Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
IDK, when I look at 1:05 onwards below the Barracuda looks like one of Britain's better handling monoplane aircraft, for drama-free carrier landings at least.When you read about the handling problems with Fairey designs like the Barracuda…
Agreed. But getting it to that point was the difficult bit.IDK, when I look at 1:05 onwards below the Barracuda looks like one of Britain's better handling monoplane aircraft, for drama-free carrier landings at least.
Get the Sabre working reliably and somehow justify the second seat and the Typhoon or Tempest is ideal.What might be the alternatives? Requirement is still the crew of two, 4 cannons, full carrier-vessel capability (low-speed handling, visibility, folding wings, tailhook, then-current electronics, overall protection from the salt water/air environment), long range & endurance. In service by late 1943/early 1944, Made in UK.
"Clean sheet of papers" A/C encouraged, but not mandatory
But the single seat version was called the Blackburn FirebrandA single seat version of the firefly would be a good simple place to start.
And then you need to persuade MAP to release the Sabre for use by the FAA.Get the Sabre working reliably and somehow justify the second seat and the Typhoon or Tempest is ideal.
I'm not aware of any plane that updated as well as the Spitfire did.Very few planes updated as well/easily as the Spitfire did.
There is a drawing and short description in of Tony Butler's books. The landing gear looks a bit canted but that may have been normal?I actually have the drawing for the Sea Typhon somewhere. There was something unusual about the landing gear retraction...
I like it too, Single Seat Firefly by Charles Knell (a fictional scenario)A single seat version of the firefly would be a good simple place to start.
I'm not convinced that the blame for that can be laid at the door of Fairey or its two designers.Marcelle Lobelle had submit preliminary designs for one and 2 seat version of Firefly to MAP before he and Fairey parted ways. H.E. Chaplin's tossing all his work into the circular folder, certainly didn't help the Firefly's time line. Or MAP's disposition with Fairey - expecting one design and getting detailed design for something else certain wouldn't endear the company I work for to any of its customers, especially, the government ones.
Or maybe it was just trying to do too much on too small an industrial base.
But the single seat version was called the Blackburn Firebrand
The Admiralty chose the Blackburn single engined submission which went on to be developed further under spec N.11/40 into the Firebrand.
Then we come back to the relationship of a carrier, it's role, and it's aircraft. With a ship of Treaty limited size and, until 31/12/36 a limit on total carrier tonnage, you have a finite number of aircraft on a ship to perform a varied selection of tasks. Ark Royal III had the largest pre war air group, being designed for 60 aircraft, but Hermes by WW2 only a dozen or so. And new ships designed around 36-48. This is not the RAF that could pool the resources of a significant number of airfields to put 1,000 bombers over Cologne in May 1942.The Air Ministry's propensity to cram too many things into one airframe, a hangover from the RAF FAA days, unfortunately. The Barracuda for example was built to a 1937 issued spec.
When the only propeller is a FP one, there isn't a disadvantage to float plane, in fact the fastest planes in the world are the Schneider Cup racer. Heck, there isn't serious disadvantage to biplane. So, when Tone class is designed, the idea of offloading the recon role to cruisers was a brilliant use of the aft deck space. (If you're going to cluster all the turrets forward, reinforce the hull so it doesn't flex and ruin the concentration of firepower that you are seeking to achieve). The correct answer for IJN, with 20/20 hindsight, would have been to make Tone class more like the USN hybrid cruiser carrier proposal - then they could have operated competitive recon planes much later into war*. (Some of that is for naval forum not this on though)Then we come back to the relationship of a carrier, it's role, and it's aircraft. With a ship of Treaty limited size and, until 31/12/36 a limit on total carrier tonnage, you have a finite number of aircraft on a ship to perform a varied selection of tasks. Ark Royal III had the largest pre war air group, being designed for 60 aircraft, but Hermes by WW2 only a dozen or so. And new ships designed around 36-48. This is not the RAF that could pool the resources of a significant number of airfields to put 1,000 bombers over Cologne in May 1942.
The Barracuda combination actually makes some sense. TBR. Torpedo, seen as the main capital ship killer pre war. Dive bomber to put enemy carriers out of action. Recce to find the enemy in the first place and track him. Same with the Swordfish and Albacore.
With the torpedo dropping technique the RN developed involving a dive to sea level, it fits quite well with the dive bomb technique. That leaves recce, the requirements of which drove aspects of both the Barracuda and the competitor, the Supermarine Type 322 "Dumbo".
What makes much less sense is the requirement for a Fighter/Dive bomber that was the Skua. But then the expectation was that the opposition attacking the fleet would be medium bombers without single engined fighter protection. And the US also went this route, just with different emphasis on which aspect had priority.
Other navies organised themselves differently. The Japanese moved the recce function off to floatplanes on their cruisers, culminating in the Tone class with their aft end given over to facilities for 6. But that concept didn't work so well so they used the Judy carrier dive bomber for recce and then developed a dedicated carrier recce aircraft for use on their larger carriers with larger aircraft capacity.
The US with its larger air groups used a multitude of aircraft but roles were still combined. Dive bomber and Scouting squadrons generally used the same aircraft types, culminating in the Vindicator and Dauntless. But they did without the Observer in the crew. But then navigation was easier in their more benign Pacific operating environment. In fact their dive bombers grew out putting bombs on their fighters from the mid/late 1920s. Even the tubby F3F biplane fighter had provision for 2x116lb bombs which it was meant to use against enemy carrier decks.
So combining roles is not of itself the issue. The problem is the emphasis given to each element in a design and the environment that they will operate in.
The Anglo Japanese Alliance was ended in 1921 in favour of closer relations with the USA. The construction of the naval base at Singapore was authorised in 1923 and its construction went on at varying rates through to Dec 1941. Its sole reason for existing was to provide a base for a British fleet to be sent east to protect British interests in the event of a war with Japan, who was then seen as the main threat in the Far East. By the early 1930s this fleet was envisaged as including four carriers. Of course at that time no one was contemplating war with both Germany and Japan at the same time. Until 1935 and the Abyssinian Crisis Italy was not seen as that much of a threat to British interests, and it was one that could be matched by a French fleet.I know USN successfully used DBs to put enemy carriers out of action, but was it RN inter-war policy? KM and RM don't have CVs, Japan and UK aren't on that bad of terms & USN was friend.
There may be a difference in timing?I know USN successfully used DBs to put enemy carriers out of action, but was it RN inter-war policy? KM and RM don't have CVs, Japan and UK aren't on that bad of terms & USN was friend.
This is a common misconception. the 6in shell did weigh about 100lbs (give or take) but the 6 in shell was lucky it contained even 10lbs of explosives. Even a bad 100HE bomb had about 3 times as much explosive.100lb is equivalent to 6" shell - having your DD hit by shell of that size makes for bad day at the office; worse for anything smaller.
timing again. The British were not going to buy/specify/substitute any American engine until they were absolutely forced to do so in 1938.Given the specification for Skua requests an air cooled engine, design the plane around the Taurus - if Bristol's engine isn't ready/making 1,200hp yet, temporarily substitute a R-1830 Twin Wasp.
Then we come back to the relationship of a carrier, it's role, and it's aircraft.
Aerial torpedoes were not seen as capital ship killers (I'll include cruisers in this as well); they were only expected to slow down the enemy to the point where RN capital ships could engage and complete the job
I know USN successfully used DBs to put enemy carriers out of action, but was it RN inter-war policy?
Cozy up the pilot and navigator/radio operator and streamline greenhouse ala Henley*. And lastly reduce wing area by installing modern flaps - at least slotted, if not Fowler.
Part of what kills Fulmar perform, is the wing incidence was rotated 4*, so the pilot has good view of the CV when landing.