Shipbucket

Recently I posted the idea of the FAA using a navalised version of the Fairey Battle for its torpedo bomber from say 1938-to-41/42. Answers I got were not sure if it was workable or not as much because of the size of the aircraft. So I went away and did some homework and read up on the other light bombers of the time that were built to Air Ministry spec P4/34 for a light bomber which both Fairey and Hawker put entries in for. However the P4/34 spec was for a light bomber / dive bomber with a bomb load of only 500 pounds. Nowhere near enough to carry a torpedo. So I went back to the Battle and compared it to what would be its rivals in the US and Japan, and as a throw in I added the Baracuda as well.



Compared to the other contenders of the time, the Battle would not be without merit. However the major drawbacks noted in Wiki for the Battle was the weak defensive armament and lack of cockpit armour. Fixing those problems would add to the weight and therefore lower the performance, but that would probably still be within acceptable limits compared to its opposition. Adding the naval requirements of folding wings, strengthened tail for arrestor hook and other equipment would also affect performance. To counter this the use of the 1300hp Merlin and variable pitch propellor would restore some of the lost performance.

What thoughts do the rest of you have on this, or thoughts of another contender, or should the FAA request a completely new design.

There were some monoplane contenders for Spec S.41/36 that gave rise to the Albacore. One was from Hawker. These were high-wing monoplanes rather than low-wing and they had Bristol radials. I'm at work now but I can provide some details from Tony Butler's excellent book, 'British Secret Projects 3: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950'.
None of them were as advanced as the types you've posted above.

You might be better with a Bristol Hercules radial to give more power and you save on the radiator cooling system. I still think the Battle is a bit large, so you'd want to lop a few feet off length and span. Height might be an issue too, its slightly taller than the Barracuda. I still think the Fairey Fulmar airframe is something you should look at, it is effectively that navalised Battle your looking for, but without bomb racks.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Something between the P.4/34 and Fulmar would probably be ideal. Stressed for dive bombing and actually able to fit the elevators and hangars on our carriers it'd have commonality with the Fulmar (should that be built also) and would be capable of dive bombing (no skua). Split production between Fairey and Blackburn perhaps?

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

With a bit of hindsight do you need 3 seats ?

Does the gunner actually give you much, my recollection of torpedo squadrons under fighter attack is that they usually get killed, so 1 RCMG isn't going to help much, going for 2 seats and more speed might well be better.

JSB

Thanks for your comments Hood.

I did look at the Fulmar, (O.8/38 Fairey Fulmar, Naval carrier-borne fighter/observation - winner developed from Fairey's earlier P.4/34 entry) but it was developed from the much smaller P4/34 and I can not see it being able to be adapted to carry a torpedo. The whole structure would need to be strengthened, it would have to have the torpedo externally mounted, which would require heightened undercarriage.

I have no trouble with changing out the engine for something more powerful, and I am not too worried about the size of the Battle as it is equivalent to the Grumman Avenger. (see below) One of the things I liked about the Battle was the internal bomb bay, and if that could be adapted to carry a torpedo that would be quite advanced for the time in comparison to the others.

I would be interested to see some of the other monoplane contenders, with specs and drawings if available. The problem I have always seen with the aircraft for the FAA was that they always seemed to be 5-10 years behind their contemporaries.


Specifications (TBF Avenger)

General characteristics
Crew: 3
Length: 40 ft 11.5 in (12.48 m)
Wingspan: 54 ft 2 in[25] (16.51 m)
Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.70 m)
Wing area: 490.02 ft² (45.52 m²)
Empty weight: 10,545 lb (4,783 kg)
Loaded weight: 17,893 lb (8,115 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-2600-20 radial engine, 1,900 hp (1,420 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 275 mph[26] (442 km/h)
Range: 1,000 mi (1,610 km)
Service ceiling: 30,100 ft (9,170 m)
Rate of climb: 2,060 ft/min (10.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 36.5 ft·lbf² (178 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.11 hp/lb (0.17 kW/kg)

Armament

Guns:
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) nose-mounted M1919 Browning machine gun (on early models) or 2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 Browning machine guns
1 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) dorsal-mounted M2 Browning machine gun
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) ventral-mounted M1919 Browning machine gun

Rockets:
up to eight 3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets, 5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets or High Velocity Aerial Rockets

Bombs:
Up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs or
1 × 2,000 lb (907 kg) Mark 13 torpedo

I think the reason that the FAA have such **** aircraft is also that they when to war with very old aircraft the swordfish first flew in 34 !

They also geared up to war earlier than the USN/IJN so in 39 the FAA is still better (due to numbers) than the IJN/USN ? its just they never organised replacements, how much of that is due to BoB panics ? and how much due to Admiralty Problems ?

JSB

I'm afraid internal carriage of a torpedo would be impossible. The Battle's internal bombs were four 250lb bombs in individual cells in the wings. Many British monoplane bombers featured wing-cells for bombs rather than fuselage bays - for centre of gravity reasons.
Even the Barracuda had external torpedo carriage.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Ahhhh thank you Hood,

That clears that point out of the way. Which puts the Battle back with its competition.

It is finding an airframe that can be used to carry a 1500lb 18" air launched torpedo, at a reasonable speed (220-250mph) for a 1000 miles, being launched and recovered off a CV.

If you stretched your time frame out to late 42 you could consider the Firebrand. If that had of been given a torpedo to start with intead of a stupidly large and heavy fighter you could have your solution. Maybe ?

Once you get to 1942 the options become wider, you could license build the Avenger which was the stand out torpedo bomber on the Allied side.

Its that 1938-to-late 41 period where the FAA has the Swordfish/Albacore as the frontline torpedo bombers that I would like to fill with something British and better. An internal bomb bay would be nice and enough power by whatever powerplants are available to give it reasonable speed for the time.

I am quite happy to chop the Battle, give it a more powerful radial, because of what the radial does to the profile of the aircraft it may be possible to then grow an internal bomb bay, clip the wings a couple of feet from each span and see what it looks like.