Talk:Vultee A-31 Vengeance

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Aviation: Aircraft C‑class This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

I would query the context of the quote from Peter Smith in "Jungle Dive Bombers at War". It seems he is talking about dive bombers in general and not about the Vultee Vengeance. He may be quite correct in his assessment but dive bombing was used by many different types and in fact, specialist dive bombers were phased out in favour of more flexible (if slightly less accurate) types, most of which were fighters. He might have been talking about the Vengeance but he could just as easily have been referring to the Hellcat.Flanker235 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vengance was well regarded by the RAAF for its effectiveness. Reliability was another matter. RAAF crews in the Pacific were usually very experienced, as most had fought in Europe and Africa for some years beforehand. This certainly contributed to the machine's apparent effectiveness. The Vengance also had a good range for a small machine, which was essential in the Pacific. The DH Hornet, designed for Pacific operations, had a range of 3000m. Port Moresby to Rabaul, a short combat run by Pacific standards, is 1020m return. The length of the entire Solomons islands is 860m, nearly the same as London to Warsaw.203.219.69.223 (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text says that the Vengeance was designed with a zero-degree angle of incidence so that the wing produced no lift during a dive. (At least that's the way I read it.) Unless a wing was a flat, airfoil-less plate, the angle of incidence would have nothing to do with whether or not it produced lift. An airfoil with a zero-degree angle of incidence would have a lift vector at a vertical 90 degrees to the aircraft's centerline, meaning that during a true vertical dive, the lift vector would be parallel to the ground.173.62.15.26 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AA measure mentioned here is the angle between the Chord Line and the center line of the fuselage. For example, the B-377 had a large AA, and tended to be nose down much of the time, even at landing speed. The DC-6 flew nose down only when lightly loaded. The zero AA in the Vengeance allows the fuselage to be nearly aligned with the dive angle. It does not imply zero lift. The asymmetrical foil profile will generate lift.203.219.69.223 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]