|
Description
| Manufacturer: | Douglas |
| |
| Base model: | TBD | ||
| Designation: | TBD | ||
| Version: | -1A | ||
| Nickname: | Devastator | ||
| Designation System: | U.S. Navy / Marines | ||
| Designation Period: | 1935-1946 | ||
| Basic role: | Torpedo Bomber | ||
| Modified Mission: | Amphibious | ||
| Crew: | Pilot and observer/rear gunner |
Specifications
| Length: | 35' 0" | 10.6 m | |
| Height: | 15' 1" | 4.6 m | |
| Wingspan: | 50' 0" | 15.2 m | |
| Wingarea: | 422.0 sq ft | 39.2 sq m | |
| Empty Weight: | 5,600 lb | 2,539 kg | |
| Gross Weight: | 10,194 lb | 4,623 kg | |
Propulsion
| No. of Engines: | 1 | ||
| Powerplant: | Pratt & Whitney R-1830-64 | ||
| Horsepower (each): | 900 | ||
Performance
| Range: | 716 miles | 1,152 km | |
| Cruise Speed: | 128 mph | 206 km/h | 111 kt |
| Max Speed: | 206 mph | 331 km/h | 178 kt |
| Climb: | 720 ft/min | 219 m/min | |
| Ceiling: | 19,500 ft | 5,943 m | |
Recent comments by our visitors
| Nouri Chahid Prague, Czech Republic, AL | I fully agree with the comment made by Miguel Vasconcelos, of the 03/23/2004 @ 10:53 [ref: 7035] (Migel, send me an email at: nouricz@yahoo.com asap!).
The TBD-1 was completely maxed out by 1941 and it was just there... way too late going into WW-II. A perfect similar exemple of that was the Avia B534 fighter aircraft, made in Czechoslovakia just before WW-II, which, was one of the best fighters in the world flying. You may check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avia_B-534 In the end, the wikipedia notes say \\\\\\\'On 10 September 1944, six B.534s were involved in a brief melee with six German Bf 109s at low altitude. One B.534 was lost, but the Germans quickly broke off, wary of the low altitude and the B.534\\\\\\\'s maneuverability.\\\\\\\'... not a bad performance on behalf of the B-534, even though its design was totally outdated and performance incomparable to that of the Bf-109; but totally unsuitable to fight the rest of the war (in less than years we went from that type of aircraft to the P-51!) Esthetically speaking, the TBD-1 Devastator has near perfect, the purest aerodynamic lines you will ever see on an aircraft, yet, they will also tell you it will never be the type of performing aircraft comparable to others... it would have to have a new wing (speed and wing loading), new engine (top-end speed and torque), new airframe (vibration and structural loading) and new empenage (speed, stability&control and structural loading)... a totally new and different airplane Nouri Chahid AE Parks\\\\\\\'92 04/07/2008 @ 02:27 [ref: 20360] |
| j , PA | can anyone tell me the cost and signifigance of the aircraft nickname? why is it called the devastator? how much did one plane cost?
03/02/2008 @ 17:50 [ref: 19840] |
| D. McFelea , CA | Is there anyone out there that can tell me the height, width, and shape of both the wing corregations and the stab corregations?? Any help would be greatly appreciated. 08/28/2006 @ 20:34 [ref: 14018] |
| Thomas F. Evans Leland, MI, MI | On 2/23/2006, I stumbled upon a picture submitted by Steve & Cori Galeener of TBD (Bureau #0297) which had crashed on the Yorktown in Sept 1940 and subsequentlt assigned to Torpedo Squadron Eight and was lost at Midway. My brother, Ensign William R Evans, Jr flew that plane on June 4th 1942. I can't seem to get back to that site. I'd like to obtain a copy of that picture and any other information available. Thank you. 03/30/2006 @ 08:18 [ref: 12976] |
| Lance Nuckolls Frederick, MD | Has anyone written a definitive history about this fine U.S. Navy aircraft? 06/24/2004 @ 15:36 [ref: 7684] |
| Miguel Vasconcelos Germantown, MD | With regards to installing a more powerful engine on the TBD-1, it should be noted that 1935-1937 BuAer flight-testing data clearly showed that the 900 Hp R-1830-64 engine was already at the edge of what the TBD-1 airframe could safely handle, and that at all altitudes. The TBD-1 suffered from extreme vibrations even with the original 850 Hp -60 engine. What Douglas and the Navy did to alleviate the vibration problem only mitigated the problem to some extend, but never eliminated it. I have serious doubts the airframe would have been able to be mated to the 1,200 Hp version of the R-1830 without major modifications.
In addition, the NACA airfoil used for the TBD-1 main plane (the characteristic thick wing) were specifically used by Douglas engineers to meet the Navy's 1934 specifications dealing with lifting and carrying requirement (Mk. XIII torpedo or 2,000 lb. of bombs), and was not a wing that permitted high speed flight. This is illustrated by the aircraft's very low Vne (or never exceed speed) of merely 208. Relevant is the fact that performance and operational data shows that when fully loaded with a Mk. XIII torpedo, 2 men, pilot and radioman/gunner armor, 180 gallons of fuel and other miscellaneous equipment [the conditions used by Torpedo 8 at Midway and 900 lb. over the maximum gross weight]), and at high cruise power settings of +/- 80-85% power, the aircraft could barely maintain 110-115 knots at 2,000 feet. Therefore, putting the vibration issue aside, if a new airfoil was not used, the power requirements to improve performance, even slightly, would have been enormous and to some extend, counterproductive. Miguel Vasconcelos 03/23/2004 @ 10:53 [ref: 7035] |
| Paul Studdard Cp Spgs, CO | When you think about, the basic aerodynamics of the Devastator were not all that bad, especially given its mid thirties origin.
It is interesting to speculate about what kind of Torpedo Bomber it would have made with a more powerful 1200 hp engine (same engine size as the Dauntless and Wildcat), flush riveting, smooth updated wing without the corrugation, deletion of the largely useless middle second pilot/bombardier seat, a little bit of armor plate, conventional retractable landing gear, a fifty for rear defense, and self sealing tanks. And don't forget to mention a better torpedo. I do think whith these changes, especially 33 % more power and increased streamlining, it would not have been a slouch. I think a TBD-2 or TBD-3 could have approached the Grumman Avenger in performance. The Grumman Avenger was not exactly a speed demon. Remember, the Avenger needed air superiority, that was finally available for it when it started its campaigns. The Avenger would have been slaughtered just like the Old TBD Devastator if it would have attacked under the conditions that VT-8, VT-3, and VT-6 attacked under that morning. I think the Avenger with its better performance would have taken a few Zeros with it, but the outcome would have been similar. Anyway no aircraft ever built personifies the raw courage and guts of Naval Aviators in general like the old Devastator. Outgunned, Outflown, but never turning back. The suicidal courage of the TBD crews paved the way for the textbook perfect dive bombing attacks executed by the Dauntless crews. Paul Studdard 05/08/2002 @ 22:22 [ref: 4901] |
| Tyler Stoelting Tampa, FL | The Douglas TBD-1 Devastator is the best (well my favorite) plane in the world. people just need to give the plane a chance. 12/22/2001 @ 20:30 [ref: 3884] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
