- Thread starter
- #21
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
- Thread starter hobbes154
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When developing the Barracuda V they made several modifications to a Mk.II that they intended to incorporate:
This was in July 1945. I note that the speed of the unmodified, torpedo-carrying Mk.II (13,200 lb) was 236 mph at full-throttle height (2,500 ft) -- 7 mph faster and 750 ft higher critical altitude. Exhausts aren't mentioned in the document but a photo is included in the report and it shows individual ejectors.
Other things that were noted but not acted on, as far as I can tell:
- new type torpedo crutch
- torpedo drum control gear deleted and holes blanked off
- exhaust cooling scoops on top of cowling deleted
- fairings at rear ends of exhaust troughs added
- holes in fuselage at handling rail tube blanked off
- pilot's cockpit entrance handle deleted
- leather sealing pieces on overload fuel tank pipe entry changed to metal
- bomb rack interference boards deleted
- ground handling rail below each wing tip covered in
- mock-up eye bolts fitted
- fairings over nose of each outboard flap outrigger fitted
- ASV aerials deleted (18" dia. ASH radar nacelle added)
This was in July 1945. I note that the speed of the unmodified, torpedo-carrying Mk.II (13,200 lb) was 236 mph at full-throttle height (2,500 ft) -- 7 mph faster and 750 ft higher critical altitude. Exhausts aren't mentioned in the document but a photo is included in the report and it shows individual ejectors.
Other things that were noted but not acted on, as far as I can tell:
- two dinghy release handles on top of fuselage behind navigator's position
- external bead sight in front of pilot's cockpit
- projecting tube for trailing aerial suspension on port side of fuselage
- aerial mast on starboard side of navigator's position with aerial to each tailplane tip
- additional aerials from tailplane tips to fuselage just forward of dinghy release panel
- IFF Mk.III type 90 rod aerial under port wing
- radio altimeter below each wing
- Mk.VIII pressure head below starboard wing
- petrol vent projecting 1 ft. above each wing 6 ft. from fuselage.
- wing locking jury strut on upper surface of each wing tip
- catapult spools
- arrester hook
- non-retractable tail wheel
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Seems to me the FAA voted for the Avenger, at the end of it all.
Here's what Brit pilots had to say:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SCx0ZS7XY8&t=2s
Here's what Brit pilots had to say:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SCx0ZS7XY8&t=2s
Last edited:
Away from my books at the moment. The flaps were set at something like 40 degrees down for take off and landing (See the photo I posted above in post#10).
Your last photo shows the dive bomber setting (about 35 degrees up IIRC)
There was also a cruise setting with the flaps up by about 3 degrees
Not true at all.
Setting aside 832 squadron on Victorious in the Pacific in 1943 where they replaced Albacores, when initially formed in 1943/44 the Avenger went to squadrons destined for ASW work from shore bases (ahead of D-Day) or on escort carriers (846 on Tracker for example). But the Avenger couldn't carry the British air launched torpedoes because its bomb bay wasn't long enough. Until mid-1945 the torpedo remained the FAA ship kiling weapon of choice and they trained extensively in its use. So the Barracuda remained the aircraft of choice for that. Ironically however despite all that training the Barracuda only used that weapon on one occasion, becoming more famous as a dive bomber.
The problem encountered in the Indian Ocean in 1944 was the Barracuda's load carrying abilities and short range in the climactic conditions encountered. So the decision was taken to remove them from the Ilustrious / Implacable class carriers in that theatre or as they moved East to that theatre.
In FAA planning for 1945/46, and a continuing war in the Far East, only those 6 carriers were going to get air groups containing Avengers. That planning saw more squadrons being formed on the Barracuda in 1944 and all the way through until Aug 1945. Those squadrons were destined for the light fleet carriers that commissioned from the end of Dec 1944. The arrival of 11 ACS in Australia with the first 4 in July/Aug was delayed by the BPF having insufficient tankers to support them operationally until that point. The Barracuda squadrons on these ships would have seen combat in the East China Sea, attacking targets along the Chinese coast, before the end of Aug 1945 had the war not ended when it did. Their final operations were against were against suicide boats at Hong Kong ahead of its reoccupation.
The next tranche of light fleet carriers were expected to complete before the end of 1945 and their Barracuda squadrons were ready and waiting for them.
Amongst aircrew opinions were divided about the Barracuda. In its early days, and due to its flying characteristics, many pilots hated it. But these were pilots, especially the more senior ranked or experienced ones, who had trained on or operated the Swordfish and Albacore that could be thrown around the sky in a way that would get them killed in a Barracuda. They also came to it in 1943 when there were some dangerous features still to be sorted out. These were the pilots that flew it operationally against the Tirpitz and in the Indian Ocean in 1944. And it is these pilots who have had their memoirs, and thoughts on the Barracuda, published. People like John Godley, Lord Kilbracken, who spent his whole war through to 1945 flying Swordfish ultimately from MAC ships and escort carriers and only came to the Barracuda in 1945 whike in command of a training unit. In his book, "Bring Back My Stringbag" he wrote how the Barracuda scared him to such an extent he tried to avoid flying It!
Those pilots that came to it in 1944 had a lot more monoplane experience in the training schools, and then went straight onto the Barracuda. And by then most of its idiosycncracies had been sorted or the pilots notes updated to identify those things not to do. On the whole these pilots seem to have had a more positive attitude to the Barracuda. Some of these pilots comments appear in "From the Cockpit No.16 Barracuda".
But I doubt that there were very many FAA pilots that got to fly both types. Only 820 and 828 squadrons, IIRC, converted directly from the Barracuda to the Avenger. Anyone else with such experience would have been posted in.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
What's not true? Their impressions as recorded? I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with them. A nonsense rebuttal, this.
Unfortunately you have chosen to miss the point.
The video is what it says on the tin. The "user experience" of the type in FAA service. So the crews that flew it may have "voted" for it. But most crews liked the aircraft they flew in.
What it is not is a statement that the "FAA voted for the Avenger'". The "FAA" as an organisation, part of the RN, saw the policy position as I set it out in my post.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
As have you. The Avenger stayed in FAA service a while after the Barracuda was retired. That's voting with pounds-sterling.
Hi
Actually all the Avengers left the FAA at the end of the war. They were re-introduced during 1953 as ASW aircraft (AS 4 to 6) until 1955 (although some remained in RNVR use until March 1957) when the Gannet replaced them in the role. The Avengers were supplied under the Mutual Defence Assistance Programme, which I believe was US financed.
Mike
Thumpalumpacus
Major
... and the Fairey was retired.
Which means nothing at all. FAA Barracudas cost real money vs free upgraded Avengers at a time when the UK was essentially bankrupt and the USA was flush with cash and surplus aircraft. The Avenger (TBM-3) had longer range and greater internal capacity because it wasn't stressed for divebombing (and killed hundreds of aircrew as a result). The Avenger was good for ASW but even the USN wanted to remove it from CV front line combat attack roles in favour of the SB2C, but couldn't immediately because of the issues with the SB2C -1 series. At various times, when they faced potential naval rather than land based targets the FAA did remove the Avenger (the Tirpitz strikes for example) from carriers in favour of the Barracuda because the Avenger wasn't able to fly the required missions.
The USN's favoured multipurpose post war aircraft, the Douglas Skyraider followed the FAA's lead in being a combined torpedo-divebomber.
The Barracuda lasted in front line service as an ASW aircraft until May 1953.
That year saw the arrival of the TBM-3E Avengers under MDAP (quickly upgraded as AS.4 & AS.5) which replaced both the Barracuda TR.3 and the Firefly AS.6 in the FAA ASW squadrons.
826 squadron replaced its Firefly AS.6 aircraft with Gannet AS.1 in Jan 1955, becoming the first front line Gannet squadron.
Edit:- The Barracuda TR.III was a dedicated ASW version which entered front line service in Jan 1945, equipping 3 squadrons before the war ended.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Pity.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Hence my comment about voting with sterling.
Outside dive-bombing, the Avenger was, I think, a superior plane.
I'm pretty sure TBF/TBM crews were cautioned not to try dive-bombing. chalking their deaths up to airframe issues, therefore, seems inapt.
Right. In both cases you mention, the inability to dive-bomb meant it was more specialized, which had the knock-on effect of requiring a larger air group, or reduced capability for any one carrier. That was surely eroded by the fact that post-war, dive-bombing was seen as an outmoded form of attack. That pretty much removed the only advantage the Fairey had.
Right. It was also superior to both aircraft under discussion. But did FAA value dive-bombing in 1957 or so? Clearly not.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Right. The Barracuda was retired, and replaced by the Avenger, amongst other planes. Why is this so hard to say? Planes get outmoded all the time, and their missions rendered nugatory by technology all the time too.
The Avenger as well was replaced in its time. So have been all my favorite planes.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
How many Barracudas, of any Mark, did the Bermuda Triangle want? How many Avengers, of any Mark, did the Bermuda Triangle want?
Sorry but I don't blame aircrews for trying to fly the mission in an inadequate and dangerous aircraft. The TBM should have been withdrawn from service and replaced with the SB2C-5 which had the required airframe strength to fly the missions safely.
The USN certainly valued divebombing post war and kept the SB2C on their carriers until replaced by the Skyraider, another torpedo-divebomber. The RN introduced a number of attack aircraft post war and the TBM wasn't considered to be one of them.
The FAA got the post war TBM ASW aircraft for free... that kinda puts some thumbs on the scales as to whether they actually would have paid money for it.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Free is good.
Shortround6
Major General
The thumb on the scales thing goes both ways.
The British were basically broke after WW II, so was most of Europe. The lend lease rules said any items in any of the countries that that still had them had to be paid for.
So the British dumped/destroyed or gave back any existing aircraft, tanks, artillery etc. no matter how good or bad it was and used Commonwealth equipment, no matter how good or bad it was until the early 50s.
Domestic equipment may have been expensive but it kept British Pound Stirling in the UK (or commonwealth) and provided jobs. The British and most of Europe were scrambling for foreign money and were trying to sell just about anything (ex German aircraft engines?) to the rest of the world to pay for things like food.
The British made some good stuff in the late 40s (Centurion tank was way ahead of the M-26/46) but they also made some not so good stuff (so did the US ) but the British had to use what they could make regardless of were it fell on the scale because they couldn't afford to by anything. Meat rationing in England ended in 1954. The last rationed item.
Just about all British or British Commonwealth purchases have to be looked at with that thumb on the scales. This Thumb extends to France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and a number of other countries. It was also necessary to rebuild a number of countries industry.
So there was quite a mix of things going on. National pride, need to keep or expand local industries, need to keep overseas purchases to a minimum (France kept German Panther tanks in service for years, they were free) that had little to do with how good or bad a plane or tank or truck was at it's job.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Why didn't the FAA acquire USN-spec torpedoes for their Tarpons? The FAA had 0.50 calibre ammunition for their US-spec Corsairs and Hellcats.
