Able Dog: Was the AD Skyraider the Best Attack Bomber Ever Built?
By E. R. Johnson

Aviation History  | 4 comments  |  Print This Post  |  Email This Post

The AD Skyraider's handling and firepower made it a legendary attack bomber. Photo courtesy of National Archives.

The AD Skyraider may have appeared underpowered, but it proved to be a top-notch attack bomber.

ADs typically carried an 8,000-pound mixed load of ordnance, which was four times greater than that carried by either the F4U-4 or the U.S. Air Force’s P/F-51D.

"The first time I saw a Skyraider, I wasn’t very impressed," said former U.S. Marine Corps Captain William C. Smith. "After flying Corsairs, I thought it looked like a great big airplane with a little bitty engine."

At that particular moment—July 1, 1952—Smith was a reservist, recalled for the duration of the Korean War, who had just arrived at P’Yong Taek airfield (K-6) in Korea for combat duty with Marine Attack Squadron 121. VMA-121 was equipped with Douglas AD-2 and -3 Skyraiders, a type of aircraft the 29-year-old aviator until that day had never seen, let alone flown. But Smith’s introduction to the AD was swift: According to his logbook, he received 4.3 hours’ checkout and familiarization time, after which he immediately began flying combat sorties in interdiction of enemy supply lines and close air support of UN troops. “My original opinion of the plane did a complete 180,” Smith recalled. “When you fly combat, you need to have confidence in your airplane, and after that first week there was no question in my mind that our ADs were the best planes in the world for the job expected of us, whether we were told to take out targets like rail yards or bridges or to provide close air support right down on the deck in front of the battle lines.” Smith added, “Even after all these years of progress, I believe the AD is still the best airplane ever made for close-in attack option…better, in fact, than anything flying today.”

The origins of the legendary Douglas Skyraider can be traced to two closely related events. The first was an announced change of the U.S. Navy’s air combat doctrine during World War II: The carrier battles of 1942 had taught naval strategists that a higher ratio of fighter aircraft was needed in its carrier air groups to protect the aircraft of the carrier’s strike force and maintain air superiority around the carrier itself. As a consequence, a decision was reached in early 1943 to downsize the complement of strike aircraft (i.e., Douglas SBDs or SB2Cs and Grumman/GM TBFs/TBMs) and replace them over time with one type of single-seat, multirole airplane under the new designation “bomber-torpedo” (BT). With extra fighter protection, strike aircraft would no longer need to carry gunners, and the weight normally associated with aircrew, guns and ammunition could be exchanged for ordnance load and greater range. Equipped with the newest radial engines—the 2,500-hp Wright R-3350 or the 3,000-hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360—the new generation of BT types could be expected to lift twice the payload of existing SB2Cs and TBFs/TBMs. To optimize mission flexibility, BuAer (the Naval Bureau of Aeronautics) specified that most or all of the aircraft’s weapons load (bombs, torpedoes, rockets and/or mines) be carried underneath on external racks.

The second event occurred in June 1944, during an all-night work session in a Washington, D.C., hotel room. Just a few hours before dawn, Edward Heinemann, chief engineer of Douglas Aircraft Company’s El Segundo Division, and two members of his staff put the final touches on a set of aircraft drawings they intended to present to BuAer officials a few hours later. Most of the previous day, Heinemann had met with the same officials debating the pros and cons of his company entering in the Navy’s BT competition with its XBTD-1. The XBTD-1 was essentially a single-seat adaptation of Douglas’ short-lived XSB2D-1 Destroyer, which had flown a year before. Though the gunner’s position and related equipment had been removed, the design still retained the inverted gull wings, tricycle landing gear and internal bomb bay of its predecessor. In the fall of 1943, the Navy had gone so far as to give Douglas an order for 358 of the new type. Still, Heinemann was dubious about the BTD-1’s future, thinking it would probably be an interim stopgap until something better came along. Chief among his concerns was that, in the interval, three more bomber-torpedo designs had joined the competition: the Curtiss XBTC-1, the Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK-1 and the Martin XBTM-1, all of which were being designed more closely to the new specification than the BTD. At the close of the previous day’s meeting, Heinemann had surprised BuAer officials by proposing that the BTD project be canceled altogether and the funds allocated instead to an entirely new BT design, the BT2D, which he would present to them in 30 days’ time. The Navy men liked everything about the idea except the extra 30 days: They informed Heinemann they wanted to see a presentation of his new design proposal at 9 the next morning!

Tags: Aerial Combat, Aircraft, Flight Technology, Korean War, Military Technology, Vietnam War

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.