Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Juha]

"A Bombphoon couldn't deliver from the vertical because it lacked a cradle to swing the bomb outside the propeller arc."

Tony
please, check even the basic facts. Typhoon carried its bombs under wings! So no need for a cradle. You theories are full of that kind basic mistakes, so please, check the basics before trying to figure out all-embracing theories.

Juha

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

"A Bombphoon couldn't deliver from the vertical because it lacked a cradle to swing the bomb outside the propeller arc."

Tony
please, check even the basic facts. Typhoon carried its bombs under wings! So no need for a cradle. You theories are full of that kind basic mistakes, so please, check the basics before trying to figure out all-embracing theories.

Juha

You're absolutely right and I was wrong. Because their bombs were carried underwing away from the propeller arc, Bombphoons could bomb from the vertical.

And they DID bomb from the vertical. Did you even know that? I've just found many examples.

So both rockets and bombs were delivered from the vertical by 2TAF Typhoons. The only difference was the rockets were delivered from lower down.

The 'all-embracing theory' is that vertical dive-bombing was practised by RAF, Soviet Air Force and LW. The RAF differed only in that they lacked suitable aircraft equipped with dive brakes and armour.

Thanks. Now we are getting somewhere.

[Franek Grabowski]

Tony, what Soviet aircraft could be called a dive bomber?

[Graham Boak]

Franek, the Pe 2.

A low-drag aircraft such as a fighter without airbrakes cannot spend enough time in a vertical dive to acquire a target and release a weapon from ideal conditions. That's why specialist dive-bombers have dive brakes, did anyone imagine they were there for decoration? You want to go vertical in a fighter? Sure, providing you have lots of altitude, and pull-up before exceeding limiting speeds. This does not take very long. You want to hit a target with a bomb from a vertical dive? Then you need time an altitude to move into that position, time and altitude to acquire the target, and time and altitude to position yourself to an ideal stable release condition. Then time and altitude to pull out. If dropped under unstable conditions or the wrong speeds, bombs will not go where they are aimed, they may even come up and hit the aircraft. Bombs are not purely passive objects to be dropped, they fly. Specialist dive bombers are accurate from a vertical dive (sometimes), fighters are not.

This isn't just bartalk, this is gravity. Uncle Isaac wins. Not just on a house percentage, but every time.

[Kutscha]

The A-36 version of the P-51 was a dive bomber. It needed divebrakes to keep it from exceeding the 390mph dive limit speed. Yet you want us to believe the much heavier Typhoon did vertical (90*) dives without divebrakes. Yah right!

LOL, even the He177 was a dive bomber but its maximum dive angle was 45*.

Actually your interpretation of vertical dive is wrong. Typhoons pilots found that by making a steeper dive than they usually did with bombs increased the accuracy of the RPs. This was not vertical, but like the Spit's 60* angle it felt like it was vertical.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Actually your interpretation of vertical dive is wrong. Typhoons pilots found that by making a steeper dive than they usually did with bombs increased the accuracy of the RPs. This was not vertical, but like the Spit's 60* angle it felt like it was vertical.

This is not my 'interpretation' of anything. It is what the practitioners say they did - time and again.

Just one example; "With bombing we liked to roll over and go down vertical style. You could get a fair old speed up, and one got quite good at it in the end". Flight Lieutenant A.G. Todd, 164 Squadron. Quoted in 'Typhoon Attack', by Norman Franks, page 75.

"We usually rolled in at 1,000 feet and pulled out at 6,000 feet so as to beat the flak. ...In echelon we usually slowed it up to 230 mph on the clock, pull it up at the last minute, and in the Typhoon 230 is slow; it only cruised at 280, so it was sluggish at 230. Then as the Typhoon ahead of you went over, you just rolled and kept the nose up till your speed had dropped a lot, because if you went in at speed you'd pull your wings off, as by then you'd be going straight down, and it got up one hell of a lick! .... it went down like a brick, and in the dive you had to line up on the target. You put your gun-sight on and you'd pull your vertical line on the sight through the target, and as it disappeared under the nose, just drop your bombs. That's as accurate as you could get, taking no account of wind but making sure the target was far enough under your nose. I'd say it was pretty accurate, and you'd probably hit the target". Sergeant R.W. Cole, 3 Squadron, page 57 of Norman Franks' book already cited.

Cole probably didn't hit the target, but that is not the point. He tried his best, and his best was vertical.

Tony

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

"We usually rolled in at 1,000 feet and pulled out at 6,000 feet so as to beat the flak. ...

Sorry. For 1,000 feet read 10,000 feet.
Tony

[Franek Grabowski]

It looks the thread goes out of control.

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Franek, the Pe 2.

Pe-2 and following Tu-2 were indeed called dive bombers, but they were as dive bombers as He 177 was. Those were not aircraft able for perpendicular dives, and I would say that if they dived it was something quite shallow. Similarly, Il-2 was not capable to dive, and Soviets had no dive bombers in a sense discussed here.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

It looks the thread goes out of control.

Pe-2 and following Tu-2 were indeed called dive bombers, but they were as dive bombers as He 177 was. Those were not aircraft able for perpendicular dives, and I would say that if they dived it was something quite shallow. Similarly, Il-2 was not capable to dive, and Soviets had no dive bombers in a sense discussed here.

The thread doesn't go out of control. Franek.

You are denying much that has been written about the Soviet Air Force. Good on you if you have evidence.

Historians here believe the PB-100 was the dive bomber version of the Pe-2 and was fitted with dive brakes. In concept it is believed to be similar to the Ju88 which also had dive brakes and was also used for dive bombing.

Christopher Shores wrote; "When used as a dive-bomber its (Pe-2) attacks were every bit as accurate as those of the Ju87, whilst its far heavier bombload made it a more effective proposition....One unit which did much to pioneer use of the aircraft as a dive-bomber was the 150th Bomber Regiment, led by Col. Ivan S. Polbin, who was to become to the Soviet dive-bombers what Hans-Ulrich Rudel became to the German Stukas. Polbin's Pe-2s were active during the winter of 1941/2 during the first major Soviet offensive of the war, and by the middle of 1942, as a result of the experience gained by Polbin and others, most units were becoming proficient in the new role.......The Pe-2s had now (1944) developed dive-bombing as a fine art, some experienced pilots being referred to as aerial snipers, for their ability to destroy pinpoint targets such as observation posts with great accuracy".

Tony

[Graham Boak]

The Pe 2 had dive brakes, and was at least as capable a divebomber as the Ju 88, which used the technique successfully on a number of occasions. I believe the career of Soviet dive-bomber specialist Polbin (sp?) and his techniques with the Pe 2 has been written up in English-language sources. Perhaps Christopher Shores' Ground Attack Aircraft mentioned earlier in the thread? The Pe 2 was often, even most often, used as a level bomber, though this is barely mentioned in Peter Smith's book on the type, which concentrates almost entirely on its use as a divebomber. But then that is Peter Smith's obsession.

The Tu 2 is another matter. It is not clear to be how capable it would have been as a divebomber, but there seems to be no evidence of its use in the role. I think the Do 217 a closer equivalent than the He 177, although some do compare it with the Ju 88.

Tom: re the technical point of wing incidence. I think you are being a bit casual with terms, and confusing wing-body incidence with angle-of-attack (or wing to free stream incidence). Dive bombers were not designed with wings at zero w-b incidence, as this would mean flying with the fuselage at an uncomfortable nose-up attitude and cause problems in take-off and landing. For a vertical dive to remain vertical, then the wing would have to be at zero angle-of-attack, or more strictly at the angle producing zero lift, allowing for tailplane trim. However this can be obtained in an aircraft of conventional configuration, where the wing is mounted at a positive w-b incidence, in order to provide low drag and good views in level flight at a positive Angle of Attack.

This does make the point, however, that to obtain a truly vertical dive, with the wing at a zero-lift AoA, requires the fuselage to be over the vertical. No wonder it was difficult to carry out, and so many were misled as to the steepness of their dives. I suspect that most divebombers had larger than normal tailplanes to use trim to reduce this effect.