Blackburn Skua was it that bad?

[Vincenzo]

for full report to Gladiator operation on Malta can see here Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42

my count
6 or 7 S.M. 79 (one crashed on landing not sure for enemy fighter damage)
1 S.M. 81
1 Z. 501
1 Z. 506
1 M.C. 200
1 C.R. 42
1 Ju 88

for 1 (sea) Gladiator

 

[VG-33]

Hello,

About Skua, i never inderstood why the Stuka was intended to be the terror of the sky, but Skua a bad one in general litterature...

Yes, Skua was carrying less bombs maybe, but had more resistant to groundfire air cooled engine, retracting gear, and was able to operate from carriers.

If something should have been bad, it's not the plane itself but the programm specification O27/37.

I wouldn' t qualify it bad, rather obsolete. Remember that it was expressed in 1933 and published in 1934!
The Skua was designed in 1935, first flew in 37 and first went to regiments at 1938th end.

Why the hell dit it takes 5 full years, i don't know! But for 1935 it was an advanced plane.

I'm amused by some your previous posts. Like use a more powerful engine, just like that: give me the salt please. Did anywone glanced on Skua's airframe stress calculations, is there any proof that it had potentiality to withstand more weight and more power ?
If yes, that means it was really a weak thought and bad concieved plane: overweighted and not optimised.
In fact i have to much respet for chef-engeener GE Petty to suppose that. The fact is that a dive plane have to support high structural efforts combibed by hy dynamic pressure and high G forces. A good dive bomber is a just enough calculated one, with small margins and evolution capabilities, since it's naturally heavy from the mainstream.


BTW. It remembers me the programm request that led to the Potez 630. The french engeeners made the best that could do a reconnaissance plane with two 2 500-700 hp engines. But was it possible to make a good plane with such a weak engines, by drastic economy measures?

I think, since the RNAS was integrated to the RAF, the Air Ministry giving credits in prior to FC or BC, the RN always had that financial means problem. So why the O27/37 request, a plane that could do everything. A cheap solution. But cheap solutions are always costly by technical and human losses in the real war...

Regards

 

[tomo pauk]

Hello VG,
Since all planes that mattered (not only in WWII) received stronger engines during their careers, there is no reason that Skua would be unable to be upgraded as such.

A agree with your view on RN/FAA specifications.

 

[tomo pauk]

for full report to Gladiator operation on Malta can see here Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42

my count
6 or 7 S.M. 79 (one crashed on landing not sure for enemy fighter damage)
1 S.M. 81
1 Z. 501
1 Z. 506
1 M.C. 200
1 C.R. 42
1 Ju 88

for 1 (sea) Gladiator

That makes 12 (13?) kills against 1 loss. Not bad at all.

 

[VG-33]

Hello VG,
Since all planes that mattered (not only in WWII) received stronger engines during their careers, there is no reason that Skua would be unable to be upgraded as such.

A agree with your view on RN/FAA specifications.

Fighter, bombers maybe. They are not submitted to the same efforts. You increase power (bigger engine), means you increase speed, means you increase weight, means you decrease admissible G-number. It's as simple.
If you (your plane) cannot withstand enough G anymore, you can't recover from a dive without breaking your plane. It's even simplier.

Either you need to reinforce and restress your plane, either design another one.

 

[tomo pauk]

Fighter, bombers maybe. They are not submitted to the same efforts.

Most of the fighters found themselves carrying bombs, some even dive bombing (P-51, F4U). So their loads were much greater then of their early series, yet managed not to blow themselves in mid air.

You increase power (bigger engine), means you increase speed, means you increase weight, means you decrease admissible G-number. It's as simple.
If you (your plane) cannot withstand enough G anymore, you can't recover from a dive without breaking your plane. It's even simplier.

Either you need to reinforce and restress your plane, either design another one.

I agree that bolting the more powerful engine was not something one can do in an afternoon, but plethora of examples proves that it was doable using reasonable time effort.

.

 

[VG-33]

AFAIK, P-51 ...no, rather A-36 Invader was frankly bad on the dive bomber rule (from Jeff Ethell), F4U not so good (from Aéronavale pilots). But it is not the question.

If they managed not to blow themselves in the air, does not prouve the Skua did. It's at least as big but much lighter.

 

[Civettone]

Like use a more powerful engine, just like that: give me the salt please.

That was funny !!


Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Hello VG,
Since all planes that mattered (not only in WWII) received stronger engines during their careers, there is no reason that Skua would be unable to be upgraded as such.

Define "stronger engine" please?

The incease from a 2000hp P-47 to a 2800HP P-47 was only a few hundred pounds (mostly for the paddle blade propeller), Likewise even going from a Spitfire MK I to a MK IX involves only a few hundred pounds for the two stage Merlin and another 100-200lbs for the 4 bladed prop.

Many aircraft recieved uprated versions of their original engines, some aircraft reciived alterantive engines that were somewhat close in weight. How many planes got engines that were 50% heavier than the original engines. I am talking about planes that were in service, not a prototype that could be reworked to accept a bigger engine when the original proved not up to the task. Especially single engined planes.

Changing from a Perseus to a Hercules is closer to a 600pound change not including the propeller. The Skua weighed 5,490lbs empty according to one book, About 1000lbs lighter than some models of the Dauntless and around 4,500lbs less than the Helldiver with it's R-2600.

Now maybe the The British could have improved the Perseus more than they did but it was seen as a dead end engine. 1520cu in of aircooled engine was never going to be a war winner. Even if it is re-rated for 100octane fuel and gets the same power per liter as a 1600hp Hercules you have a 1030 HP engine. This is an improvement over the original engine but it is not enough in 1941 and later compared to the other planes in that catagory.

 

[tomo pauk]

Define "stronger engine" please?

The incease from a 2000hp P-47 to a 2800HP P-47 was only a few hundred pounds (mostly for the paddle blade propeller), Likewise even going from a Spitfire MK I to a MK IX involves only a few hundred pounds for the two stage Merlin and another 100-200lbs for the 4 bladed prop.

Many aircraft recieved uprated versions of their original engines, some aircraft reciived alterantive engines that were somewhat close in weight. How many planes got engines that were 50% heavier than the original engines. I am talking about planes that were in service, not a prototype that could be reworked to accept a bigger engine when the original proved not up to the task. Especially single engined planes.

Changing from a Perseus to a Hercules is closer to a 600pound change not including the propeller. The Skua weighed 5,490lbs empty according to one book, About 1000lbs lighter than some models of the Dauntless and around 4,500lbs less than the Helldiver with it's R-2600.

Now maybe the The British could have improved the Perseus more than they did but it was seen as a dead end engine. 1520cu in of aircooled engine was never going to be a war winner. Even if it is re-rated for 100octane fuel and gets the same power per liter as a 1600hp Hercules you have a 1030 HP engine. This is an improvement over the original engine but it is not enough in 1941 and later compared to the other planes in that catagory.

By stronger I mean more powerful, sorry if I was not clear.

Spit received 60% power increase from Mk.I to Mk.IX. Or 100% increase against Mk.XIV.
Hurricane - some 90% between 1st series and Mk.IV.
Bf-109 - almost 3 (three!) times from B to K.
P-51: 60% up from A to H.
Ju-87: 100% more power already in 1942.
Ju-88: 50% for dive bombers only; 100% difference in power between early series and late war ones
Italian early monoplane fighters received 40-80% more power with DB engines aboard.

The empty weights were also increased to cater for greater power loads.

The Taurus (Albacore's engine) was my prime choice for a 'Skua Mk.II' proposal. It managed to deliver 1000+ HP in 1939, and was in Mercury's/Perseus' weight range.

 

[Shortround6]

Please note that in the case of the some of the British planes using Merlins much of the increse in HP was from rerating and/or modifying the same engine to use more manifold pressure. Some of the Early Merlins picked up close to 30% this way while using the VERY SAME engine that came in the plane.

Just what Hurricane had a 1960HP engine? 1030Hp plus 90%?
the Bf109 is questionable. Just how many parts were interchangable between a B model and K?
tail, wings, landing gear?
P-51 does have more power but again there were some airframe changes and the two engines weren't much different in size and weight. Larger radiators, oil coolers and the inter cooler radiator may also have helped balanced the heavier engine and propeller. Later versons had enlarged tail surfaces.

JU 87, Yes an engine change. Differences between an "A" and "B" include aerodynamic and structural redesign. The Fuselage was recontoured, the canopy changed, the vertical tail surfaces enlarged and landing gear changed from a braced set up to a cantliever one. Changes on the "D" model include enlargeing the tail surfaces again and when we get to the D-5 model it is fitted with extended outer wing panes to enlarge the wing area and bring the wing loading back down.

JU-88 enlarged wing and bigger tail surfaces on some of the later models. not to mention structual changes to accomadate the much greater weights.

Can some planes be modified? Sure but some planes were easier to modify than others.

THe Skua starts as an in between airplane. Because of it's multi-role start it's wing is a little on the small side for a bomber. THis did help keep the weight and drag down for the fighter role. It's engine was first rate in 1937-38 but it's lack of size ment that there was a lack of growth. And the British just didn't have a good alternative. The Taurus offered another 30cu in (1/2 liter) of displacement but used more cylinders and higher RPM to get it's power. And offering 22% more power for 18% more bare weight of engine doesn't look like the way to go for big increases in performance. By the time you figure in the heavier propeller, the larger oil tank. The larger heavier cowl and exhaust systems and the extra fuel to feed it are going decrease the power advantage.
Yes the converted plane will have extra performance but is it going to be enough to make a real difference? an extra 10-20mph isn't going to change much of anything.
ANd if your engineers are working on this project they are not working on the the Skua's replacement and even with a Taurus the Skua is not going to be a competive airplane in late 1942 and 1943.

As a Side note, for some reason almost every aircraft intrended to fill the dive bomber role AFTER the Skua, Dauntless, Val, and JU 87 turned out to be a dog, or took so long to develop that it was rendered obsolete in short order.

 

[tomo pauk]

My mistake abut Hurricane, it was 50% increase. Other examples still stand.

I agree that the more HP you add, the more changes to the airframe need to be done. Since we're adding 22% more HP to Skua, changes would be minimal.

The Taurus offered another 30cu in (1/2 liter) of displacement but used more cylinders and higher RPM to get it's power. And offering 22% more power for 18% more bare weight of engine doesn't look like the way to go for big increases in performance.

Wrong mathematics about those 18%.
We need to add the weight difference to the plane's weight and THEN compare weights. So we add 125 kg to Skua's original weight to have 2615 kg for Skua with Taurus. We could add some 50 kg for the accessories you noted, and the result is 2665kg. So the new plane weights under 7% more then old, with power increased 22%.
The resulting plane (Skua Mk.II )has the same wing loading engine power as Fulmar Mk.I, while being more then 1000 lb lighter. It has 2 MGs less.

Yes the converted plane will have extra performance but is it going to be enough to make a real difference? an extra 10-20mph isn't going to change much of anything.
ANd if your engineers are working on this project they are not working on the the Skua's replacement and even with a Taurus the Skua is not going to be a competive airplane in late 1942 and 1943.

We can take a look what fighters did have FAA possessed from 1938 to the end of 1940:
Sea Gladiator, 4 MGs, 410 km/h, short range, good climb
Fulmar Mk.I, 8 MGs, 410 km/h, good range, slow climb, only from sept '40
Roc, 4MGs, 360 km/h, good range, slow climb, not used on carriers, 100+ kg heavier then Skua upgraded as above, less HP
Plus the Skuas as 'auxiliary fighters'.

So instead to build Roc (136 pcs built),we (Boulton Paul or Fairey or Blackburn actually) would build Skua Mk.II, some 700 pcs. That way we could also replace Sea Gladiators ( 60 pcs built) and have fighter a tad better then Fulmar I (250 pcs built) half a year before. Since Skua can dive-bomb, we have added value. Also the original Skuas would be replaced.

And for 1941, the choice numbers available would be much better then for the dark 1940.

As a Side note, for some reason almost every aircraft intrended to fill the dive bomber role AFTER the Skua, Dauntless, Val, and JU 87 turned out to be a dog, or took so long to develop that it was rendered obsolete in short order

Good call.

 

[buffnut453]

As a Side note, for some reason almost every aircraft intrended to fill the dive bomber role AFTER the Skua, Dauntless, Val, and JU 87 turned out to be a dog, or took so long to develop that it was rendered obsolete in short order.

Was that because of poor performance/long development or simply the fact that dive bombing as a means of delivering aerial munitions became obsolete? The onset of high-performance fighters and integrated air defence networks effectively relegated dive bombing to tactical army support where, by the middle of the war, fighter aircraft could deliver a similar payload at similar ranges using shallow-angle dive techniques and still defend itself or be re-roled for fighter missions. Use of fighters to provide tactical ground support also simplified logistics by reducing the number of different aircraft types that had to be maintained in a given theatre.

Just wondering...

 

[Civettone]

I agree that we should be careful about imagining aircraft simply getting a stronger or even heavier engine with only minor alterations. In fact, it goes for all new versions we have in our heads. Although I love to think about these possibilities I am very sceptical about them.
But ... given the data by Tomo I think the Skua with a Taurus seems to be quite possible.

Was that because of poor performance/long development or simply the fact that dive bombing as a means of delivering aerial munitions became obsolete? The onset of high-performance fighters and integrated air defence networks effectively relegated dive bombing to tactical army support where, by the middle of the war, fighter aircraft could deliver a similar payload at similar ranges using shallow-angle dive techniques and still defend itself or be re-roled for fighter missions. Use of fighters to provide tactical ground support also simplified logistics by reducing the number of different aircraft types that had to be maintained in a given theatre.

Just wondering...

That was my thought exactly buffnut !

Also adding that the main reason of existence for dive bombers was their great accuracy, something which was achieved later by better bomb sights. From that point on the Stuka was used more often as a low flying ground support aircraft instead of a tactical bomber as used in the beginning of the war.

Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Was that because of poor performance/long development or simply the fact that dive bombing as a means of delivering aerial munitions became obsolete? The onset of high-performance fighters and integrated air defence networks effectively relegated dive bombing to tactical army support where, by the middle of the war, fighter aircraft could deliver a similar payload at similar ranges using shallow-angle dive techniques and still defend itself or be re-roled for fighter missions. Use of fighters to provide tactical ground support also simplified logistics by reducing the number of different aircraft types that had to be maintained in a given theatre.

Just wondering...[/QUOTE}

It may have come from over ambitious specifications. The new generation's of dive bombers were supposed to carry more bombs (often double), fly much faster and have longer range,and as an aside often care much haevier fixed forward firing armament too. All with a single engine that, at times, was NOT the most powerful one available. Enclosed bomb bays were often required and couple all of th above with the landing/take-off requirements of carrier operations AND minimum dimensions and folding wings.

 

[Shortround6]

I agree that the more HP you add, the more changes to the airframe need to be done. Since we're adding 22% more HP to Skua, changes would be minimal .

Since you are changing froma 9 Cylider engine to a 14 cyl engine the changes may not be minimal, they may be doable but may require moving the firewall back and a redesigned nose to fit the smaller diameter engine(might actually improve the view over the nose).

Wrong mathematics about those 18%. .

They were for the weight of the bare engine.

We need to add the weight difference to the plane's weight and THEN compare weights. So we add 125 kg to Skua's original weight to have 2615 kg for Skua with Taurus. We could add some 50 kg for the accessories you noted, and the result is 2665kg. So the new plane weights under 7% more then old, with power increased 22%.
The resulting plane (Skua Mk.II )has the same wing loading engine power as Fulmar Mk.I, while being more then 1000 lb lighter. It has 2 MGs less. .

That is 2 MG less per side. 4 guns total firing forward vrs eight. And same power loading does not mean equel speed. A 20mph increase in speed means the "super Skua" can reach a whopping 245mph. Better yes but really enough to make a difference? Climb might be a bigger improvement but since you are starting from 1580 FPM even a 33% increase only gets you to just over 2,000 FPM. Might make bomber interception easier but doesn't really do much against fighters.
Did the Skua's have self sealing tanks or any armour? Something to consider if planning continued production of an improved model.

We can take a look what fighters did have FAA possessed from 1938 to the end of 1940:
Sea Gladiator, 4 MGs, 410 km/h, short range, good climb
Fulmar Mk.I, 8 MGs, 410 km/h, good range, slow climb, only from sept '40
Roc, 4MGs, 360 km/h, good range, slow climb, not used on carriers, 100+ kg heavier then Skua upgraded as above, less HP
Plus the Skuas as 'auxiliary fighters'.

So instead to build Roc (136 pcs built),we (Boulton Paul or Fairey or Blackburn actually) would build Skua Mk.II, some 700 pcs. That way we could also replace Sea Gladiators ( 60 pcs built) and have fighter a tad better then Fulmar I (250 pcs built) half a year before. Since Skua can dive-bomb, we have added value. Also the original Skuas would be replaced.

And for 1941, the choice numbers available would be much better then for the dark 1940.

When Sea Gladiators stopped production only 51 Skuas had been built and while monthly production was increasing (with 30 Skuas being delivered in the last two months of Gladiator production) I think that with the overlap any talk of replacing Gladiator production with Skuas was just going to result in few fighter available in the fall of 1939.
Replacing the ROC with Skuas probably would have been a good idea. After that things get iffy. THe Super Skua might not have been much better a fighter than the Fulmar even if it was a better dive bomber.

 

[fastmongrel]

Was the Douglas Skyraider ever used as a dive bomber. It was specified to be stressed for dive bombing but I dont know if it was ever built as such. It seems to have been the last multi purpose carrier plane I think it carried out every misssion possible apart from the fighter role.

So far I have come across the following missions
Close air support with guns bombs and rockets
level bombing
Torpedo bombing
Reconnaisance
Search and Rescue
Transport (passengers and cargo)
Airborne Early Warning
Anti Submarine (with radar, MAD, Sono bouys, homing torpedoes and Nuclear depth charges)
Electronic warfare (jamming enemy radar)
Target Towing

Even an unmanned drone for collecting radiation samples after nuclear bomb tests

 

[tomo pauk]

Since you are changing froma 9 Cylider engine to a 14 cyl engine the changes may not be minimal, they may be doable but may require moving the firewall back and a redesigned nose to fit the smaller diameter engine(might actually improve the view over the nose).

The smaller front section of engine would also lessen the drag.

They were for the weight of the bare engine.

Yep, but after that comes the "doesn't look like the way to go for big increases in performance" statement. So I've tried to put stuff in perspective.


That is 2 MG less per side. 4 guns total firing forward vrs eight. And same power loading does not mean equel speed. A 20mph increase in speed means the "super Skua" can reach a whopping 245mph. Better yes but really enough to make a difference? Climb might be a bigger improvement but since you are starting from 1580 FPM even a 33% increase only gets you to just over 2,000 FPM. Might make bomber interception easier but doesn't really do much against fighters.
Did the Skua's have self sealing tanks or any armour? Something to consider if planning continued production of an improved model.

When Sea Gladiators stopped production only 51 Skuas had been built and while monthly production was increasing (with 30 Skuas being delivered in the last two months of Gladiator production) I think that with the overlap any talk of replacing Gladiator production with Skuas was just going to result in few fighter available in the fall of 1939.
Replacing the ROC with Skuas probably would have been a good idea. After that things get iffy. THe Super Skua might not have been much better a fighter than the Fulmar even if it was a better dive bomber.
The main idea was to avoid producing a prime example of unsuccessful fighter (=Roc) and not producing another fighter of questionable abilities (=Fulmar).
As far as (Sea) Gladiator is the issue, I like the plane, moreso since the war record was great. It would do just fine until Germans stepped up in the Med

People, sorry if the stuff I wrote looks like hair spliting. There was a great numbers of better performing planes that could be produced for FAA in 1st (dark) half of war, had the brass requested that from the industry*. Improved Skua is just one of them.

*The excuse "carrier-based fighters would not be engaged against land-based fighters" seems so shortsighted, since performance of mid-30s bombers was equal or better then of FAA fighters until 1941.

 

[Shortround6]

People, sorry if the stuff I wrote looks like hair spliting. There was a great numbers of better performing planes that could be produced for FAA in 1st (dark) half of war, had the brass requested that from the industry*. Improved Skua is just one of them.

*The excuse "carrier-based fighters would not be engaged against land-based fighters" seems so shortsighted, since performance of mid-30s bombers was equal or better then of FAA fighters until 1941.

I am not sure if it was the British only who suscribed to this view, at least for a few years in the 30s. It was considered that the Carrier planes would always be at a disadvantage compared to land based fighters. THis is in therory and assumes that both planes have equel engines and equel armament. THe Carrier planes are always going to be heavier due to the heavier structure needed for catapulting and for arrestor landing. Also the vertical sink rate on landing was usually higher meaning a higher impact loading . If a bigger wing was needed for a lower stalling speed that would also hurt both top speed and climb. If a more compact plane was needed for storage reasons Then something else would hav eto "give" on the "sea" fighter. Again this is "therory" and assumes that a whole bunch of things be the same between the "land" fighter and the "sea" fighter which, seeing as how the opposition was going to be from differrent countries let alone designers, was never going to the case in real life. Or that planes in combat might actually be a few years apart in design age which really throws some assumtions out the window.

You might also want to check out a few mid-30s bombers.

Handley Page Heyford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

70 ordered in 1935-36

JU 52 bombers were still used against Warsaw in 1939, even a Roc could catch one of them.

And the french: Amiot 143 - bomber

Granted there were faster and better bombers in the mid thirties but it was a time of very rapid change and a single year of delay in the process of drawing board to squadropn service could be the differnece in being remembered as a great ( or at leat good) warplane and a failure.

The main idea was to avoid producing a prime example of unsuccessful fighter (=Roc) and not producing another fighter of questionable abilities (=Fulmar).

I don't think anyone is going to argue about Roc but the Fulmar may be another story. The Taurus was not the most reliable of engines in late 1939 and 1940 and while well streamlined radials were made during the war it was a just a bit after the Skua or Super Skua would have had it's day. Advantage in streamlining would have to go to the Fulmar unless quite a bit of work was done. Not impossiable but the more work that has to be done the longer it is going to take to ge the Super Skua into squadron service. And without the benifit fo 20/20 hindsight nobody at the time could have predicted that the Barraccuda would have take so long to get into service.

Some sources say the early model Sea Hurricanes (fully converted) topped out at just under 300mph. Another claims the Sea Gladiator was 8mph slower than the Land version and took 1/2 minute longer to reach 20,000ft. Sea Gladiator was 267lbs heavier when empty and 670lbs heavier loaded (heavy raft?

 

[VG-33]

Was that because of poor performance/long development or simply the fact that dive bombing as a means of delivering aerial munitions became obsolete? The onset of high-performance fighters and integrated air defence networks effectively relegated dive bombing to tactical army support where, by the middle of the war, fighter aircraft could deliver a similar payload at similar ranges using shallow-angle dive techniques and still defend itself or be re-roled for fighter missions. Use of fighters to provide tactical ground support also simplified logistics by reducing the number of different aircraft types that had to be maintained in a given theatre.

Just wondering...

Hello;

I'm not sure of that. High peformance fighters were rather bombing in gliding dive (45-65°), rather than in shallow dive (65-90°). You need air brakes to stabilize speed and trajectory. By definiton and unfortunately a good dive bomber was a slow plane; just like a torpedo launcher, to perform slow but accurate attacks like SBD and Stuka. Pe-2 or Tu-2 were for instance average divers since they were launching bombs to high (2500-3500m ) instead of 1000-1500 for Stuka or Skuas. And at much higher speed (800-900 km/h) instead of 550-650 km/h.
So for your fast fighters. If there were some effisciency, it was because of numbers and saturation affect, not precision.

Regards