Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Jeffry Fontaine on March 02, 2012, 07:39:06 AM
-
Only 130 Devastators were produced. It did not last long in combat and the surviving aircraft were quickly disposed of at sea or broken up for metal reclamation to support the war effort. The Devastator is still a remarkable aircraft and certainly a candidate for a good kit-bashing to create something other than a stock aircraft.
My own desire is to try and give the Devastator a larger engine and better propeller. Perhaps an upgrade to an R2600 and fit it with a wider chord propeller such as what you would find on the Avenger or Hellcat.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Links to Devastator things on-line:
Wikipedia - Douglas TBD Devastator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_TBD_Devastator)
Click to view larger image from Wikipedia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/TBD_Devastator.svg/300px-TBD_Devastator.svg.png) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/TBD_Devastator.svg/2000px-TBD_Devastator.svg.png)
(Image source: Kaboldy via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TBD_Devastator.svg))
Tail Hook Topics Blog - TBD Devastator Stores (http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/02/tbd-devastator-stores-bay.html)
Lynn Ritger's Douglas TBD Devastator page (http://tbd_devastator.tripod.com/)
On-Line Kit Reviews:
Hyperscale - Great Wall 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator in-box kit review (http://www.hyperscale.com/2012/reviews/kits/greatwalll4807reviewbg_1.htm)
Modeling Madness - Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator kit review (http://www.modelingmadness.com/scotts/allies/us/tbdpreview.htm)
Modellversium.de - Valom TBD-1 Devastator kit review (http://www.modellversium.de/kit/artikel.php?id=1544)
Hyperscale - Valom 1/72nd scale DouglasTBD-1 Devastator kit review (http://kits.kitreview.com/valom72011reviewgp_1.htm)
Hyperscale - Valom 1/72nd scale DouglasTBD-1A Devastator kit review (http://kits.kitreview.com/valom72017reviewgp_1.htm)
CyberModeler - Monogram 1/48th scale Douglas TBD-1 Devastator kit review (#6875) (http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/rm/kit_rm_6875.shtml)
CyberModeler - Monogram 1/48th scale Douglas TBD-1 Devastator kit review(#7575) (http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/rm/kit_rm_7575.shtml)
Built Models:
ARC -Airfix 1/72nd scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Oliver Weston (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4801-4900/gal4881_Devastator_Weston/00.shtm)
Modeling Madness - MPC/Airfix 1/72nd scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Scott Van Aken (http://www.modelingmadness.com/scotts/preww2/tbd.htm)
Modeling Madness - Valom 1/72nd scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Scott Van Aken (http://www.modelingmadness.com/scotts/allies/us/usn/tbd.htm)
Modeling Madness - Monogram Douglas 1/48 scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Wayne Hui (http://www.modelingmadness.com/reviews/preww2/huitbd.htm)
ARC - Monogram Douglas 1/48 scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Wayne Hui (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/901-1000/Fea967_Devastator_Hui/00.shtm)
ARC -Airfix 1/72nd scale TBD Devastator built by Alexander Sidharta (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal2/1101-1200/Gal1116_Devastator_Sidharta/00.shtm)
ARC -Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Andres F. Acuna (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal1/101-200/Gal172_Devastator_Acuna/00.shtm)
ARC -Monogram Douglas 1/48 scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Mike Reeves (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal4/3401-3500/gal3413_Devastator_Reeves/00.shtm)
ARC -Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Rafi Ben-Shahar (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal8/7401-7500/gal7408-Devastator-Ben-Shahar/00.shtm)
ARC -Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Konley Kelley (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal6/5901-6000/gal5988_Devastator_Kelley/00.shtm)
Modellversium.de - Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Hubert Ortinger (http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/9-flugzeuge-ww2/58-douglas-tbd-1-devastator-monogram.html)
Hyperscale - Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Hubert Ortinger (http://www.hyperscale.com/galleries/2002/devastatorho_1.htm)
Modellversium.de - Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Bernhard Schrock (http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/9-flugzeuge-ww2/68-douglas-tbd-1-devastator-monogram.html)
Hyperscale - Monogram 1/48th scale DouglasTBD-1 Devastator built by Bernhard Schrock (http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2001/tbd1bs_1.htm)
Modellversium.de - Monogram 1/48th scale TBD-1 Devastator built by Christian Meyerhoff (http://www.modellversium.de/galerie/9-flugzeuge-ww2/484-douglas-tbd-1-devastator-monogram.html)
Hyperscale - Scratchbuilt 1/16th scale Douglas TBD-1 Devastator built by Arlo Schroeder (http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2001/tbd1as_1.htm)
-
To start with - needs F4U-4 or A-1 engine & prop.
-
RN FAA unmodified.
-
RN FAA unmodified.
You must have been reading my thoughts again. I misplaced of my aluminum foil thought protection cap.
-
Maybe do an FAA version with a reliable BRITISH aerial torpedo!
I mean, really, the Devastator wasn't a TERRIBLE aircraft, just mediocre. if the TBD's at Midway had been TBF's, they STILL would have been slaughtered.
But yes, an engine upgrade would help. My guess as to WHY "they" didn't is that the obviously-better Grumman TBF was replacing them anyway.
But...If Douglas were serious about re-claiming the Navy contract for torpedo bombers...
(http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv173/sequoiaranger/DouglasTB3D-1DecimatorProfile-Lauhof.jpg)
and its 3D equivalent...
(http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv173/sequoiaranger/DecimDoneflying01mm.jpg)
(http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv173/sequoiaranger/DecimatorFinished3-m.jpg)
(Yes, that is a re-worked, DE-volved "Skyraider"!--and Why not??)
-
RN FAA unmodified.
You must have been reading my thoughts again. I misplaced of my aluminum foil thought protection cap.
I told you before: The new aluminium foil just isn't as good as the old stuff...
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3040/3248980358_48a8b58430.jpg)
Hmmm, have RAN FAA decals for multiple torpedo bombers of that era...new Great Wall model kit available...tempting...
-
My personal reality is that is Devastator in late stages of evolving into Skyraider. I am sure first thing for survival was to grow cubic inches and propeller.
Bill
-
So we all know what a horrible plane the TBD was but I've come to the conclusion that it got a rather bad rap. Yes Midway was a disaster but that mainly due to the plane's slow speed and the fact that they attacked alone without fighter cover. Only 6 planes out of 41 launched (3 squadrons worth) returned and the aircraft was ordered retired from front line service. Right before Midway at Coral Sea however the TBDs performed quit well including scoring several hits on a CV (with plenty of drops made) and out of 2 squadron's launched only TWO aircraft were lost! Imagine if they had had worthwhile torpedoes?! But that's another discussion for another thread.
Everyone says the TBD sucked, "just look at Midway" but Coral Sea proved what the plane could do if an attack was conducted properly and with cohesion/cooperation (yeah, yeah...). Still the plane did have its faults and yes it was slow and outdated but I just wanted to make the above point first and yes I know I gave a very abbreviated account of the events but we can discuss the battles in great length in another thread.
Improvements? One would have been to upgrade the engine to the one the F4F used, 1,200 HP instead of only 900. They used the same engine, just different versions. Only thing else I can think of at the moment would have been weight saving measures, streamlining the aircraft (landing gear!), and possibly increasing the fuel load.
Question, what was/were the reason(s) behind the corrugated wing skins?! I'm not an engineer by any means but they would seem to have been counterproductive to achieving a clean flow of air over the wings. Was it simply a technological limitation of the time or did it serve a purpose? If not I'd say replace it all with a normally skinned wing and clean up the airflow.
What else do you guys think would have helped the plane? Its a given it would have been replaced with TBFs but it had been improved it might have enjoyed a longer service life and seen better results in combat. What other roles could it have fulfilled besides as trainers?
-
Replace the engine with something that had more power like an R2600 perhaps? That might have gone a long way towards helping it survive and perfect for a what-if project. Perfect combination if you can get some decent paddle blade style propeller from a B-17 or B-24.
-
If the corrugations are in a stream-wise direction, getting rid of them would help only a little. Perhaps a swap, though, with A-17 or BT-1 wings for contemporary smooth-skin wings from another Douglas division.
-
The corrugated metal was for added strength, same as what you see on all the Junkers planes of the 1930s.
This is an interesting post since my father and I were discussing this EXACT same topic today about 6 hours before this topic was started. Indeed, the Devastator's woes were twofold (maybe three).
First--and most obvious--their torpedoes sucked. I don't need to spend much time on this, but if we take a modern look at it the Devastator + Mark 13 torpedo as a "weapon system", it was terrible, but it was entirely the weapon's fault.
Second, torpedo bombing was inherently dangerous. You have to fly low, slow, and straight to drop a torpedo, the Mark 13 slower and lower than most. Torpedo bombers were so relatively easy to shoot down that the US Navy often used Dauntlesses early in the war to intercept and shoot down Japanese Kates, sometimes quite successfully. And the Kate was the best torpedo bomber in the world at the time!
Third, its primary opponent, the A6M Zero was one of the best low level, slow speed dogfighters in history. It was a perfect storm. The Devastator was very vulnerable prey, unescorted, in the backyard of a lethal predator very much in its element. How else was it going to turn out? It would have fared better in a scenario with no fighters, as the Swordfish enjoyed against the Bismarck and in the Mediterranean. It would have also fared better against an opponent like the Fw 190 in the Channel Dash, as opposed to the Zero.
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j71/navyguy49/tbd_mission2.jpg?t=1273201430)
Basically, my father and I were saying the same things as the rest of you. With a good torpedo and without the VERY capable Avenger around as a replacement, a re-engined TBD-2 with something like an R-2600 would have served the US Navy in the 1942-43 period alright.
As Cliffy B pointed out, they did sterling service at Coral Sea, absolutely plastering the Shoho.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Let's introduce a little context, shall we?
When the Devastator was designed and entered service it was the most advanced torpedo
bomber in the world, bar none. The aircraft was ordered in 1934, first flight 15 April, 1935,
production began February 1936, first delivery June 1937, service entry was November 1937.
The fact that it was still in service five years later, and actually acquitted itself fairly well, is down to
USN and pre-war procurement realities, and the basic soundness of the design.
A the time of the Pearl Harbor attack sixty-nine TBDs were assigned to operational squadrons and
another thirty-one were in second line units undergoing overhaul. That was the total extent of
USN torpedo aircraft strength, everybody was waiting for the TBF, so the USN went to war with
what they had.
Yes, a different, more powerful dash number of R-1830 would have helped, but, re-engining is
not as simple as modellers think. The -64 of the TBD was 55.5 inches long, the -86 of the F4F-3,4,7
was 67.44 inches long. So you need to find twelve inches in the nose, or do a major rearrangement
of existing components. Frankly, an R-2600 is out of the picture, as it's not only longer it's also
seven inches larger in diameter and much heavier, over 2000 lbs (as used in TBF) versus 1295 for
the R1830-64 of the TBD.
The corrugated skin added strength without increasing weight, and was a necessary compromise
in the period, the small amount of added drag being considered the lesser of two evils.
Douglas had proposed a larger follow on aircraft in 1939 with an R-2600 and tricycle gear.
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/image-1.jpg~original)
-
I would also add in the defence of the pilots at Midway: the Japanese Naval pilots at this stage were amongst the best, if not the best in the world. They were highly trained and dedicated. This of course does not take away from the bravery of the U S crews, its just a fact though.
-
As an immediate mod: Put a turbo in it. The B-10 got a 20-30 mph increase in speed just by adding that
As a later mod, a R-2600 would do, but I honestly think the TBF was better, though the TBY would have rocked the house
-
Random Idea: TBD in RN FAA scheme with RR Merlin engine in the nose.