B-17 VS AD-1 Skyraider.

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

We were chewing the fat and a couple of budweisers, last night and the discussion turned to the relative merits of both planes. The question was asked, would the AD1 have been effective over Germany instead of the B-17 if it was available in 1943.

The crew factor was the first thing I thought of , but the relative speed difference seemed to be the limiting factor for the AD-1

Any thoughts?

[bipe215]

That's an interesting comparison, but I don't know if you mean replacing B-17's in the high altitude role or what. How high could AD1's fly? Large formations of AD-1's would probably have been decimated because they simply couldn't bring as much defensive firepower to bear on attacking fighters. Advantages would include: smaller target, fewer men lost per aircraft, cheaper to build, operate and maintain, smaller bases required to fly from. What was an AD's cruise speed and service ceiling?
Disadvantages would include lack of defense, range(?), and I just can't picture a Memphis Belle AD...

Steve G

[sabredriver]

i own 5 books on A1 spad...

it could easily outweigh and out bomb a B17 we all know that.

It could kill MIGS so easily kill Luftwaffe...

It would of been better as a fighter bomber ....

[dred]

Range would vary depending on how many fuel tanks were hung in place of ordnance. Per Global Security.org, the AD had a ceiling of 23,000 ft, where IIRC the B-17 was 30,000+, so the AD would have been somewhat more vulnerable to flak & fighters. Top speeds were close, around 300 MPH, so no clear advantage to the AD there. I'd think fatigue in a single pilot plane could potentially be an issue, though there were Brit bombers that were flown single pilot.

Could an AD take care of itself against fighters once the bombs were dropped and some gas was burned off? At 300 mph, still slower than the ME-109, and it seems likely to be less maneuverable. But with all of that power, perhaps it would do OK keeping the fight vertical?

Definitely an interesting question.

[bipe215]

B-17 cruise speed on the bomb run would be nowhere near 300, probably less than 200.
Even if the AD could dogfight well, which I doubt, that does it no good on the bomb run. And, at the lower altitudes the fighters would wear them out. Thats why in mixed B-17 and B-24 missions, the B-24's which flew lower than 17's took the brunt of fighter attacks.
As far as pure dogfighting, it would be interesting to see if the AD could outturn 109's. I doubt it could out climb. Might out dive 'em though.

Steve G

[drgondog]

Cruise speed for the laoded B-17 was near 155+kts/180mph -

I don't know ehat the optimal cruise speed and altitude for the AD was with 4000 pound payload but would guess 220+kts? Doubt if it had half the combat radius with 4,000 pound load - but I just don't know - assume it had the full range capability with same load.

A couple of other questions..

what would the operating altitude be for the Penetration to Target? Flak was a very big percentage of B-26 and B-25 losses and I wonder just what kind of altitude would be optimum for load/payload? Partial safety for the B-17 was the 22-26,000 foot operating altitude.

If medium to low altitude, the AD would not only be subject to flak but also operating at best altitudes for Fw190, Me 109 and even Me 410's - all of which should easily outmaneuver the AD in most air battle fight scenarios.

True, they shot down MiGs but how many pilots would CHOOSE the AD to fight any contemporary fighter air to air (from Fw190 through MiG 15 or even Me 262)?

I think I would love my chances with a P-38, P-51 or F4U or Fw190D-9 at any altitude and just be careful to keep my speed above 250 kts (and not over run him)

Second question, level or dive bombing? Did the AD EVER have a prime mission over targets similar to Hanoi or Doumer Bridge in VietNam? or Mersebeg, Berlin or Ploesti in WW2? So, if Dive bombing you pull once again into the strike zone of heavy flak..and then proceed home on the deck.

Heckuva airplane but I don't believe you could build 'em fast enough to replace losses in those high intensity strategic target areas in the ETO (or anywhere else) - but that isn't what it was designed for, either.

Just my opinion.

Bill