Warbird Information Exchange

... Seems these tail configurations were a no go!! in the development of the Vultee Vengeance. These photos were taken at the Vultee Downey CA plant in 1941.
Photo source: USC digital archives


















This is the Downey plant as well from the flight tower in 1942.


This is the Downey plant as well from the flight tower in 1942.

Below is the Vultee Vengeance tail configuration I'm used to seeing.

_________________
45+47=Psalm 92:6

Starting with the Helldiver, the US had some fugly single engine attack/dive bombing/torpedo aircraft until Douglas built the Spad...

I rather like the twin tailed Vengeance.

Vultee was good at Faulty!

XA-19 http://all-aero.com/index.php/56-planes ... ltee-ya-19






XA-41 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultee_XA-41

_________________
45-47=-2

In defense of Vultee I think the XA-41 was considered to be an excellent aircraft, no? Just came along a bit too late.

It seems that the twin tail was part of the original Model 72 design. From page 8 of "Vengeance!: The Vultee Vengeance Dive Bomber" by Peter C. Smith, 1986:

"The original Model 72 was a two-seater, single-engined, full-cantilever, low-winged monoplane with twin tail surfaces ..." The italics are in the original text.

A bit later in the same reference on page 131, various pilots, make comments about the Vengeance's performance as a dive-bomber, including this:

"This reflected earlier comments made during a trial flight at Nashville by Vultee test pilot, Harold Kincheloe, also a former US Navy pilot, 'She handles as well as a Pursuit' and by Lieutenant W. D. Carter, another Guadalcanal and Dauntless veteran, who said after a trial flight that the Vengeance was a much-better dive-bomber 'than anything the Navy currently is flying'."

Just FYI. Randy

Most Aussie pilots who flew them reckoned they were nice to fly..." like a Cadillac of the skies".....