Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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.
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.
Like use a more powerful engine, just like that: give me the salt please.
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.
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.
We can take a look what fighters did have FAA possessed from 1938 to the end of 1940: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.
Good call.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
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.
That was my thought exactly buffnut !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...
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.
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 .
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. .
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.
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.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.
The main idea was to avoid producing a prime example of unsuccessful fighter (=Roc) and not producing another fighter of questionable abilities (=Fulmar).
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...