Old Large Bombers: Dive Bombing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Large Bombers: Dive Bombing
I remember reading that the Avro Manchester could do a 30-degree diving attack -- dunno how popular a tactic this was; regardless, I do remember reading about a B-17 pilot pulling off a dive-bombing attack in WW2 to nail a ship, though I don't know how steep the dive was.
I'm wondering what's the steepest dive angle these planes could perform routinely?
Douglas A-20 Havoc
(though classified as an attack plane, it was also considered a light-bomber)
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Consolidated B-24 Liberator
North American B-25 Mitchell
Martin B-26 Marauder
Avro Lancaster
Douglas A-26 Invader
(though classified as an attack plane, it was also classified as a light-bomber)
I'm wondering what's the steepest dive angle these planes could perform routinely?
Douglas A-20 Havoc
(though classified as an attack plane, it was also considered a light-bomber)
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Consolidated B-24 Liberator
North American B-25 Mitchell
Martin B-26 Marauder
Avro Lancaster
Douglas A-26 Invader
(though classified as an attack plane, it was also classified as a light-bomber)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane,
Not on your list though might be of interest.
The Halifax had a dive bombing role as part of the original specification as a twin engined bomber. When doing the redesign from twin to four Merlin engines Handley Page were able to have the requirements for dive bombing and torpedo carrying removed, but not the wingspan, which was held onto in order to allow catapult launch. Apparently the catapults were a way of removing the costly peace time activity of enlarging airfields. The catapult idea was later cancelled . While no dive bombing angle was specified, a minute of 20 April 1937 by Group Captain R.D. Oxland, Deputy Director of Operational Requirements, notes: 'The angle of dive requirement may be altered from 70° to 25°.vvThis led to a shorter wing span, and a sturdier airframe, than would otherwise have been built . Even so, the dive angle was about 25 Degrees.
Having said that, the specification did change throughout the life time of the Halifax. The Mk III halifax had a longer wing span.
Not on your list though might be of interest.
The Halifax had a dive bombing role as part of the original specification as a twin engined bomber. When doing the redesign from twin to four Merlin engines Handley Page were able to have the requirements for dive bombing and torpedo carrying removed, but not the wingspan, which was held onto in order to allow catapult launch. Apparently the catapults were a way of removing the costly peace time activity of enlarging airfields. The catapult idea was later cancelled . While no dive bombing angle was specified, a minute of 20 April 1937 by Group Captain R.D. Oxland, Deputy Director of Operational Requirements, notes: 'The angle of dive requirement may be altered from 70° to 25°.vvThis led to a shorter wing span, and a sturdier airframe, than would otherwise have been built . Even so, the dive angle was about 25 Degrees.
Having said that, the specification did change throughout the life time of the Halifax. The Mk III halifax had a longer wing span.
Last edited by hval; 1st Nov 2011 at 15:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
Didn't know that...
Not on your list though might be of interest.
The Halifax had a dive bombing role as part of the original specification as a twin engined bomber. When doing the redesign from twin to four Merlin engines Handley Page were able to have the requirements for dive bombing and torpedo carrying removed, but not the wingspan, which was held onto
in order to allow catapult launch. Apparently the catapults were a way of removing the costly peace time activity of enlarging airfields. The catapult idea was later cancelled . While no dive bombing angle was specified, a minute of 20 April 1937 by Group Captain R.D. Oxland, Deputy Director of Operational Requirements, notes: 'The angle of dive requirement may be altered from 70° to 25°.vvThis led to a shorter wing span, and a sturdier airframe, than would otherwise have been built . Even so, the dive angle was about 25 Degrees.
The Halifax had a dive bombing role as part of the original specification as a twin engined bomber. When doing the redesign from twin to four Merlin engines Handley Page were able to have the requirements for dive bombing and torpedo carrying removed, but not the wingspan, which was held onto
in order to allow catapult launch. Apparently the catapults were a way of removing the costly peace time activity of enlarging airfields. The catapult idea was later cancelled . While no dive bombing angle was specified, a minute of 20 April 1937 by Group Captain R.D. Oxland, Deputy Director of Operational Requirements, notes: 'The angle of dive requirement may be altered from 70° to 25°.vvThis led to a shorter wing span, and a sturdier airframe, than would otherwise have been built . Even so, the dive angle was about 25 Degrees.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane,
Whilst I think of it, the angle an aircraft would be able to dive at would depend upon the weapon to be released (weight and aerodynamics) as well as the internal characteristics of the bomb bay for the aircraft, the position of the bomb in the bomb bay and how the weapon is/ was released. Fuel load, engine type, propellor blade design would also have an influence on the dive angle allowed.
I haven't said anything about aircraft design as you have asked about specific aircraft. Having written that, how ever, there were significant differences between different models of the same aircraft type.
Whilst I think of it, the angle an aircraft would be able to dive at would depend upon the weapon to be released (weight and aerodynamics) as well as the internal characteristics of the bomb bay for the aircraft, the position of the bomb in the bomb bay and how the weapon is/ was released. Fuel load, engine type, propellor blade design would also have an influence on the dive angle allowed.
I haven't said anything about aircraft design as you have asked about specific aircraft. Having written that, how ever, there were significant differences between different models of the same aircraft type.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane,
In case you don't know, the Lancaster could do corkscrew dives of about 60 Degrees in a an emergency. This could only be done for a maximum of about 230 metres before an overspeed situation occured.
In case you don't know, the Lancaster could do corkscrew dives of about 60 Degrees in a an emergency. This could only be done for a maximum of about 230 metres before an overspeed situation occured.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These sites might provide a some information for you although I haven't read through them myself. Manchester, Lancaster.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval
I was thinking mostly of the dive speeds reached, and G-load required to get out of the dive without taking the wings off would be the predominant factor. Though that is admittedly affected by weight.
Still as I understand it most planes have a combat weight which presumes a certain amount of fuel is burned off (with fighters it's 50-60%) by the time the aircraft will engage in combat. Might be more complicated with bombers due to the variations in bomb-loads.
I wouldn't have thought that was possible for such a large aircraft. What kind of G-load did that put on the plane? If I recall a 60-degree bank in level flight is 2.5g, but I don't know what the g-load to recover from a 60-degree dive would be (it would include a lot of variables such as the speed the dive was entered at, the speed the dive was exited at, the altitude the dive was started and terminated)
Of the wings or the props?
Whilst I think of it, the angle an aircraft would be able to dive at would depend upon the weapon to be released (weight and aerodynamics) as well as the internal characteristics of the bomb bay for the aircraft, the position of the bomb in the bomb bay and how the weapon is/ was released. Fuel load, engine type, propellor blade design would also have an influence on the dive angle allowed.
Still as I understand it most planes have a combat weight which presumes a certain amount of fuel is burned off (with fighters it's 50-60%) by the time the aircraft will engage in combat. Might be more complicated with bombers due to the variations in bomb-loads.
In case you don't know, the Lancaster could do corkscrew dives of about 60 Degrees in a an emergency.
This could only be done for a maximum of about 230 metres before an overspeed situation occured.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall a 60-degree bank in level flight is 2.5g
i.e. => 1 / Cos 60 => 1 / 0.5 = 2
Therefore, in a 60 degree level turn the load factor would be 2g.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Wouldn't like to try it in a Manchester..... the aircraft could barely keep level flight on one engine with no bomb load. One lucky pilot managed to get a Manchester back from Germany on one engine after jettisoning everything that was portable (including the guns). He was awarded an immediate DSO!
The German obsession with dive bombing after the success of the Ju87 in the Blitzkrieg era led the Luftwaffe to specify that the Heinkel 177 should be capable of dive bombing.....as if it didn't have enough issues.....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,860 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
Yup the HE-177 Heinkel Greif, unfortunately the wing wasn't strong enough for the pull outs from the 60 degree dive angle that was envisaged and during the dive the E in it's name managed to drop below the I resulting in the Heinkel coming to Grief on several occasions before the idea was abandoned.
The German obsession with dive bombing...
I appreciate it wasn't a 'large bomber' but there was also the Fleet Air Arm's Blackburn Skua although it was built to Air Ministry specifications, not the Admiralty's:
The Blackburn B-24 Skua was a carrier-based low-wing, two-seater, single-radial engine aircraft operated by the British Fleet Air Arm which combined the functions of a dive bomber and fighter. It was designed in the mid-1930s, and saw service in the early part of the Second World War...
Built to Air Ministry specification O.27/34, it was a low-wing monoplane of all-metal (duralumin) construction with a retractable undercarriage and enclosed cockpit. It was the Fleet Air Arm's first service monoplane, and was a radical departure for a service that was primarily equipped with open-cockpit biplanes such as the Fairey Swordfish...
Skuas are credited with the first confirmed "kill" by British aircraft during the Second World War: a Dornier Do 18 flying boat was downed over the North Sea on 26 September 1939 by three Skuas of 803 Naval Air Squadron, flying from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. On 10 April 1940, 16 Skuas of 800 and 803 NAS led by Lieutenant Commander William Lucy, flying from RNAS Hatston in Orkney Islands sank the German cruiser Königsberg in Bergen harbour during the German invasion of Norway. This was the first major warship ever to be sunk by dive bombing, indeed the first major warship ever sunk in war by air attack. Lucy later also became a fighter ace flying the Skua...
In the circumstances, these were considerable achievements.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The Blackburn B-24 Skua was a carrier-based low-wing, two-seater, single-radial engine aircraft operated by the British Fleet Air Arm which combined the functions of a dive bomber and fighter. It was designed in the mid-1930s, and saw service in the early part of the Second World War...
Built to Air Ministry specification O.27/34, it was a low-wing monoplane of all-metal (duralumin) construction with a retractable undercarriage and enclosed cockpit. It was the Fleet Air Arm's first service monoplane, and was a radical departure for a service that was primarily equipped with open-cockpit biplanes such as the Fairey Swordfish...
Skuas are credited with the first confirmed "kill" by British aircraft during the Second World War: a Dornier Do 18 flying boat was downed over the North Sea on 26 September 1939 by three Skuas of 803 Naval Air Squadron, flying from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. On 10 April 1940, 16 Skuas of 800 and 803 NAS led by Lieutenant Commander William Lucy, flying from RNAS Hatston in Orkney Islands sank the German cruiser Königsberg in Bergen harbour during the German invasion of Norway. This was the first major warship ever to be sunk by dive bombing, indeed the first major warship ever sunk in war by air attack. Lucy later also became a fighter ace flying the Skua...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Guy Gibson's splendid book Enemy Coast Ahead (chapter 5, I think), he mentions successfuly dive bombing in a Hampden. A 60 deg dive fom 6,000 ft pulling out at 2,000 ft. He doesn't mention the speed on pull out but he does record that the perspex nose often collapsed "much to the embarrassment of the bomb aimer". I'm sure he mentions trying it again in a Lancaster but I'm damned if I can find my copy.
Just a thought; I remember seeing Shackleton displays that featured a steep descent in coarse pitch. OK, nothing approaching 60 deg but would the props have acted as effective air brakes on a Lancaster with just the 12 blades?
Just a thought; I remember seeing Shackleton displays that featured a steep descent in coarse pitch. OK, nothing approaching 60 deg but would the props have acted as effective air brakes on a Lancaster with just the 12 blades?
US NAVAL ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY, VOLUME 2
23E1. Dive bombing
In dive bombing the plane descends toward the target at an angle of 60 degrees or more, thus imparting considerable vertical velocity to the bomb at the moment of release. In a steep dive, with the bomb released at 2,000 to 6,000 feet, time of flight is short and air resistance, wind, and target motion are small. The problem of obtaining accuracy is simplified and a good percentage of hits can be obtained by use of a simple lead-computing sight. A fixed sight and rule-of-thumb methods may also be used.
The plane makes a good AA target, particularly as it pulls out of its dive. In recent aircraft, structural stresses are not too great and a large payload can be carried. Also advantageous is the adverse psychological effect on enemy personnel.
23E2. Glide bombing
Glide bombing is similar to dive bombing except that the attack angle is less than 60 degrees. This technique is better adapted to fighter-type aircraft which tend to develop excessive speeds in steep dives. Glide bombing is high-speed attack and bombs are released at an altitude of from 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Advantages over horizontal bombing include surprise and quick getaway. The disadvantages are that the bomb velocity is less than in dive bombing and AA vulnerability is greater than in dive bombing.
23E3. Dive or glide bombing
The situation obtained in dive or glide bombing under conditions of no wind is represented in figure 23El. At the point of bomb release, the flight line OA is offset from the line of sight to the target, OT, by the angle AOT. This angle intercepts on the ground a distance L, called the linear aiming allowance.
23E4. Skip bombing
In skip or masthead bombing the plane usually attacks at less than 500 feet and the bomb is dropped so close to the target that computation is simple and accuracy high. If the target is a ship, the bomb is released to hit near the waterline just before the plane pulls up to pass over the target. Delay fuzes are employed to give the aircraft time to clear the target. Surprise is highly desirable because the plane is exceedingly vulnerable to AA fire.
23E5. Toss bombing
Toss bombing is a technique wherein the pilot dives his plane directly at the target for a short time and then pulls out. The bomb is released automatically during pull-out, the pull-out maneuver giving the bomb additional forward velocity so that it is tossed above the original LOS and its trajectory intersects the original LOS at the target.
Bombs can be released at higher altitudes than with dive or glide bombing. It necessitates only a short bombing run, but the plane is within effective AA range and is vulnerable during pull-out.
In toss bombing, the airplane is flown initially along a collision course, a straight line path containing the target. If the bomb were released enroute, gravity would cause it to fall short. To overcome this difficulty, the pilot pulls out of his straight-line dive and releases the bomb at a precalculated point along this pull-out curve. The essential geometric features of the problem are indicated in figure 23E2.
The straight-line dive at the target T, here considered to be stationary, is begun at a point above N; pull-out takes place at 0 along the curve OP. If the point P is calculated properly and release of the bomb occurs when this point is reached, the bomb trajectory will intersect the target. In the theoretical development we assume the final velocity of the aircraft in the dive to be reached at the point N; and we assume that this final velocity, which we shall denote by V, remains constant along the timing run NO and the pull-up arc OP.
23E1. Dive bombing
In dive bombing the plane descends toward the target at an angle of 60 degrees or more, thus imparting considerable vertical velocity to the bomb at the moment of release. In a steep dive, with the bomb released at 2,000 to 6,000 feet, time of flight is short and air resistance, wind, and target motion are small. The problem of obtaining accuracy is simplified and a good percentage of hits can be obtained by use of a simple lead-computing sight. A fixed sight and rule-of-thumb methods may also be used.
The plane makes a good AA target, particularly as it pulls out of its dive. In recent aircraft, structural stresses are not too great and a large payload can be carried. Also advantageous is the adverse psychological effect on enemy personnel.
23E2. Glide bombing
Glide bombing is similar to dive bombing except that the attack angle is less than 60 degrees. This technique is better adapted to fighter-type aircraft which tend to develop excessive speeds in steep dives. Glide bombing is high-speed attack and bombs are released at an altitude of from 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Advantages over horizontal bombing include surprise and quick getaway. The disadvantages are that the bomb velocity is less than in dive bombing and AA vulnerability is greater than in dive bombing.
23E3. Dive or glide bombing
The situation obtained in dive or glide bombing under conditions of no wind is represented in figure 23El. At the point of bomb release, the flight line OA is offset from the line of sight to the target, OT, by the angle AOT. This angle intercepts on the ground a distance L, called the linear aiming allowance.
23E4. Skip bombing
In skip or masthead bombing the plane usually attacks at less than 500 feet and the bomb is dropped so close to the target that computation is simple and accuracy high. If the target is a ship, the bomb is released to hit near the waterline just before the plane pulls up to pass over the target. Delay fuzes are employed to give the aircraft time to clear the target. Surprise is highly desirable because the plane is exceedingly vulnerable to AA fire.
23E5. Toss bombing
Toss bombing is a technique wherein the pilot dives his plane directly at the target for a short time and then pulls out. The bomb is released automatically during pull-out, the pull-out maneuver giving the bomb additional forward velocity so that it is tossed above the original LOS and its trajectory intersects the original LOS at the target.
Bombs can be released at higher altitudes than with dive or glide bombing. It necessitates only a short bombing run, but the plane is within effective AA range and is vulnerable during pull-out.
In toss bombing, the airplane is flown initially along a collision course, a straight line path containing the target. If the bomb were released enroute, gravity would cause it to fall short. To overcome this difficulty, the pilot pulls out of his straight-line dive and releases the bomb at a precalculated point along this pull-out curve. The essential geometric features of the problem are indicated in figure 23E2.
The straight-line dive at the target T, here considered to be stationary, is begun at a point above N; pull-out takes place at 0 along the curve OP. If the point P is calculated properly and release of the bomb occurs when this point is reached, the bomb trajectory will intersect the target. In the theoretical development we assume the final velocity of the aircraft in the dive to be reached at the point N; and we assume that this final velocity, which we shall denote by V, remains constant along the timing run NO and the pull-up arc OP.