly durable, and capable of delivering its payload with reasonable accuracy. That doesn't mean the SB2C was all that bad but when you replace a legend, it's hard to fill those big shoes. Just ask Gene Stallings or Earle Bruce about that (and no I am not going to tell you who those guys are that is what WIki is for).

The SBD had more than two years of an excellant record in terms of survivablity, flyability, and deadliness by the time the Helldiver appeared. Every "wart" the a/c had was going to get magnified just becasue it wasn't the SBD.

[crsutton]

The B25 pilots loved their planes over the B26 for much the same reasons. Slower but easier to fly and considered a "safe" plane that would get you home. Considering human nature, getting home was probably the key motivational factor for most pilots-not hitting the target or killing the enemy. In a total war such as the pacific war, pilot quality tends to be low. Attrition rates and the rapidly expanding force served to create a pool of very average fliers. The B26 was not as popular because it was considered a "hot" plane. Better than the B25 in many ways but requiring better pilots.
 
As Feinder points out. The regard for simplicity and the security of the known is probably the reason for the SBD bias among former pilots.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Ironic how some of the best planes started with horrific "teething" problems.

The B 17 and B 29 come to mind very quickly.

The Martin B-26 had an early rep it never shook off too, even though it had the lowest casualty rate of any bomber of the war.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I recall talking to people who served around the SB2C, and as well as being "unforgiving" to fly, it seems to have been very unpopular with maintainers. While the SBD was a straightforward, even simple design , the SB2C , like all new advanced tech of the time (Like the B-29 , which had engines that constantly caught fire), there is a price to be paid. Harder to maintain , means less planes available for strike, which means a lower sorte rate, etc.

We tend to see things from the "game's" perspective (longer range, bigger bombload). People using it tend to view things from their dailey experinced ("the damed thing tried to kill me today!", "We spent all night trying to fix that ....", motor, gunsight,electrical system, etc).

This will be reflected to some degree in AE. More complex planes will require more maintenance.

Bill