Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2?

[Admiral Beez]

That's bigger than the islands it would bombard!

The rounded superstructure reminds me of the French submarine cruiser.

 

[The Basket]

I find your comments intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Can you imagine fighting a tiddler like the Bismarck with HMS Armageddon? We would win the naval war without even shooting round 1.

My newsletter is usually Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory on repeat but with 200% more ranting. Incoherent too.

 

[SaparotRob]

Can you imagine fighting a tiddler like the Bismarck with HMS Armageddon? We would win the naval war without even shooting round 1.

My newsletter is usually Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory on repeat but with 200% more ranting. Incoherent too.

Sounds good. Sign me up.

 

[Juha3]

Eric Brown landed "his personal" Airacobra I AH574 onto CVE HMS Pretoria Castle on 4 April 1945 and then took off without using catapult, the take-off was rather hairy event.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Eric Brown landed "his personal" Airacobra I AH574 onto CVE HMS Pretoria Castle on 4 April 1945 and then took off without using catapult, the take-off was rather hairy event.

Would the tricycle gear and the tail up AOA help or hinder the takeoff? I like the innovative thinking behind reversing the hook.

U.S. Navy Aircraft History: A Brief History of Tailhook Design

"The Brits put a tailhook on an Airacobra I to evaluate arrestment of an airplane with a nose landing gear. It pivoted from a fitting just in front of the tail post and was manually stowed upside down and backwards. I'm not sure whether this unusual installation was because of the need to find a solid piece of structure to attach the hook to or to minimize the nose-down pitch on engagement. Maybe both. Captain Eric Brown made an unauthorized deck landing with it on Pretoria Castle on 4 April 1945 at the conclusion of a series of hook-up passes to evaluate flexible-deck approaches. By his own admission, he declared an emergency without cause in order to be get permission to land aboard and make the first landing of a tricycle aircraft on a British aircraft carrier."

 

[Shortround6]

P-39 was ground loving airplane. It needed way too much room for either take-off or landing to operate from a carrier with any regularity.

See any flight manual with a take-off, climb and landing chart like the one here.
http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

Use even the lightest weights.

An F4F could take-off in zero wind in around 40% of the distance that the P-39 needed.

 

[nuuumannn]

Was the P-39 ever equipped for carrier testing?

Dunno, but...

Eric Brown landed "his personal" Airacobra I AH574 onto CVE HMS Pretoria Castle on 4 April 1945 and then took off without using catapult, the take-off was rather hairy event.

This was for trials of a flexible deck for carrier aircraft rather than trialing the aircraft itself. By this time the Airacobra was decidedly passe as a combat type, but it was the first tricycle undercarriage type to land on a British carrier.

 

[Shortround6]

The 1930s was also a time of massive improvements in aeronautical technology. In 1933-35, the USN's carrier-based aircraft were the Grumman FF-1, SF-1, the Boeing F4B, Curtiss F11C and BF2C, the Great Lakes BG-1, and a slew of other biplanes. The Nimrod and Osprey don't seem particularly outdated compared to those aircraft.

The Nimrod and the Osprey weren't out dated compared to the US examples given. However the British seem to have stagnated a bit while the Americans seemed to use a shotgun approach and ordered small batches of a variety of interim aircraft. Most of which were quite useless in late 1941 and of questionable value in late 1939/40. The Americans had quite a number of biplanes with retractable landing gear, both fighters and dive bombers. How useful such a plane would have been to the FAA is questionable, better than a fixed gear biplane but nowhere near as high performing as a monoplane?
Americans ordered several monoplane scout dive bombers at nearly the same time. This shotgun approach did lead to the eventual development of the SBD but it took a long and expensive route to get there with side tracks that included the Brewster designed and Naval AIrcraft Factory built SBN (makes the Skua look really good), The Curtiss Helldiver biplane, The Vought SB2U Vindicator and the Northrop BT-1. What makes the Skua look bad in this group is that it never got a MK III version (MK I was just the two prototypes with Mercury engines).
The SBN was delivered way late and with only 30 built faded into obscurity very quickly. The Helldiver hung around somewhat longer but was obviously obsolete. The Northrop BT-1 was such a success (sarcasm) that it was rather quickly given an extensive redesign to become the SBD-1.
The FAA didn't have the money to pay for such a lavish and somewhat experimental program. There were two other American dive bombers in that group that were built in prototype form only, no production. I would note that the Vindicator went through 3 versions even if the changes weren't great.
The FAA would have had to pick it's path rather carefully to avoid the mistakes/waste of the American program/s (although it did give a number of companies needed business and experience). Lets remember the US going back and forth between Grumman, Brewster, Curtiss, and Vaught for fighters during the 30s.
There was more to carrier aviation that just sticking catapult points and a hook on a land plane.
It is good to remember that the US Navy was unhappy with the Douglas Devastator Torpedo bomber in 1939 and issued the requirement that lead to the Avenger in that year, Grumman came through in splendid fashion both in the aircraft itself and in timing. Curtiss actually got the requirement for the SB2C months before the torpedo bomber specification was issued and yet took considerably longer to get the Helldiver monoplane into service (and some of it's competitors weren't that good, Brewster Bermuda anyone?) which lead to the fame/reputation of the SBD.

The FAA could have done better, it could also have done worse. Pick a wrong plane and order it into production too soon and you are stuck using really old aircraft when the new failure is sidelined.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let's address the low hanging fruit, the FAA's reliance on biplanes for the TSR (torpedo-strike-reconnaissance) role until the Barracuda's entry into fleet service in early 1943. For a comparison, both the IJN's Nakajima B5N Kate and Douglas TBD Devastator entered service in 1937; both all-metal >200 mph monoplanes with retractable undercarriages and folding wings. Of course that's where the similarities end, with the 206 mph TBD considered a death trap, while the 235 mph B5N is lauded as the best TSR until the Grumman Avenger entered service in 1942.

Would the RN have done better with their own B5N Kate; their own 235 mph, all-metal, monoplane, retractable undercarriage, folding wing TSR? This doesn't address the shortage of aircraft, so FAA strikes on Bismarck, V.Veneto and the Channel Dash are still in penny packets. The twenty-odd Swordfish night attack on Taranto may not benefit from higher performance TSRs. Then there's the loss of their biplane's STOL capabilities, a benefit for slow carriers (Argus, Hermes, Eagle and CVEs) and for all carriers operating in rough seas like the North Atlantic.

Given the available engines and experience with aircraft design and manufacturing, Is a British B5N Kate (235 mph, all metal, etc...) technologically possible in 1937-39 as a replacement to the Darts, Seals and Swordfish? The all metal, Merlin-powered Battle flies in 1936, so Fairey and its chief designer Marcel Lobelle have the necessary expertise. What about the other designers and firms? Hawker and Camm are firmly in the canvas and dope biz, Mitchell at Vickers-Supermarine is about to pass from cancer, leaving us with Vicker's chief designer Pierson and his little to no all-metal experience. I'd like to see what Petter over at Westland would come up with.

 

[ThomasP]

re: "Is a British B5N Kate (235 mph, all metal, etc...) technologically possible in 1937-39 as a replacement to the Darts, Seals and Swordfish?"

I think it was clearly possible, As you brought up above the Battle was flying in prototype form in 1936, and the Fulmar was developed from the P.4/34 which first flew in 1937. Although the P.4/34 was never developed to operational form, even after the weight increase involved with the Fulmar development the speed was in the upper range or what you are specifying. And a fuselage bomb swing could have easily been incorporated. The only real question (in my mind) is what the effective carrier rolling TO/lift capability would have been (ie how much fuel would you have to trade for the bomb load carried) considering the somewhat low power of the Merlins available at the time. The Fulmar Mk II later carried 60 Impgal DTs (~552 lb load including the DT) on the centerline, and the station was stressed for carrying 500 lb bombs. I do not know if 500 lb bombs were ever used operationally. Does anyone here know? I have never run across anything official and I would be interested in the info.

 

[Schweik]

Obviously a prewar increased aircrew and pilot training plan would have helped. Also scrapping the Roc in favour of more (perhaps improved) Skuas would have helped as well. I would have also increased the order for Sea Gladiators.

I would have thought a whole raft of improvements could have been made along those lines. What combination of factors precisely landed them with the Fulmar?

 

[nuuumannn]

What combination of factors precisely landed them with the Fulmar?

A requirement for an interim catapult fighter until the Roc entered service, believe it or not. A lot changed in the FAA between the issuing of the Fulmar specification and the aircraft's entering service, for want of a better totem point. Until 1937 the FAA was a division of the RAF and the change to admiralty operation threw everything up in the air as to what the admiralty had in mind for its future. The situation in Europe was changing and the RAF was receiving orders of unprecedented size for modern aircraft and the FAA was very much in danger of being left behind. In 1937 senior admirals expressed an interest in Hurricanes at sea on their carriers and action was taken to incorporate more modern aircraft of indigenous design into the mix, but it still had carryovers, in the form of the Roc and Skua from RAF management - this explains the interest in the turret fighter and a fighter dive bomber combo in one airframe requirement. Once the admiralty had control it re-jigged some of its pre-existing requirements, eventually producing the Firefly and Firebrand, on which it hinged its fighter needs and went round the aircraft manufacturers requesting information on how they could help modernise the FAA with newer aeroplanes, like the Spitfire and Hurricane.

So, yup, a dive bomber variant of the Fulmar could have been developed, no question, as the P.4/34 was designed to a light bomber/dive bomber requirement to replace the Hawker Hart, to which Hawker's Henley won the order. The thing is though, when this reverting of the design back to its origins would take place is the issue as by the time the Fulmar first flies the Skua is well and truly in FAA service on carrier decks. Not to mention the fact that the Fulmar was intended as a stop gap only. A decision on a multi role fighter dive bomber replacement for the Skua makes sense, but then you have the Firefly in the works to another specification.

It all becomes a bit complicated.

 

[Schweik]

re: "Is a British B5N Kate (235 mph, all metal, etc...) technologically possible in 1937-39 as a replacement to the Darts, Seals and Swordfish?"

I think it was clearly possible, As you brought up above the Battle was flying in prototype form in 1936, and the Fulmar was developed from the P.4/34 which first flew in 1937. Although the P.4/34 was never developed to operational form, even after the weight increase involved with the Fulmar development the speed was in the upper range or what you are specifying. And a fuselage bomb swing could have easily been incorporated. The only real question (in my mind) is what the effective carrier rolling TO/lift capability would have been (ie how much fuel would you have to trade for the bomb load carried) considering the somewhat low power of the Merlins available at the time. The Fulmar Mk II later carried 60 Impgal DTs (~552 lb load including the DT) on the centerline, and the station was stressed for carrying 500 lb bombs. I do not know if 500 lb bombs were ever used operationally. Does anyone here know? I have never run across anything official and I would be interested in the info.

The Fulmar weighed 2000 lbs more than the B5N, surely some of that weight could have been reduced for a torpedo bomber role. How good were Fulmars at "STOL" vis a vis the small carriers?

 

[Schweik]

So, yup, a dive bomber variant of the Fulmar could have been developed, no question, as the P.4/34 was designed to a light bomber/dive bomber requirement to replace the Hawker Hart, to which Hawker's Henley won the order. The thing is though, when this reverting of the design back to its origins would take place is the issue as by the time the Fulmar first flies the Skua is well and truly in FAA service on carrier decks. Not to mention the fact that the Fulmar was intended as a stop gap only. A decision on a multi role fighter dive bomber replacement for the Skua makes sense, but then you have the Firefly in the works to another specification.

It all becomes a bit complicated.

It seems crazy, as some one who still admittedly has a lot to learn about the FAA in WW2 (and hopes to do so).

Seems to me you'd be better off in a Sea Gladiator if you get into a scrape. The only advantage Skua really has is range, plus stressed for dive bombing which is nice. Apparently they really could bomb too, they sunk the Königsberg with Skuas, but they took a lot of losses trying to get the Scharnhorst. They did occasionally also shoot down some Italian bombers with Skuas in the Med.

 

[nuuumannn]

As for a more modern replacement for the Swordfish instead of the Albacore, most definitely. The spec that produced the Albacore comes from that RAF desire for the FAA aircraft to be able to do everything - Spec 41/36 (the design actually evolved through two prior specs released in 1936 that were cancelled and thus was a hangover from them on paper) required a torpedo carrier dive bomber reconnaissance aircraft and and thus by the time the admiralty takes over the FAA, work on the Albacore is already proceeding. Let's also not forget that the spec for a replacement for the Albacore, S.24/37 was released a year after the Albacore spec's release and eventually, through a roundabout and troublesome gestation produced the Barracuda and all that basket of trouble brings with it.

If the end result was to be a more modern aircraft than the Albacore - it is worth stating that by late 1938 when the Albacore first flew, it was relatively modern with variable pitch prop, all metal construction, although the spec did state that it could have fabric wings and tail but the leading edges had to be metal, there probably would not have to be too much change to the original spec, perhaps more armament than two machine guns (?) but the spec requested a modern aircraft in all respects, although it had to be powered by an existing, "British engine which shall have passed 100 hours service type test before delivery of the aeroplane". The Albacore certainly met the requirements of its specification, but being a biplane with fixed gear gave it a limited shelf life...

 

[nuuumannn]

How good were Fulmars at "STOL" vis a vis the small carriers?

Fulmars could and did operate from escort carriers right until the end of the war, in fact. Radar equipped Fulmar night fighters were placed in ones and twos aboard escort carriers following the Arctic convoys.

It seems crazy

It kinda was crazy. The change from RAF to admiralty ownership was good and bad timing. Good in that it had to happen then owing to the change in world events and the shift in what became accepted as a modern aeroplane, but bad timing for all the same reasons, in hindsight, simply because everything the RAF had put into place rapidly became obsolescent and the admiralty had to play catch up with its specifications in a very short space of time. If it really wanted to begin a war in 1939 with more appropriate (rather than 'modern' - the Skua and Albacore were in fact 'modern') equipment it has to have received the FAA from the RAF in the early 30s or ideally even earlier.

Hindsight is wonderful though.

 

[ThomasP]

re:"How good were Fulmars at "STOL" vis a vis the small carriers?"

As far as I have been able to find, the Fulmar was right up there with the best of the British naval aircraft as far as TO and landing on carriers goes.
The only problem (I think) was it was somewhat underpowered, even in the Mk II model with the Merlin 30. The ability to carry a torpedo would be precluded by lack of space under the aircraft (I think). I have mentioned a wargame campaign that I participated in a number of years ago in other threads. One of the designs I modified was the Fulmar. Two of my mods were adding the ability to mount a bomb swing under the fuselage and installing a developed model of the 'R' engine. The 'R' engine would have provided more than enough power to lift the Mk XII aerial torpedo, but there was really not enough space under the fuselage to fit the torpedo. The enlarged and deepened radiator did not help the situation, but even with the standard Merlin 30 and its radiator there was not enough space for the torpedo.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think it was clearly possible, As you brought up above the Battle was flying in prototype form in 1936, and the Fulmar was developed from the P.4/34 which first flew in 1937.

I only mention the Battle as a demonstration that at least one firm had the will and means to make a single-engined, all-metal, retractable undercarriage strike aircraft. I do not think either the Battle or its related Fulmar should be considered for the role. The Fulmar may carry a 500 lb. bomb, but getting off a 25 knot, <700ft carrier like Hermes or Eagle with a 2,000 lb. torpedo is something else. The Nakajima B5N2 operated from small and slow CVEs, like Shin'yō, with sub 1,000 hp engine, similar in power to the Merlin, but with a much wider wingspan and 2,000 lbs less weight (empty), or 1,000 lbs less (max takeoff).

Fulmars could and did operate from escort carriers right until the end of the war, in fact.

I suggest we look elsewhere than modifying a Fulmar to carry a torpedo. IMO, Fairey's TSR submission needs to be a new design, something with the span and wing loading to get off the little decks in rough seas. And there are other firms than Fairey. Blackburn is about to introduce their all-metal, monoplane, retractable undercarriage Skua. Maybe they can propose something suitable?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hindsight is wonderful though.

I'm not suggesting hindsight, but instead peripheral sight. When considering the Swordfish's replacement, look at what others are doing around you and consider, adopt or consciously reject what they're doing. Perhaps the Air Ministry and RN did exactly that, saw the all metal, monoplane TSRs of the USN and IJN and consciously concluded, not for us, our needs our different so we want the Albacore.

 

[nuuumannn]

I'm not suggesting hindsight, but instead peripheral sight.

Yup, I hear you. It makes sense to do so and the spec that the Albacore was built to could have been interpreted into something other than a slow fixed gear biplane. The only real hurdle (again with hindsight) is its engine requirement. The Taurus was far from reliable, although the issues suffered in early examples with the Taurus were eventually overcome, so it would certainly have to be considered.