FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1943
1943 - 1503.PDF
JUNE IOTH, 1943 FLIGHT Go=i THE DIVE BOMBER carrier's deck and the minimum dimensions for stowage. A dive-bombing development of the Ameri- can Grumman '' Skyrocket'' single-seater twin-engined fighter appears to have much to recommend it. Although reference has been made to the potentialities of the single-engined dive bomber for attacking strategical and commercial targets, this work is normally assigned to larger twin-engine types which, although not. suitable for such steep dives as the smaller models, can handle loads two or three times as heavy. Their drawbacks of a comparatively shallow permis- sible diving angle and greater pull-out height can largely be nullified by the use of special sights and computers which are not available' on the smaller single-engined machines; even so, it is frequently contended that such types as the German Ju 88 and Do 217 cannot strictly be categorised as dive bombers because they are not suitable for vertical diving. This denotes ignorance of modern technique, for the true go-degree dive, in which the flight path of; the aircraft coincides exactly with the line of sight and trajectory of the bomb, is exceptional, even in the case of the most highly specialised single-engined machines. A more normal angle is 65 degrees. On the other hand, it is erroneous to classify as dive bombers those aircraft which are not specially equipped for steep diving, but are used for "power glide" bombing approaches at a fiat angle. One recalls an American com- munique which mentioned a '' dive-bombing'' attack on an enemy submarine by a Catalina flying boat! The credit for having developed heavy, twin-engined aircraft fitted with dive-brakes, capable of bombing 4at an angle of 60 degrees, or even steeper, of delivering a bomb load at least twice that of contemporary single-ervgine types, and of operating over much longer distances, must go to Germany. The cFass of aircraft just described is typified by the Ju 88 which, despite its special construc- tion and the" equipment demanded, has demonstrated a high performance in relation to engine power, and can be more effectively armed than the two-seater single-engined. On more than one occasion Ju 88s have made dive-bomb- ing attacks at night. Dive-bomber '' Heavies '' The development as dive bombers of much larger air-^ craft than the Ju88 (particularly the He 177) is -r-eported to be proceeding in Germany, if not in .other countries. Dive bombing, even at 45 degrees, by an aircraft carrying a projectile load of six or seven tons, calls for meditation on the part of naval authorities. The problems associated with the design of dive bombers, particularly of the size of the He 177, are varied and com- plex. This will be understood when it is realised that until a few years ago steep dives were maintained only for a few hundred feet and were regarded as aerobatic and fight- ing manoeuvres to be undertaken solely by small aircraft. Consequently, development has in the main been under- taken by a comparatively few specialist firms. In Germany the Junkers concern has been in a peculiarly advantageous position ; not only has it received for many years the solid support of the German Air Ministry, but it constructs the engines, and in many cases the airscrews, of its dive bombers in addition to the airframes. Each of these three items presents its peculiar problems, and it must have proved a distinct advantage to have had research grouped in one organisation. From the structural viewpoint the first requirement for dive bombing is great strength to withstand the strain of GERMANY'S LATEST : A mode! of the Messerschmitt Me 210. It hasthe performance and armament of a fighter and carries the bombs internally in the nose. AMERICA'S LATEST : The 1,700 h.p. Wright Cyclone-engined Curtiss A 25 used by the U.S. army. It is a modified version of the Navy Helldiver. 1 the pull-out and of evasive manoeuvres. This alone results in a poorer disposable load than would be obtainable were the aircraft not designed specifically for steep diving. Additional weight results from the dive-brakes them- selves, and from the design of the structure to which the brake loads are transmitted. Aerodynamic design may suffer in the attainment of a good view from the pilot's position, and it may be con- sidered necessary to fit a transparent panel in the floor for the observation of the target during the approach. Control surfaces must be particularly strong and provide adequate power of manoeuvre for aim-adjustment in the dive. On a conventional single-engined design strong points must be provided for anchoring the ejector arms which ' guide the bomb clear of the airscrew. The design of dive-brakes presents special difficulties ; they must not create violent eddies and thus cause tail buffeting or wing flutter, nor must they affect aileron con- trol. The control surfaces must be of ample area and, if a device for initiating the pull-out is fitted, elevator tabs must be designed accordingly. Due to the vulnerability of liquid-cooled engines when installed in a conventional manner, preference may be given in future to air-cooled power plants, unless advantage is taken of the cowling shape made possible by the liquid- cooled unit to apply protective armour in an effective manner. Internal radiators will also be desirably, but these, and the comprehensive armouring of the engines them- selves, will mean greatly increased weight, which can be ill afforded on dive.bombers. These are already the heaviest aircraft in relation to their size. At the moment liquid-cooled engines are standardised for German dive bombers and air*tooled units on American aircraft of comparable type. Some of the main problems encountered in adapting power plants for dive bombing will be dealt with in next week's issue, follozced by a review of German types of dive bomber.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
