In addition, the electrical and hydraulic systems required a lot of maintenance on parts that were difficult to access. Once assigned to carriers, it had tailwheel and hook failures that limited it to service ashore until the problems were addressed. It had aerodynamic problems, while the changes added another three thousand pounds to the airplane’s weight. Though Curtiss had made numerous changes, the -1 production model still suffered from a number of difficulties. The first production SB2C-1 Helldiver did not fly until June 1942, with the first deliveries to fleet squadrons at the end of that year. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, XRA-0395 The XSB2C-1 Helldiver prototype (with enlarged tail surfaces) is rolled out of its hangar in Buffalo, New York, circa 1941. To make matters worse, Curtiss was producing the Helldiver at a brand-new plant, which caused its own delays. These changes, along with necessary adaptations to the production line, significantly delayed deliveries to the Navy. The Navy ordered nearly 900 internal and external changes to the design before clearing it for production. The prototype also revealed structural weaknesses, while the R-2600 engine and its 3-bladed hydraulic propeller suffered their own teething problems. This meant the Helldiver’s tail had less directional authority than the Dauntless despite needing more to control a bigger, heavier airplane.Īs a result, the XSB2C-1 suffered from poor handling, directional instability, and bad stall characteristics. But while the Helldiver could fold its wings to save space, little could be done about the length: it was only two feet, four inches longer than the Dauntless. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, NASM.XXXX.0359-M0001741-00010Īmong its problems was that it was “stubby.” Its wingspan was eight feet wider than the Dauntless, with a wing area almost 25% greater to support an empty weight of 7,122 lbs – roughly a thousand pounds heavier than the Dauntless. XSB2C-1 prototype with its original small tail. In December that year, it suffered an in-flight wing failure that destroyed it without ever being turned over to the Navy for testing. The lone XSB2C-1 prototype’s maiden flight was December 18, 1940, but it crashed in February 1941 and had to be rebuilt. Unfortunately, the Navy’s gamble did not pay off Curtiss’ Helldiver faced a long developmental road. Whatever the reasons, the Navy broke with protocol and ordered 370 SB2Cs from Curtiss on November 29, 1940, before the first prototype had flown. The Navy also may have been lulled into taking a chance based on design studies and wind tunnel tests. In the case of the new Helldiver, the Navy was watching the gathering war clouds and was eager to replace the “stopgap” SBD with a better aircraft. Navy practice at this time was to wait until a prototype had been tested before placing any orders. None of the SB2C’s features were entirely new, only the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine had yet to be proven on other aircraft, but some features had not previously appeared on a Curtiss design, and some of the internal systems pushed the state-of-the-art. The Navy’s requirements for this new monoplane dive bomber were challenging: it had to be able to carry a significant weight of weaponry internally while incorporating specific equipment and structural features within an airframe small enough to fit two on the elevators of the new Essex class carriers. In 1938, just a year after the first deliveries of SBC-3s, the Navy issued a specification for a new monoplane dive bomber that would result in the SB2C, the third Curtiss plane to carry the name “Helldiver” but the first to carry it as an official service nickname. Navy, National Museum of Naval Aviation, photo No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |