“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.”
I would love to have one to fly around now -- but then, in 1941, they were sitting ducks.
Not true LL. They were not much slower than the SBD-1, and with an engine upgrade would have had the same range and speed as the later SBD's. They would certainly have been as good as the VAL, and IMO a better "get me home" aircraft than the gawd awful SB2C's. AND: the caption is wrong. That is an SBC-2. Says so on the tail, right behind the serial number.---Ray
0571-SBC-3. do not see an SBC-2 anywhere on the tail.
Retractable landing gear! Pretty high tech for a biplane.PS It should be called "taxiing gear". Plenty of people have landed without it.
devil is in the details. wonder what powered the MLG retraction? I know that in the F4F, the pilot has a hand crank connected by bicycle chain to a gearbox which drives the retraction of the MLGG=. light weight and simple. back in the day, no one in their right minds trusted hydraulic systems for a combat aircraft. B-17 had electric MLG, flaps and bomb bay doors. cut half way thru a wire and it will still pass current. cut half way thru a hydraulic hose, and you get a flammable mess and no movement of what you are wanting to move.design engineers back in the day were about keeping it simple and stupid.