Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Can't that be more easily accomplished by skipping the Battle entirely and making more Blenheims? If Fairey has the capacity to spare, let's have them producing more Swordfish and get moving on the Albacore.What the twin engined Battle brings is a means to release Merlins into the fighter production.
Fairey had 2 factories.Can't that be more easily accomplished by skipping the Battle entirely and making more Blenheims? If Fairey has the capacity to spare, let's have them producing more Swordfish and get moving on the Albacore.
One benefit of a twin engined Battle is it likely cancels out the Fairey P.4/34 and Fulmar, giving a sliver of light to a better fighter, ideally single seat for the FAA. Fairey refused to make a Sea Spitfire, claiming his Fulmar would be delayed. No Fulmar…. No excuses?If were making another, say, 1000 of 2-engined Battles instead of 1000 of historical Battles…
I doubt it.One benefit of a twin engined Battle is it likely cancels out the Fairey P.4/34 and Fulmar, giving a sliver of light to a better fighter, ideally single seat for the FAA. Fairey refused to make a Sea Spitfire, claiming his Fulmar would be delayed. No Fulmar…. No excuses?
What the twin engined Battle brings is a means to release Merlins into the fighter production. Also gives @1,700bhp to power the Battle which can do no harm and can carry the same, even more externally, bomb load as a Blenheim and with at least the same performance other than range. But the key is getting Merlins into fighters instead of Battles.
Another question that needs answering is, if Gloster makes some sort of F5/34, what else will they not be making instead?
My goal was not to make better Battles but merely to release Merlins for any improved Gloster F5/34. But those Merlins would still be better off in more Hurricanes or Spitfires. The Vulture was too late for this task.If 1,700hp is the goal you could use a single Vulture. Detuned to 1,700hp and limiting rpm to around 2,800rpm, it should be more reliable than experienced on the Manchester.
Thank you.The Battle was produced to Spec P.27/32 for a Hawker Hart/Hind replacement.
Skip the Battle, Henley, Fulmar and Defiant. That'll free up four thousand Merlins for use in more Spitfires, Hurricanes, early Mosquitos and Lancasters, and whatever fighter the FAA can come up with…. Assuming it's not a Fulmar. Otherwise, make more Fulmars.My goal was not to make better Battles but merely to release Merlins for any improved Gloster F5/34. But those Merlins would still be better off in more Hurricanes or Spitfires. The Vulture was too late for this task.
Does make me wonder how Fulmars instead of Battles would have got on in the BoF as dive bombers that could defend themselves?Skip the Battle, Henley, Fulmar and Defiant. That'll free up four thousand Merlins for use in more Spitfires, Hurricanes, early Mosquitos and Lancasters, and whatever fighter the FAA can come up with…. Assuming it's not a Fulmar. Otherwise, make more Fulmars.
Until the Vultee Vengeance the RAF seemed to have no interest in dive bombers.Does make me wonder how Fulmars instead of Battles would have got on in the BoF as dive bombers that could defend themselves?
Even in spring 1941, after the Vengeance was ordered, the RAF had no interest in dive-bombers. AM Slessor:-Until the Vultee Vengeance the RAF seemed to have no interest in dive bombers.
Skip the Battle, Henley, Fulmar and Defiant. That'll free up four thousand Merlins for use in more Spitfires, Hurricanes, early Mosquitos and Lancasters, and whatever fighter the FAA can come up with…. Assuming it's not a Fulmar. Otherwise, make more Fulmars.
Which pretty much sums up the whole ground support idea on a wider scope and it also sums up some of the opposition to CC."....we don't want aircraft skidding around over Kent looking for enemy tanks, that is the job of the anti-tank gun."
You are are not going to get Merlin XX engines in 1941-42 by stopping production of Battles and Henley's in 1938-1939.
Trying to build Mosquitos and Lancaster's in 1939-40 using Merlin X engines gets you rather reduced performance aircraft.
Lancaster will be just fine with Merlin Xs. We can look at Halifax I, on these engines it was supposed to carry 3 times more than Wellington III (Hercules engines).
Mosquito with Merlin X is still a far, far better suggestion than any Blenheim, Beaufort or a pair of Battles.
Cutting down the fins is probably the easiest & fastest change to implement.Please remember that the Mosquito as built (first 10 bombers) carried a 1000lb bomb load and that was in late 1941. It only got the 2000lb load when they cut down the length of the bomb fins and by that time they had the Merlin 21 engines that were running at higher boost than even the 1940 Merlin XX engines.
Figure about 200hp less per engine for Merlin X engines even running on 100 octane fuel, also figure in about 2000ft less altitude. If you are running 87 octane fuel you could be down well over 300hp per engine.
Yes it is still better than an Blenheim/Beaufort or single Battle (Battle never got a Merlin X engine) but it is not quite the game changer that having Merlin 21s with 14/16lb boost engines in 1940/41 would be.
For 9 months in 1942 there was ONE Mosquito bomber squadron.
Also note a few detail changes,
Halifax I did not have a dorsal turret (it did have a lower turret and guns out each side)
The Halifax II needed 200yds less take-off distance while weighing 1000lbs more.
The Halifax II had 3,000ft more ceiling at max weight.
As the war went on the British built more and larger airfields.
Operating lower let the AA guns have more time to shoot at the attackers.
Also note that at the time the Halifax I card was issued there were two squadrons equipped with Halifax's.
Also note that the RAF tried to use Halifax's for daylight bombing due to their heavy armament.
It took one six plane raid and one 15 plane raid to knock that idea back out of the RAF.
And again, until doctrine, tactics and training are changed then changing the aircraft are not going to change the results. 60 four engine bombers bombing the wrong city (or country) is not going to bring any better results than 180 twin bombers bombing the wrong target/s in 1940-41.
The changes in results that started happening in 1942 were a result of lessons learned, not really changes in the aircraft although they helped.
One wonders what might have been left out of early aircraft (bombs, fuel, guns, protection) to try to get the performance up to later more powerful versions.
Yes but it requires several things. Technically it was easy to trim the fins, The hard part was convincing the RAF that they actually needed 500lb bombsCutting down the fins is probably the easiest & fastest change to implement.
The Mosquito lite will be more effective than the older light bombers, just don't expect quite the same performance (either speed or load) that the Merlin 21 powered versions had.Better start making these "Mosquitoes minus" ASAP.
German fighters of 1939-40 are also much, much slower than what was case in 1942, talk 50 mph deficit (greater for the Bf 110s). Bf 109E also has no endurance chasing the actually fast bombers.
Battle with Merlin X will still be well under 300 mph.
You are correct but it shows that unless RAF thinking changed somewhat higher performance aircraft could/would be miss-used.A slow bomber operating without escort is a no-no. Night operations are something else.
Service ceiling at max weight of Halifax I was at 18000 ft. Compares well with with Whitley V (same engine) at 17600, that of Whitley VIII at 16000 ft, or Wellington I at 15000 ft. Yes, Wellington III is better (19500), but it carries 3 times less the bombs' weight.
I was actually referring to a Mosquito lite or Lancaster lite. If you need to take-off several thousand pounds lighter due to the less powerful engines what do you leave out of the lower powered Mosquitos and Lancasters that some people want to build?On the Battle and Blenheim I, there was almost nothing to remove - there was no protection, a pair of guns was present, meager bomb load, not much of fuel. What was there were the too big and too draggy airframes - these can't be dealt with nip & tuck. Engine power vs. what was required from it was laughable.
Later Blenheims gained protection, fuel and firepower, performance went from bad to appalling.
repeating this. The RAF believed that slow bombers could be used for ground attack/interdiction with no escort or the aid of a "fighter sweep" in the general area of and time of bomber attack. Until they got that idea out of their heads close support was going to be a disaster, which can then be used to justify the idea that close support was a waste of resources and the RAF should go back to bombing enemy cities.A slow bomber operating without escort is a no-no.
Too bad. A couple of DB squadrons would have been useful at Ceylon in March 1942 or earlier in Burma and Malaya.Even in spring 1941, after the Vengeance was ordered, the RAF had no interest in dive-bombers. AM Slessor:-
"....we don't want aircraft skidding around over Kent looking for enemy tanks, that is the job of the anti-tank gun."