In article ,
(OXMORON1) writes:
Steven asked:
Well, who ditched more Avengers, the Navy or Grumman/Eastern?

Of course the Navy did, but they used the information and design work of
Grumman.

Actually, there wasn't a whole lot of information and design work wrt
ditching airplanes until well after the war. The first really
systematic effort that I've been able to turn up is NACA Tech Note
3946, "Ditching Investigations of Dynamic Models and Effects of Design
Parameters on Ditching Characteristics". This used dynamically
equivalent models (gliders, really) that had been built to emulate not
only the aerodynamics, but the stuctural characteristics of the
subject aircraft. Weak areas, such as B-24 bomb bay doors, were
simulated using breakaway materials. Thae aircraft modelled were a
large cross section of 1940s and 1950s aircraft, ranging from the A-20
through the heavies from the B-17 through the B-36 (Even including teh
YB-49!), the whole range of Air Force Mediums, and the Navy's entire
inventory of single-engine carrier aircraft. (There are about 50
different airplanes listed.)

In the case of the TBF/TBM, ditching characteristics were not good.
If everythig stayed together, it was tolerable, but escape for the
Radio-Gunner in the aft tunnel was problematic at best, and the Turret
Gunner had to worm his way out through the side of the turret.
However, the Avenger had a weak spot - If the bomb bay doors were
open, or if, as was very likely, they collapsed during ditching, the
airplane would pitch down and dive violently under the surface. In
that case, the only luck you'd have would best be described as "bad".

Ditching characteristecs were very much an afterthought, unless you
were designing a Flying Boat.

Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
ditching, either.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster