Fighter version of the SBD Dauntless and how it compares to the F4F Wildcat

Hello everyone, I'm new here, and as my first topic, I would like to discuss that if Douglas had developed a fighter version of the Dauntless, omitting unnecessary features such as the gunners seat as well as the dive-brakes, and arming it with 4 or 6 wing mounted .50 cal machine guns, and the US Navy decided to adopt it, how would it have compared to the Grumman F4F Wildcat(both the 3 and 4 variants), would it have been superior, or would it at least be on par with the wildcat, as historically the SBD was a nimble plane in its own right, and it was occasionally used as a second-line in emergencies, so how would a dedicated fighter variant have fared compared to the Grumman?

Note: This isn't a 1 vs. 1 battle between the two, just a comparison between the wildcat and a hypothetical fighter version of the dauntless.

Regards, Strike Eagle.

 

There would have had to have been a lot more modifications than that to turn it into a fighter. Enough so that it would have to have been a radically different airplane.

The specs on the Dauntless have visibility rated fair to poor. So for a fighter version, an entire new cockpit design would have to have come into play.

Roll rate, turn initiation, Control Feel at slow speeds was rated good
- but deteriorated progressively through higher speeds to a poor overall control rating at maximum speeds - where fighters live.

The USAAF deemed the dauntless obsolete before the war started, and it was supposed to have been completely replaced when Pearl Harbour happened.
It was a make-do airplane thereafter.

 

Just very sligtly related to the topic. Douglas had a late thirties fighter design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XP-48

 

It did however see limited use as a "fighter" and I seem to recall did ok vs Japanese bombers. As others have noted by the time you make enough changes to make it into a real "fighter" though it's not the same aircraft.

 

I think it was Admiral Mitcher who suggested or considereded using them as CAP while his fighteres were off doing other things.

 

The SBD was one of these 1930s hybrid a "scout - dive bomber" not dissimilar to the Blackburn Skua - and more than half way to the Ju87.. Its structure was designed toi carry two people, and bombs and stressed for dive bombing. All of which added size and weight penatlies on the performance needed of a single engined fighter.

Redesigning the SBD as a single engine fighter would be comparable to turning the Fairy Battle into a seat fighter, in theory. In theory a Fairy Battle is just an overgrown hurricane, but it would take a lot to turn it into a fighter!.

 

Grumman F4F Wildcat roll rate, handling, climb, Control feel etc etc is what you want to beat out. Start here:

http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/F4F-4.htm


Comparison: Douglas Dauntless
http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/SBD5.htm

Good reads.

 

Actually - Fairey did EXACTLY that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Fulmar

Not a stellar war record, but not bad either! It worked fine in its proper environment.

The idea of heavy fighters and "hybird" dual-role aircraft on carriers makes sense out in deep blue water, far from any shorter-ranged shore-based fighters Anything that would have come at them in the late 1930s or early war years would EITHER have been something of broadly similar performance....OR larger, slower long range and unescorted land bombers

And also - any aircraft flying CAP with enough altitude under them has a momentary advantage no matter how outclassed once they start mixing it...!

 

Thank you all for the responses and the links, very informative.

 

Ridiculous amount of knowledge here, enjoyed the thread.