Ares Games
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: Douglas TBD-1 Devestator

  1. #1

    Default Douglas TBD-1 Devestator

    Working out the bits for the Douglas Devestator, and I feel I need to ask a few silly question. I apologise.

    The TBD-1 is in the unofficial stats file as having a heavy fighter base. I assume this is the same size as the Beaufighter/Bf110?
    Is the firing angle of the rear guns the same as the Beaufighter Mk.VIF? As shown here.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Foz; 10-09-2015 at 06:33.

  2. #2

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Steve, hi. Firstly far from silly questions: Certainly in my opinion. The heavy fighter base or HF base is the same as the Bf.110 and the Beaufighter.

    Are you working on a Merit Models 1/200 TBD-1 by any chance? Got the Airfix 1/72 Devastator kit built and tail gunner arc-wise you are probably looking at less of a blindspot but the extent will be something along the lines of the Davoud Edition Bristol Beaufighter. I thought this one was actually a Mk IVF but Aerodrome Accessories in your link also refers to the Mk VIF - I could be wrong and will check the when I find it on my shelf

  3. #3

    Default

    Yep, I only have F4F-4s & SBD-1s so far, but as the TBD-1 is a little non-standard, I would get all my ducks lined up with the rules etc. for them before I spent the £16.

  4. #4

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    Yep, I only have F4F-4s & SBD-1s so far, but as the TBD-1 is a little non-standard, I would get all my ducks lined up with the rules etc. for them before I spent the £16.
    Same here - I use them for 3D Scenery and have some of them decalled as Royal Navy FAA aircraft. Had to go to Germany for mine though but they still cost around £16.00 before postage.

    Are you sourcing your TBDs through a seller in the UK please? May get four of these myself

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aussietonka View Post
    Same here - I use them for 3D Scenery and have some of them decalled as Royal Navy FAA aircraft. Had to go to Germany for mine though but they still cost around £16.00 before postage.

    Are you sourcing your TBDs through a seller in the UK please? May get four of these myself
    Yep, Gamesquest have a direct stock link to Pocketbond. So even if they don't have them as stock on the website, drop them an email and they'll sort it out for you. Very good customer support there.

  6. #6

    Default

    I bought my Merit planes from Gamesquest - very good service, and combined postage!

  7. #7

    Default

    Here's a link to the range. For some reason the page for the TBD is dead currently.
    GamesQuest

  8. #8

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    I tried GamesQuest about two months ago. Everything out of stock but very informative and pleasant e-mails from Customer Support. Was keen to get the SBDs in particular as soon as possible so chose to order from elsewhere.

    Will wait until more known at GQ until ordering TBDs as the seller I ordered the others from in Germany had not got those or the B-25B Mitchells in. Not going to bother with those as the Ares Games version of the Doolittle Raids B-25B is better IMHO and looks less plasticky. Already used F4Fs and SBDs by Merit as 3D Scenery in two Solitaire games where they looked excellent but narrowly avoided becoming 3D targets! Some TBDs mixed in with these would provide variation although I don't know if anybody other than the US Navy operated these ...

  9. #9

    Default

    Like I say, they were out of stock on their website, but after a few emails they told me that was because they are linked to Pocketbond's stock levels and that they should be able to order them within a few days. They took my order by phone, and shipped to me I think 2-3 days later.

    Only the US Navy & Marines used Douglas Devastators. Everybody else was too sensible.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    Working out the bits for the Douglas Devestator, and I feel I need to ask a few silly question. I apologise.

    The TBD-1 is in the unofficial stats file as having a heavy fighter base. I assume this is the same size as the Beaufighter/Bf110?
    Is the firing angle of the rear guns the same as the Beaufighter Mk.VIF? As shown here.

    Thanks.
    If you look at the file for the unofficial aircraft's gunnery arcs:
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=2138
    it states the rear gun is 4-8:00, level to high. The normal 90 degree blindspot to the rear is assumed.
    I don't have a Beaufighter handy right now, but the accessories store photo looks like it could be right (and a bigger arc than I think a Beaufighter should have).

    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  11. #11

    Default

    Cheers Karl. I'll fire a message off to Keith soon and see what he thinks about the base and the angles.
    I may get him to cut me a couple without the name on for the TBDs.

  12. #12

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    Like I say, they were out of stock on their website, but after a few emails they told me that was because they are linked to Pocketbond's stock levels and that they should be able to order them within a few days.

    Only the US Navy & Marines used Douglas Devastators. Everybody else was too sensible.
    GamesQuest - I never got this far with them although I did ask them twice about when they were expecting to re-stock the range. Thank you I will bear this in mind and try them again over the TBDs I am hoping to order.

    Sensibility - The Devastator did date from the 1930s rather than from WW2 and this comes across appearance-wise when you build the Airfix 1/72 scale rendition of the TBD-1. The main problem is that it was underpowered. Even funnier is trying to get the TBD-1 in the PC Game Warbirds 2015 (IE Entertainment Network) to actually fly ... Should anybody manage this I am as sure as shed that a awaits them! TBD-1 in MS Combat Flight Simulator 2 was only marginally better

  13. #13

    Default

    If you want good views of the TBD-1 in flight, look out for the 1941 film 'Dive Bomber', lots of pre-war planes in glorious colour too.

  14. #14

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Wilco Steve - will see if it is on Youtube whilst waiting around for the Vulcan to overfly us tomorrow

  15. #15

    Default

    Glad I read this thread as the last list I down loaded had the Dauntless as a fighter base.

  16. #16

    Default

    Dive Bomber is available on Youtube but you have to pay to watch it.

  17. #17

    Default

    Teaticket, this thread is about the Douglas TBD-1 Devastator. The Douglas SBD-1 Dauntless does go on a normal fighter base.

  18. #18

    Banned



    Blog Entries
    42
    Name
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Location
    [CLASSIFIED]
    Sorties Flown
    3,127
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    Dive Bomber is available on Youtube but you have to pay to watch it.
    Will find out how to do that. At least this means plenty of aircraft action not blocked off by subtitles all the time!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    Teaticket, this thread is about the Douglas TBD-1 Devastator. The Douglas SBD-1 Dauntless does go on a normal fighter base.
    Oops, mind told fingers to type Devestator but they typed Dauntless! (Probably because I have some AIM Dauntless in the works but no Devestators)

  20. #20

    Default

    My brian tells me to type things wrong all the time. I hate him
    I'm working on Merit bits myself. Dauntless & Wildcats are easy as there are official cards out there for those.
    The Devastator is a bit of a pain, as it has the new size base, so an odd size card, and a 'slow' manuver deck, which I'm currently building.

  21. #21

    Default

    Would love to see your movement deck when finished. AIM has devestators and I plan on getting a flight or two.

  22. #22

    Default

    I've just uploaded it to the files area. It'll have to go through moderation, then I'll link, if you don't find it first.

  23. #23

    Default

    I use Devastators (TBD) and Dauntless (SBD-3) on single bases. Both use I decks as per the cards printed from the file section. I use the Stuka type base with rear gun angle from the accessories shop. Both plane models i have are AIM ones and are fantastic models.

    Don't see why it has to fit on a HF base.

    Neil
    See you on the Dark Side......

  24. #24

    Default

    Wingspan, only 3' less than a Bf-110. Also is less than agile flight profile.
    I'll admit it's on the line.
    Karl'
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  25. #25

    Default

    I'm using the stats from the 'Unofficial' planes xls list. That generally seems most up to date, though I do temper it with bits from discussions on the forum occasionally.
    My Zekes/Zeros for instance have the adjusted C deck with 90 degree turns, but only 12 hits.

  26. #26

    Default

    I have the following wingspans:

    SBD = 41' 6.5"
    TBD = 50'
    VAL = 47' 1.5"
    Kate = 50' 11"
    JU87 = 45' 3.5"

    ME110 = 53' 3.75"

    If we go that route I'll now have to replace all my Kate and TBD bases and decks! Damn! Double Damn!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Wingspan, only 3' less than a Bf-110. Also is less than agile flight profile.
    I'll admit it's on the line.
    Karl'
    See you on the Dark Side......

  27. #27

    Default

    What's the criteria for being on an HF or normal single base?
    See you on the Dark Side......

  28. #28

    Default

    Sometimes coming to something late has it's advantages.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    What's the criteria for being on an HF or normal single base?
    I think it just comes down to wingspan/size. I initially thought it was number of engines, but that got proved wrong in some cases.

  30. #30

    Default

    I also have the following airspeeds:

    Kate = max at 3,600m 235mph; cruising 3,000m 161mph

    Val = max at 3,000m 239mph; cruising at 3,000m 183mph

    Not much in it.

    SBD = max at 255mph at 4265m; cruise at 185mph
    TBD = max at 206 at 2,400m; cruise at 128mph

    Now there is a difference
    See you on the Dark Side......

  31. #31

    Default

    Decks do depend on speed, the I deck is pretty much exclusive for dive bombers.
    Anything under 180mph, and you have to start looking at a 'slow' deck.

  32. #32

    Default

    It also begs the question, as I don't own any 'heavy fighters' yet, what is the card/base size? I'm currently assuming 87x67mm, same as the medium bombers from WGF?

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    Only the US Navy & Marines used Douglas Devastators. Everybody else was too sensible.
    Brutal... but the truth.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    What's the criteria for being on an HF or normal single base?
    Mostly wingspan, though when I was rating a plane, it's likely flight profile was a consideration, if it was at the edge.
    Might need to get Zoe Brain here for this one.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Mostly wingspan, though when I was rating a plane, it's likely flight profile was a consideration, if it was at the edge.
    Karl
    Would I be correct in assuming, a more manoeuvrable flight characteristic would lend to going towards the smaller base & vice versa?

  36. #36

    Default

    That is how I would do it, if the wingspan was close to the edge. We do know that the He.111 and B-25 are at the bottom of the bomber base wingspan.
    I don't know if the Bf.110/Beaufighters are at the bottom of the HF size, but I go with close.
    If there was a plane the wingspan of a Devastator, but flew like a P-40, I'd use a fighter base
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    If there was a plane the wingspan of a Devastator, but flew like a P-40, I'd use a fighter base
    Well I'm drawing a blank there, even the P-47 is 10' shorter on the span.

  38. #38

    Dom S's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    2,081
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    Ta.152 is the obvious play - still 18 inches shy on the wingspan, but it's the closest that springs to mind - stands to reason that the most likely suspect would be a high altitude specialist....
    Last edited by Dom S; 10-12-2015 at 14:25.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    Ta.152 is the obvious play - still 3 feet shy, but it's the closest that springs to mind - stands to reason that the most likely suspect would be a high altitude specialist....
    Good thinking. I was working more on mass at that moment. One thinks I may need to go sleep.

  40. #40

    Default

    The manuever deck has been ok'd. It's here if you want to have a look/try.

  41. #41

  42. #42

    Default

    Peter, I expect an after action report or at least thoughts, comments and criticisms.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foz View Post
    The manuever deck has been ok'd. It's here if you want to have a look/try.
    Cool. I'll take a look.

  44. #44

    Default

    Any thoughts on the slow deck(s)? Good or bad, I'm a man, I can take it

  45. #45

    Default

    I like it. It is definitely a simple way to slow the planes down all in keeping with the WOG game style. Elegant as there are no special rules necessary. If the measurements are correct you can keep the speeds of the planes in relation to the faster ones. I haven't had the chance yet to try it out but soon. I don't yet have any painted Devestators but will use others for a test run.

  46. #46

    Default

    Tut, my measurements are correct!



Similar Missions

  1. WGSF Douglas C-47 mods?
    By clipper1801 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-10-2014, 05:28
  2. Douglas A20 Boston found in Italy
    By Baldrick62 in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-19-2013, 04:57
  3. Douglas A-20 Specs for WoG
    By csadn in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-16-2013, 12:24
  4. Douglas TBD Devastator - AIM 1/200 painted.
    By Nightbomber in forum Metal and Resin Models
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 14:56
  5. Douglas SBD Dauntless 1/200
    By Marechallannes in forum Metal and Resin Models
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-18-2012, 09:17

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •